Do you honor "Off Limits" signs?

[tes151]

imported post

Other than courthouses and K-12 schools, no I don't pay any attention to " No Firearms " signs. Not required to in PA.

 

[David.Car]

imported post

How about when you see a store with a firearm sign you just don't go in?... Not because you are "honoring" their sign. But for the simple fact that they don't deserve your business...

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

I tend to carry my firearm with me everywhere I go. Open or not it's on me when I go out in public. I don't care what the signs say because it carries no legal weight in Kentucky and that sign is not going to help me in any incident. The only place I don't carry is a place where it would be nearly impossible (for a law-abiding citizen) to get in with a gun, usually that's a place with a metal detector which is manned by guards which most recently was a courthouse.

 

[tattedupboy]

imported post

47 wrote:

I carry everywhere , posted or not. I ignore all off limits signs ( then I CC of course) and the only place I respect (sort of) is the post office:cuss:, since I think it may be a felony, other than that I carry 100% of the time and never leave my sidearm in the car.

I'm not under man's law on this one, I'm under God's law and I'm responsible for the lives of my wife and kids and those innocent people that are around me at any given tme...period.

I'm not bound to honor any man that will not allow me to defend myself...period. I'd rather be arrested then be like that lady in Killeen Texas, could you imagine her remorse for obeying the "law"...sad, very sad, the blood of many innocent people almost on her hands.

How about you?

Do you ever leave it in the car?

When and why?

I like your attitude on this. One of my jobs is at the local university, and since they discontinued weapon storage last year, I have been bringing my weapon (a Glock 22) with me. Even though I don't see very many signs around here, any time I have seen one, I don't turn around and go somewhere else; I too just ignore it and go in anyway. None of these places has security frisking patrons or metal detectors at the entrances, so I don't even understand why they have a policy they don't actively enforce.

 

[WARCHILD]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

How about when you see a store with a firearm sign you just don't go in?... Not because you are "honoring" their sign. But for the simple fact that they don't deserve your business...

I have a real concern about the content of this thread. The members of this forum are inmy opinion, good upstanding and moral people. Therefore it puzzles me to see a rather "braggard" attitude to ignore a sign on private property. Forget that it is a business, it's still "private property". Give them the same respect you would expect.If you were to have a sign on your door: "please take your shoes off", and I ignored it and walked on in with dirty boots, how would you feel. There is after all no law against dirty boots! As I have "preached" from day one on this forum: It's all about respect and courtesy to others. It has been long gone in this country for years. I put in bold the closest answer I could agree with. You would best replace the "honoring" with "respecting" and go from there. Put up a sign, I go elsewhere! With this IGNORE attitude, how are we to change the opinion of that business that put up the sign? I'll get off my soap box now, but just consider how you would feel the next time you put a sign up, just tohave your requestignored.

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

I've noticed that, at least in this part of Kentucky, that the only places that have no firearms signs are places that you have to go in to. Hospitals being the one I saw most recently. So my choice now is to either drive to the next hospital while my friend is bleeding all over the place which probably has a similar no firearms sign or disarm myself at the door.

If we're talking about private property that isn't a necessity to visit then that is one thing but something like a hospital is different.

 

[WARCHILD]

imported post

No, I wasn't speaking of anything but retail stores, business, etc. I agree with you, if it were an emergency or need of immediate assistance; I would violate federal property to save a life and deal with the violation after the fact. The members are not the only people who sit and read our posts. If I were a business owner and read some of the rather strong comments about ignoring the no guns signs, I would be more against guns in my store right away. We appear as though we can do what we want as long as it is within our rights to do so. They have rights as well, it is their property. We dare not "pick and choose" who has the right to decide "who's rights" are more important. We will sway no opinions being one sided and one sighted!

 

[tattedupboy]

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

David.Car wrote:

How about when you see a store with a firearm sign you just don't go in?... Not because you are "honoring" their sign. But for the simple fact that they don't deserve your business...

I have a real concern about the content of this thread. The members of this forum are inmy opinion, good upstanding and moral people. Therefore it puzzles me to see a rather "braggard" attitude to ignore a sign on private property. Forget that it is a business, it's still "private property". Give them the same respect you would expect.If you were to have a sign on your door: "please take your shoes off", and I ignored it and walked on in with dirty boots, how would you feel. There is after all no law against dirty boots! As I have "preached" from day one on this forum: It's all about respect and courtesy to others. It has been long gone in this country for years. I put in bold the closest answer I could agree with. You would best replace the "honoring" with "respecting" and go from there. Put up a sign, I go elsewhere! With this IGNORE attitude, how are we to change the opinion of that business that put up the sign? I'll get off my soap box now, but just consider how you would feel the next time you put a sign up, just tohave your requestignored.

I see what you're saying, but the subject of this thread is no guns signs, not no shoes signs. The fact remains, if I conceal my firearm, nobody can see it, so how can the owner/operator of a private business or home possibly feel disrespected if they don't even know that the gun is on me. If I see a sign, whether or not the place is somewhere I have to be, if there are no metal detectors or security frisking patrons at the door, then their no guns policy, as far as I'm concerned, has no teeth in it. Now, if I get discovered and am asked to leave, I won't get belligerent or argumentative; I'll just respect their wishes and leave. This is how I've always done it and how I will continue to do it.

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

If I saw a no firearms sign outside of a business I think I'd ask the manager what the deal was. If he says that it is there policy I'd take my business elsewhere. Like it was brought up earlier, I think that it's more about spending your money somewhere that doesn't violate your rights rather than honoring the sign or not. The best way to change a business owner's opinion is to affect his/her business.

 

[WARCHILD]

imported post

I concede your point. I was understanding; ignore weather OC or CC. I agree with what you say, I would take my money elswhere. Didn't mean to preach, but also didn't want us to come off with the appearance we didn't care.

 

[David.Car]

imported post

tattedupboy wrote:

I see what you're saying, but the subject of this thread is no guns signs, not no shoes signs. The fact remains, if I conceal my firearm, nobody can see it, so how can the owner/operator of a private business or home possibly feel disrespected if they don't even know that the gun is on me. If I see a sign, whether or not the place is somewhere I have to be, if there are no metal detectors or security frisking patrons at the door, then their no guns policy, as far as I'm concerned, has no teeth in it. Now, if I get discovered and am asked to leave, I won't get belligerent or argumentative; I'll just respect their wishes and leave. This is how I've always done it and how I will continue to do it.

Now you are just arguing that as long as you don't get caught it is okay.

IMO that doesn't matter at all, you are still violation a guideline set down by the owner of the facility you are entering.

I could do a whole lot of things without getting caught, but that doesn't make them all right.

 

[Jack Hollowpoint]

imported post

You're asking to get arrested on a firearms related charge.

Here's the way the legal system works --

Open carry MAY be perfectly legal. But private parties on their private property have the right to bar your access if you're not wearing a tie. That's their option, and the courts will back them up.

If you violate their wishes, you expose yourself to charges of armed criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, civil contempt, and anything else the Prosecutor might deign to cook up in a multiple pleading.

It's one thing in the eyes of the law to be a disorderly horse's ass. It's another thing altogether to be a disorderly horse's ass with a gun.

Think about that one next time you feel contempt for other people's rights to control access to their private property.

 

[ne1]

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

You're asking to get arrested on a firearms related charge.

Here's the way the legal system works --

Open carry MAY be perfectly legal. But private parties on their private property have the right to bar your access if you're not wearing a tie. That's their option, and the courts will back them up.

If you violate their wishes, you expose yourself to charges of armed criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, civil contempt, and anything else the Prosecutor might deign to cook up in a multiple pleading.

It's one thing in the eyes of the law to be a disorderly horse's ass. It's another thing altogether to be a disorderly horse's ass with a gun.

Think about that one next time you feel contempt for other people's rights to control access to their private property.

The right to bear arms is specifically mentioned in the constitution whereas a right to wear a tie (or not) and most presumed property rights (particularly with regard to businesses open to the public) will not be found in that document.

Anumber of Supreme Court decisionsclearly state property rights are not absolute.

There'd have been no need for the second amendment if property rights trumped all else.The founding fathers could havesimply presumed that each individual has an inalienableright to keep and bear arms on his/her own property (and nowhere else). The second amendment makes it obvious that individuals have the right to defense duringdaily travels throughout this nation.

A recent case of a property owner with a sovereignty complex was reported here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/12182.html (NOTE: said person no longer owns that property).

 

[Jack Hollowpoint]

imported post

ne1 wrote:

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

You're asking to get arrested on a firearms related charge.

Here's the way the legal system works --

Open carry MAY be perfectly legal. But private parties on their private property have the right to bar your access if you're not wearing a tie. That's their option, and the courts will back them up.

If you violate their wishes, you expose yourself to charges of armed criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, civil contempt, and anything else the Prosecutor might deign to cook up in a multiple pleading.

It's one thing in the eyes of the law to be a disorderly horse's ass. It's another thing altogether to be a disorderly horse's ass with a gun.

Think about that one next time you feel contempt for other people's rights to control access to their private property.

The right to bear arms is specifically mentioned in the constitution whereas a right to wear a tie (or not) and most presumed property rights (particularly with regard to businesses open to the public) will not be found in that document.

Anumber of Supreme Court decisionsclearly state property rights are not absolute.

There'd have been no need for the second amendment if property rights trumped all else.The founding fathers could havesimply presumed that each individual has an inalienableright to keep and bear arms on his/her own property (and nowhere else). The second amendment makes it obvious that individuals have the right to defense duringdaily travels throughout this nation.

A recent case of a property owner with a sovereignty complex was reported here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/12182.html (NOTE: said person no longer owns that property).

You need to read the Heller decision front to back, all the notes and citations. Your right to "keep and bear" does not include the right to harass and invade. That's outlined in Heller, in the majority opinion -- historically, going back to English Common Law, circa 1215.

But go ahead and carry your firearm onto private property where you've been asked not to carry -- Then get back to me. I'd be interested to see what sort of charges the prosecution cooks up for you.

You're not doing gun owners any favors by launching an armed invasion against private property owners because you think you have a legal right.

 

[ne1]

imported post

No, I am not advocating any invasion. My right to self-defense does not in any way result in adverse possession of anyone else's property.Personally,I prefer NOT to patronize posted businesses and there are very, very few that I actuallymust patronize (and when I do I leave as soon as my business is completed). I merely offer the right to keep and bear arms as a possible defense against the charges that you threaten.

On the other hand, owning abusiness does not give anyone authority to violate theRIGHTS of its patrons. Indeed, as the Supreme Court has stated: "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

Being asked not to carry via a sign holds no weight in my state as well as several others. You can scream property rights all you want but the law in my state says that unless I am asked to leave by the owner or manager that I can be armed at a private business regardless of what a sign says.

 

[Jack Hollowpoint]

imported post

ne1 wrote:

No, I am not advocating any invasion. My right to self-defense does not in any way result in adverse possession of anyone else's property.Personally,I prefer NOT to patronize posted businesses and there are very, very few that I actuallymust patronize (and when I do I leave as soon as my business is completed). I merely offer the right to keep and bear arms as a possible defense against the charges that you threaten.

On the other hand, owning abusiness does not give anyone authority to violate theRIGHTS of its patrons. Indeed, as the Supreme Court has stated: "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

Don't be taking any exams for the State Bar until you bone up a little bit more on property law.

 

[tattedupboy]

imported post

The way I see it, as long as there aren't any metal detectors or guards frisking patrons, as long as I don't advertise the fact that I'm carrying, I'll just ignore the sign. What the owners don't know will not hurt them. If for some reason I'm caught and asked to leave I will; no harm no foul. However, I'd like to see if they'd still have that same attitude if me and my gun helps prevent a crime on their property.

 

[Gentleman Ranker]

imported post

ne1 (Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 04:01 pm) says:

Anumber of Supreme Court decisionsclearly state property rights are not absolute.

If you don't mind my asking, do you consider any rights to be "absolute"? If so, which one(s) and what do you mean by that?

Just asking.

regards,

GR

 

[gravedigger]

imported post

I carry a few laminated signs of my own with pre-applied foam sticky tape on the back for quick mounting. In the event that I encounter a "No Guns" sign, I post a sign of my own directly over, under or next to it.