OC in lancaster. Confrontation with Costco manager

[JamesCanby]

Right. You're [sic] so-called property rights ends [sic] where mine begins - in my pockets, on my person, etc.

I'm curious why you believe that the owner of a business gives up all of his/her property rights simply by being open to the public. Can you cite case law or other authority to support this claim?

Certainly, it is currently against the anti-discrimination laws to discriminate against a member of any of the seven protected classes. I.e., as a business owner that is open to the public I cannot prevent someone from entering solely because they are Jewish, or African-American, etc. Other than those seven protected classes, I have full authority to decide who I allow into my business. Have you ever seen the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs? Have you ever seen the sign on the door of a bank branch that prohibits anyone wearing sunglasses, a hat or a hoodie from entering? All of these people have the right to not wear shirts or shoes, or to wear a hoodie and sunglasses ... just not in my business or in a bank.

If I have decided that I do not want to allow entrance to anyone who is openly carrying (or if I happen to see their CC firearm), I believe that it is totally within my right and discretion to prohibit entrance or, if they are already inside, to demand that they leave. If they refuse to leave, the police will be called and I will trespass them.

Your rights cannot possibly trump my right to determine who I will accept among my clientele unless it is a matter of existing law, i.e., protected classes. You have the absolute right not to patronize my business and to spend your money elsewhere if you don't like my rules, but you have no legal ability, IMHO, to abrogate my right to determine my clientele.

Can you provide a factual basis for your statements regarding "so-called property rights?"

 

[notalawyer]

So, it's cool if I come on your property carrying a bunch of radioactive material in my pockets?

lol. Get over yourself! You aren't more important than property owners, and your rights don't trump theirs just because you clearly only value your own. :lol:

So, it's cool if I come on your property carrying a bunch of radioactive material in my pockets?

What a stupid comparison.
Having clarified that: In Florida, if you are invited (explicitly or implicitly) there is nothing, legally, anyone can do about it, other than asking them to leave after they have entered!

your rights don't trump theirs

Compared to a property owner that opened his business to the public(invited me to enter), yes they do.

 

[marshaul]

What a stupid comparison.
Having clarified that: In Florida, if you are invited (explicitly or implicitly) there is nothing, legally, anyone can do about it, other than asking them to leave after they have entered!

Right. Which is their right.

They also have a right to search you, and to bar entry upon finding possessions they don't like.

I hope you don't intend to claim you have a right to sneak drinks and candy into a movie theater?

By the way, what makes my comparison "stupid" other than it doesn't agree with your "me first!" view of rights?

 

[carolina guy]

Why should the LEO's have to have a drug test if involved in the shooting? Is there some policy that requires it?

I would think this is a valid request, under workplace safety...just consider it a "condition of employment" that many many people have if there is an incident at work like a traffic accident or some such. You are not against making everyone "safer" are you?

 

[smellslikemichigan]

Costco is required by what or whom? If statute law, then cite so that we may all further diminish the property rights of the BigBox stores? Shop Mom&Pop.

i'm not sure about the prescription aspect of it, but as eye95 said, both sams and costco have huge signs stating that they are required by law to allow non-members to purchase alcohol. i would think it's part of their liquor license.

 

[notalawyer]

Right. Which is their right.

They also have a right to search you, and to bar entry upon finding possessions they don't like.

I hope you don't intend to claim you have a right to sneak drinks and candy into a movie theater?

By the way, what makes my comparison "stupid" other than it doesn't agree with your "me first!" view of rights?

They also have a right to search you, and to bar entry upon finding possessions they don't like.

Uh, no. They do not have the right to search. They may ask someone to submit to a search. Plus they cannot deny entry in this situation, in Florida, the 'search' can only occur on their property (not a public sidewalk, etc) therefore you are already on their property, only then do they have the right to tell someone to leave.

By the way, what makes my comparison "stupid"

Radioactive material, Einstein. :uhoh:

 

[papa bear]

just to clarify. there is no "property rights" in a open to the public business. you are subject to the laws of the government.
you do have the legality to bar certain people. this is just a privilege of legality. if the governing body votes that businesses can not discriminate against legally carrying gun owners then there would be no alternative

i still say that carrying a holstered firearm, does nothing to to any one elses "rights"

 

[OC for ME]

Your right to self-defense via the use of a handgun does not trump the private property owner's right to control his own property. If you are permitted, under penalty of law, to be allowed to enter private property while OC, and your OC negatively impacts his business because a majority of his past customers will not patronize a store that has a armed citizen, then your presence has materially harmed his business and you have thus deprived that property owner of his right to pursue life and liberty. Also, the sate has infringed upon his property right.

Simple, respect his wishes and take your business elsewhere. Eventually, I hope, that the majority of our fellow citizens will hold our view and support businesses that recognize our right and those businesses that do not wither on the vine.

 

[marshaul]

Uh, no. They do not have the right to search. They may ask someone to submit to a search. Plus they cannot deny entry in this situation, in Florida, the 'search' can only occur on their property (not a public sidewalk, etc) therefore you are already on their property, only then do they have the right to tell someone to leave.

First of all, you're splitting hairs. The simple fact is property owners in most states can search people and ask them to leave based on what they find.

Second of all, you don't get to point to some Florida law when arguing that something is, or is not, a right. Rights don't work that way. They aren't granted by laws, in Florida or elsewhere.

 

[JamesCanby]

When one opens a business and allows the public to enter, those entering are classed as "business invitees or visitors." Please read the following article concerning Business Visitors and Invitees: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...&handle=hein.journals/mnlr26&div=34&id=&page=

[Please note: these definitions are from the American Law Institute, and are not specific only to Minnesota Law.]

The definitions state:

Licensee Defined: A licensee is a person who is privileged to enter or remain upon land by virtue of the possessor's consent, whether given by invitation or permission.

Gratuitous Licensee defined: A gratuitous licensee is is any license other than a business visitor [defined next]

Business Visitor Defined: A business visitor is a person who is invited or permitted to enter or remain on land in the possession of another for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings between them.

[Bolding and underlining added by me]

These American Law Institute definitions indicate that the business owner [possessor] has the absolute right to determine who may enter or remain on his property [unless the owner is making the decision based solely on discrimination of a protected class -- my add].

It seems clear to me that the decision to grant entry or the ability to remain in a business open to the public is entirely up to the owner/possessor. Even in the previously mentioned situation where a members-only club must allow non-members entry to purchase alcoholic beverages, the owner/possessor may still deny entry based on firearm carry, in much the same way that a non-member violating a "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign (if it existed) would be precluded from entry for the purpose of buying alcoholic beverages.

No matter how much one wishes that their right to carry trumps property rights or the right of a business owner to grant or deny entry, the law seems to be on the side of the owner.

Please show me case law that refutes this rather than just posting your opinion about your rights trumping an owner's rights.

 

[notalawyer]

First of all, you're splitting hairs. The simple fact is property owners in most states can search people and ask them to leave based on what they find.

Second of all, you don't get to point to some Florida law when arguing that something is, or is not, a right. Rights don't work that way. They aren't granted by laws, in Florida or elsewhere.

Words mean things!
It's not splitting hairs to clarify what rights are. You said property owners have the right to search folks, nothing could be further from the truth!

The references to Florida law were to illustrate a property owner's (open to the public) legal authority to restrict entry (they cannot). You are the one incorrectly attaching certain rights to these individuals.

The simple fact is property owners in most states can search people and ask them to leave based on what they find.

It's also not splitting hairs to clarify a property owners legal authority. They have no such authority, in Florida, to search anyone, period. Sure they can ask, but nothing requires one to comply. And yes they can require you to depart (after already entering the property) for refusing their request to search (or almost any other reason). However, they cannot prohibit ones initial entry to an 'open to the public' property.

Rights don't work that way. They aren't granted by laws, in Florida or elsewhere.

Which is why I was very careful in my choice of words, unlike yourself!

 

[JamesCanby]

Words mean things!
It's not splitting hairs to clarify what rights are. You said property owners have the right to search folks, nothing could be further from the truth!

The references to Florida law were to illustrate a property owner's (open to the public) legal authority to restrict entry (they cannot). You are the one incorrectly attaching certain rights to these individuals.


It's also not splitting hairs to clarify a property owners legal authority. They have no such authority, in Florida, to search anyone, period. Sure they can ask, but nothing requires one to comply. And yes they can require you to depart (after already entering the property) for refusing their request to search (or almost any other reason). However, they cannot prohibit ones initial entry to an 'open to the public' property.


Which is why I was very careful in my choice of words, unlike yourself!

Baloney. Of course they can deny entrance to anyone that they do not want in their store or business. If I owned a store, open to the public, and I (or my security guard, if I had one) saw someone approaching that I felt uncomfortable with based on appearance or actions, I have the right to deny entrance. A jewelry store in my neighborhood is "open to the public" but they keep their front door locked so that they can pick and choose who they let in. My bank branch has an armed security guard at the front door who can deny entrance based on how a person is dressed -- no hats, sunglasses or hoodies.

Please provide case law or actual law that prevents a business owner or operator from making determinations on who may enter his/her place of business.

 

[marshaul]

Words mean things!
It's not splitting hairs to clarify what rights are. You said property owners have the right to search folks, nothing could be further from the truth!

The references to Florida law were to illustrate a property owner's (open to the public) legal authority to restrict entry (they cannot). You are the one incorrectly attaching certain rights to these individuals.


It's also not splitting hairs to clarify a property owners legal authority. They have no such authority, in Florida, to search anyone, period. Sure they can ask, but nothing requires one to comply. And yes they can require you to depart (after already entering the property) for refusing their request to search (or almost any other reason). However, they cannot prohibit ones initial entry to an 'open to the public' property.


Which is why I was very careful in my choice of words, unlike yourself!

You're splitting hairs.

When I said property owners had a "right" to search you, I didn't say they had a "right to search you independent of whether you stay on their property". The simple fact is property owners can search folks, and kick out those who refuse, or who have items the owners don't like. This does, indeed, prove that they have a right to control their property which doesn't end "at your pockets".

 

[notalawyer]

When one opens a business and allows the public to enter, those entering are classed as "business invitees or visitors." {SNIP}
No matter how much one wishes that their right to carry trumps property rights or the right of a business owner to grant or deny entry, the law seems to be on the side of the owner.

Please show me case law that refutes this rather than just posting your opinion about your rights trumping an owner's rights.

First, we need to separate 'rights' from legal authority. In Florida once issued a CWFL, the State authorizes one to legally carry a concealed firearm (or other weapon) everywhere within the state (not otherwise restricted by State or Federal law) including other's private property - further permission/authorization not needed. Don't care if you or others don't like it, but's that's the way it is.

Since, I assume we are discussing a structure as opposed to outdoor property, Chapter 810.08, Florida Statutes is the only possibly applicable statute to consider.

Trespass in structure or conveyance.—
(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.

Key word here is invited....Also you will also note there is no provision for some sort of conditional entry. i.e. "No shirts, no shoes, no service." that would make an initial entry unlawful when violating said policy.

Smith v. State, 778 So. 2d 329 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2000 citing Corn v. State, 332 So. 2d 4 - Fla: Supreme Court 1976:

Here we have a situation of property privately owned but utilized for monetary gain and hence opened to the public, property "quasi-public" in the nature of its use. In a sense an invitation is extended to the public to shop in the Mall to the financial advantage of the owners of the stores contained therein and consequently to the advantage of the Mall owner. The lobby of a commercial mall is a privately owned building to which the public has been invited to come, to look and to buy. The invitation presupposes that the conduct of persons coming there will be in keeping with such purposes. However, reasonable nondiscriminatory restrictions pertaining to the use of the Mall may be placed on the users of such Mall, such as the requirement that shoes be worn. As any invitation, it can be limited and, upon abuse, be withdrawn or revoked.

Moreover, we question whether posting would ever be an effective way to withdraw an invitation to enter the quasi-public parking lot of an open business. In the context of trespass in a structure or a conveyance, a person who has been invited on the premises may be warned to depart. If he refuses to do so, he commits the crime. See § 810.08, Fla. Stat. (1997). That section would appear to require "actual communication" of the revoked invitation.

So these "No this, that or the other things" signs carry no legal weight whatsoever, and the revocation of the implied invitation to enter a 'quasi-public' structure must be personally communicated to the individual after they enter into the structure in question.

 

[notalawyer]

Baloney. Of course they can deny entrance to anyone that they do not want in their store or business. If I owned a store, open to the public, and I (or my security guard, if I had one) saw someone approaching that I felt uncomfortable with based on appearance or actions, I have the right to deny entrance. A jewelry store in my neighborhood is "open to the public" but they keep their front door locked so that they can pick and choose who they let in. My bank branch has an armed security guard at the front door who can deny entrance based on how a person is dressed -- no hats, sunglasses or hoodies.

Please provide case law or actual law that prevents a business owner or operator from making determinations on who may enter his/her place of business.

If said property owner or representative is standing on public property then he is in fact obstructing the use of said public property. Your bank likely owns the parking lot, so you've already entered onto their property. They are simply denying you entry to another portion of their property.

 

[notalawyer]

You're splitting hairs.

When I said property owners had a "right" to search you, I didn't say they had a "right to search you independent of whether you stay on their property". The simple fact is property owners can search folks, and kick out those who refuse, or who have items the owners don't like. This does, indeed, prove that they have a right to control their property which doesn't end "at your pockets".

No. The have no 'right' or legal authority to search anyone. They can only do so if one allows them to.

 

[marshaul]

No. The have no 'right' or legal authority to search anyone. They can only do so if one allows them to.

Right != legal authority.

You have no right to be on their property, with anything at all. You can only do so if they allow you to.

 

[notalawyer]

Right != legal authority.

You have no right to be on their property, with anything at all. You can only do so if they allow you to.

RIF: I said they have no 'right' nor any legal authority to search anyone.

Quasi-public = invited me to come onto their property = legal authority to be there (with everything I care to bring). Until such time as they tell me to leave = revoking invitation.

 

[JamesCanby]

First, we need to separate 'rights' from legal authority. In Florida once issued a CWFL, the State authorizes one to legally carry a concealed firearm (or other weapon) everywhere within the state (not otherwise restricted by State or Federal law) including other's private property - further permission/authorization not needed. Don't care if you or others don't like it, but's that's the way it is.

My insert: I'd like you to cite the specific Florida statute that stipulates that I have the right to carry a concealed firearm onto private property against the owner's wishes.

Since, I assume we are discussing a structure as opposed to outdoor property, Chapter 810.08, Florida Statutes is the only possibly applicable statute to consider.


Key word here is invited....Also you will also note there is no provision for some sort of conditional entry. i.e. "No shirts, no shoes, no service." that would make an initial entry unlawful when violating said policy.

Smith v. State, 778 So. 2d 329 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2000 citing Corn v. State, 332 So. 2d 4 - Fla: Supreme Court 1976:


So these "No this, that or the other things" signs carry no legal weight whatsoever, and the revocation of the implied invitation to enter a 'quasi-public' structure must be personally communicated to the individual after they enter into the structure in question.

Interesting. The incident happened in Pennsylvania, you are quoting Florida law and I will counter with Virginia law:

Prohibited Conduct and Where Unlawful to Carry - Section 18.2-308.012

Section 18.2-308.01: Private property when prohibited by the owner of the property, or where posted as prohibited.
​

Virginia clearly stipulates that a citizen in the Commonwealth -- one of the most gun-friendly states in the nation -- does NOT have the right to carry onto private property when the owner has prohibited it or posted that prohibition.

Your comment that restrictive signs do not carry the force of law is also situational. In some states the signs impose legal restrictions. Knowingly carrying past such a sign in those states is unlawful. In those states that do not promulgate the legal effect of a posted sign, if the owner had an employee at the entrance who was authorized to deny entry based on firearm carry, you would have no 'right' to enter.

Your right to carry does not and cannot trump a private property owner's right to deny you access. Until you are successful in creating an 8th Constitutionally protected class that protects gun carry everywhere and anywhere, I suggest that you be a test case for knowingly carrying into a private property where such carry is clearly banned by the owner. I'll even contribute $1 toward toward your legal fees.

 

[notalawyer]

Interesting. The incident happened in Pennsylvania, you are quoting Florida law and I will counter with Virginia law:{SNIP}

I do not care about PA, or VA law. A question was posed regarding Florida law, I responded to that.