OC in lancaster. Confrontation with Costco manager

[JamesCanby]

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

We're talking about the concept of a general, global right and you're hanging your debate hat on one particular state -- FL -- and trying to generalize from there.

That dog won't hunt.

You still have not cited the specific FL statute that gives you the legal right to carry onto private property against the owner's wishes.

 

[marshaul]

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.

Right. And at any time they can come, ask to see what's in your pockets, and eject you if you refuse, or if they don't like what they find.

 

[notalawyer]

We're talking about the concept of a general, global right and you're hanging your debate hat on one particular state -- FL -- and trying to generalize from there.

That dog won't hunt.

You still have not cited the specific FL statute that gives you the legal right to carry onto private property against the owner's wishes.

We're talking about the concept of a general, global right and you're hanging your debate hat on one particular state -- FL -- and trying to generalize from there.

You may be. Eye95 specifically asked about Florida Law and my posts have been very clear that I was referencing his question.

Plus it's a huge waste of time talking about the concept of a general global 'right' when each locality has different laws restricting that 'right'.

You still have not cited the specific FL statute that gives you the legal right to carry onto private property against the owner's wishes.

I posted the only possible relevant statute that a property owner might try to hook his anti-freedom desires to and then showed how it's not possible. Outside of that specific law, there are no other laws that could possibly be construed to prohibit it.

Oh and 790.06 authorizes me, with a CWFL, to legally carry concealed everywhere in the state (unless otherwise restricted by other state law of Federal law) including other's property.

Only recourse a quasi-public property owner has, is to require you to leave (for almost any reason or no reason at all - except for being a member of a federally protected class).

 

[notalawyer]

Right. And at any time they can come, ask to see what's in your pockets, and eject you if you refuse, or if they don't like what they find.

Which is exactly what I said:

Until such time as they tell me to leave = revoking invitation.

 

[papa bear]

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.

OC youn aren still confusing "private property" , with property open to the public. when a person opens a business to the public that person gives up "private property rights". just ask the Woolworth counter here in Greensboro, NC

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.

Jmaes i can't prove a negative. all i can say is go look at the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's
if you believe that they can keep someone off their property, just have someone tell the fire marshal he can't come in, or the health Inspector. or a quadriplegic. there are many groups he can't refuse
and as far as the ones they can keep out, it is a matter of legality, not rights

we could make a law tomorrow to say they must let in people who carry.they just can't shoot their guns in the store

 

[JamesCanby]

You may be. Eye95 specifically asked about Florida Law and my posts have been very clear that I was referencing his question.

Plus it's a huge waste of time talking about the concept of a general global 'right' when each locality has different laws restricting that 'right'.

I posted the only possible relevant statute that a property owner might try to hook his anti-freedom desires to and then showed how it's not possible. Outside of that specific law, there are no other laws that could possibly be construed to prohibit it.

Oh and 790.06 authorizes me, with a CWFL, to legally carry concealed everywhere in the state (unless otherwise restricted by other state law of Federal law) including other's property.

Only recourse a quasi-public property owner has, is to require you to leave (for almost any reason or no reason at all - except for being a member of a federally protected class).

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not being purposely misleading. Florida statute 790.06 reads as follows:

790.06 (12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05 [below]; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any area vocational-technical center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or non-lethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

​

This statute is typical of those in other states that grant concealed carry permits. It specifies -- just so there is no confusion -- where a concealed carrier may NOT carry their firearm. It tells you where you may NOT carry, not where you can.

To read into this statute that because the private property of others is not specifically precluded that it "authorizes" you to carry onto other people's private property is a sophomoric misreading. By your understanding, this statute would allow you to carry into my home even if I said you can't, and I promise you that is not the case.

 

[notalawyer]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not being purposely misleading. Florida statute 790.06 reads as follows:

{SNIP}


This statute is typical of those in other states that grant concealed carry permits. It specifies -- just so there is no confusion -- where a concealed carrier may NOT carry their firearm. It tells you where you may NOT carry, not where you can.

To read into this statute that because the private property of others is not specifically precluded that it "authorizes" you to carry onto other people's private property is a sophomoric misreading. By your understanding, this statute would allow you to carry into my home even if I said you can't, and I promise you that is not the case.

Exactly, 790.06 (plus a couple other statutes related to schools prisons/jails, etc) tell us where it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm or weapon (when carrying that firearm or weapon under authority of one's CWFL). The rules of statutory construction therefore tells us that everywhere else is legal. If this was not the case, anyone (not living there) carrying concealed at your home would be violating the law - with or without your 'permission'.

As I've explained a quasi-public property owner's only recourse is to ask someone to leave after they have already entered onto/into your property. A personally communicated request to leave. Florida law has no provisions for any type of 'conditional entry'.

By your understanding, this statute would allow you to carry into my home even if I said you can't, and I promise you that is not the case.

Well, we were talking about quasi-public property, so let's try it this way: You are having a open house while trying to sell your home so you post an "Open House" sign in your front yard. The is legally an invitation to enter.
You also put up a sign that says "No firearms permitted inside." It is perfectly legal for someone to ignore that sign. If you discover they are armed your only recourse is to revoke their invitation and request the individual to leave. Only his failure to do so will place him in legal jeopardy.

As for this part:

even if I said you can't

If personally communicated to someone as they were walking into your house, that might (doubtful but possible) be sufficient to satisfy the case law requirement because it was personally communicated to the individual, however the notification requirement is specifically related to trespass, not 'conditional entry' requirements like "No shirts, no shoes, no service" signs carry no legal weight. Just like "No firearms" signs.

So in your scenario you tell someone they cannot come into your house with a gun. Let's say by standing at the door saying "No firearms inside".
They do anyway - concealed.
Sometime later, you find out.
What are you going to do?
1) Call the police and tell them?
2) Or are you going to tell the individual to get out?

In #1 the police are not going to make an arrest because the individual broke no laws.
In #2 you just gave the individual a personally communicated revocation of their invitation. At this point if they refuse to leave, they are statutorily trespassing. Now as I've already said, most LEA policies do not call for an arrest in that situation either. They will simply help you remove the individual from your property and of course you will have already told them not to return.

There is no case law in Florida that addresses this 'conditional entry' that you are suggesting.
Your desire to not have firearms on your property does not make it illegal to do so. (Again unless you tell someone to leave and they do not.)

This is not to say you cannot prevent anyone from entering your property, you certainly can. All I'm saying is that there is no legal jeopardy for ignoring a "No Firearms' sign.

In Florida, when you invite someone in you have just invited them in with anything they may choose to bring with them. Unless of course you set up metal detectors, bag checks, searches, etc. But these may only occur once the individual has already entered your property - even if only by a few feet.