Businesses Confused with ARS 4-229

[The Trickster]

It seems to me that many businesses here in Arizona that wish to refuse service to those of us who lawfully carry are confused concerning ARS 4-229. That is, many who do no sell alcohol post signage referencing the statute even though it has absolutely nothing to do with them since they do not sell alcohol for on-site consumption. Case in point: Staples. I recently emailed them as I noticed they had a sign posted at the entrance of one of their stores and I received this in response:

"Hi _______, thank you for contacting Staples.

The following information is from the state.

4-229. Licenses; Handguns; Posting of Notice
A. A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 may carry a concealed handgun on the
premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly
prohibits
the possession of weapons on the licensed premises. The sign shall conform to the following
requirements:
1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to
the
liquor license posted on the licensed premises.
2. Contain a pictogram that shows a firearm within a red circle and a diagonal red line across the
firearm.
3. Contain the words, "no firearms allowed pursuant to A.R.S. section 4-229".
B. A person shall not carry a firearm on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer if the
licensee has posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section.


Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. I hope you will continue to look to
Staples with confidence and satisfaction for all of your office supply needs.

If you would like to contact one of our representatives, please reply to this e-mail or call us at
the number listed below.

Cheryl
Staples Customer Service Supervisor"

I also love how my only real question was skirted; does Staples refuse service to those who lawfully carry firearms? It's a yes or no question...

 

[FreeInAZ]

I would simply ask them when they started selling alcohol for consupmtion on their property and, where is said bar located in their stores?

Then follow up with never mind officemax has: hotter chicks, better tunes, and a happy hour too! Just kidding.

 

[sharkey]

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...d-NON-government-non-alcohol-serving-business

Pulled this from an AzCDL email where a member posed a similar question and was answered by a fellow Board member. It seems approrpiate here:

"There is no direct statutory violation for walking past a "No Firearms" or "No weapons" sign in any other private establishment. HOWEVER, and this is important, a private property owner has the right to set whatever conditions of entry to their property that they wish. Any sign they post to that effect, including any variant of a "No weapons" sign, is considered a constructive notice of their intent, and will be so considered in a court of law. In short, if you ignore the sign, and you get caught, you can be charged with criminal trespass under ARS 13-1502, 1503, or 1504, with penalties ranging from a class 3 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony.

Generally, if you're seen carrying in a private business that's posted, you'll be asked to leave, or possibly to secure your firearm in your vehicle, and if you comply, that will be the end of it. However, it doesn't have to go that way, it's strictly up to the property owner how they handle it. Typically, the larger and more obvious the sign you ignored, the more likely it is that a call to law enforcement will be the first option. And that also bears directly on the "I didn't see the sign" excuse holding up, both with the police and the judge. A tiny little sign down at the bottom of the door that you'd need a microscope to see will likely be excused. A great big banner over the door with a gunbuster logo (red circle/slash over a gun pic), typically repeated several times before you get three feet in the door, should have given you a clue that "I didn't see it" wasn't going to fly."


Fred

 

[The Trickster]

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...d-NON-government-non-alcohol-serving-business

You know what would be funny? If one argued that the sign the business had posted stated "...pursuant to ARS 4-229" and since they were specifically referencing the liquor statute but they don't sell liquor, their reasoning for posting such signage and the sign itself are both null and void. Of course, I have a failsafe approach: I refuse to do business with places that are posted and complain to them directly.

 

[Phoenix David]

I'll ignore sign that reference the wrong ARS. A while back (several years) I was getting gas and went in to get a Pepsi and I noticed they had a sign that referenced the firearms law in Texas. I told them we were in Arizona and they looked confused.

If somone posts something wrong that's on them I will not tell them and invite them to correct it.

 

[FreeInAZ]

I'll ignore sign that reference the wrong ARS. A while back (several years) I was getting gas and went in to get a Pepsi and I noticed they had a sign that referenced the firearms law in Texas. I told them we were in Arizona and they looked confused.

If somone posts something wrong that's on them I will not tell them and invite them to correct it.

^^^ This! They have already shown they are a$$hats, why give them the chance to be "correct" a$$hats?
If you don't want your business or it's employees protected - that's on you mr/mrs business owner. Do not try to force me & mine to be lambs at the jaws of wolves and I won't speak of reallity in your presence as you are clearly in denial of it.

 

[Ford]

I saw a sign here that referenced some part of Ohio law as why it was banning them. I figured the business owner was too dumb or lazy to get a correct sign, and just printed out the first thing that looked ok on his google images search.

I refuse to walk past a sign indicating my lawfully carried firearm is not welcome, correct citation or not. Which generally means, I refuse to walk in except for places where I have to go - the MVD etc. We need to get it fixed, so that the sign carries no force of law, and its the same penalty if you walk in past a "shoes required" sign barefoot. I have seen way too many tiny signs, or ones partially covered by other postings, or even ones located on a wall inside an establishment (with none outside). There should be no chance for someone legally carrying to be criminally prosecuted because they didn't notice a piece of paper.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I'll ignore sign that reference the wrong ARS.....

If somone posts something wrong that's on them I will not tell them and invite them to correct it.

+10000

why educate the stupid? what good can come out of them changing the signage to a proper one?

 

[coorsleftfield]

1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to
the
liquor license posted on the licensed premises.

They must post it on the front door AND next to their liquor license. Since Staples does not have a liquor licenses, the 4-229 sign is null and void.

Incidentally, I'd say 75% of liquor serving establishments do not have the second sign posted next to their license, which means you are free to ignore the sign on the door, assuming you have a CCW permit.

 

[FreeInAZ]

1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to
the
liquor license posted on the licensed premises.

They must post it on the front door AND next to their liquor license. Since Staples does not have a liquor licenses, the 4-229 sign is null and void.

Incidentally, I'd say 75% of liquor serving establishments do not have the second sign posted next to their license, which means you are free to ignore the sign on the door, assuming you have a CCW permit.

I have been to one establishment that had no door signs what so ever. However on my way out I saw a no firearms sign placed roughly 9 feet up on a wall directly above the liquor license a foot below. WTF? One would have to have Bionic eyes to read the license & notice the sign from where most people enter or are seated. Needless to say they get ZERO, NOTHING from me or my family in the future! Rat B@STARDS!

 

[The Trickster]

1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to
the
liquor license posted on the licensed premises.

They must post it on the front door AND next to their liquor license. Since Staples does not have a liquor licenses, the 4-229 sign is null and void.

Incidentally, I'd say 75% of liquor serving establishments do not have the second sign posted next to their license, which means you are free to ignore the sign on the door, assuming you have a CCW permit.

True. However, since their intentions are quite clear and they have a problem with carrying, then I won't give them a dime of money. If they want to be anti-gun, I will be anti-them.

 

[The Trickster]

I have been to one establishment that had no door signs what so ever. However on my way out I saw a no firearms sign placed roughly 9 feet up on a wall directly above the liquor license a foot below. WTF? One would have to have Bionic eyes to read the license & notice the sign from where most people enter or are seated. Needless to say they get ZERO, NOTHING from me or my family in the future! Rat B@STARDS!

Not that it is excusable, but I wonder if perhaps they have a clause in their insurance policy that requires them to post such a sign yet does not clarify where it must be posted? I can see how a business owner who doesn't have a problem with carry would be tempted to post it somewhere where virtually no one could see it just to get the reduced insurance rate. Again, not that I condone such behavior, but I do indeed wonder...

 

[The Trickster]

+10000

why educate the stupid? what good can come out of them changing the signage to a proper one?

:lol:

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Case law on this?

Does anyone know of case law regarding people open carrying past a "no guns" sign and then being charged under 13-1502, 03, 04 prior to being asked to leave?

 

[Brian D.]

I saw a sign here that referenced some part of Ohio law as why it was banning them. I figured the business owner was too dumb or lazy to get a correct sign, and just printed out the first thing that looked ok on his google images search.

Congratulations, that beats the record! What I mean is, in the past I'd seen Ohio-based signs in northern Kentucky businesses a few times, on one occasion about 80 miles away from the border, in Lexington, Ky. (It was a Cincinnati-based bank with branches down there.)

But 1,800 miles away in beautiful Arizona, some business is referencing the Ohio Revised Code? Makes me proud...to know there are people out there in the world WAY dumber than me, on my worst day.

 

[The Trickster]

Does anyone know of case law regarding people open carrying past a "no guns" sign and then being charged under 13-1502, 03, 04 prior to being asked to leave?

I'm not aware of a single one.