• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hamburg Wal-Mart. OC'er tresspassed from ALL Wal-Marts.

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,292
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You reap what you sow. You voluntarily band yourself from all Wally World's in the good old U.S.A. Who twisted your arm to sign your banning? From the video no one forced you to sign that document. You have no complaints, you volunteered to your banning.

As to the last officer lecturing you; I would have told him to stuff a sock in it.
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Wal-Mart will have to put up signs to deny concealed carry per ky statute.

Those don't apply to OC.

While they can trespass anyone , wearing a gun OC as the stated reason won't fly. If this guy had the pockets to go to court he will win. Wal-Mart has now publically stated in writing banning him for a reason not allowed in this state.
 

HLB

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
38
In short, let us say a citizen is banned by Walmart, the citizen ignores the ban and reenters, and Walmart calls the police wanting the citizen to be arrested. The violation of a trespassing law under this situation fails the 14th Amendment. Here is the language:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In this case, the person with a weapon would be denied the privileges of a citizen of the United States by the State of Kentucky enforcing a trespassing law. That denied privilege would be to carry a weapon under the 2nd Amendment.

The test here would be if the lack of the 2nd Amendment weapon would have negated Walmart’s imposition of a trespassing charge. Walmart may ask people to leave and charge people with trespassing when they have a complaint the subject of which is not protected by the Constitution or law. The “equal protection of the laws” part would apply the 2nd Amendment to all citizens.

HLB
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,667
Location
here nc
In short, let us say a citizen is banned by Walmart, the citizen ignores the ban and reenters, and Walmart calls the police wanting the citizen to be arrested. The violation of a trespassing law under this situation fails the 14th Amendment. Here is the language:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In this case, the person with a weapon would be denied the privileges of a citizen of the United States by the State of Kentucky enforcing a trespassing law. That denied privilege would be to carry a weapon under the 2nd Amendment.

The test here would be if the lack of the 2nd Amendment weapon would have negated Walmart’s imposition of a trespassing charge. Walmart may ask people to leave and charge people with trespassing when they have a complaint the subject of which is not protected by the Constitution or law. The “equal protection of the laws” part would apply the 2nd Amendment to all citizens.

HLB
Sorry...the private property owner has not in any way denied a citizen’s 2A right ~ the citizen walked in with & told to leave with ~ so where has the citizen’s 2A been violated nor does this gentleman see any violation of the citizen’s 14A providence [equal whatever nonsense] by a property owner exercising their control over their property...

Further, As CoL pointed out...the FB citizen capitulated & abrogated, of their own free will and without any coercion whatsoever [at least from the FB video] their standing, especially, especially since the one kind LE stated several times...there are NO CHARGES!

IF, IF said citizen feel their constitutional/state right have been violated...then they should seek legal representation aka spend $$$$ & wait years for a judicial outcome.

[sidebar..what said citizen should do is put a formal complaint into johnny come lately LE’s agency IA for busting the citizen’s chops with the inappropriate & unnecessary & embarrassing public tirade they had to endure!]

IPSE
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Where Wal-Mart has hung itself in this state is by putting in writing they told the man to leave over OC of a firearm.

One has the absolute right to be armed openly in this state period.

The only authority to limit carry the legislature has in ky is to deny concealed carry. All statutes are about concealed carry and a statute had to be written to permit property owners to put up no concealed deadly weapons signs.

There is no such statute about OC. Nor can there be as the KY constitution does not grant anyone that authority.

Now . That said. If Wal-Mart has said they didn't want him in their stores , without mentioning OC of a gun , no problem.

But they have in writing admitted OC of a gun is the reason he's banned and in this state NOBODY has that authority.

The guy will probably let it go, for lack of deep enough pockets to take Wal-Mart to school though.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,667
Location
here nc
Hummmm...
KRS 511.090 (2)
(2) A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license or privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person.

Noticed with interest it doesn’t mandate the Owner must state a reason to leave the private property...

That the property’s representative, mod, misspoke by saying ‘cuz of your sidearm’ or didn’t want to press trespass charges isn’t my concern...but the individual was told to leave by appropriate property representative and failed to...that is by KRS 511.090 ~ trespassing!
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,743
Location
Granite State of Mind
I understand private property rights of businesses. They are, however, bound by the law and the Constitution. So we have their right to ban people from their property but there is also the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment which say there are restrictions on that.
HLB
The Constitution has no bearing here, at all, except to support the rights of private property owners.

The Constitution limits government, not private property owners.
 

HLB

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
38
@KBCraig, This is true. That is why Walmart can not "use" the state to implement it's desire to evict a weapons bearer, in other words, "swatting". Thus no trespassing charge or court conviction. So it is really between Walmart and the individual - may the better man win.
HLB
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,371
Location
White Oak Plantation
The key is the order of events. In many states you cannot be trespassed without notification by the property owner and then not leaving the property. Though, that little detail would likely not stop a cop from arresting you for a violation you were not informed you had violated...ref the Florida thing about pre-trespassing gun owners...via a sign...
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
The Constitution has no bearing here, at all, except to support the rights of private property owners.

The Constitution limits government, not private property owners.
Beg to differ. Try tossing a person out of your open to the public business because of their religion, color , sex , etc see how limited you actually are. Civil rights laws like them or don't were based on the Constitution.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,292
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Hummmm...
KRS 511.090 (2)
(2) A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license or privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person.

Noticed with interest it doesn’t mandate the Owner must state a reason to leave the private property...

That the property’s representative, mod, misspoke by saying ‘cuz of your sidearm’ or didn’t want to press trespass charges isn’t my concern...but the individual was told to leave by appropriate property representative and failed to...that is by KRS 511.090 ~ trespassing!
Not so fast. You are taking the statute out of context. There is an important term used in the statute, "lawful order." Trespass falls under Chapter 511, burglary. In other words crimes. Bowling v. Com., 942 SW 2d 293 - Ky: Supreme Court 1997 ("mplicit in [KRS 511.090(2)] is the concept that license or privilege expires once the person commits an act inconsistent with the purposes of the business. Bowling terminated his license to be on the premises when he committed the criminal acts.") See Wilburn v. Com., 312 SW 3d 321 - Ky: Supreme Court 2010.

You cannot be trespassed just because some employee doesn't like your looks. Your looks is not a crime.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,371
Location
White Oak Plantation
Not so fast. You are taking the statute out of context. There is an important term used in the statute, "lawful order." Trespass falls under Chapter 511, burglary. In other words crimes. Bowling v. Com., 942 SW 2d 293 - Ky: Supreme Court 1997 ("mplicit in [KRS 511.090(2)] is the concept that license or privilege expires once the person commits an act inconsistent with the purposes of the business. Bowling terminated his license to be on the premises when he committed the criminal acts.") See Wilburn v. Com., 312 SW 3d 321 - Ky: Supreme Court 2010.

You cannot be trespassed just because some employee doesn't like your looks. Your looks is not a crime.
...but, but, but...guns are different...ask a cop...
 

garyh9900

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
155
Location
KY
Beg to differ. Try tossing a person out of your open to the public business because of their religion, color , sex , etc see how limited you actually are. Civil rights laws like them or don't were based on the Constitution.
You are sorely mistaken, the Constitution, specifically the bill of rights, protects people from government action, not from indivuduals. What prohibits public businesses from prohibiting the service of people based upon religion, race, sex, national origin and so on is the Civil Rights Act section regarding public accommodations and the state equivilants. There is nothing compelling a business in Kentucky to allow people to carry firearms into their establishments. There is nothing prohibiting a business in Kentucky from denying entry, or subsequent banning, of a person carrying firearms in their establisments.
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
588
Location
FreedomVA
You are sorely mistaken, the Constitution, specifically the bill of rights, protects people from government action, not from indivuduals. What prohibits public businesses from prohibiting the service of people based upon religion, race, sex, national origin and so on is the Civil Rights Act section regarding public accommodations and the state equivilants. There is nothing compelling a business in Kentucky to allow people to carry firearms into their establishments. There is nothing prohibiting a business in Kentucky from denying entry, or subsequent banning, of a person carrying firearms in their establisments.

correct-a-mundo........shoppers have to change Walmart policy through social actions......like not shopping there. When their monthly profits start to dip, then corporate will take a different stance on their policy. Look at Hechinger.

Golden rules for Walmart and others.....Don't bite the hands that feed you.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
You are sorely mistaken, the Constitution, specifically the bill of rights, protects people from government action, not from indivuduals. What prohibits public businesses from prohibiting the service of people based upon religion, race, sex, national origin and so on is the Civil Rights Act section regarding public accommodations and the state equivilants. There is nothing compelling a business in Kentucky to allow people to carry firearms into their establishments. There is nothing prohibiting a business in Kentucky from denying entry, or subsequent banning, of a person carrying firearms in their establisments.
Ok lol. Find a ky statute stating a business may bar OC, carry.

Granted they can ban you for your hair color, but not OC.
 

garyh9900

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
155
Location
KY
Ok lol. Find a ky statute stating a business may bar OC, carry.

Granted they can ban you for your hair color, but not OC.
Find a statute that says they can't. Its their business, their property, and their rights. Public accommodation laws are what keeps them from doing it based upon race, sex, religion, and national origin. There is no such protection for anything else. Again, it is settled law, that the Constitution protects people from government action, not from individuals.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Find a statute that says they can't. Its their business, their property, and their rights. Public accommodation laws are what keeps them from doing it based upon race, sex, religion, and national origin. There is no such protection for anything else. Again, it is settled law, that the Constitution protects people from government action, not from individuals.
Without quoting a well known statute just an example a buisness nor employer can bar firearms on their parking list etc.

And that is directed directly to concealed weapons in ky.
The legislature has no authority over OC.

You will note Ky HAD to pass a,statute to empower business to even put up no force of law,signs banning concealed weapons. Nothing banning OC. Because there could not be in this state.

Granted, a business can deny entry or ban a person because they don't like their shoes. But not OC.
Though the end result is,the same.
 

garyh9900

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
155
Location
KY
Without quoting a well known statute just an example a buisness nor employer can bar firearms on their parking list etc.

And that is directed directly to concealed weapons in ky.
The legislature has no authority over OC.

You will note Ky HAD to pass a,statute to empower business to even put up no force of law,signs banning concealed weapons. Nothing banning OC. Because there could not be in this state.

Granted, a business can deny entry or ban a person because they don't like their shoes. But not OC.
Though the end result is,the same.
There is nothing prohibiting private businesses from banning open carry either. Again you have no right to carry a firearm into a place that you don't own if the owner prohibits such carrying, regardless of the way you choose to carry it. Government entities are prohibited from making such laws and regulations, but not private entities. I don't think you have a firm grasp on how constitutional rights, property rights, statute construction, and so on work. There doesn't have to be a law endowing a property owner with the ability to prohibit open carry, the lack of a law prohibiting such gives him that right. As said before there are laws prohibiting a public accommodation from refusing admittance or serving a protected class, but there is not law requiring someone to allow admittance or being required to serve someone carrying a gun.
 
Top