I know some of you are going to bash me

[Pitbull11]

JCliff, I live in Nevada. A no gun sign has no force of law at a business. You can't be prosecuted if you are carrying concealed with a CCW permit, It is not trespassing unless you are asked to leave and you refuse. We both know laws are different in every state. I've never even seen a no gun sign on a business in Nevada. Everyone should know the law in the state they are carrying and follow that law. This is the point I've been making, but I guess not very well.

Semper Fi from an old Marine (1969-1971)

 

[mmastell]

I get so tired of this old crap about...

"Concealed means concealed" so if you are carrying concealed then no one will know you are carrying a gun when you go somewhere guns are banned. And if no one knows you are sneaking in a gun then it's Ok.

It's easy to be honorable when everyone knows what you are doing.... but a truly honorable man still does the honorable thing even when the only one who knows is himself.

I am dismayed how many folks will compromise their honor just for the convenience of shopping at the local "no guns allowed business".

I find it amazing that many folks will demand their right to bear arms be honored yet will not honor the property owner's right to ban guns and, even worse, will also advise other people to do it too.

Property owner (business or homeowner) has a "no guns" rule? Don't go there armed. Better yet... keep your honor intact and don't go where guns are banned armed or not and especially don't support any business that doesn't honor the right to bear arms by not going there at all.

Think about this for a moment....

Joe's grocery bans guns... you do the "concealed means concealed" thing and shop there because it is convenient..... or you are an honorable man and leave your gun in the car while you shop at Joe's grocery. Either way Joe uses the profit he made on your purchases to open another grocery store that.............. bans guns.

I agree. If the owner of a business has posted a "legal" sign by the entrance(s) then I will abide and not carry in that business. I also will not carry in any area that violates state or federal law. In Minnesota the most I will get for carrying in a posted business is a "Trespass" violation if I do not comply but I will lose my permit if I carry in a, State defined, no-carry facility. If I don't like that the owner has posted their facility I'm free to go somewhere else.

 

[Bikenut]

JCliff, I live in Nevada. A no gun sign has no force of law at a business. You can't be prosecuted if you are carrying concealed with a CCW permit, It is not trespassing unless you are asked to leave and you refuse. We both know laws are different in every state. I've never even seen a no gun sign on a business in Nevada. Everyone should know the law in the state they are carrying and follow that law. This is the point I've been making, but I guess not very well.

Semper Fi from an old Marine (1969-1971)

I wholeheartedly agree that folks should know the laws concerning carrying a gun no matter which State they are carrying a gun in. However folks should also know how laws other than just the firearm laws can affect those who carry guns.............

A property owner can have any rules/policies he wishes as a condition for being allowed (given permission) to be on/in his property as long as those rule/policies do not conflict with any laws. Just like a property owner can have a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" policy/rule he can also have a "no guns" policy/rule. So far there hasn't been any cites and/or links to any laws that say a property owner cannot ban guns on/in his property. If there are any such laws I would like to see them regardless of which State has those laws.

If a property (business) owner has a 'no guns' policy/rule then he is allowing (giving permission to) folks to be in/on his business property as long as they do not bring in a gun. Those who do not abide by that policy/rule and bring in a gun anyway do not have his permission to be there. No permission to be there means those without permission are not allowed to be there ... which would be trespassing.

Link Removed

TheFreeDictionary

trespass [ˈtrɛspəs]
vb (intr)
1. (often foll by on or upon) to go or intrude (on the property, privacy, or preserves of another) with no right or permission
2. (Law) Law to commit trespass, esp to enter wrongfully upon land belonging to another
3. Archaic (often foll by against) to sin or transgress
n
1. (Law) Law
a. any unlawful act committed with force or violence, actual or implied, which causes injury to another person, his property, or his rights
b. a wrongful entry upon another's land

Bold and underline added by me for emphasis.

Let us not be confused though.... the act of being on/in property with a gun that has a 'no guns' rule is the act of trespass because those who don't carry guns have permission to be there and those who are carrying guns do not have permission to be there. The act of carrying a gun into/onto property where doing so is forbidden by the property owner constitutes trespass... No permission to be there means being there without permission is trespassing.

But being asked to leave is................. getting caught in the act of trespassing by carrying a gun against the 'no guns' rule. And make no mistake... even if the property owner is polite when he "asks" someone to leave he is NOT asking... he is demanding and the trespass law supports his rightful demand.

Not leaving when the property owner demands is when the legal repercussions for trespass (getting caught carrying a gun where permission to do so is denied) begin.

Now folks can, and do, ignore the property owner's private property right to limit access to his property to only those who abide by his "no guns" rule simply because there isn't any penalty if they get caught unless they refuse to leave.... but I find it disturbing when folks demand their right to bear arms be respected while intentionally disrespecting the property rights of others just because they figure they can get away with it.

 

[gejoslin]

The way I see it trespassing is a violation of the law. Shoplifting is a violation of the law. To get away with either and not get caught is still a violation of the laws of Arkansas. Now trespassing laws maybe different in Nevada. IF YOUR NOT CAUGHT! Here in AR the owner may call the police first for either one. Then it's up to the Officer to arrest you for either charge. Signage carries the force of law here. As long as the signage meets size and wording.

But I see little difference in either one. If you don'i get caught does it make it lawful? No, imo. You just got away with it, this time!

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

Personally, again I say: PERSONALLY, I don't give a **** if a sign says: "No Firearms Allowed". The business owners can't, won't and aren't going to protect me, my family, and loved ones from a wacko that comes to commit a mass destruction/murder, so I will.

This baffles me. I can understand- in tiny towns, where it means- that for guys like Uncle Al, not entering a business with a no gun sign- would mean a very very long drive elsewhere- but if you live in a town with where you have businesses that do not have the no gun sign- for all the products you will ever need- then there are not many reasons why you should enter someone's private establishment, and disregard, and disrespect their wishes.

What some folks need to understand is that THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS ONLY BINDING ON THE GOVERNMENT .... NOT ON PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND/OR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS!!!

Anti freedom ... that's all I'm seeing here. The worst part about being a true constitutionalist, a true fighter for freedom, is that we do not try and control others, even if others try to control us.....
Every time you disrespect a private property owners rights, you disrespect all rights, including the 2A.

This is a two way street- just like we want others to respect our RIGHT to carry... we too must respect other people's RIGHT to ask that we do not, when on their turf- whether it is business or home- (this is separate from people who are fighting for ways to enforce legislature to eliminate our rights). As many people pointed out- just because your weapon is concealed- and not visible does not mean you're not disrespecting the person's establishment. The fact that you can or can not get prosecuted- is just an additional consequence- and is separate from the issue- that you're not honoring another citizen's wishes, on their turf.

to poster: "are you prepared" - you're absolutely correct. The business owner can't protect me or my family- and etc. but if you're in a town where you have more than one option for various products... doesn't hurt to be the honorable person, and go elsewhere. they're the ones who are going to miss your business.

 

[2Awarrior]

I don't know if this is a valid exception to what we're talking about (but I think I'm about to find out!) -

I respect all such signs on small businesses for the reasons already mentioned. I just shop somewhere else.
Obviously, for the sake of staying out of jail, I respect federally restricted areas. State ones too.

I do break the rule in one instance.
The national chain that owns a movie theatre we frequent does have a tiny 'no guns' sign posted in, frankly, kind of an inconspicuous spot (I get the impression they're trying to satisfy everybody, and insult or drive away no one)
Given the history of events in such places; given the surroundings, lighting, limited exits in such places; given the very late hour we usually attend movies; I admit I carry anyway. I feel I owe it to my family, the people around us. Weighing all this, I don't feel compelled to leave it home, I don't feel compelled to give up movies, or drive somewhere distant in hopes of finding a different theatre that allows weapons.
I hasten to add, I am not preaching that anyone else do the same, nor do I imply that I'm on anything but thin ice.

I weigh it out in my head each time before we go, and so far my decision is always to carry.

 

[Pitbull11]

He who is without sin cast the first stone

 

[2Awarrior]

That'll teach me to not just read the last page of a thread before posting!
I didn't realize this was such a heated discussion.

In any event, I don't want to come across as a scofflaw who says "Screw you, I'm carrying whether you like it or not." I carry into this theatre for very specific reasons, as an exception to a rule I normally follow.
I like to think in this case, "no harm, no foul".

 

[Pitbull11]

That'll teach me to not just read the last page of a thread before posting!
I didn't realize this was such a heated discussion.

In any event, I don't want to come across as a scofflaw who says "Screw you, I'm carrying whether you like it or not." I carry into this theatre for very specific reasons, as an exception to a rule I normally follow.
I like to think in this case, "no harm, no foul".

On this thread you will find that any violation of "property rights" makes you a person with no moral character. Sorry

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

This baffles me. I can understand- in tiny towns, where it means- that for guys like Uncle Al, not entering a business with a no gun sign- would mean a very very long drive elsewhere- but if you live in a town with where you have businesses that do not have the no gun sign- for all the products you will ever need- then there are not many reasons why you should enter someone's private establishment, and disregard, and disrespect their wishes.

oops - edit my last post- i forgot to finish it- what I meant to add was- that for guys who live in a town like uncle al- I'd understand why its a hot topic for debate- its either enter the store and leave the piece in the car- or enter the store and violate the storeowner's private property (or go somewhere an hr roundtrip away) - and for that,i have nothing to contribute to the conversation- and my only point was- how can you compare a scenario like that- which is truly worthy of a clash of "what do do?? what to do??" vs. a town with all the variety and options of going to an establishment that doesn't have the sign. People who do not want guns around them- have a right just as much as we do- that should be respected- who are we to disrespect their place. (again... not speaking of the people who fight to take the guns out of our hands)

 

[2Awarrior]

On this thread you will find that any violation of "property rights" makes you a person with no moral character. Sorry

Yeah, I feel like I just walked past a heated confrontation about abortion, and I'm going - "Ooo, are you guys talking about babies? I LOVE babies...!!"
Buh bye...

 

[Bikenut]

On this thread you will find that any violation of "property rights" makes you a person with no moral character. Sorry

Actually the hypocrisy of expecting the right to bear arms be respected while advocating that "concealed means concealed" enables a person to sneak in a gun and avoid being caught disrespecting the private property owner's right to ban the bearing of arms casts doubt upon that person's moral character.

 

[2Awarrior]

I am SO outta here...

 

[Pitbull11]

I just come back to poke sticks at the animals...... I do the same to religious nut cases........ You got to take the fun where you find it

 

[umpguns]

Link Removed

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 571
Weapons Offenses

(15) Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch. The owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person may prohibit persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the premises and may prohibit employees, not authorized by the employer, holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the property of the employer. If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer of the business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm in vehicles owned by the employer;


2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense.

 

[umpguns]

Still no cites and/or links to black letter law I see.

Well... "No shirt, no shoes, no service"... nope it's not against the law to not wear a shirt or shoes but if you don't wear a shirt or shoes into a store that has a rule requiring you to wear a shirt or shoes the store owner has the right to throw you out... and if you don't go the trespass laws will give the police the legal means to put you behind bars.

Which means the store owner's 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' rule has the weight of law behind it.

Now instead of, or in addition to, the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule the store owner has a "no guns" rule. Sooooo.... no shirt = thrown out... no shoes = thrown out... sneak in a gun = thrown out. And in all of those instances refusing to leave results in the weight of the trespass law becoming operative.

Hope that helps you to understand because if a concealed carry permit "gives" the right to carry on/in private property then why can the store owner throw you out on your ear?

One more thing.... if you refuse to provide cites and/or links to actual laws to prove your assertions then, in my opinion, your assertions have no validity and your Sir... have no credibility.



Please provide cites and/or links to actual black letter law that supports your claim. Man up and prove what you say is true.

Edited to add.... please understand it isn't just me but is everyone who is reading this thread that is watching to see if you provide cites and/or links to prove your assertions.

Actually it doesn't. The "no trespassing" carries the weight of law.

 

[Firefighterchen]

On this thread you will find that any violation of "property rights" makes you a person with no moral character. Sorry

You wouldn't know morals, integrity, or character if they were linked together like a freight train and plowed into you at an 80 mph crossing.

At least you came out of the closet though, and admitted you are just here to poke your sticks. I mean...you really had nothing else, at least you feel you have some purpose in life however miserable it is.

Actually it doesn't. The "no trespassing" carries the weight of law.

The trespassing laws cover the no shirt, no shoes, no service and no guns allowed requirements.

 

[Pitbull11]

You wouldn't know morals, integrity, or character if they were linked together like a freight train and plowed into you at an 80 mph crossing.

At least you came out of the closet though, and admitted you are just here to poke your sticks. I mean...you really had nothing else, at least you feel you have some purpose in life however miserable it is.



The trespassing laws cover the no shirt, no shoes, no service and no guns allowed requirements.

Hope you are OK? Sound a little rough? Taking arguments on the Internet to heart is crazy. People can disagree. Look inside yourself to understand where this is coming from. God Bless

 

[umpguns]

The trespassing laws cover the no shirt, no shoes, no service and no guns allowed requirements.

Exactly. The no guns sign doesn't carry the weight of law, at least in Missouri anyway. Also, the illegal trespass doesn't occur when you bring the gun onto his property, it occurs when you refuse to leave.

 

[Bikenut]

Exactly. The no guns sign doesn't carry the weight of law, at least in Missouri anyway. Also, the illegal trespass doesn't occur when you bring the gun onto his property, it occurs when you refuse to leave.

My use of the word "you" below is meant in the generic sense and not directed at you specifically umpguns...

The act of trespass occurs at the moment the gun is brought onto the property that has a "no guns" rule because you would have been carrying the gun against the "no guns" rule before the owner spoke to you and you would still be carrying the gun even as the owner was asking you to leave therefor the act of trespass was happening before the owner caught you at it and then talked to you and is happening even as he speaks to you...

... being asked to leave is getting caught in the act of trespass and generally results in the property owner offering to not press charges if you agree to leave...

...refusing to leave will result in your arrest because the owner pressed charges for the trespass you already were caught doing.

Let us not confuse the act of trespass with getting caught doing it and the consequences that could result.