I know some of you are going to bash me

[tattedupboy]

Carrying in a places that are off limits under the law is quite different from carrying in those that aren't but have signs. In most (but not all) states those signs don't have the force of law, meaning that carrying there against the business owner's wishes isn't illegal, but if you're asked to leave and don't, you are trespassing.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Bikenut]

Trespass | LII / Legal Information Institute

Trespass

Overview
Resources

Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights.
-snip-
bold added for emphasis...

There it is... if you know there is a "no guns" rule and take your gun in anyway you are already trespassing because a "no guns" rule means those who carry guns do not have the owner's permission to enter that property.

Being asked to leave means you got caught in the act of trespassing...

Refusing to leave means the owner isn't having you arrested for not leaving.. he is having you arrested for trespassing because you didn't/don't have his permission to enter his property with your gun.

Now.. about that word "knowingly"... if you didn't know before the owner asked you to leave you surly know it afterwards and if you don't leave you get to convince a judge you didn't know and when you didn't know it.

Trespass hinges upon the owner's permission to enter his property and the owner can deny permission for anyone (with the exception of some legally protected classes like race or handicap but those who bear guns is NOT a legally protected class) according to whatever the owner doesn't want entering his property. For example ...anyone who doesn't wear a shirt, or doesn't wear shoes... or carries a gun.

 

[gejoslin]

so go ahead,when I took my ccw I was against it because I felt that it was against the 2nd adm.,but I went ahead and took it,my instructer was a very strict and very serous about his job and was very GOOD,in my opp.you could not find a better instuctor.He spent a lot of time on law,shooting,handling and other stuff of importance.We went over on the time by an hour or so,no problem he was very intersing,very pacient with people that had little to no exp.with guns,the one thing that he did stress that I have always belived in is that it is up to you to protect yourself and yours.NOW REMEMBER he taugh us where it is illegel to carry,BUT he also liked to make it clear that was why it is called CONCEALED CARRY!so when someone wants to know if it is ok to take a gun here or there I say that is why they call it conceal carry!!!NOW if you go by that as with the rest of your actions in life you have to be RESPONSABLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!now thats all I got to say about that

In Arkansas it explained like this by law:

Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?
“YES”
(19) (A) Any place at the discretion of the person or entity exercising control over the physical location of
the place by placing at each entrance to the place a written notice clearly readable at a distance of not less
than ten feet (10) that “carrying a handgun is prohibited”.
(B) (i) If the place does not have a roadway entrance, there shall be a written notice placed
anywhere upon the premises of the place.
(ii) In addition to the requirement of subdivision (19)(B)(i) of this section, there shall be at least one
(1) written notice posted within every three (3) acres of a place with no roadway entrance.
(C) A written notice as described in subdivision (19)(A) of this section is not required for a private
home.
(D) Any licensee entering a private home shall notify the occupant that the licensee is carrying a
concealed handgun.
(b) (1) In addition to the places enumerated in this section, the carrying of a concealed handgun may be
disallowed in any place in the discretion of the person or entity exercising control over the physical location
of such place by the placing of a written notice clearly readable at a distance of not less than ten feet (10')
that the "carrying of a handgun is prohibited."
(2) Provided, no sign shall be required for private homes, and any licensee entering a private home shall
notify the occupants that he is carrying a concealed handgun.
(c) No license issued pursuant to this subchapter shall authorize the participants in a parade or demonstration
for which a permit is required to carry a concealed handgun.
History. Acts 1995, No. 411, § 2; 1995, No. 419, § 2; 1997, No. 1239, § 2.
Note: Handgunlaw.us believes when you come across a business that is posted that you not just walk away.
That business needs to know that they lost your business because of their “No Gun” sign. Giving them a “No
Firearms = No Money” card would do just that. You can print free “No Firearms = No Money” cards by
going Here.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/arkansas.pdf

 

[Firefighterchen]

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.

Refer to bikes post. Intentionally and knowingly entering a no gun store with a gun is trespassing.

Just like drunk driving is illegal right when you start driving, not right until you get caught and tested.

It takes set of morals to stop those illegal actions before they get caught doing it. It takes a set of laws to press charges after they get caught doing it.

Then there are those, like the average police officer that pitbull11 was undoubtedly, who doesn't care about the private property owners Rights. Which really is the important part of this argument. It's also the part that is getting ignored the most.

Ump, do you feel private property owners have the Right to not allow firearms on their property?

 

[Pitbull11]

Still crazy after all these years, yes baby after all these years. Sorry but this is just too funny. From some of the latest posts it looks like no force of law in Missouri and Nevada but force of law in Arkansas. If this is some kind of moral issue for some of you I hope you are turning yourself in to the nearest police station any time you go over the speed limit. Because speeding does have the force of law behind that legal infraction, where in Mo. And NV. Concealed carry in a posted business does not. At least I am glad to see most will follow the "law" and these "posted" business's are not really another gun free zone where the only people that are armed are the bad guys.
Semper Fi

 

[Firefighterchen]

Still crazy after all these years, yes baby after all these years. Sorry but this is just too funny. From some of the latest posts it looks like no force of law in Missouri and Nevada but force of law in Arkansas. If this is some kind of moral issue for some of you I hope you are turning yourself in to the nearest police station any time you go over the speed limit. Because speeding does have the force of law behind that legal infraction, where in Mo. And NV. Concealed carry in a posted business does not. At least I am glad to see most will follow the "law" and these "posted" business's are not really another gun free zone where the only people that are armed are the bad guys.
Semper Fi

Speeding is only illegal if you get caught right? Just use a radar detector and slow down and no one will ever know. If you do get caught, then you can just lie and deny it to the officer just like you would if questioned about trespassing. Your moral compass is about as broken as the bad guys with a gun in no gun zones. But hey, felons with a concealed gun are okay, because concealed means concealed. It's only illegal for them to have guns if they get caught.

 

[gejoslin]

I've lived in Arkansas for 4 years now and in all that time I've been to 1 store that was posted. So it's really not a problem here. As far as the breaking "other laws" I don't do that stuff anymore as I've grown up and just don't want to throw my hard earned money at the local government. I dang sure don't do anything that will have my permit pulled.
There comes a time in every man's life where standing outside of society's norm just isn't as appealing as when I was 25 and didn't give a flip.
Now I obey the laws and damn well expect the rest of the people around me to do the same.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."
John Wayne said that in the Shootist. I think it pretty well sums it up.

 

[Pitbull11]

Speeding is only illegal if you get caught right? Just use a radar detector and slow down and no one will ever know. If you do get caught, then you can just lie and deny it to the officer just like you would if questioned about trespassing. Your moral compass is about as broken as the bad guys with a gun in no gun zones. But hey, felons with a concealed gun are okay, because concealed means concealed. It's only illegal for them to have guns if they get caught.

Your responses are just weird?? I state one thing and you responded with a post that indicates that you have no understanding what I just stated??? Then you state that I am some immoral felonious person? Lets see, I serviced my country in the USMC during the Vietnam war and serviced my community as a commissioned police officer and you worked in a grocery store illegally searching anyone you felt inclined to search or who allowed you to illegally search them. Some on this site think that if you own a business that is open to the public that you are above the rule of law and can do anything you want inside that business. You can't!! The laws of the land also apply to business owners. If the laws in your state allow a person to carry a concealed weapon in a business that even has a posted sign that states otherwise, then that is the law! Has nothing to do with private property rights, since though rights are mitigated once you open your property up to the public as a business. Let me give you a simple example. You own a business and you invite the public into your business. You post a sign stating "no thong underwear allowed" now it is not against the law to wear thong underwear and there is no way for you to know if one of your female customers is wearing thong underwear (at least legally). Now you and some others on this site think that the lady that ignored the sign and wore thong underwear into the posted business just violated the business owners "private property rights". I don't agree as many others on this site do not agree. She is not trespassing and she is not violating any private property rights. I just hope you can carefully read what I just wrote and understand what it means without making another personal attack.

 

[umpguns]

Firefighterchen, drunk driving is always illegal and is not in the same ball park as trespassing. In Missouri it is NOT trespassing unless you refuse to leave. Not wearing a shirt into a store that has posted a "no shirt,no shoes, no service" sign isn't trespassing either. It means what it says, no service. It becomes trespass when you refuse to leave. As to your question, I do believe that a business owner has the right to "ban guns" and refuse service to those who violate their rules, in this case, "no guns." I am not stating that they don't have the right to make the rules of their establishment. My involvement started when someone asked for proof/evidence/links of gun signage law/trespass etc. I posted a link to the Missouri law which allows CCW permit holders to carry in the listed "restricted" places in Missouri, which include business' with "no guns" signs, unless they are asked to leave. So, in Missouri, a gun carrying CCW permit holder hasn't violated an owners property rights until he refuses to leave after being asked. I also believe (tough to remember because it was so many posts ago) that this thread began with more of a moral dilemma, than a legal one. I understand the moral conflict when one who claims to support "our" rights while possibly violating the rights of others. I don't want to patronize any business that doesn't allow guns.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Your responses are just weird?? I state one thing and you responded with a post that indicates that you have no understanding what I just stated??? Then you state that I am some immoral felonious person? Lets see, I serviced my country in the USMC during the Vietnam war and serviced my community as a commissioned police officer and you worked in a grocery store illegally searching anyone you felt inclined to search or who allowed you to illegally search them. Some on this site think that if you own a business that is open to the public that you are above the rule of law and can do anything you want inside that business. You can't!! The laws of the land also apply to business owners. If the laws in your state allow a person to carry a concealed weapon in a business that even has a posted sign that states otherwise, then that is the law! Has nothing to do with private property rights, since though rights are mitigated once you open your property up to the public as a business. Let me give you a simple example. You own a business and you invite the public into your business. You post a sign stating "no thong underwear allowed" now it is not against the law to wear thong underwear and there is no way for you to know if one of your female customers is wearing thong underwear (at least legally). Now you and some others on this site think that the lady that ignored the sign and wore thong underwear into the posted business just violated the business owners "private property rights". I don't agree as many others on this site do not agree. She is not trespassing and she is not violating any private property rights. I just hope you can carefully read what I just wrote and understand what it means without making another personal attack.

Yes, illegal searches, that's why I was "sued and knocked the f out" all the time...o wait nope that didn't happen (know what else didn't happen? Me calling you a felonious person. It's hard not to call you a liar, especially when you will take it so personal, when there really is no better description). In fact the DA said it was completely legal. But what does a DA know, he's not a vet or an ex cop. Btw your military and police background hold no value in this thread.

As far as your thong scenario goes. Yes she violated the private property owners Rights to restrict certain clothing on their property. Churches restrict certain clothing all the time. You don't care about others Rights though, you will never understand.

Law of the land...unconstitutional laws do not trump Rights. Then again, I believe in this thread you are the only one to have stated you don't care about others Rights.

Firefighterchen, drunk driving is always illegal and is not in the same ball park as trespassing. In Missouri it is NOT trespassing unless you refuse to leave. Not wearing a shirt into a store that has posted a "no shirt,no shoes, no service" sign isn't trespassing either. It means what it says, no service. It becomes trespass when you refuse to leave. As to your question, I do believe that a business owner has the right to "ban guns" and refuse service to those who violate their rules, in this case, "no guns." I am not stating that they don't have the right to make the rules of their establishment. My involvement started when someone asked for proof/evidence/links of gun signage law/trespass etc. I posted a link to the Missouri law which allows CCW permit holders to carry in the listed "restricted" places in Missouri, which include business' with "no guns" signs, unless they are asked to leave. So, in Missouri, a gun carrying CCW permit holder hasn't violated an owners property rights until he refuses to leave after being asked. I also believe (tough to remember because it was so many posts ago) that this thread began with more of a moral dilemma, than a legal one. I understand the moral conflict when one who claims to support "our" rights while possibly violating the rights of others. I don't want to patronize any business that doesn't allow guns.

Having a permit doesn't allow a concealed carry permit holder to enter a no gun restricted area. It just states they won't be charged criminally, but the owner can still deny entry or remove the cc'er. He can do so because the cc'er is trespassing and the owner has the weight of law behind him to kick them out. The $100 fine is if the person refuses to leave after he has all ready trespassed. No where in the statutes you posted does it says cc'ers are allowed in restricted places.

I'm glad you see the moral dilemma and it seems you choose the high ground. As I said earlier, that's truly the important part, yet some will use "law" as an excuse to ignore and disrespect others Rights.

 

[Pitbull11]

Yes, illegal searches, that's why I was "sued and knocked the f out" all the time...o wait nope that didn't happen (know what else didn't happen? Me calling you a felonious person. It's hard not to call you a liar, especially when you will take it so personal, when there really is no better description). In fact the DA said it was completely legal. But what does a DA know, he's not a vet or an ex cop. Btw your military and police background hold no value in this thread.

As far as your thong scenario goes. Yes she violated the private property owners Rights to restrict certain clothing on their property. Churches restrict certain clothing all the time. You don't care about others Rights though, you will never understand.

Law of the land...unconstitutional laws do not trump Rights. Then again, I believe in this thread you are the only one to have stated you don't care about others Rights.



Having a permit doesn't allow a concealed carry permit holder to enter a no gun restricted area. It just states they won't be charged criminally, but the owner can still deny entry or remove the cc'er. He can do so because the cc'er is trespassing and the owner has the weight of law behind him to kick them out. The $100 fine is if the person refuses to leave after he has all ready trespassed. No where in the statutes you posted does it says cc'ers are allowed in restricted places.

I'm glad you see the moral dilemma and it seems you choose the high ground. As I said earlier, that's truly the important part, yet some will use "law" as an excuse to ignore and disrespect others Rights.

You really are one ignorant old man. Instead of reexplaining everything I've already stated before and you just don't understand? Lets just do this one. "Business" open to the public!! You are not trespassing during normal business hours if you are in that business with no shirt and shoes, even if they have signs stating that you must wear them!!! You are only trespassing if you are asked by the owner or employees to leave and you refuse to leave!!! Did you graduate from high school??? What is sad is you don't see that difference. that is why you really don't under stand the difference between "rights" and laws. I realize to someone like you putting your life on the line for your country during a war and serving your community doesn't mean anything! You live by a different code, searching women that are shopping at your grocery store, because you "think" they stole a cucumber.

 

[Bikenut]

Trespass | LII / Legal Information Institute

Trespass

Overview
Resources

Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights.
-snip-
bold added for emphasis...

There it is... if you know there is a "no guns" rule and take your gun in anyway you are already trespassing because a "no guns" rule means those who carry guns do not have the owner's permission to enter that property.

Being asked to leave means you got caught in the act of trespassing...

Refusing to leave means the owner isn't having you arrested for not leaving.. he is having you arrested for trespassing because you didn't/don't have his permission to enter his property with your gun.

Now.. about that word "knowingly"... if you didn't know before the owner asked you to leave you surly know it afterwards and if you don't leave you get to convince a judge you didn't know and when you didn't know it.

Trespass hinges upon the owner's permission to enter his property and the owner can deny permission for anyone (with the exception of some legally protected classes like race or handicap but those who bear guns is NOT a legally protected class) according to whatever the owner doesn't want entering his property. For example ...anyone who doesn't wear a shirt, or doesn't wear shoes... or carries a gun.

I quoted myself because it is obvious some folks just don't understand that the act of trespass begins the instant a person enters a property without the owner's permission. Entering/staying there without permission equals trespass. Disobeying any rules the owner has as conditions for having his permission to enter means you don't have his permission so being there is... trespass.

And I wish folks would understand that "open to the public" means the property is open only to the members of the public who agree to abide by the rules the property owner has set as conditions will have his permission to enter. Break the rules and you do not have the owner's permission... don't have the owner's permission then you are trespassing.

Doesn't matter if the law says it is legal to carry a gun in a grocery store... the grocery store owner has the right to say those who carry guns do not have his permission to enter his store. And the lack of permission to enter private property trumps any laws that say it is legal to carry there because... without the owner's permission to enter it is illegal to be there in the first place, gun or no gun.

Having permission to be on/in private property is contingent upon obeying the rules the property owner sets as conditions for the public to be allowed there*.. those who don't obey the rules don't have permission... those who don't have permission are trespassing. Being asked to leave really means you got caught in the act of trespass.

Let us not confuse the act of trespass with getting caught doing it because you had to have been doing it in order to get caught at it.

Let us not confuse "refusing to leave" with being arrested for trespassing because the "refusing to leave" part is merely forcing the property owner to press charges because he caught you in the act of trespassing, and by not leaving you still are trespassing. Refusing to leave doesn't make it trespass... refusing to leave only forces the owner to have you arrested for the trespassing you were doing before you got caught and for the trespass you are still doing by not leaving when asked.

There is another way to look at that "being asked to leave" thing because it really is the property owner giving you the option of either leaving and he won't press charges or staying and he will press charges. But either way he can still have you arrested for trespass because................. he caught you doing it.

*So many folks think "open to the public" means the public has some kind of right to be there but do not realize that "open to the public" actually means the property owner gives his permission to enter only to the members of the public who obey his rules. Those who do not obey his rules do not have his permission to be there and are .......... trespassing because they don't have his permission.

Oh... and the thing about thong underwear would be the same as concealed carry because if the owner has a "no thongs" rule but a person bent over and exposed enough of their crack to show they are wearing a thong then they just got caught trespassing in the exact same manner as a person carrying concealed where the owner has a "no guns" rule would have been caught if they exposed their pistol by reaching for something.

It isn't about the underwear nor is it about the gun... it is all about whether or not a person has the owner's permission to be there. And you must obey the owner's rules to have his permission.

 

[umpguns]

Firefighterchen, it states EXACTLY that it is NOT A CRIMINAL ACT, therefore not trespassing. It doesn't say that you "won't be charged criminally." Laws aren't written to tell us everything that is allowed, they are written to tell us what isn't.

 

[Pitbull11]

Firefighterchen, it states EXACTLY that it is NOT A CRIMINAL ACT, therefore not trespassing. It doesn't say that you "won't be charged criminally." Laws aren't written to tell us everything that is allowed, they are written to tell us what isn't.

Trust me he does not understand and at this point I don't think he ever will. Same with a few others. It just always amazes me how some people think . I just get a kick out of his discussion on how he was authorized to grab some women shopping in his store take her in his back room and search her because she was on private property (his store). Says the local DA said that it was OK!! He must be from Russia.

 

[umpguns]

Let us not confuse "refusing to leave" with being arrested for trespassing because the "refusing to leave" part is merely forcing the property owner to press charges because he caught you in the act of trespassing, and by not leaving you still are trespassing. Refusing to leave doesn't make it trespass... refusing to leave only forces the owner to have you arrested for the trespassing you were doing before you got caught and for the trespass you are still doing by not leaving when asked.

Link Removed

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 I offense.

Link Removed

Trespass in the first degree.
569.140. 1. A person commits the crime of trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property.

569.150. 1. A person commits the offense of trespass in the second degree if he enters unlawfully upon real property of another. This is an offense of absolute liability.


Noitice, "shall not be a criminal act" and "unlawfully" are in bold. If it is not a criminal act a person would not be on the property unlawfully.

I RE-posted the law as written in Missouri and included a link "because it is obvious some folks just don't understand" written

Again, I do not advocate the violation of others rights, as I want my rights left alone by others. Just pointing out the laws where I live. Remember, the laws where you are may be different, and don't necessarily apply to everyone nationwide.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Let us not confuse "refusing to leave" with being arrested for trespassing because the "refusing to leave" part is merely forcing the property owner to press charges because he caught you in the act of trespassing, and by not leaving you still are trespassing. Refusing to leave doesn't make it trespass... refusing to leave only forces the owner to have you arrested for the trespassing you were doing before you got caught and for the trespass you are still doing by not leaving when asked.

Link Removed

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 I offense.

Link Removed

Trespass in the first degree.
569.140. 1. A person commits the crime of trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property.

569.150. 1. A person commits the offense of trespass in the second degree if he enters unlawfully upon real property of another. This is an offense of absolute liability.


Noitice, "shall not be a criminal act" and "unlawfully" are in bold. If it is not a criminal act a person would not be on the property unlawfully.

I RE-posted the law as written in Missouri and included a link "because it is obvious some folks just don't understand" written

Again, I do not advocate the violation of others rights, as I want my rights left alone by others. Just pointing out the laws where I live. Remember, the laws where you are may be different, and don't necessarily apply to everyone nationwide.

I find it very interesting that Missouri has a separate law that references entering a property that has a "no guns" rule carrying a concealed firearm.

And it is interesting that Missouri law states..."may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises." and assesses a penalty for refusing to leave with the words... "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 I offense."

Which is about the same thing that would happen in other States under their trespass laws with the exception that the penalties may/may not be stronger.

And it also references the private property right of a property owner to ban the carry of guns with this section:

(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 ............

So it still comes down to being in violation of the law if a person does not obey the property owner's "no guns" rule. The difference is some States (like Missouri) might have a separate law to cover it and other States rely on their trespass laws to cover it.

Oh... and it still comes down to being in violation (in other States the word would be "trespassing") before being caught, while being caught, and while waiting for the cops if refusing to leave. So... again... let us not confuse the "being caught" part with the actual act of being in violation (or trespassing in other States) and let us not confuse the part about being issued a citation (arrested in other States) with the "being in violation (trespassing)" part that was happening before getting caught.

You are correct that the laws differ from State to State yet all States have some sort of law to deal with supporting the property owner's right to make the rules and to refuse entry to anyone who doesn't obey those rules and therefor do not have his/her permission. And you are correct that everyone should know and understand the laws for the State they live in and the States they travel in/through.

I sincerely appreciate your providing cites and links... folks who do so are such a rarity! Thank you!

 

[Axeanda45]

There are some on here who like to INSIST that to disobey a property owners "rules" is an INFRINGEMENT on his so-called RIGHTS... They fail miserably to see that rules are not the same thing as RIGHTS.....

 

[Pitbull11]

I find it very interesting that Missouri has a separate law that references entering a property that has a "no guns" rule carrying a concealed firearm.

And it is interesting that Missouri law states..."may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises." and assesses a penalty for refusing to leave with the words... "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 I offense."

Which is about the same thing that would happen in other States under their trespass laws with the exception that the penalties may/may not be stronger.

And it also references the private property right of a property owner to ban the carry of guns with this section:

(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 ............

So it still comes down to being in violation of the law if a person does not obey the property owner's "no guns" rule. The difference is some States (like Missouri) might have a separate law to cover it and other States rely on their trespass laws to cover it.

Oh... and it still comes down to being in violation (in other States the word would be "trespassing") before being caught, while being caught, and while waiting for the cops if refusing to leave. So... again... let us not confuse the "being caught" part with the actual act of being in violation (or trespassing in other States) and let us not confuse the part about being issued a citation (arrested in other States) with the "being in violation (trespassing)" part that was happening before getting caught.

You are correct that the laws differ from State to State yet all States have some sort of law to deal with supporting the property owner's right to make the rules and to refuse entry to anyone who doesn't obey those rules and therefor do not have his/her permission. And you are correct that everyone should know and understand the laws for the State they live in and the States they travel in/through.

I sincerely appreciate your providing cites and links... folks who do so are such a rarity! Thank you!

As noted in Missouri and Nevada it is not against any law or "right" to carry concealed in a posted business. Your comprehension skills are very very poor. You are good at posting but not at understanding.

 

[Bikenut]

As noted in Missouri and Nevada it is not against any law or "right" to carry concealed in a posted business. Your comprehension skills are very very poor. You are good at posting but not at understanding.

Please note that the Missouri law provides for the issuance of a citation as a penalty for violating that law.

Oh.. and insults and ridicule are the hallmarks of a person who has nothing of value to offer. Have a nice day.

 

[Pitbull11]

Please note that the Missouri law provides for the issuance of a citation as a penalty for violating that law.

Oh.. and insults and ridicule are the hallmarks of a person who has nothing of value to offer. Have a nice day.

Good demonstration of what I already stated you really don't understand. There is no force of law behind the CCW in the posted business period. A person would only be sited if they refused to leave the property after the police officer ask them to leave. You really are an idiot!!!