HomeDepot anti-gun policy

If a state does not enforce "no guns signs" then ignore them. If it's concealed properly then how would they know anyway and what are they going to do frisk everyone? That will surely drive away business. I carry everywhere I go except where the law restricts like schools, federal bldgs, casinos and courts.
 
I carry everywhere I go except where the law restricts like schools, federal bldgs, casinos and courts.

If it's concealed properly, how would they know? Why not conceal everywhere that doesn't have metal detectors?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
If it's concealed properly, how would they know? Why not conceal everywhere that doesn't have metal detectors?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Because you are trusted to follow state law. I am sure you are aware metal detectors are installed to detect weapons at restricted areas/bldg's with the exception of some schools possibly so why not carry concealed where there are no detectors and have no lawful restrictions?
 
Because you are trusted to follow state law. I am sure you are aware metal detectors are installed to detect weapons at restricted areas/bldg's with the exception of some schools possibly so why not carry concealed where there are no detectors and have no lawful restrictions?

I'll never understand how someone can respect an unconstitutional "law" but not respect a property owners Rights to govern their own land.

But hey, concealed is concealed...if you don't get caught it's not wrong. 'merica and it's moral high grounds! W00t!

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
I'll never understand how someone can respect an unconstitutional "law" but not respect a property owners Rights to govern their own land.

But hey, concealed is concealed...if you don't get caught it's not wrong. 'merica and it's moral high grounds! W00t!

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

One will get you fined and /or imprisoned and the other can only ask you to leave. What is the unconstitutional law here in reference btw? I think a business owner open to the public can't discriminate even though it may be considered private property. I think it can get tricky when it's comes to ones rights. If I went to someone's house and they knew I carried and said before hand to leave it in my car I would respect that but not a store open to the public especially when there is no force of law.
 
One will get you fined and /or imprisoned and the other can only ask you to leave. What is the unconstitutional law here in reference btw? I think a business owner open to the public can't discriminate even though it may be considered private property. I think it can get tricky when it's comes to ones rights. If I went to someone's house and they knew I carried and said before hand to leave it in my car I would respect that but not a store open to the public especially when there is no force of law.

Exactly, I don't understand how anyone can respect "laws" prohibiting carry in public places. I guess you answered it though, fear of imprisonment, so why not willingly get rid of our Rights instead...

So, ones a Constitutional Right, but you could go to jail so don't exercise it.

The other they can force you to leave their property, there is no "asking." Asking would imply you could answer no, and that's not an option. But that's only private property, no need to respect the individual.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
One will get you fined and /or imprisoned and the other can only ask you to leave...

Wrong. "The other" could bring a tort lawsuit for civil trespass. (Whether they would is a different matter.) Those who don't know the law should avoid making legal pronouncements.
 
Exactly, I don't understand how anyone can respect "laws" prohibiting carry in public places. I guess you answered it though, fear of imprisonment, so why not willingly get rid of our Rights instead...

So, ones a Constitutional Right, but you could go to jail so don't exercise it.

The other they can force you to leave their property, there is no "asking." Asking would imply you could answer no, and that's not an option. But that's only private property, no need to respect the individual.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

I don't know Chen, you're making my head hurt or maybe it's all the wine but I am confused. Are you in agreement or no? I look at it this way, if I am in a Home Depot and they have posted a "no guns" sign but there is no force of law then screw 'em they can only ask you to leave and if you refuse then you can deal with police and a trespassing citation but if there is force of law then ya take your chances with breaking a BS law and receive worse. Basically I feel what Ted Nugent said when he remarked that the 2A is all I need to carry a firearm but for now I'll play the game to until such a time comes when we have reversed all the unconstitutional laws or SHTF and govt's laws no longer matter.
 
I don't know Chen, you're making my head hurt or maybe it's all the wine but I am confused. Are you in agreement or no? I look at it this way, if I am in a Home Depot and they have posted a "no guns" sign but there is no force of law then screw 'em they can only ask you to leave and if you refuse then you can deal with police and a trespassing citation but if there is force of law then ya take your chances with breaking a BS law and receive worse. Basically I feel what Ted Nugent said when he remarked that the 2A is all I need to carry a firearm but for now I'll play the game to until such a time comes when we have reversed all the unconstitutional laws or SHTF and govt's laws no longer matter.

I think the answer is...more wine.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Wrong. "The other" could bring a tort lawsuit for civil trespass. (Whether they would is a different matter.) Those who don't know the law should avoid making legal pronouncements.

You should heed your own advice. One has to refuse to leave first before trespass charges are applied.
 
You should heed your own advice. One has to refuse to leave first before trespass charges are applied.

That's not true either. Just because the majority of places give you a chance to leave after they told you to, doesn't mean they have to.

Maybe you can provide any sources to any statutes that say you must be asked to leave first?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
In the state of Nevada:

Under NRS 207.200, a person can be found guilty of a criminal trespass upon land under three distinct legal theories. This means that there are three ways for the prosecution to prove a trespass.

First, pursuant to NRS 207.200(1)(a), a person commits a trespass when he goes onto another person's property "with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant" That is, if the prosecutor can prove that a person went onto another person's property with the specific goal of vexing or annoying the property owner, then the person can be convicted of a criminal trespass. Similar to any charge where intent is at issue, the prosecutor would have to show the defendant's "intent to vex or annoy" through presenting circumstantial evidence. This would typically be proven by explaining that the defendant had an antagonistic relationship with the property owner, or by showing that the defendant's actions when on the property were, in fact, vexing or annoying.

Second, also under NRS 207.200(1)(a), a person commits a criminal trespass when he goes onto another person's property to "commit any unlawful act." Typically, this theory is used if a person goes onto someone else's property to solicit prostitution, use illegal drugs, or commit some other minor offense. However, keep in mind, if the "unlawful act" is a felony or a theft, then the person would be guilty not of a mere trespass, but a burglary, which is a more serious offense.

Third, under NRS 207.200(1)(b), a person commits criminal trespass if he goes onto someone else's property "after having been warned by the owner or occupant… not to trespass." In other words, if a property owner clearly tells you not to enter onto his property, and you willfully go onto that person's property anyway, then you are guilty of criminal trespass. This is where the idea of being "trespassed" becomes relevant. When a property owner informs you that he wants you off his property, you have been trespassed and can't return to the property without committing a criminal trespass. In Las Vegas casinos, this happens frequently. If a person has too much to drink, is suspected of committing a crime, or otherwise causes problems, then casino security will record that person's identity, and actually give the person a letter indicating that he is banned from casino property and all other properties around town owned by the same company. If the person returns to the casino, he can be arrested for trespassing. Under NRS 207.200(2), a "warning" against trespassing can be given by posting a "no trespassing" sign, fencing in a certain area of the land, or giving an oral or written demand to leave the property.

Keep in mind no gun signs carry no weight of law here.
 
In the state of Nevada:

Under NRS 207.200, a person can be found guilty of a criminal trespass upon land under three distinct legal theories. This means that there are three ways for the prosecution to prove a trespass.

First, pursuant to NRS 207.200(1)(a), a person commits a trespass when he goes onto another person's property "with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant" That is, if the prosecutor can prove that a person went onto another person's property with the specific goal of vexing or annoying the property owner, then the person can be convicted of a criminal trespass. Similar to any charge where intent is at issue, the prosecutor would have to show the defendant's "intent to vex or annoy" through presenting circumstantial evidence. This would typically be proven by explaining that the defendant had an antagonistic relationship with the property owner, or by showing that the defendant's actions when on the property were, in fact, vexing or annoying.

Second, also under NRS 207.200(1)(a), a person commits a criminal trespass when he goes onto another person's property to "commit any unlawful act." Typically, this theory is used if a person goes onto someone else's property to solicit prostitution, use illegal drugs, or commit some other minor offense. However, keep in mind, if the "unlawful act" is a felony or a theft, then the person would be guilty not of a mere trespass, but a burglary, which is a more serious offense.

Third, under NRS 207.200(1)(b), a person commits criminal trespass if he goes onto someone else's property "after having been warned by the owner or occupant… not to trespass." In other words, if a property owner clearly tells you not to enter onto his property, and you willfully go onto that person's property anyway, then you are guilty of criminal trespass. This is where the idea of being "trespassed" becomes relevant. When a property owner informs you that he wants you off his property, you have been trespassed and can't return to the property without committing a criminal trespass. In Las Vegas casinos, this happens frequently. If a person has too much to drink, is suspected of committing a crime, or otherwise causes problems, then casino security will record that person's identity, and actually give the person a letter indicating that he is banned from casino property and all other properties around town owned by the same company. If the person returns to the casino, he can be arrested for trespassing. Under NRS 207.200(2), a "warning" against trespassing can be given by posting a "no trespassing" sign, fencing in a certain area of the land, or giving an oral or written demand to leave the property.

Keep in mind no gun signs carry no weight of law here.

If a no trespassing sign is considered a warning that could lead to criminal trespass (has the force of law behind it), how is a "no gun sign" not a warning with the same force of law behind it?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
If a no trespassing sign is considered a warning that could lead to criminal trespass (has the force of law behind it), how is a "no gun sign" not a warning with the same force of law behind it?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Because there are no laws giving those signs weight of law here except where it is illegal to carry anyway (not many places).

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/nevada.pdf

If you go to page five it explains it.
 
Because there are no laws giving those signs weight of law here except where it is illegal to carry anyway (not many places).

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/nevada.pdf

If you go to page five it explains it.

They do not explain what I'm asking.

Are these signs considered "no trespassing" signs, (ie if you loiter, you are trespassing):

No guns.
No weapons.
No knives.
No skateboarding.
No shirt, no shoes, no service.
No backpacks.
No loitering.
No soliciting.

Or do they have to use the exact words "no trespassing". If they are a warning:

Under NRS 207.200(2), a "warning" against trespassing can be given by posting a "no trespassing" sign...


Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Maybe I can simplify this for all of you. Just follow the Do Right Rule. If you see a business with a No Guns Sign, regardless of legal bearing, Do the right thing and spend your money elsewhere.
It doesn't really matter if the sign has any legal bearing, it's clear they prefer armed criminals over law abiding citizens in their business, so we should respect their foolish wishes. Simple enough?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using USA Carry mobile app
 
They do not explain what I'm asking.

Are these signs considered "no trespassing" signs, (ie if you loiter, you are trespassing):

No guns.
No weapons.
No knives.
No skateboarding.
No shirt, no shoes, no service.
No backpacks.
No loitering.
No soliciting.

Or do they have to use the exact words "no trespassing". If they are a warning:




Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

A no trespassing sign would say just that and would be more for private property than a business that is open to the public. Those other signs would not be considered trespassing signs. As far as no guns signs they even make it a point to teach about them in CCW class. All they can do is ask you to leave and if you don't it is trespassing. Usually just a ticket.
 
If a no trespassing sign is considered a warning that could lead to criminal trespass (has the force of law behind it), how is a "no gun sign" not a warning with the same force of law behind it?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Because it doesn't say no trespassing
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,531
Messages
610,692
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6
Back
Top