Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?

[pocketcarry]

Hmmmmm, what does conceal mean?

 

[Firefighterchen]

Hmmmmm, what does conceal mean?

Do whatever you want as long as you don't get caught? You know...The honest good hearted law abiding citizen.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Axeanda45]

I love it (not) when otherwise smart people on here on other subjects get all bent out of shape and shove their own heads up their azzes on this particular subject.....

They fight tooth and nail about other aspects of rights, yet are totally ignorant (even absolutely proud of their ignorance/stupidity too) when they only apply "equal rights of others" to parts certain of reality and not to the other parts... (come on you "property righters", you know it is the truth...)It is not harming you, so it is NOT any of your concern or even any of your effing business what is in someones pocket, no matter where they happen to be standing at the moment...

 

[BC1]

I love it (not) when otherwise smart people on here on other subjects get all bent out of shape and shove their own heads up their azzes on this particular subject.....

They fight tooth and nail about other aspects of rights, yet are totally ignorant (even absolutely proud of their ignorance/stupidity too) when they only apply "equal rights of others" to parts certain of reality and not to the other parts... (come on you "property righters", you know it is the truth...)It is not harming you, so it is NOT any of your concern or even any of your effing business what is in someones pocket, no matter where they happen to be standing at the moment...

No, but it could you killed. If it ever comes out of your pocket you may find yourself shot by a property owner.
.
Reconcile property rights with castle doctrine. Can't have both.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Sorry, you are wrong, because without that little object they wouldnt be infringing now would they........

Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.

With the object they are infringing.

Arguments over.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Axeanda45]

No, but it could you killed. If it ever comes out of your pocket you may find yourself shot by a property owner.
.
Reconcile property rights with castle doctrine. Can't have both.

An inanimate object IN A POCKET harms no-one, infringes on NOTHING... stick with the actual written words, not your additions (fantasies?) to it...

 

[Axeanda45]

Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.

With the object they are infringing.

Arguments over.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

You sir are deliberately misquoting me especially when I have TWICE clarified what that sentence meant...

Yet, since some may NOT have read that particular thread, I will once again state the true meaning behind YOUR MISLEADING INFERENCE....

An firearm (inanimate object) in a pocket COULD infringe on someones RULES... yet, it in no way possible could infringe on someones RIGHTS...

Please stop lying through your teeth...... (keyboard?) and misrepresenting my post... I know WHY you do it though, it is because you have absolutely NO PROOF/EVIDENCE AT ALL to show my argument to be false..... and it just eats at you for hours that I refuse to let you get away with your lie about rules trump RIGHTS crap.......

 

[Firefighterchen]

You sir are deliberately misquoting me especially when I have TWICE clarified what that sentence meant...

Yet, since some may NOT have read that particular thread, I will once again state the true meaning behind YOUR MISLEADING INFERENCE....

An firearm (inanimate object) in a pocket COULD infringe on someones RULES... yet, it in no way possible could infringe on someones RIGHTS...

Please stop lying through your teeth...... (keyboard?) and misrepresenting my post... I know WHY you do it though, it is because you have absolutely NO PROOF/EVIDENCE AT ALL to show my argument to be false..... and it just eats at you for hours that I refuse to let you get away with your lie about rules trump RIGHTS crap.......

Sorry, you are wrong, because without that little object they wouldnt be infringing now would they........

Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.

With the object they are infringing.

Arguments over.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

You sir are deliberately misquoting me especially when I have TWICE clarified what that sentence meant...

Yet, since some may NOT have read that particular thread, I will once again state the true meaning behind YOUR MISLEADING INFERENCE....

An firearm (inanimate object) in a pocket COULD infringe on someones RULES... yet, it in no way possible could infringe on someones RIGHTS...

Please stop lying through your teeth...... (keyboard?) and misrepresenting my post... I know WHY you do it though, it is because you have absolutely NO PROOF/EVIDENCE AT ALL to show my argument to be false..... and it just eats at you for hours that I refuse to let you get away with your lie about rules trump RIGHTS crap.......

The property owner has the right to control who uses his property by instituting rules that decree who has, and who hasn't, access to his property. When you enter property that has a no guns rule while carrying a gun (doesn't matter if the gun is in plain sight or if you ... sneak... the gun in hidden in your pocket) you are effectively infringing upon the property owner's right to deny you access to his property by making your own "I am allowed to carry my gun" rule.

It has been asked many times Axe.... if you truly believe that you have the right to carry a gun onto/into property that the property owner has exercised his right to control who does NOT have access to his property with a no guns rule why do you always reference ... sneaking.. the gun in instead of just carrying it in plain view? After all... if your right to bear arms doesn't infringe on the property owner's right to not allow folks who bear arms onto/into his property why is it necessary to .... sneak... the gun in?

Or does "concealed means concealed" actually translate into... "I can ignore the property owner's rights as long as he doesn't catch me doing it"?

Oh... and the discussion located here:

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/firearm-politics-2nd-amendment-issues/44953-no-gun-weapon-signs-businesses-compliance.html

has many cites and links that show folks who ... sneak... guns into/onto property with no guns rules are infringing upon the property owner's right to control who is allowed on/in said property. And that discussion also shows the startling lack of cites and/or links offered by you in support of your argument. All you ever offer is a constant repeating of your belief/opinion along with insults and ridicule for those who disagree with you..... and no cites and/or links to any supporting facts.

So Axe... got any cites and/or links to actual facts that support your contention that ... sneaking... in a gun doesn't infringe upon the property owner's right to ban people who... sneak... in guns? Cites and links Axe.... if you can't provide supporting evidence all you have is your opinion and the hope that lots of insults and ridicule will shift the spotlight away from your inability to provide cites and/or links to actual proof.

Cites and links Axe.............

 

[Bikenut]

No, they hold NO legal weight, your not trespassing until your asked to leave and don't. Gun or otherwise.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

Please think about that for a moment since being asked to leave (it isn't being .. asked .. to leave but is being required to leave) actually means you were ... caught... already in the act of trespassing. After all... if you weren't already trespassing then you wouldn't be being told to leave.

Trespass means being on/in property you do not have any right or permission to be on/in... and if there is a no guns rule then those carrying guns do not have permission and are.. trespassing whether they get caught or not.

Link Removed

Trespass to Land
-snip-
Every unlawful entry onto another's property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property.
-snip-

and here is a cite and a link for the benefit of Axeanda45
Link Removed

Continuing Trespass

A trespass is continuing when the offending object remains on the property of the person entitled to possession.
-snip-

For a better understanding about trespass please follow the link above.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Please think about that for a moment since being asked to leave (it isn't being .. asked .. to leave but is being required to leave) actually means you were ... caught... already in the act of trespassing. After all... if you weren't already trespassing then you wouldn't be being told to leave.

Trespass means being on/in property you do not have any right or permission to be on/in... and if there is a no guns rule then those carrying guns do not have permission and are.. trespassing whether they get caught or not.

Link Removed

Trespass to Land
-snip-
Every unlawful entry onto another's property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property.
-snip-

and here is a cite and a link for the benefit of Axeanda45
Link Removed

Continuing Trespass

A trespass is continuing when the offending object remains on the property of the person entitled to possession.
-snip-

For a better understanding about trespass please follow the link above.

You might want to research a little bit more what constitutes notification that you are trespassing because your theory is incorrect, in Washington anyway:

The "no guns rule" must also carry the notification that failure to obey the rules will be considered trespassing:

http://www.seattle.gov/police/prevention/business/trespass.htm

Trespassing in Washington law is:

RCW 9A.52.080: Criminal trespass in the second degree.

RCW 9A.52.080
Criminal trespass in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.

If I carry a gun past a "no guns" sign on property where firearms are not prohibited by law, I am not breaking any laws by doing so. I am simply in possession of an object that the owner of the property does not want me to possess. That in no way means that the owner of the property has removed my permission to be on the property until they tell me that they do not want my person on the property. There is a whole world of difference in saying that my firearm is not welcome on the property and saying that I am not welcome on the property.

Also, you will notice in the definitions section of trespassing:

RCW 9A.52.010
Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this chapter:

(1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, directly or by electronic means.

(2) "Computer program" means an ordered set of data representing coded instructions or statements that when executed by a computer cause the computer to process data.

(3) "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions that are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalized manner and are intended for use in a computer.

(4) "Enter." The word "enter" when constituting an element or part of a crime, shall include the entrance of the person, or the insertion of any part of his or her body, or any instrument or weapon held in his or her hand and used or intended to be used to threaten or intimidate a person or to detach or remove property;

(5) "Enters or remains unlawfully." A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he or she is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

The unwanted presence of a firearm is only trespassing by itself if it is "held in his or her hand and used or intended to be used to threaten or intimidate a person or to detach or remove property"

 

[Bikenut]

You might want to research a little bit more what constitutes notification that you are trespassing because your theory is incorrect, in Washington anyway:

The "no guns rule" must also carry the notification that failure to obey the rules will be considered trespassing:

http://www.seattle.gov/police/prevention/business/trespass.htm

Trespassing in Washington law is:

RCW 9A.52.080: Criminal trespass in the second degree.



If I carry a gun past a "no guns" sign on property where firearms are not prohibited by law, I am not breaking any laws by doing so. I am simply in possession of an object that the owner of the property does not want me to possess. That in no way means that the owner of the property has removed my permission to be on the property until they tell me that they do not want my person on the property. There is a whole world of difference in saying that my firearm is not welcome on the property and saying that I am not welcome on the property.

Also, you will notice in the definitions section of trespassing:


The unwanted presence of a firearm is only trespassing by itself if it is "held in his or her hand and used or intended to be used to threaten or intimidate a person or to detach or remove property"

I'm well aware that different States have different laws that govern what constitutes "notification" yet "notification" means either being notified that bringing in a gun will be considered trespass or being asked to leave because a person trespassed by bringing in a gun. Both still mean that bringing in the gun IS ... trespass. The only difference being what the legal definition of "notification" is.

Please note ...

RCW 9A.52.010
Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this chapter:

(1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, directly or by electronic means.

(2) "Computer program" means an ordered set of data representing coded instructions or statements that when executed by a computer cause the computer to process data.

(3) "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions that are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalized manner and are intended for use in a computer.

(4) "Enter." The word "enter" when constituting an element or part of a crime, shall include the entrance of the person, or the insertion of any part of his or her body, or any instrument or weapon held in his or her hand and used or intended to be used to threaten or intimidate a person or to detach or remove property;

(5) "Enters or remains unlawfully." A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he or she is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

Isn't trespassing unlawful making entering against the property owner's no guns rule entering unlawfully?

I still maintain that the act of trespass occurs when the person carries the gun into/onto property that has a no guns rule... "being asked to leave" would be having been caught in the act of trespass. And the law(s) are what attach penalties to having trespassed/caught in the act of trespass. If a State has laws that define what constitutes "notification" then that still apples to the act of trespass itself.

Also..

Originally posted by NavyLCDR
If I carry a gun past a "no guns" sign on property where firearms are not prohibited by law, I am not breaking any laws by doing so. I am simply in possession of an object that the owner of the property does not want me to possess. That in no way means that the owner of the property has removed my permission to be on the property until they tell me that they do not want my person on the property. There is a whole world of difference in saying that my firearm is not welcome on the property and saying that I am not welcome on the property.

Ummm... isn't the property owner telling you that you personally as an individual are not welcome on his property as long as you are carrying a gun? And that he is removing your permission to be on the property as long as you are carrying a gun? In short the owner isn't removing permission for a gun to be on/in his property... he is removing his permission for you as a person because you are carrying a gun.

 

[SlyFerret]

I do not. I respect their right to be stupid and I support it by going out of my way to go elsewhere. Most places around here aren't posted, so it isn't really all that inconvenient.

If I have no other option, at school, for instance, I secure my weapon on my vehicle.

-SF


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tattedupboy]

If I see a sign, I ignore it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Eidolon]

Do you guys ever get tired of this pissing contest?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm well aware that different States have different laws that govern what constitutes "notification" yet "notification" means either being notified that bringing in a gun will be considered trespass or being asked to leave because a person trespassed by bringing in a gun. Both still mean that bringing in the gun IS ... trespass. The only difference being what the legal definition of "notification" is.

Please note ...

Isn't trespassing unlawful making entering against the property owner's no guns rule entering unlawfully?

In Washington state, it is not. What it IS is carrying a gun against the property owner's desires, which is not a crime unless you are carrying the gun in hand with the intention of intimidating or committing a crime with it. It does not become trespassing unless the person in charge of the property asks you to leave and you do not, or if the property owner posts it conspicuously that carrying a gun on the property will be considered trespassing (such as with a sign in my example).

I still maintain that the act of trespass occurs when the person carries the gun into/onto property that has a no guns rule... "being asked to leave" would be having been caught in the act of trespass. And the law(s) are what attach penalties to having trespassed/caught in the act of trespass. If a State has laws that define what constitutes "notification" then that still apples to the act of trespass itself.

And it is certainly within your right to maintain that, but in Washington state that isn't the way the law works.

Also..
Ummm... isn't the property owner telling you that you personally as an individual are not welcome on his property as long as you are carrying a gun? And that he is removing your permission to be on the property as long as you are carrying a gun? In short the owner isn't removing permission for a gun to be on/in his property... he is removing his permission for you as a person because you are carrying a gun.

Nope. Real life example - I was open carrying in a mall in Washington because there was no sign conspicuously posted saying anything about "no guns" or "trespassing". Two police officers approached me and let me know that the mall had a no firearms policy, but if I would just cover up my gun nobody would care. I said, "I didn't see any signs, but I will conceal my gun and check again on the way out." The officers said, "Thanks, have a nice day." I flipped my shirt over my gun and on the way out looked for and found a sign posted on a wall beside the doors that was "Code of Conduct" for the mall. In the middle of the lengthy sign was "No weapons or firearms allowed." So why didn't the officers write me a citation for trespassing or even tell me I had to leave because I had a firearm? Because they knew that without a member of management actually asking me to leave there was no crime being committed.

Another example is St. John v. Alamogordo, New Mexico. If Mr. St. John was trespassing by carrying his gun against the theater's management's desire, as you claim, then there would be no way that St. John would have won his claim against Alamogordo because he would have been committing the crime of trespassing which would have justified his detainment. But that wasn't the case and St. John won his case against the police and the city paid him $21,000 to not file a civil lawsuit.

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/St.John v Alamogordo Police Order.pdf
Link Removed

Do you guys ever get tired of this pissing contest?

Nope. In fact, I enjoy it.

 

[gundaddypv]

Of course I do... so long as they don't have a metal detector. I'd rather get a ticket for trespassing than leave my family without their father, husband. A sign is a sign - not a cop.

 

[BluesStringer]

Do you guys ever get tired of this pissing contest?

Don't you ever get tired of starting new pissing contests where one (or more) already exist?

 

[Firefighterchen]

In Washington state, it is not. What it IS is carrying a gun against the property owner's desires, which is not a crime unless you are carrying the gun in hand with the intention of intimidating or committing a crime with it. It does not become trespassing unless the person in charge of the property asks you to leave and you do not, or if the property owner posts it conspicuously that carrying a gun on the property will be considered trespassing (such as with a sign in my example).



And it is certainly within your right to maintain that, but in Washington state that isn't the way the law works.



Nope. Real life example - I was open carrying in a mall in Washington because there was no sign conspicuously posted saying anything about "no guns" or "trespassing". Two police officers approached me and let me know that the mall had a no firearms policy, but if I would just cover up my gun nobody would care. I said, "I didn't see any signs, but I will conceal my gun and check again on the way out." The officers said, "Thanks, have a nice day." I flipped my shirt over my gun and on the way out looked for and found a sign posted on a wall beside the doors that was "Code of Conduct" for the mall. In the middle of the lengthy sign was "No weapons or firearms allowed." So why didn't the officers write me a citation for trespassing or even tell me I had to leave because I had a firearm? Because they knew that without a member of management actually asking me to leave there was no crime being committed.

Another example is St. John v. Alamogordo, New Mexico. If Mr. St. John was trespassing by carrying his gun against the theater's management's desire, as you claim, then there would be no way that St. John would have won his claim against Alamogordo because he would have been committing the crime of trespassing which would have justified his detainment. But that wasn't the case and St. John won his case against the police and the city paid him $21,000 to not file a civil lawsuit.

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/St.John v Alamogordo Police Order.pdf
Link Removed



Nope. In fact, I enjoy it.

I thought these private property threads were involving posted no gun signs?

In Washington, is trespassing charged by the property owner or the police? Whenever the company I work for charges transients with trespassing, police just take them into custody...so I'm not sure why in your case you would think the police would charge you with trespass? I would think it would be up to the mall management whether or not they wanted to charge you with trespass...

St John sued for fourth amendment violations right? What does that have to do with trespassing? The theatre management told police to escort him out, they didn't ask John to leave, they forced him to...his case wasn't about trespass though, it was about unreasonable search and seizure.

Maybe just need more explanation.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[NavyLCDR]

I thought these private property threads were involving posted no gun signs?

In Washington, is trespassing charged by the property owner or the police? Whenever the company I work for charges transients with trespassing, police just take them into custody...so I'm not sure why in your case you would think the police would charge you with trespass? I would think it would be up to the mall management whether or not they wanted to charge you with trespass...

Private parties cannot file criminal charges. If you are a victim of a crime, such as trespassing, you call the police and they take your statement and gather evidence. The statements and evidence is presented to a court that will determine if they are sufficient to charge the defendant with committing a crime. If the court determines that the statements and evidence is sufficient the court will either issue a summons to the defendant or an arrest warrant.

If the misdemeanor is committed in the presence of a sworn law enforcement officer or a judge, they can skip the step of presenting statements and evidence to a court and issue the summons to appear in court directly to the defendant - this is commonly known as receiving a citation.

In my case of possessing the firearm in the mall, the police officers knew that there were signs posted prohibiting firearms at the mall, but they also knew that I was not committing any criminal act by possessing the firearm in violation of the posted sign and would have no ability to issue a citation. In the case of St. John v. Alamogordo the police detained St. John illegally because he in the theater, just like I in the mall, was not committing any crime.

St John sued for fourth amendment violations right? What does that have to do with trespassing? The theatre management told police to escort him out, they didn't ask John to leave, they forced him to...his case wasn't about trespass though, it was about unreasonable search and seizure.

Maybe just need more explanation.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

It is the same basic principal as to whether a crime is being committed or not. Due to the fact that no member of management had notified St. John that his invitation to be on the property had been revoked, he was not guilty of a crime, and therefore there was no justification for the police to detain him.

A sign that says "no guns" or "no skateboarding" or "no running" or "no backpacks" simply is an expression of the desire of the property manager that an object or behavior not be carried or performed on the premises. Failure to adhere to that request, by itself, in no way shape or form constitutes trespassing. The management must notify the person that their invitation to remain on the premises has been revoked and they must be requested to leave the premises.

Seattle Police Department summarizes the requirements for trespassing:
Seattle Trespass Program

Individuals who receive notice and subsequently violate conditions of entry may be arrested for criminal trespass. Violators must first be warned that their privilege to be on the property is revoked by someone with authority to do so. For those properties subject to the Program, Seattle Police Department or someone with the authority to revoke that privilege may issue a warning. Properties not subject to the Program may develop their own protocols to regulate the conditions of their property. In addition, someone with the authority to revoke the privilege must be willing to testify that the person violated the conditions of entry, had their privileges revoked, and then refused to leave or returned to the property.

and

The Trespass Warning Program does not replace codified law. Officers may still arrest for violations of SMC 12A.08.040 (Criminal Trespass) on private property regardless of the existence of a trespass warning agreement if someone with the authority to revoke privilege has previously admonished the individual from the property and is willing to testify as a witness.

There are two distinct and separate elements for trespassing:

1. Violating conditions of entry.
2. Notifying that privilege to remain on the premises has been revoked.

Element #1, by itself, does not constitute trespassing. As noted by Seattle Police Department, visitors must be notified by a person with authority that their privilege to remain on the property has been revoked and they must be afforded the opportunity to leave the premises. Only when they refuse to leave is it trespassing.

Again, I am only talking about Washington state. Some states (such as Texas) do have statutes that define carrying a firearm past a properly posted sign as a criminal offense by itself. Some states also have statutes that define any entry without specific authority onto certain premises to automatically be trespassing - railroad right of ways/property is a common one.