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

[Firefighterchen]

No one in the restaurant had a problem with it, and you personaly know this how? or were you there.............no amount of analizing, name calling or smart mouth talk will I back off my opinion, a bunch of guys carrying ARs in a restaurant to prove a point, hurts gun owners in all states..........I know its my opinion just like all you guys posts are yours..... but one off the cool things about getting older is not giving a flaming **** about somebodys personal opinion

Go ahead and find someone in the restaurant that had a problem with it...I haven't found anyone in any of the literature I've read. I know you won't be able to come up with anything because the MDA doesn't post that information in their emails ... You can have your anti gun vomit you call an opinion. So can the MDA...and I'll be there to make sure you all sound as stupid as possible.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Rhino]

No one in the restaurant had a problem with it, and you personaly know this how? or were you there.............

I don't think the Chipotle's employees would have asked the gun owners to pose for pictures had someone been bothered by their presence.
.

no amount of analizing, name calling or smart mouth talk will I back off my opinion, a bunch of guys carrying ARs in a restaurant to prove a point, hurts gun owners in all states..........I know its my opinion just like all you guys posts are yours..... but one off the cool things about getting older is not giving a flaming **** about somebodys personal opinion

So just agree to disagree. It works for me. I don't think they hurt me at all, but I don't begrudge you your right to disagree.

 

[whodat2710]

no amount of analizing, name calling or smart mouth talk will I back off my opinion, a bunch of guys carrying ARs in a restaurant to prove a point, hurts gun owners in all states..........I know its my opinion just like all you guys posts are yours..... but one off the cool things about getting older is not giving a flaming **** about somebodys personal opinion

How dare someone exercise their rights in a perfectly legal manner when it offends me!!! Liberals are so tolerant...

 

[kelcarry]

Go ahead and find someone in the restaurant that had a problem with it...I haven't found anyone in any of the literature I've read. I know you won't be able to come up with anything because the MDA doesn't post that information in their emails ... You can have your anti gun vomit you call an opinion. So can the MDA...and I'll be there to make sure you all sound as stupid as possible.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

I am not sure if I have replied on this thread--too many to check on--so excuse me if I repeat. I do not believe that there would be any problem with "someone in the restaurant" causing a big change in anyone's life based on avoiding a legit "no gun" sign. To me, the big elephant in the room is once you leave the restaurant. You have a firearm on your person contrary to the law and you have an altercation that forces use of firearm to protect yourself. Police investigate the incident and now it becomes evident that you "broke the law" in the first place; if you had not "broken the law", the use of your firearm would never have happened since the firearm would not have been on your person in the first place. Leaving aside the fact that you are now alive and the BG maybe is dead and you might have died if you did not have the firearm, you are now open to all the criminal and civil penalties available by prosecutors and BG family members. The indisputable fact that you might have died might mitigate some of the criminal charges (if any) but you are about to lose your family fortune in a civil action. Once you crossed the line and decided that the law does not apply to you for any reason, you are very liable and very vulnerable to the court system and, IMO, you will lose. Granted it saved your life but if the confrontation had just caused injury your explanations will fall on very deaf ears.

 

[Harry Carry]

I am not sure if I have replied on this thread--too many to check on--so excuse me if I repeat. I do not believe that there would be any problem with "someone in the restaurant" causing a big change in anyone's life based on avoiding a legit "no gun" sign. To me, the big elephant in the room is once you leave the restaurant. You have a firearm on your person contrary to the law and you have an altercation that forces use of firearm to protect yourself. Police investigate the incident and now it becomes evident that you "broke the law" in the first place; if you had not "broken the law", the use of your firearm would never have happened since the firearm would not have been on your person in the first place. Leaving aside the fact that you are now alive and the BG maybe is dead and you might have died if you did not have the firearm, you are now open to all the criminal and civil penalties available by prosecutors and BG family members. The indisputable fact that you might have died might mitigate some of the criminal charges (if any) but you are about to lose your family fortune in a civil action. Once you crossed the line and decided that the law does not apply to you for any reason, you are very liable and very vulnerable to the court system and, IMO, you will lose. Granted it saved your life but if the confrontation had just caused injury your explanations will fall on very deaf ears.

In a word...sad.

 

[Axeanda45]

I am not sure if I have replied on this thread--too many to check on--so excuse me if I repeat. I do not believe that there would be any problem with "someone in the restaurant" causing a big change in anyone's life based on avoiding a legit "no gun" sign. To me, the big elephant in the room is once you leave the restaurant. You have a firearm on your person contrary to the law and you have an altercation that forces use of firearm to protect yourself. Police investigate the incident and now it becomes evident that you "broke the law" in the first place; if you had not "broken the law", the use of your firearm would never have happened since the firearm would not have been on your person in the first place. Leaving aside the fact that you are now alive and the BG maybe is dead and you might have died if you did not have the firearm, you are now open to all the criminal and civil penalties available by prosecutors and BG family members. The indisputable fact that you might have died might mitigate some of the criminal charges (if any) but you are about to lose your family fortune in a civil action. Once you crossed the line and decided that the law does not apply to you for any reason, you are very liable and very vulnerable to the court system and, IMO, you will lose. Granted it saved your life but if the confrontation had just caused injury your explanations will fall on very deaf ears.

*blink* *blink*


So.......................................................

You are actually saying that a person who is NOW, in your example, LEGALLY carrying a firearm (since they now, again in YOUR EXAMPLE, are no longer somewhere with a no-guns sign) and are forced to use it, they are somehow NOW NOT LEGALLY CARRYING IT AT THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME THAT THEY ARE LEGALLY CARRYING????? Talk about not having a clue.... How many drinks did you have before posting this?

 

[Firefighterchen]

I am not sure if I have replied on this thread--too many to check on--so excuse me if I repeat. I do not believe that there would be any problem with "someone in the restaurant" causing a big change in anyone's life based on avoiding a legit "no gun" sign. To me, the big elephant in the room is once you leave the restaurant. You have a firearm on your person contrary to the law and you have an altercation that forces use of firearm to protect yourself. Police investigate the incident and now it becomes evident that you "broke the law" in the first place; if you had not "broken the law", the use of your firearm would never have happened since the firearm would not have been on your person in the first place. Leaving aside the fact that you are now alive and the BG maybe is dead and you might have died if you did not have the firearm, you are now open to all the criminal and civil penalties available by prosecutors and BG family members. The indisputable fact that you might have died might mitigate some of the criminal charges (if any) but you are about to lose your family fortune in a civil action. Once you crossed the line and decided that the law does not apply to you for any reason, you are very liable and very vulnerable to the court system and, IMO, you will lose. Granted it saved your life but if the confrontation had just caused injury your explanations will fall on very deaf ears.

You lost me.

Who is "breaking the law?"

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[whodat2710]

I am not sure if I have replied on this thread--too many to check on--so excuse me if I repeat. I do not believe that there would be any problem with "someone in the restaurant" causing a big change in anyone's life based on avoiding a legit "no gun" sign. To me, the big elephant in the room is once you leave the restaurant. You have a firearm on your person contrary to the law and you have an altercation that forces use of firearm to protect yourself. Police investigate the incident and now it becomes evident that you "broke the law" in the first place; if you had not "broken the law", the use of your firearm would never have happened since the firearm would not have been on your person in the first place. Leaving aside the fact that you are now alive and the BG maybe is dead and you might have died if you did not have the firearm, you are now open to all the criminal and civil penalties available by prosecutors and BG family members. The indisputable fact that you might have died might mitigate some of the criminal charges (if any) but you are about to lose your family fortune in a civil action. Once you crossed the line and decided that the law does not apply to you for any reason, you are very liable and very vulnerable to the court system and, IMO, you will lose. Granted it saved your life but if the confrontation had just caused injury your explanations will fall on very deaf ears.

This must have been one of those things that sounded good in your head but didn't exactly translate into the English Language very well. I think I know what you were trying to say, but a carrying into a place with a gun-buster sign is not "illegal", as you could not be prosecuted for it, just asked to leave. Could a lawyer use it to prejudice a jury? sure, but a decent lawyer could defeat that.

 

[kelcarry]

In SC gun laws, the concealed carry of a firearm in a business that has the proper signage that firearms are prohibited, as defined by the gun law, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or prison. It is a crime and it is illegal. It is so nice to know that repliers have this responsiblity to interpret the law the way they want to interpret it, even if it violates the law. It would not surprise me to find that some of you also feel that one little bottle of beer or glass of wine is Ok, as well. If a business is so concerned by the presence of said firearm, they surely can call the police and have the CCer arrested. If a confrontation occurs after leaving the premises, particularly if it is in the immediate vicinity of an establishment that serves alcohol and investigation reveals that he has imbibed before the confrontation that included the illegal possession of the firearm in the business, there is a real possibility that he will be charged with a crime and, most certainly, if injury occurs to others in the confrontation, BGs or not, a civil case can be the result. I am so glad repliers are so sure of their legal expertise and literally are willing to bet their house on the results. Find my reply to be silly or stupid--I guess we agree to disagree, not only about the interpretation of the law but about who is silly and who is irresponsible. I'm done with this thread and I hope y'all have had your say, as well. No more on this from me.

 

[whodat2710]

In SC gun laws, the concealed carry of a firearm in a business that has the proper signage that firearms are prohibited, as defined by the gun law, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or prison. It is a crime and it is illegal. It is so nice to know that repliers have this responsiblity to interpret the law the way they want to interpret it, even if it violates the law...

If you want to be a smart a$$ about it, here is the SC law regarding signage prohibiting Concealed Carry:
South Carolina Legislature Online - Code of Laws Title 23 Chapter 31 Firearms

SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.

(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.

(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:

(1) clearly visible from outside the building;

(2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;

(3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

(4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;

(5) a diameter of a circle; and

(6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.

I have seen several places here in SC that are "posted" but their signage does not meet the above requirements and therefore do NOT carry the weight of law. In other words, if it does not have the proper sign size, font, wording, is not clearly visible and or is not the right friggin' height above the ground if is a worthless sticker. And for your information, every state has different laws, so don't start yappin' about how "nice it is" that we are advising people to break the law unless you are conversant with every gun law in all 50 states, the District etc.

 

[Rhino]

In SC gun laws, the concealed carry of a firearm in a business that has the proper signage that firearms are prohibited, as defined by the gun law, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or prison. It is a crime and it is illegal. It is so nice to know that repliers have this responsiblity to interpret the law the way they want to interpret it, even if it violates the law. It would not surprise me to find that some of you also feel that one little bottle of beer or glass of wine is Ok, as well. If a business is so concerned by the presence of said firearm, they surely can call the police and have the CCer arrested. If a confrontation occurs after leaving the premises, particularly if it is in the immediate vicinity of an establishment that serves alcohol and investigation reveals that he has imbibed before the confrontation that included the illegal possession of the firearm in the business, there is a real possibility that he will be charged with a crime and, most certainly, if injury occurs to others in the confrontation, BGs or not, a civil case can be the result. I am so glad repliers are so sure of their legal expertise and literally are willing to bet their house on the results. Find my reply to be silly or stupid--I guess we agree to disagree, not only about the interpretation of the law but about who is silly and who is irresponsible. I'm done with this thread and I hope y'all have had your say, as well. No more on this from me.

This isn't a matter of interpretation. The post you responded to wasn't about a business in South Carolina, nor did the business in question have a sign prohibiting guns. Nobody was breaking any laws. If you want to discuss the legality of signs in South Carolina that's fine. But that isn't the topic of this thread. Nor does an interpretation of South Carolina law have any applicability to the topic at hand. You aren't just out in left field. You can't even find the ball park.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It would not surprise me to find that some of you also feel that one little bottle of beer or glass of wine is Ok, as well.

It shouldn't surprise you considering how many threads there are on that topic as well.....

 

[Aurelius]

As a general rule, I respect the request. If I travel to a state where signage has no legal weight, I respect the property owners request. You never know how they will react if they find out. They might politely ask you to leave, or they can call the cops and file trespassing charges. I'm not sure it's worth the potential trouble. In NM signage has legal weight so it's not even a question.

 

[apvbguy]

As a general rule, I respect the request. If I travel to a state where signage has no legal weight, I respect the property owners request. You never know how they will react if they find out. They might politely ask you to leave, or they can call the cops and file trespassing charges. I'm not sure it's worth the potential trouble. In NM signage has legal weight so it's not even a question.

FWIW: in FLA before the property owner can file any trespassing charges they first have to request you to leave.

 

[Aurelius]

FWIW: in FLA before the property owner can file any trespassing charges they first have to request you to leave.

Which is fine, and I apologize if I mistyped. Yes, people usually ask you to leave first before contacting the police for trespassing. However, some might be alarmed by the gun and call the cops first which creates more problems for you and me.

 

[whodat2710]

FWIW: in FLA before the property owner can file any trespassing charges they first have to request you to leave.

I believe that would apply in most states. There is always "I didn't see the sign", but it's hard to refute the owner asking you to leave.

 

[apvbguy]

Which is fine, and I apologize if I mistyped. Yes, people usually ask you to leave first before contacting the police for trespassing. However, some might be alarmed by the gun and call the cops first which creates more problems for you and me.

what problems? I once had someone call the cops because of an inadvertent exposure of my weapon, NBD, the cops responded, asked me if I was carrying, I said yes, he asked if I had a permit to carry, I said yes and offered to show it to him, he looked at it said thanks and have a nice day. No problems for anyone. You have a lot of ill informed preconceived notions rattling around your head, try gaining some real world experiences before blurting out the nonsense that you've been posting.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I don't ask trespassers to leave. I tell them to.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[golddigger14s]

I haven't read all 150+ posts. Basically no matter what the law is, if a business says no guns I will respect that and take my money elsewhere. For those that say they will just CC (out of sight, out of mind) are just telling the business you agree with their policy. I can't carry? You can't have my money - simple. It is their right which I will support, just not with my money.
In five years I've only had one place ask me to leave. After posting my experience on their facebook page the owner was tripping over himself to rectify the situation.

 

[apvbguy]

I don't ask trespassers to leave. I tell them to.

trespassers in your home is far different than trespassers in places where the public is invited into