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

[XD40scinNC]

Sadly those kinds of posts where the gun carrier gets all self righteously indignant about his right to bear arms being disrespected while he intentionally disrespects the private property rights of someone else are all too common.

So you also agree that with the Obama administration that "corporations are people"?

I virtually never go to a mall, but when I do I carry through doors that are not posted even knowing that "no weapons' is in the fine print of over 20+ rules posted at the door. NC law says the notice must be "conspicuous" and buried along with skateboards, smoking, pets, etc., in something that would take several minutes to read "ain't conspicuous"

And I don't feel I am disrespecting anyone's property rights, because it is owned by a corporation, not an individual.

 

[Oldgrunt]

Please cite the section of the US Code that you would be charged under for carrying in an UNPOSTED Post Office, or on the sidewalk adjoining that is not postal property? You won't be able to, because there is no such law...

Scott: You might want to look into this before you waltz into your local post office.


No guns on post office property, says U.S. appeals court
By Jonathan Stempel
A federal appeals court said a U.S. Postal Service regulation banning firearms on postal property is constitutional, and reversed a lower court ruling that would have let people keep weapons inside their vehicles in post office parking lots.

By a 2-1 vote on Friday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against Tab Bonidy, a licensed gun owner who said the restrictions violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Circuit Judge David Ebel said the right to carry firearms does not apply to federal buildings such as post offices, and that while it was a "closer question" he would not second-guess the Postal Service's extending the ban to its parking lots.

"The security of the postal building itself is integrally related to the security of the parking lot adjacent to it," Ebel wrote.

Bonidy, joined as a plaintiff by the National Association for Gun Rights, sued after learning he would be prosecuted if he carried a firearm into a post office in Avon, Colorado, near the Vail ski resort, or stored it in the post office parking lot while he went inside to pick up his mail.

"My clients are obviously disappointed, and we're weighing our options," said Steven Lechner, chief legal officer of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represented the plaintiffs.


Friday's decision partially reversed a 2013 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch in Denver.

Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented, saying he would have voided the regulation as applied to the parking lot.

The case is Bonidy et al v. U.S. Postal Service et al, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-1374.

No guns on post office property, says U.S. appeals court | Reuters

 

[bofh]

Please cite the section of the US Code that you would be charged under for carrying in an UNPOSTED Post Office, or on the sidewalk adjoining that is not postal property? You won't be able to, because there is no such law...

To add to Oldgrunt's post, I was surprised to see that no one has posted the applicable law yet:

39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on postal property.

(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

Bonidy, et al. v. United States Postal Service, et al. clarified the validity of this federal code and also clarified that it applies to public parking lots on USPS property.

Ignorance is not a defense for breaking a law. There is no federal law that requires a post office to display a NO FIREARMS sign. However, all post offices I have been to prominently display a notice at the entrance.

 

[Reba]

Apparently PO parking lot restriction isn't enforced everywhere. Unless a person makes a big show of stowing a weapon, who would even be aware of the gun?

In our area, not all post offices have their own stand alone parking lots. They share parking spaces with other businesses. One PO is simply a counter in the Ace hardware store so it uses that store's parking lot.

 

[Eidolon]

As a civilian my training has always emphasized that my handgun is a weapon of last resort. Engaging an active shooter would pretty much be my last option anyway so I had better have thought out some non firearms responses (like RUN AWAY) anyway.

I'm not much of a shopper/ club hopper / movie goer anyway but as I said I can't think of a single place I go to regularly that is posted but I'm pretty sure I'd honor the sign of I saw one.

 

[Reba]

In SC, the rules for signage are specific.

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.

(C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained in subsection (A) must be:

(1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;

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

(3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two inches wide;

(4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground;

(5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.

 

[bofh]

Apparently PO parking lot restriction isn't enforced everywhere. Unless a person makes a big show of stowing a weapon, who would even be aware of the gun?

In our area, not all post offices have their own stand alone parking lots. They share parking spaces with other businesses. One PO is simply a counter in the Ace hardware store so it uses that store's parking lot.

I actually haven't heard of a single case where someone was charged with carrying in a post office parking lot. Note that the prohibition only applies to parking lots that are owned by the USPS and not parking lots of a mall.

I also haven't heard of a single case here in Tennessee of someone being charged just for carrying in a posted area in general.

 

[PhillySoldier]

I actually haven't heard of a single case where someone was charged with carrying in a post office parking lot. Note that the prohibition only applies to parking lots that are owned by the USPS and not parking lots of a mall.

I also haven't heard of a single case here in Tennessee of someone being charged just for carrying in a posted area in general.

I know of one, it was somewhere on the west coast i think and winded up going to the state supreme court over it. It winded up actually being a postal employee that was leaving his firearm in his car in the parking lot. And you are right that it is in regards to if its there actual property and not a shared property such as a mall.

 

[Hatchetman]

There has to be an actual infringement (not a rule breaking) , an actual articulable INJURY or LOSS that can be shown before breaking someones rules could even be hinted at infringing on their rights.... a hidden gun or weapon harms no-one, injures no-one, infringes on NOTHING, hence, no rights have been trampled on... to say otherwise is pure bovine excrement and utter fallacy. Claim otherwise all you wish, you are still 100% wrong in your thinking (in fact, it shows you cannot even think clearly because your fantasies about rules cloud everything else)

 

[Robgmn]

There has to be an actual infringement (not a rule breaking) , an actual articulable INJURY or LOSS that can be shown before breaking someones rules could even be hinted at infringing on their rights.... a hidden gun or weapon harms no-one, injures no-one, infringes on NOTHING, hence, no rights have been trampled on... to say otherwise is pure bovine excrement and utter fallacy. Claim otherwise all you wish, you are still 100% wrong in your thinking (in fact, it shows you cannot even think clearly because your fantasies about rules cloud everything else)

Ahhh, the old "If you don't get caught, you're not breaking any rules" argument.
Bovine...fallacy indeed.

If I do 140 on an empty road and no one gets hurt, i haven't broken any rules, right?
Even if I get caught by a speedtrap camera, I shouldn't be issued a ticket because I haven't hurt anyone. Right.

Talk about living in a fantasy.
You exemplify it.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Hatchetman View Post
There has to be an actual infringement (not a rule breaking) , an actual articulable INJURY or LOSS that can be shown before breaking someones rules could even be hinted at infringing on their rights.... a hidden gun or weapon harms no-one, injures no-one, infringes on NOTHING, hence, no rights have been trampled on... to say otherwise is pure bovine excrement and utter fallacy. Claim otherwise all you wish, you are still 100% wrong in your thinking (in fact, it shows you cannot even think clearly because your fantasies about rules cloud everything else)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass

Trespass

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. Criminal trespasses, depending on the venue of jurisdiction and case circumstances, fall under different subsets of law. When a trespass is carried out against another person, rather than against his/her property, the trespasser is likely to be charged with assault or battery. Actions violating the real property of another are handled as Trespasses to Land. Violations to personal property are handled as torts.

Under Tort Law, a property owner may bring a Civil Law suit against a trespasser in order to recover damages or receive compensatory relief for injury suffered as a direct result of a trespass.
-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis....

Trespass isn't defined as damages. Trespass is defined as "the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission". If there are damages resulting from the act of trespass the property owner can sue the trespasser to recover damages.

The rules a property owner has are really what defines who has, and who doesn't have, his permission to enter. A "no guns" rule is the owner's way of telling folks that those who carry guns do not have his permission to enter the property. And those who enter carrying a gun are trespassing, regardless of if any damages result or not, because they do not have the owner's permission to enter.

Some people seem to think that if they aren't asked to leave then they aren't trespassing. The truth is if they are asked to leave it means they got caught already in the act of trespassing. Some State's laws stipulate legal penalties only apply after being asked to leave while other State's laws do not have that stipulation but when legal penalties apply does not define when trespass occurs. The penalties only define the punishment for being caught already in the act of trespass.

Oh... and all the ridicule and insults in the world will not change that nor will it justify the attitude that if you don't get caught concealed means concealed really means... sneaking... your gun in then there is "no harm, no foul" since the act of trespass isn't about getting caught but is about entering without permission and "is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership" whether you get caught or not. Getting caught only means there can/could be penalties assessed for trespassing.

Not to mention that insults and ridicule don't really say much about those being insulted and ridiculed but most definitely say a great deal about the person using those insults and ridicule in hopes of bolstering their argument.

 

[PhillySoldier]

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/post-office-law/

Most federal facilities are content with guns locked in the car while the obedient citizen submits to the imaginary security of a “no guns” policy. The Postal Service has a much more expansive policy. They have claimed regulatory authority through the parking lot and even to the public sidewalk beyond.

The federal statute defines a “facility” as a building or part of a building owned or leased by the federal government.8 The Postal Service regulation brazenly expands this law designed to ban weapons inside a building to the parking lot outside.9 The Postal Service is adamant that this makes driving into the parking lot with a gun anywhere in the car a federal crime. The Postal Service has their own police force and one would expect a great number of cases on this point.

Are You Illegally Carrying Concealed at the Post Office? - USA Carry

A fellow named Clarence Dorosan used to store his gun in his car while he went to work each day. Somehow, one of this supervisors found out he had a gun in his car and he was arrested and fired for having a gun on the property. I’ve added appellate ruling where the judges upheld his original conviction below this article.

 

[Hatchetman]

Trespass isnt a violation of rights... it is a violation of RULES.... no matter what some lawyers or idiots with robes say, just like SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means no law about Arms are constitutional, no matter how you or the courts or such try to word their way around it... Infringing/breaking/violating someones RULES in no way shape or form infringes on their RIGHTS.... IF what YOU SAY were true, then you could kill anyone you wish, for any reason whatsoever (thereby infringing on their RIGHT to life) while on your property, with absolutely NO REPERCUSSIONS from the law.... So, with just that, I have proven your ridiculous argument utterly void......

 

[Robgmn]

Trespass isnt a violation of rights... it is a violation of RULES.... no matter what some lawyers or idiots with robes say, just like SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means no law about Arms are constitutional, no matter how you or the courts or such try to word their way around it... Infringing/breaking/violating someones RULES in no way shape or form infringes on their RIGHTS.... IF what YOU SAY were true, then you could kill anyone you wish, for any reason whatsoever (thereby infringing on their RIGHT to life) while on your property, with absolutely NO REPERCUSSIONS from the law.... So, with just that, I have proven your ridiculous argument utterly void......

"Hatchetman", you are ill-informed and projecting an identity that indicates youth and lack of wisdom (whether you are young or not).
Trespass is indeed a violation of rights. It is a violation of one's right to private property. If you enter my property knowingly against my wishes, you are violating my right to said property.
If it's MY property, then I get to set the rules. If the rules include you not being there for any reason, and you violate the rule, you have infringed my rights, plain and simple.
I cannot infringe on your rights by taking your life just because you are on my property. However, my private property rights trump yours in the hierarchy of it. You have a right to carry, but I have the right to say you can't do so on my property.
Setting the rule doesn't deny you your right to carry. It denies you the right to be on my property if you're carrying. If you make the choice to be on my property, then you are first making a choice not to carry.

Remember, exercising your rights does NOT mean you can infringe upon other's rights (think 1A and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre).

 

[Bikenut]

Trespass isnt a violation of rights... it is a violation of RULES.... no matter what some lawyers or idiots with robes say, just like SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means no law about Arms are constitutional, no matter how you or the courts or such try to word their way around it... Infringing/breaking/violating someones RULES in no way shape or form infringes on their RIGHTS.... IF what YOU SAY were true, then you could kill anyone you wish, for any reason whatsoever (thereby infringing on their RIGHT to life) while on your property, with absolutely NO REPERCUSSIONS from the law.... So, with just that, I have proven your ridiculous argument utterly void......

Apparently it is legal to use deadly force against a trespasser in Texas....

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
-snip-

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
-snip-

One more time:
The RULES a property owner has are the criteria he sets forth as conditions that must be met before a person is given permission to enter. When a person violates the rules that person does not have permission to enter and is trespassing.

Trespassing is defined as:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass

Trespass

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.
Bold and size added by me for emphasis....

If that isn't a clear enough explanation then nothing will suffice.

 

[Reba]

The link mentioned the need for protection of mail trucks during loading and unloading on the PO parking lots. All the PO trucks in our area do that task inside the fenced in lot behind the building. None of the transfer work is done in the parking lot out front.

 

[Hatchetman]

Just because illegal laws that violate the constitution and individual rights exist, it doesnt make them moral or legal or constitutional.... using one as an excuse to further hide your head in the sand and stomp your feet and STILL exclaim that rules equal rights doesnt make it so...... Your views/stance on this subject are completely flawed, and you know it... our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS do not simply disappear when we step onto property someone else happens to own.....

 

[jmohme]

Just because illegal laws that violate the constitution and individual rights exist, it doesnt make them moral or legal or constitutional.... using one as an excuse to further hide your head in the sand and stomp your feet and STILL exclaim that rules equal rights doesnt make it so...... Your views/stance on this subject are completely flawed, and you know it... our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS do not simply disappear when we step onto property someone else happens to own.....

If the property owners wishes are clearly expressed, I don't believe that your individual rights disappear. You just can't exercise those rights on that persons property.
I do believe that a property owner does have the right to limit certain activities on their property, but regardless of that, If a property owner posts a sign that says "no pets". I do not bring my pets, or I go elsewhere. If a property owner posts a sign. "no shoes, no shirt, no service." I don't enter barefooted, or I go to the beach. If a property owner posts a sign. "no weapons" I respect their wishes and disarm, or more likely, go elsewhere.

 

[Robgmn]

Just because illegal laws that violate the constitution and individual rights exist, it doesnt make them moral or legal or constitutional.... using one as an excuse to further hide your head in the sand and stomp your feet and STILL exclaim that rules equal rights doesnt make it so...... Your views/stance on this subject are completely flawed, and you know it... our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS do not simply disappear when we step onto property someone else happens to own.....

Please elaborate a bit on "illegal laws".

No, your rights do not "disappear" when you step on private property, you FOREGO those rights as a condition of stepping on the property.
If you don't like the idea of foregoing your rights, then you stay off the property.

Look at this way: it is my right to carry a gun and shoot a gun uner 2A.
Let's assume you live in a jurisdiction where guns can be legally fired on your property.
By your logic, I could enter your property, set up a target, and practice my weak-hand point-shooting any time I want. And you can't ask me to leave.
Or, due to 1A, I could enter your property and proselytize with a megaphone and banners. And you can't ask me to leave.
How about me opening a lemonade stand or running a rummage sale in your driveway? And you can't ask me to leave.

Do you REALLY think that's how rights work?

There's a big difference in what is reality and what you WANT or HOPE or THINK should be reality.
Play the tough guy on the internet all you want, but at the end of the day you can put your WANTS/HOPES/THOUGHTS in one hand and take a crap in the other.
We all know which one will fill up first.
Oh, and just TRY to come on my property against my wishes. You'll end up with your rights intact.
But your new home will be in a concrete vault. Either one with metal bars for doors, or one that is well below ground level.

 

[SR9]

When I HAVE to go to a mall or business that is a NO GUNS sight, it really has to be a MUST DO situation. As for most retail establishments, I just refuse to spend my money there. Nobody has a business so great and so fantastic that you can't find some one else the does not have a NO GUNS sign plastered on the door. If I am asked to leave a business, I let them know, I will be taking my gun away, along with my money, credit and debit cards, and family. I will bad mouth them every where and cost them as much money and business as I can. It is my right as a free American covered by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution to do so. Hit them in the cash drawer.