Do you pay attention to the signs? Follow the law?

[CharlesMorrison]

You insist on spouting off about these "Private property rights" yet have never shown where they exist or that they trump anything... Why do you refuse to give us cites when asked, yet want me to do it?

Here is an example of private property rights.....

You walk into my backyard with a gun.
I tell you to leave if you plan on carrying a gun on my property.
You refuse, spouting about your second amendment rights.
I draw down on you and hold you at gun point.
The police and "medical" people are called and you are whisked away in a straight jacket.
I hope my explanation was not too technical for you.

Link Removed

 

[CharlesMorrison]

So, an OPINION of some "institute", even when it goes against nature (natural law) is proof of something? now, I dont care who you are, that right there is funny!!!!!

Link Removed
Lord have mercy.

 

[Farmhood]

Originally Posted by wmodavis
In my state, Colorado, signs do not necessarily have the weight of law. But if you are noted in a signed establishment carrying you may be asked to leave which if you refuse to do can be charged with criminal trespass. Just carrying into a signed place does not make you a criminal. Refusing to leave if asked makes you a bad guy.

Same applies in Florida, private establisments.

I copied this from the Maryland Shooters site. In our state it appears it would be considered misdemeanor trespass if you didn’t leave when instructed.


Some states give signs the force and effect of law, some don't. In all instances, however, an owner of property is free to eject or bar admission of any person if owner objects to the carry. In all instances, a refusal to honor a request to leave could constitute criminal trespass. The difference is for those states that give the signs the effect of law, the mere entry is unlawful, regardless of whether a request to leave and is a offense separate from and in addition to trespass. A very good discussion of the common law can be found in the 11th Circuit very recent decision in GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 2947817, C.A.11 (Ga.), July 20, 2012 (NO. 11-10387) (sustaining a state GA statute that recognized the right of property owner to refuse permission).

In MD, an inn keeper can eject a carrier as a matter of right. See MD Code Business Regulations Title 15 Subtitle 2 § 15-203. Providing of Lodging and Services
(a) Refusal. -- An innkeeper may refuse to provide lodging or services to or may remove from a lodging establishment an individual who: (b) the innkeeper reasonably believes possesses property that may be dangerous to other individuals, such as firearms or explosives;
The trespass statute can be found at MD Code, Criminal Law, § 6-403:
Section§ 6-403. Wanton trespass on private property
Prohibited--Entering and crossing property
(a) A person may not enter or cross over private property or board the boat or other marine vessel of another, after having been notified by the owner or the owner's agent not to do so, unless entering or crossing under a good faith claim of right or ownership.
Prohibited--Remaining on property

(b) A person may not remain on private property including the boat or other marine vessel of another, after having been notified by the owner or the owner's agent not to do so.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

If the Constitution is the chains on the government and not the private citizen, why can't business put up segregation signs? Ie: only whites, only blacks, only oriental?

 

[Bikenut]

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

If the Constitution is the chains on the government and not the private citizen, why can't business put up segregation signs? Ie: only whites, only blacks, only oriental?

The Constitution binds the government.. and laws bind citizens.

And just as there are laws that infringe upon exercising the right to bear arms by assessing penalties for bearing a concealed arm without a permit....

There are also laws that infringe upon exercising the private property right to restrict access to property by assessing penalties for restricting access to certain persons for certain reasons.

As unpopular as it might seem.... laws that restrict who and why a property owner can deny access to his property are just as much an infringement upon private property rights as are laws that restrict why, where, how, and who, can carry a gun are infringements upon the right to bear arms.

Please take note... take very special notice of the fact that I'm explaining the right of a private property owner to control who does what on/in his property .. but I am NOT not condoning nor did I say I agree with.. the property owner making rules that are based upon personal prejudice against people... or guns for that matter.

 

[Farmhood]

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

If the Constitution is the chains on the government and not the private citizen, why can't business put up segregation signs? Ie: only whites, only blacks, only oriental?

Good point, am I going down a rabbit trail thinking government should get it's nose out of business...but... freedom needs to run both ways. just askin?



OK I see..

bikenut
The Constitution binds the government.. and laws bind citizens.

And just as there are laws that infringe upon exercising the right to bear arms by assessing penalties for bearing a concealed arm without a permit....

There are also laws that infringe upon exercising the private property right to restrict access to property by assessing penalties for restricting access to certain persons for certain reasons.

As unpopular as it might seem.... laws that restrict who and why a property owner can deny access to his property are just as much an infringement upon private property rights as are laws that restrict why, where, how, and who, can carry a gun are infringements upon the right to bear arms.

Please take note... take very special notice of the fact that I'm explaining the right of a private property owner to control who does what on/in his property .. but I am NOT not condoning nor did I say I agree with.. the property owner making rules that are based upon personal prejudice against people... or guns for that matter.

 

[Axeanda45]

Here is an example of private property rights.....

You walk into my backyard with a gun.
I tell you to leave if you plan on carrying a gun on my property.
You refuse, spouting about your second amendment rights.
I draw down on you and hold you at gun point.
The police and "medical" people are called and you are whisked away in a straight jacket.
I hope my explanation was not too technical for you.

Link Removed

Here is an example for YOU... This thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with Private property.. it is about BUSINESS property that has INVITED the PUBLIC (which by any honest definition where your head isnt in a very dark and stinky place like some on here have shown is a permanent condition, would mean EVERYONE who can legally be out in PUBLIC without supervision) onto/into this BUSINESS property... If you are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, Dont ***** and moan when the public shows up....

 

[Bikenut]

Here is an example for YOU... This thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with Private property.. it is about BUSINESS property that has INVITED the PUBLIC (which by any honest definition where your head isnt in a very dark and stinky place like some on here have shown is a permanent condition, would mean EVERYONE who can legally be out in PUBLIC without supervision) onto/into this BUSINESS property... If you are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, Dont ***** and moan when the public shows up....

Business property IS private property and the public being invited does NOT mean the property owner cannot make the rules. This has been explained to you over and over but you simply refuse to believe it.

Now... again... please provide cites and/or links to verifiable sources to prove your assertion that a business isn't private property. You saying it doesn't make it so.. facts make it so.. and if you have facts that back up your assertions... facts that can be verified in actual law... then..

show us the facts.

Failure to provide cites and/or links to actual verifiable facts equals... failure to prove what you say is true.

And insults do not equate to facts...

 

[Firefighterchen]

Here is an example of private property rights.....

You walk into my backyard with a gun.
I tell you to leave if you plan on carrying a gun on my property.
You refuse, spouting about your second amendment rights.
I draw down on you and hold you at gun point.
The police and "medical" people are called and you are whisked away in a straight jacket.
I hope my explanation was not too technical for you.

Link Removed

Here is an example for YOU... This thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with Private property.. it is about BUSINESS property that has INVITED the PUBLIC (which by any honest definition where your head isnt in a very dark and stinky place like some on here have shown is a permanent condition, would mean EVERYONE who can legally be out in PUBLIC without supervision) onto/into this BUSINESS property... If you are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, Dont ***** and moan when the public shows up....

Luke can ban anybody he wants, for any reason. Your rights mean nothing to this property. If he doesn't want you to say something, which is a Right protected under the 1st amendment, you are gone. In fact there are specific rules that we are asked to follow when we sign up, if we don't want to follow those rules, we aren't invited to this forum. If we come in here anyways and break the rules, we are banned. Your Rights mean nothing here.

 

[Naybor]

Following Firefighterchen's lead, may I change the wording a little?

USA CARRY IS private property and the public being invited does NOT mean the property owner cannot make the rules. This has been explained to you over and over but you simply refuse to believe it.

Now... again... please provide cites and/or links to verifiable sources to prove your assertion that USA CARRY isn't private property. You saying it doesn't make it so.. facts make it so.. and if you have facts that back up your assertions... facts that can be verified in actual law... then..

show us the facts.

Failure to provide cites and/or links to actual verifiable facts equals... failure to prove what you say is true.

And insults do not equate to facts...

Please cite the law that proves the MODERATORS (The property owners or the agents of the property owner) cannot ban you OR control what you do or say while you are here. Signs are signs ~ just like no guns signs ~giving the rules of the individual business (PRIVATE PROPERTY).

Remember ignorance can be cured ~ stupid is forever.

 

[Rhino]

Business property IS private property and the public being invited does NOT mean the property owner cannot make the rules. This has been explained to you over and over but you simply refuse to believe it.

Now... again... please provide cites and/or links to verifiable sources to prove your assertion that a business isn't private property. You saying it doesn't make it so.. facts make it so.. and if you have facts that back up your assertions... facts that can be verified in actual law... then..

show us the facts.

Failure to provide cites and/or links to actual verifiable facts equals... failure to prove what you say is true.

And insults do not equate to facts...

I think you're wasting your time.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."
--- Old English Proverb

 

[tattedupboy]

Here in my corner of Indiana I don't see too many signs, but where I do, as long as it's not in a place that's otherwise off limits under the law, I usually ignore them. The way I see it, if they don't have metal detectors or security frisking patrons at the entrance, then they're not enforcing their policy. I see many on here talking about boycotting places with such signs. For me, it's just easier to keep my gun concealed and go about my business. Besides, if, for example, I see a McDonald's that is posted, I wouldn't consider boycotting because McDonald's is the only restaurant that sells big Macs, which I like. Same goes for my wireless carrier, Verizon Wireless; no other carrier has as much 4G LTE coverage as Verizon, and that's not something I'd be willing to give up on just because one of its stores has a sign on it.

 

[Bikenut]

Here in my corner of Indiana I don't see too many signs, but where I do, as long as it's not in a place that's otherwise off limits under the law, I usually ignore them. The way I see it, if they don't have metal detectors or security frisking patrons at the entrance, then they're not enforcing their policy. I see many on here talking about boycotting places with such signs. For me, it's just easier to keep my gun concealed and go about my business. Besides, if, for example, I see a McDonald's that is posted, I wouldn't consider boycotting because McDonald's is the only restaurant that sells big Macs, which I like. Same goes for my wireless carrier, Verizon Wireless; no other carrier has as much 4G LTE coverage as Verizon, and that's not something I'd be willing to give up on just because one of its stores has a sign on it.

In other words you will disrespect someone elses rights just because it is convenient for you to do so... yet you demand your right to carry a gun be respected.. even to the point where you will sneak it in where it is not wanted. And you will justify it with the excuse of requiring the property owner to set up a measure of security YOU consider acceptable... Do you realize you have absolutely NO RIGHT whatsoever for either you or your gun to be on/in that property in the first place... even if it is a business open to the public?

A general comment not directed at anyone in particular....

When we disrespect the rights of others while expecting our own rights be respected we become hypocrites demanding MY RIGHTS are more important than YOUR RIGHTS!....

Sadly there are many people who are so intent on making sure everyone else respects their rights they lose sight of the fact that other people have rights too.

 

[Bikenut]

I think you're wasting your time.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."
--- Old English Proverb

I'm wasting my time with those who do not understand what private property rights are... but by countering the misinformation I am presenting the truth for other people to see how wrong those who think their rights are more important than the rights of others are.

And if we don't respond to the BS crap with the truth then the BS crap can be thought to be the truth.... and that is how freedom is destroyed slowly over time with little bits of misinformation and/or twisted logic that goes uncontested.

Unfortunately many of us who know the truth and can present the truth get discouraged and give up thinking there isn't any point in trying to change the minds of those talking BS. But the one's talking BS aren't the important ones... it is those who hear and read that BS without seeing or hearing the actual truth ... are the important ones because if they don't hear the truth they become just another one spreading BS they think is the truth.

 

[anvil6]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and nothing below is legal advice.

Laws vary. Greatly. In "constitutional carry" jurisdictions there IS a "right" to carry. Where carry is constrained by license or permit, then there is a "privilege" to carry. Jurisdictions MAY (and do) restrict where such rights or privileges may be exercised.

Jurisdictions that empower "No Weapons" signs with the force of law also empower the poster of such a sign with the "right" to force their desire upon those entering. Entering such an establishment armed IS a criminal offense.

Jurisdictions where "No Weapons" signs do not have the force of law are allowing the poster the "privilege" of expressing their desire that those entering please do so unarmed. In MOST places, entry into such an establishment is NOT a criminal offense - followed closely by the caveat that refusal to leave when asked MAY be a criminal offense.

So, in some places those who ignore signs are committing criminal acts, and in other places ignoring the sign is not a criminal act.

B U T:

LAWS CHANGE. What WAS legal in "establishment X" yesterday may today get you a hefty fine, jail time, loss of your carry right/privilege AND lifetime loss of firearms ownership. Stay alert to changes!

Traveling in this crazy patchwork of laws? I'd err on the side of caution - meaning that unless there is a COMPELLING reason for me to enter a "gunbusters-posted" establishment I do not. If compelled to enter I will follow the force-of-law protocol. Reluctantly.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and nothing above is legal advice.

 

[Bikenut]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and nothing below is legal advice.

Laws vary. Greatly. In "constitutional carry" jurisdictions there IS a "right" to carry. Where carry is constrained by license or permit, then there is a "privilege" to carry. Jurisdictions MAY (and do) restrict where such rights or privileges may be exercised.

Jurisdictions that empower "No Weapons" signs with the force of law also empower the poster of such a sign with the "right" to force their desire upon those entering. Entering such an establishment armed IS a criminal offense.

Jurisdictions where "No Weapons" signs do not have the force of law are allowing the poster the "privilege" of expressing their desire that those entering please do so unarmed. In MOST places, entry into such an establishment is NOT a criminal offense - followed closely by the caveat that refusal to leave when asked MAY be a criminal offense.

So, in some places those who ignore signs are committing criminal acts, and in other places ignoring the sign is not a criminal act.

B U T:

LAWS CHANGE. What WAS legal in "establishment X" yesterday may today get you a hefty fine, jail time, loss of your carry right/privilege AND lifetime loss of firearms ownership. Stay alert to changes!

Traveling in this crazy patchwork of laws? I'd err on the side of caution - meaning that unless there is a COMPELLING reason for me to enter a "gunbusters-posted" establishment I do not. If compelled to enter I will follow the force-of-law protocol. Reluctantly.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and nothing above is legal advice.

I agree that everyone should know the applicable laws before they carry a gun... ALL the laws that apply.

However... please bear with me and allow me to expand upon what "rights" are... and the following isn't directed at any one individual or groups of individuals...

Rights.. any and all rights, whether free speech, the right to bear arms, or the private property owner's right to make the rules on/in his property, are absolute. In their pure form they exist and they will always exist. No one can take them away and we can never lose them. .... BUT!..

While we can never lose our rights and they can't be taken away... the use of them can be restricted by governments putting penalties upon the actual exercising of them. Such as carrying concealed without having the permission of the government's "permit"... or the government passing laws against a property owner denying access to certain protected groups of people (race, creed, religion). In other words... we still have the right but if we exercise it we will suffer the "infringement" of a penalty (fines and/or jail).

Now... A property owner who has a "no guns" rule has the right to make that rule whether his signs have the power of a law directly supporting that rule (no guns signs having the law behind them and entering with a gun is a gun crime)... or there is a law that indirectly supports his rule through a separate law like a trespass law (refusing to leave because you entered with a gun isn't a gun crime but is still a crime that resulted from entering with a gun).

Either way... ignoring the "no guns" sign can result in criminal charges....

And either way... the property owner still has the right to ban guns....

And I am not an attorney either.... but I understand that first there are rights in their absolute form and second there are infringements upon those rights called laws that put penalties upon actually exercising those rights. But the rights themselves still remain even if there are laws against actually exercising them.

Whether we ("we" as in "we the people") agree that those laws that infringe and restrict the exercising of a right, or put penalties upon using those rights in ways that cause harm to others, are good laws or bad laws is a whole different conversation.

And I apologize to everyone if that came across like a lecture since my intention was to explain... not sound like some stuffy professor.

 

[gejoslin]

In other words you will disrespect someone elses rights just because it is convenient for you to do so... yet you demand your right to carry a gun be respected.. even to the point where you will sneak it in where it is not wanted. And you will justify it with the excuse of requiring the property owner to set up a measure of security YOU consider acceptable... Do you realize you have absolutely NO RIGHT whatsoever for either you or your gun to be on/in that property in the first place... even if it is a business open to the public?

A general comment not directed at anyone in particular....

When we disrespect the rights of others while expecting our own rights be respected we become hypocrites demanding MY RIGHTS are more important than YOUR RIGHTS!....

Sadly there are many people who are so intent on making sure everyone else respects their rights they lose sight of the fact that other people have rights too.

I agree with Bikenut.
Here in Arkansas the "Guns are not allowed here" signs have to be worded the way it is in the law.
Sign's that are pictures with the circle with a line through them "do not meet code" and can be ignored.
I don't ignore them, I just take my business some where else!
Vote with your dollars! The best way to get your point across!

Just my policy and opinion,leasantry:

 

[tattedupboy]

In other words you will disrespect someone elses rights just because it is convenient for you to do so... yet you demand your right to carry a gun be respected.. even to the point where you will sneak it in where it is not wanted. And you will justify it with the excuse of requiring the property owner to set up a measure of security YOU consider acceptable... Do you realize you have absolutely NO RIGHT whatsoever for either you or your gun to be on/in that property in the first place... even if it is a business open to the public?

A general comment not directed at anyone in particular....

When we disrespect the rights of others while expecting our own rights be respected we become hypocrites demanding MY RIGHTS are more important than YOUR RIGHTS!....

Sadly there are many people who are so intent on making sure everyone else respects their rights they lose sight of the fact that other people have rights too.

If they don't know I'm carrying then I'm not being disrespectful. The only ones being disrespectful are the ones who raise a big stink about it. If I'm quiet about it, I'm protecting myself, and they don't know, so as far as I'm concerned, no one is being disrespected. Furthermore, neither me nor my concealed weapon that no one knows is even there are hurting anyone, so again, where's the disrespect? Now, if in the event I'm caught, and asked to leave, then yes I'll leave. But if I'm not, then I'll just go about my business, and nobody is hurt or harmed either way.

 

[Bikenut]

If they don't know I'm carrying then I'm not being disrespectful. The only ones being disrespectful are the ones who raise a big stink about it. If I'm quiet about it, I'm protecting myself, and they don't know, so as far as I'm concerned, no one is being disrespected. Furthermore, neither me nor my concealed weapon that no one knows is even there are hurting anyone, so again, where's the disrespect? Now, if in the event I'm caught, and asked to leave, then yes I'll leave. But if I'm not, then I'll just go about my business, and nobody is hurt or harmed either way.

The disrespect comes when you know the property owner has the right to ban your gun yet you decide that your rights are more important than his rights... and justify it by saying that if you sneak it in and no one knows you are disrespecting his rights then there is no disrespect. But you forgot one thing.... YOU know you are disrespecting his rights.

Even if you can "get away with it" ... YOU still know you are disrespecting the property owner's right. And the fact that you mentioned that ... if you are caught you would leave... indicates that you already know you are disrespecting the property owner's rights.

As for you keeping your ability to protect yourself? Don't go in/on the property that bans guns and you keep your right to bear arms while the property owner keeps his right to ban guns. Both of you are respecting the other's rights.

Thing is... many people think that just because a business is open to the public then the public has some kind of "right" to go in. But if the public had a "right" to be there then the business owner couldn't kick anyone out for almost any reason, and have them arrested for trespass if they don't leave.... could he? So the public does NOT have any "right" to be in/on someone elses private property even if it is a business open to the public. What they have is the businessman's "invitation" to enter contingent upon agreeing to abide by the businessman's rules while on/in his property.

Disobey the rules and the member of the public that was caught disrespecting the property owner's right to make the rules will be kicked out/off the property.

 

[Dunewolf]

Gonna go back and read more of this thread but wanted to post my current personal experiences.

Back before I applied for CPL, I was told something different then what the law turned into just before I applied. basically "what they dont know, dont hurt them!"
Since I applied, and since I was approved to carry, the laws have changed. Somewhat better, somewhat worse.
I grant I have to re-read the laws and am in process of doing my best to keep track of current law (thank you forums here and elsewhere)

I do try to look for signs that prohibit carry - When I see those signs, I avoid those places to do business unless I absolutely have to go to that place.
Current situation, While traveling to a local office - I looked for and did not see any signs, until after I was already well inside the premises that I did notice a sign - I was like ok, do I now go outside, disarm or do I just pretend I didnt know until such time as Im done and never come back.. I chose the later, as it was better then leaving a loaded firearm in a potentially unsecured environment (vehicle with only 1 small lockbox, had 2 pocket .380s)

And then their was another passing experience few months back at Gander Mtn, Flint - I was Carrying, saw the sign, went back to car to secure my firearm - went back in - asked about the sign and made comments. Ive been back twice to the store and the sign was removed, first time back after my comments - The sign was changed to say CPL carry welcomed!
but my last trip I didn't see any sign. First time I was their, was to check prices and view some recent firearms, 2nd time I went back after hearing the sign was changed, 3rd time was due to my interest in purchasing a good safe, and was amazed at the liberty safes they had for decent prices (far better then ive seen in 3 years of looking at safes)

So I try to follow the rule of law, and original intent of law - without getting into trouble - and I also look for signs when im thinking about it - but lately ive seen less and less signs prohibiting carry - and when i do - I make note to not go back to such places until those signs are removed!

And that would include a doctors office, im just lucky there is no signage saying I cant.

But I do like knowing I can defend myself if need be - and while I follow laws, I sometimes have to do the "don't know, don't hurt them" to get out of such places that decide to have signs in bad locations (ie where no-one can see them without entering).

*edit addition*
having had experience with violent crime, in past, to myself, and family members - I understand why criminals enjoy the anti gunners claims that pistol free zones are good. Cause everywhere Ive been attacked, or family member was attacked was Weapon free zone!
So now I avoid these areas - When I find myself close to one, I rest a bit easy knowing I carry - as its better to have it, and not need it, then need it and not have it! - and I don't every want to need it....