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

[audiophile]

I guess I don't fully understand the "force of law" thing pertaining to no gun signs. My SDA Instructor flat out told me that if a store owner sees that you are carrying even though he/she has a no guns sign posted, they can press trespassing charges on you if you don't leave when asked to.

Please elaborate.


I guess I should be more specific, I have no intentions on ever being a hero. I realize that could be considered as not the right attitude but, nobody in that store is my responsibility. Hate to be that way but there's just too much liability involved.

With all the law bending attorneys out there that like to bend the rules and find loopholes in any given case to out someone as a bad guy, one must really be careful when resorting to lethal and deadly force in that kind of situation. It's the sad, bitter truth.

Until the guy comes to me wanting me to hand over my wallet is when I become his problem.

I know you have to be sure of your target but, I guess I don't understand how knowing when to use lethal force when the danger to life is unfolding right before your eyes in that situation, would be considered as playing cop. I guess it could be but the end result is saving an innocent person from a bullet.

So, what are you saying, if a someone walks in and shoves a gun in the cashiers face threatening to shoot them and someone else who's in there conceal carrying pulls their gun out and basically saves the day that, he could be brought up on charges of his own? I would love to say that makes absolute zero sense but in this sue-happy world that we live in, it doesn't seem all that far fetched. Again, I'm not saying that person would be me, I'm just merely asking hypothetically.



Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In Oklahoma, if a no guns or weapons sign is posted, simply entering the business with a firearm in itself is not a crime. This is different in different states. Take Texas, if the establishment has the proper 30.06 or 30.07 sign posted, then simply possessing a weapon on the premises is a crime.
In OK, a crime is only committed if the owner or representative of the business asks for you to remove the weapon or leave, and you fail to do so. If law enforcement is summoned you can be charged with misdemeanor trespassing.
I hope that makes sense.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

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

A civil lawsuit against you is certain, from the assailant's family (you caused them to lose income), customers claiming to be traumatized (total bullshitbut juries eat it up), and the buisness it all happens in (resulting loss of revenue will be blamed on you). Criminal charges are likely even if the police don't arrest you. Sure it may not be "murder" but some form of lesser homicide charge.

So, would this just apply in like, a gun free convenient store for example? I'm assuming it wouldn't matter if guns were or were not welcome in a store that you had to bust out lethal force in a "save the day" situation.

If you carry a gun, you need to have a healthy saving and self-defence insurance before you walk out your front door.

I've heard that that guy Michael Buffer, or whatever his name is (you know, the let's get ready to rumble guy) that does ring announcements for boxing and wrestling matches supposedly has like a 10 million dollar insurance policy on his voice but, self defense insurance, that's a new one.

There is no world in which you use your gun and walk away scott-free. It's always bad. It always changes your life forever. In most cases it ruins you financhialy.

True that. The SDA instructor even said that there's a high probability you'll be placed into custody, might even end up on trial.

I guess it just depends on what part of the country you live in too. If I lived in California, Illinois or New York, I'd definitely wanna make sure lethal force was absolutely the last resort.

But it's either that, or die.

Yup.

Like choosing between Trump or Hillary, there is no good option. You're choosing which pair of dirty socks to wear.

Sad that that is what our society has evolved to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
While you have the right to bear arms you do not have any right to be on/in the property owned by someone else.

No right includes the creation of a Public Hazard or Public Nuisance, which is exactly what a gun-free zone is; every mass killing since 1950 except 2 were carried out in gun free zones.

A private property owner does not have the right to ban the public from carrying firearms, so I will ignore your sign.

So once again you are trying to say that it is the property owner who is responsible for mass shootings.

I have heard anti gunners say that folks, other than the police, who carry guns in public are a hazard.

 

[corneileous]

In Oklahoma, if a no guns or weapons sign is posted, simply entering the business with a firearm in itself is not a crime. This is different in different states. Take Texas, if the establishment has the proper 30.06 or 30.07 sign posted, then simply possessing a weapon on the premises is a crime.
In OK, a crime is only committed if the owner or representative of the business asks for you to remove the weapon or leave, and you fail to do so. If law enforcement is summoned you can be charged with misdemeanor trespassing.
I hope that makes sense.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Oh yeah, it makes sense. That's pretty much what I thought.

So, in those places of business like down in Texas that you spoke of, you could basically wind up being charged for two crimes right off the bat, one for trespassing and one for bringing a gun in a place that was posted?

I guess you're screwed either way if you carry in a place like that and only use your gun to defend yourself and no one else.

Those places, I completely understand avoiding them like the plague. The possibility of trespassing is one thing but being charged with a whole other "force of law " crime isn't worth supporting that business.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

So once again you are trying to say that it is the property owner who is responsible for mass shootings.

I'm not part of this sub-discussion but in my opinion the property owner should be held accountable. But then again, no one's forcing you to shop there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
So once again you are trying to say that it is the property owner who is responsible for mass shootings.

I'm not part of this sub-discussion but in my opinion the property owner should be held accountable. But then again, no one's forcing you to shop there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I welcome your input. Consider what you said about holding the property owner accountable for what happens to you due to the actions of someone other than the property owner. Is it proper for me (the customer) to hold you (the property owner) responsible for something that a criminal did just because you both were voluntarily on/in my property?

And yes, no one is forcing you to shop there. If there were a legal requirement to shop there then there would be a legal responsibility to protect you while you shopped.

 

[Bikenut]

No right includes the creation of a Public Hazard or Public Nuisance, which is exactly what a gun-free zone is; every mass killing since 1950 except 2 were carried out in gun free zones.

A private property owner does not have the right to ban the public from carrying firearms, so I will ignore your sign.

If it is obvious that mass killing happens in gun free zones why would you want to go to gun free zones?

And the private property owner has the right to specify that individuals who carry guns do not have his permission to be on/in his property.

 

[Blueshell]

If it is obvious that mass killing happens in gun free zones why would you want to go to gun free zones?

Depends on why I'm there.

And the private property owner has the right to specify that individuals who carry guns do not have his permission to be on/in his property.

Not in states where signs have force of law. The sign bans everyone. The owner doesn't get to pick and choose. You will not find any part of such a statute giving the property owner discretion.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And the private property owner has the right to specify that individuals who carry guns do not have his permission to be on/in his property.

Not in states where signs have force of law. The sign bans everyone. The owner doesn't get to pick and choose. You will not find any part of such a statute giving the property owner discretion.

The property owner with a no guns sign/rule has decided to choose a group of people to ban that is composed of individuals who carry guns.

In States where a no guns sign has the force of gun law a person who ... sneaks... their gun into/onto property that has a no guns sign not only violates gun law but also violates trespass law.

In States where a no guns sign does not have the force of gun law a person who... sneaks.. their gun into/onto property that has a no guns sign/rule violates trespass law.

When a person enters private property against a property owner's rule/sign that person is engaging in the act of trespass. Being asked to leave means that person got caught trespassing. Whether that person suffers legal penalties and what process must be followed (first being asked to leave/refusing to leave) varies from State to State. But the commonality is trespassing.

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 added by me for emphasis...

A property owner's terms of use of his property, often expressed by a sign saying what is not allowed, are the conditions that must be met in order to have permission to enter. Not meeting the conditions means not having permission. Being there without permission is trespassing.

Those who choose to .. sneak... their gun in are not only trespassing but are disrespecting the property owner's right to deny entry to them. In effect those who .. sneak..their gun in are saying they are the one who makes the rules instead of the property owner.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
If it is obvious that mass killing happens in gun free zones why would you want to go to gun free zones?

Depends on why I'm there.
-snip-

So why are you there? Is there some widget that you absolutely must buy that is more important than not putting yourself in danger of needing your gun? Is it just a matter of convenience for you to shop at the widget store that is a no guns zone? Or could it be a secret hope to whip out your hidden Ninja element of surprise and heroically "save the day" to the applause and eternal gratitude of all those poor schmucks that didn't have the guts to just ignore the dastardly property owner's no guns sign?

Why would anyone who says that a no guns zone is where he is most likely to need his gun go to a no gun zone?

Considering your postings in this thread I, and I suspect others, have formed an opinion of what the answer is.

 

[corneileous]

I welcome your input. Consider what you said about holding the property owner accountable for what happens to you due to the actions of someone other than the property owner. Is it proper for me (the customer) to hold you (the property owner) responsible for something that a criminal did just because you both were voluntarily on/in my property?

And yes, no one is forcing you to shop there. If there were a legal requirement to shop there then there would be a legal responsibility to protect you while you shopped.

I don't know how to answer that. Maybe I was out of line saying the property owner should be held liable because like we both said, no ones making us go in the business that doesn't welcome gun carriers. I think it's just more or less about taking your chances. All about that "carried out by 6 or tried by 12" thing. The only thing that worries me is what's gonna happen to me in the wake of having to use my gun in their gun free business, even if I have no intentions of being a hero and only lookin' out for my own skin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rhino]

I never suggested we shouldn't go somewhere because there might be a potential danger, and I never said anything about "playing". The argument isn't about avoiding danger

Yes you did, right here:

Another reason why I know you're just having fun. If you were really that worried about your safety, you wouldn't be going to places you yourself have already said are more dangerous than others.

I did what? Nowhere in that quote do I say anything about "playing" or suggest we shouldn't go somewhere.
.

Just as the bird is not afraid of falling because it has wings, so am I not afraid for my saftey because I'm armed.

And the argument still isn't about being afraid to go somewhere. Since you're just ignoring what I was saying I'm going to assume you just plan to continue in this vein as part of your ploy to irritate Bikenut.

 

[Blueshell]

The property owner with a no guns sign/rule has decided to choose a group of people to ban that is composed of individuals who carry guns.

My point was the owner cannot grant exceptions.

And everyone knows it's trespassing.

 

[Blueshell]

So why are you there?

There is no special reason for my visiting these places. I neither seek them out, nor avoid them. My reason for being there is the same as everyone else who's there.

 

[Blueshell]

I did what? Nowhere in that quote do I say anything about "playing" or suggest we shouldn't go somewhere.

That's EXACTLY what you said. "Now I know you're just having fun" = playing.

You assume I wouldn't go places that are more dangerous than others. I bought a gun so that I could go to those places. You have it all backwards.

I would avoid gun free zones if I weren't armed, but because I'm armed I'm confident in my ability....to fly, should the branch brake.

 

[Bikenut]

I don't know how to answer that. Maybe I was out of line saying the property owner should be held liable because like we both said, no ones making us go in the business that doesn't welcome gun carriers. I think it's just more or less about taking your chances. All about that "carried out by 6 or tried by 12" thing. The only thing that worries me is what's gonna happen to me in the wake of having to use my gun in their gun free business, even if I have no intentions of being a hero and only lookin' out for my own skin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would you intentionally place yourself in the position of likely needing your gun by being in a business that has a no guns rule/policy? Would it be more logical, and safer from both a physical and legal standpoint, to avoid the possibility of needing to defend yourself in a no guns zone by just not going into that business in the first place?

When you go shopping ask yourself:

If no one is forcing me to go into the business why would I intentionally and voluntarily risk physical and legal harm by going into that business? Is buying that widget from this particular business really that important or can I go somewhere else and buy that widget from a business that doesn't have a no guns policy/rule?

 

[corneileous]

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

Why would you intentionally place yourself in the position of likely needing your gun by being in a business that has a no guns rule/policy? Would it be more logical, and safer from both a physical and legal standpoint, to avoid the possibility of needing to defend yourself in a no guns zone by just not going into that business in the first place?

When you go shopping ask yourself:

If no one is forcing me to go into the business why would I intentionally and voluntarily risk physical and legal harm by going into that business? Is buying that widget from this particular business really that important or can I go somewhere else and buy that widget from a business that welcomes those who carry guns?

Simple. As I've stated, a lot of the stores down here where I live have "no guns" signs posted. I know, weird for a gun friendly state such as Oklahoma. Grocery stores, Walmarts, gas stations, ect, ect... places I need to go. If the luxury of getting to be selective was present I would probably avoid gun free stores but again, it isn't. Unless I resorted to online shopping which realistically isn't an option.

If all I have to worry about here in Oklahoma is a possible trespassing charge, I'll keep my protection hidden and just take my chances when and if that self defense situation ever comes my way. It's either that or just never carry my gun on my person and just leave it in my vehicle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mikestone967]

Why would you intentionally place yourself in the position of likely needing your gun by being in a business that has a no guns rule/policy? Would it be more logical, and safer from both a physical and legal standpoint, to avoid the possibility of needing to defend yourself in a no guns zone by just not going into that business in the first place?

By that account, we should all just stay home and buy things from Amazon. That way "we" never have to leave the house to put our selves in jeopardy.

One NEVER knows when ones gun might be required to save your life.
Wouldn't that mean it's either safer to just stay home and order things online OR realize that in order to insure Your own safety and security, sometimes a little deception is required?

I don't like gun free zones. They are death traps and they are only becoming more prevalent than ever. I live in an area where there aren't a lot of shopping choices. The major retailers in the big box stores and malls, for me are MILES out and they are all "Gun Free Zones".
So, if I need things I have don't have much choice.

With the way this world is going and the very terrorists roaming our streets, I'll carry everywhere I need to, regardless of the "owners wishes".. sorry.

No one is coming to rescue you. You are 100% responsible for your own safety. I take that very seriously too.

 

[Rhino]

That's EXACTLY what you said. "Now I know you're just having fun" = playing.

I'm curious if this is a deliberate dodge, or did you really just not read what was said. You mentioned playing in post 769, and it was in reference to birds, not people. I had made no comments about playing until you brought it up.
.

You assume I wouldn't go places that are more dangerous than others. I bought a gun so that I could go to those places. You have it all backwards.
.
I would avoid gun free zones if I weren't armed, but because I'm armed I'm confident in my ability....to fly, should the branch brake.

You know very well that the fun I mentioned earlier was about you teasing Bikenut, not about birds, not about guns, and not about going places. You're just playing games with me trying to avoid that fact. And please don't try to twist that use of the word "playing" into meaning something else. That dodge is pretty lame.
.
Your argument that the bird isn't concerned if the branch breaks is akin to you not being afraid in gun free zones isn't relevant, even if it was true. Birds very much do shy away from branches that represent danger or more risk, so your analogy still sucks, and still falls flat on its' face. My having fun remark was about you playing with Bikenut. It had absolutely nothing to do with you being afraid or not afraid to enter gun free zones, and birds being afraid of branches have no relevance whatsoever. I said you were having fun here because you were seemingly enjoying taunting Bikenut. And I based that statement on the facts that you had already said, 1) those places were more dangerous, and 2) you try to avoid danger. You wouldn't carry a gun if that weren't true, and you've as much as said so.
.

I choose not to live in fear; it's why I carry a gun in the first place.

You acknowledge danger and you take steps to avoid danger. Very simple. That's why I said I thought you were just having fun by poking at Bikenut. You're telling him you don't fear taking a gun into dangerous gun free zones even though you freely acknowledge that you do take step to avoid danger. That's a dichotomy. You're just teasing him, and that teasing is what I said you were having fun with.
.
And please don't bother replying if you're just going to misrepresent what I said again. This thread is already way too long.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Why would you intentionally place yourself in the position of likely needing your gun by being in a business that has a no guns rule/policy? Would it be more logical, and safer from both a physical and legal standpoint, to avoid the possibility of needing to defend yourself in a no guns zone by just not going into that business in the first place?

By that account, we should all just stay home and buy things from Amazon. That way "we" never have to leave the house to put our selves in jeopardy.

One NEVER knows when ones gun might be required to save your life.
Wouldn't that mean it's either safer to just stay home and order things online OR realize that in order to insure Your own safety and security, sometimes a little deception is required?

I don't like gun free zones. They are death traps and they are only becoming more prevalent than ever. I live in an area where there aren't a lot of shopping choices. The major retailers in the big box stores and malls, for me are MILES out and they are all "Gun Free Zones".
So, if I need things I have don't have much choice.

With the way this world is going and the very terrorists roaming our streets, I'll carry everywhere I need to, regardless of the "owners wishes".. sorry.

No one is coming to rescue you. You are 100% responsible for your own safety. I take that very seriously too.

I wouldn't know about needing "deception" since I open carry everywhere I go making sure it is legal for me to carry there first. If I must, absolutely must, go to a place where carrying a gun is illegal (like some government buildings) I will disarm. But I respect the rights of the private property owners who have no guns rules/policies by not going on/in their property. Not only does that respect the property owner's rights I also do not contribute to the profits of a business that bans guns which, at least hopefully, helps to prevent that owner from opening yet another no guns business.

But as far as ensuring your own safety it is still wise to avoid places where you know the odds of needing your gun are greater than normal such as a gun free business. I agree everywhere has a certain degree of danger yet I have a difficult time seeing the logic behind the idea of intentionally going to a place more dangerous than normal just because you have a gun (or wings) to protect your safety when it makes sense to avoid as much danger as possible by not going there in the first place.

Whether or not a person chooses to ... sneak... their gun in against the wishes of the property owner is a personal decision based on many factors including product availability, cost, and convenience. But it is hypocritical to demand the right to bear arms be respected while intentionally and willfully disrespecting the property owner's right to deny entry to those who bear arms. And it is also illegal to disregard a property owner's denial of entry which means when a person does ... sneak... their gun in, regardless of what their reasons for doing so are, they are violating both the property owner's rights and trespass law whether they get caught or not and whether they suffer any legal penalties or not.

Also, when a pro gun person brags about ... sneaking... their gun in violating both trespass law and the property rights of the property owner not only do they give an insight to their level of integrity they also give the anti gunners an opportunity to use that blatant hypocrisy to demean, diminish, and ridicule those who carry guns in order to further their gun control goals.

Of course everyone will make their own decision about... sneaking .. their gun into/onto private property with a no guns rule/policy. But I do want to thank Blueshell for the opportunity to offer more things for folks to think about than just relying on their ... umm... wings.