No Firearms signs Do Hold Weight of Law??

[JoshuaW]

Yep, concealed means concealed!

So the signs hold the weight of the law, and you would encourage people to then trespass?

The signs do not hold the weight of law, in my opinion (not a lawyer). In order for them to carry the weight of the law as your "notice to leave" they would need to be reasonably visible to all visitors. Every entrance, large enough to be seen. If a business were to post the signs on a billboard, then ask you to sign a sheet of paper saying you read the rules of admission, then maybe. In reality, the signs are barely visible, and if you arent looking for them, you can miss them. Is it your responsibility to be looking at them? Perhaps, but even still, they could be missed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So the signs hold the weight of the law, and you would encourage people to then trespass?

The signs do not hold the weight of law, in my opinion (not a lawyer). In order for them to carry the weight of the law as your "notice to leave" they would need to be reasonably visible to all visitors. Every entrance, large enough to be seen. If a business were to post the signs on a billboard, then ask you to sign a sheet of paper saying you read the rules of admission, then maybe. In reality, the signs are barely visible, and if you arent looking for them, you can miss them. Is it your responsibility to be looking at them? Perhaps, but even still, they could be missed.

The signs surely hold weigh of law, and truth be told a sign isn't needed. I'm a firm believer in property rights (ie on my property, my rules). If I own an establishment, and at thurs at 5pm I decide that I don't want anyone with green shirts in my place of business, it is my duty to inform them first, of the rule change, and then have them leave. If they do not leave, I can call the police had have them removed/trespassed. "Trespassed" meaning that if they ever show up again, in whatever color shirt, they will be arrested.

 

[Beau]

Yep, concealed means concealed!

Yep, blue means blue duh-huh
Are you advocating against open carry or do you believe signs carry the weight of law and you are advocating breaking the law so long as no one sees you do it?

The signs surely hold weigh of law, and truth be told a sign isn't needed. .

So if a sign was posted "No Black Clolthing" and you entered with black sneakers on you automatically guilty of tresspass and should be charged?

 

[LPMan59]

i saw a sign once that had the red circle with a line through a beretta 92. i walked right on in since i was carrying a Colt 1911.

 

[Beau]

i saw a sign once that had the red circle with a line through a beretta 92. i walked right on in since i was carrying a Colt 1911.

+1 I don't usually carry a revolver so most places my Glock is good to go.

 

[LPMan59]

i asked them what they had against Berettas and they told me "nothing, that sign is a actually a Taurus."

 

[Kutnupe14]

So if a sign was posted "No Black Clolthing" and you entered with black sneakers on you automatically guilty of tresspass and should be charged?

No, trespass means you have been asked to leave. It's technically an unlawful intrusion. In order for a person to be trespassed from a place, the authorities have to be notified, and the person "served" if you will.

 

[INGunGuy]

No, trespass means you have been asked to leave. It's technically an unlawful intrusion. In order for a person to be trespassed from a place, the authorities have to be notified, and the person "served" if you will.

EXACTLY! That is what we have been talking about. The mere fact of a sign at the entrance of an establishment banning the carrying of firearms holds no weight of law. If I choose to ignore the sign and carry into the establishment, I have NOT broken ANY law. If it is discovered that I am carrying a weapon, the establishment has every right to tell me to leave, and I am LEGALLY REQUIRED to leave. If I refuse to leave, then I am committing criminal trespass, and can be arrested. If the owner or agent of the establishment alerts the authorities of my refusal to leave after being asked, LEO will come and remove me from the premises, and will give me a no trespass warning or arrest me for criminal trespass.

You see I would not be arrested for carrying a gun, but rather criminal trespass for NOT leaving the establishment upon request from the owner/agent.

Now if I comply and leave the establishment the owner/agent has every right to give me a no trespass warning. That would include me coming back to the establishment unarmed, another day/week/month/year. I do not know honestly how long that would be in effect but the length has no bearing on my example. Again, I was NOT breaking any law by ignoring the sign. Only breaking the rules of the establishment. Just like "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" which basically means you have to have a shirt and shoes on to enter that establishment and if you choose to not wear a shirt or shoes, then they have the right to make you leave.

So, ignore all the signs you want, doesnt make any difference, they arent carrying any weight of law. You will be breaking a rule, and can be kicked out, but then again, why would you want to give your money to a business that doesnt recognize your right to defend yourself?

Oh and I Am Not A Lawyer, I do not play one on TV, and I didnt stay at a holiday Inn last night.

INGunGuy

 

[finity]

The signs surely hold weigh of law, and truth be told a sign isn't needed. I'm a firm believer in property rights (ie on my property, my rules). If I own an establishment, and at thurs at 5pm I decide that I don't want anyone with green shirts in my place of business, it is my duty to inform them first, of the rule change, and then have them leave. If they do not leave, I can call the police had have them removed/trespassed. "Trespassed" meaning that if they ever show up again, in whatever color shirt, they will be arrested.

From reading your post it doesn't look like you have a grasp of what we're saying.

What we are saying is that just because a sign is posted saying "no guns" it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean you will be arrested & convicted of trespassing with no other contact at all with the owner/agent. Just the same as if a sign was posted that said "no green shirts after 5pm". If a person violated that posted sign you would still need to tell them to leave before they would be arrested for trespassing.

If you state a sign is not needed then the only other recourse the owner has is to communicate directly with the "offender" & at that point the sign is moot.

Nobody is denying the rights of the owner to control their property.

 

[thunderchicken]

I agree, you have to be asked to leave. I don't think the sign itself carries any legal weight. My theory is if you conceal, and don't ask don't tell...who cares? If things turn south and I need my pea shooter, who knows someone other than myself might be thankful that I had it. On another note, in my LEO days, I was at a grocery store in plain clothes open carrying with my cuffs, extra mag, gun and badge(Sheriff's dept) on my belt and was asked to either cover up my gun or leave. My chin hit the floor....I WAS AKSED BY A RESERVE DEPUTY! I simply looked at him asked if he was serious. He said he was and I said go pound sand.. and left. I never have been back in there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

From reading your post it doesn't look like you have a grasp of what we're saying.

What we are saying is that just because a sign is posted saying "no guns" it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean you will be arrested & convicted of trespassing with no other contact at all with the owner/agent. Just the same as if a sign was posted that said "no green shirts after 5pm". If a person violated that posted sign you would still need to tell them to leave before they would be arrested for trespassing.

If you state a sign is not needed then the only other recourse the owner has is to communicate directly with the "offender" & at that point the sign is moot.

Nobody is denying the rights of the owner to control their property.

Ok, I was misunderstanding at first. Though keep this in mind, a LEO cannot compel you to identify yourself if you have done nothing "wrong." If a sign isn't posted, and you're asked to leave because of the whim of a business owner who can't articulate a valid reason, all you need do is leave, sans identifying yourself to law enforcement. Now, if you purposefully ignore a clearly visible sign that asks that you not enter the premises with a firearm, then you can be compelled to identify yourself.

So saying that a sign is completely without merit, legally, isn't 100% correct.

 

[Six]

Yes, I think we all pretty much weighed in over on the other thread.
If you outright ignore the sign..you are ADMITTING that you received the notice and yet disregarded it.
I can imagine someone saying "you're sign don't tramp on my constitutional rights" --which is one of the most idiotic statements someone can make.
It is private property. If they don't want you there for ANY reason (no tie, no shirt, you stink, you have a gun..) you need to leave. You have no "right" to loiter on someone else's property.
**Side note: has nothing to do with right to bear arms. Besides, constitution does NOT GRANT YOU ANY RIGHTS..ANYWHERE.

ok. I feel better now.

The code mentioned at the beginning of this thread specifies instances where a person has been explicitly denied access in writing or in person, etc. I have yet to see a place that posts a sign barring the person carrying the gun from entering the premises. They ban the object. "No firearms allowed on the property."

The business wants you and your money, just not your firearm. They have not posted a sign barring YOU from the property and would have no grounds for a complaint of "criminal tresspass." Unless you were asked to leave and did not.

A local Walmart put up one of those signs a few years back, until a few people wrote letters explaining why they don't shop there and pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in the act of being willing to sell me a firearm and ammunition from the counter behind a sign that says, "No firearms allowed."

The power of the dollar won over, and they took the sign down.

 

[jbombelli]

No Trespassing is denial of entry. Keep Out is denial of entry. No Admittance is denial of entry. JBombelli is Barred From The Premises is denial of entry.

No Guns is, for lack of a better term, conditional admittance. That is not the same thing.

 

[teknickle]

Though keep this in mind, a LEO cannot compel you to identify yourself if you have done nothing "wrong."

As it pains me to say, but sorry. That is not true.

I actually just read a section of Indiana Code this week where it specifically referenced officer being able to verify you were a proper person if you had a permit.

I can't find that passage right now, but here is different proof of that fact.

This is an article about a "Terry Stop" (1968 case about questioning people with subjective reasons) that happened in Massachusetts.
A businessman was CCW, cop "thought he saw" a hint of a handgun, then held the citizen at GUNPOINT while he disarmed citizen, had him prove he had a carry permit. Cop said he "couldn't verify the authenticity of permit" and so confiscated both permit and handgun, and made citizen go to police station later that day to recover them.
Citizen, quite understandably, was upset and filed action. Federal Judge who saw case was former Chicago $@#% attorney that was appointed by Bill Clinton. Of COURSE he ruled that officer was completely justified in actions.
What a POS!!
But in doing so, established a BS case of Terry Stops--just because you might have a (legally owned) gun.
" We have a federal court system that sort of recognizes our civil rights as gun owners but does not feel it is a problem if we are detained and questioned for simply exercising our rights"

BLOG.GOAL.ORG: Civil Rights Equals Detainment?! So Says the Federal Court

Have we been gaining liberties over the past 20 years ---or losing them like there is no tomorrow?

 

[PeaShooter]

If things turn south and I need my pea shooter, ...

I am always handy to have arround

PeaShooter

 

[PistolBob]

I know this....walk into a Meijer with a gun strapped on. If they see it, store security will ask you to leave and come back without the firearm. If you don't then they will call the law, and they will file trespassing charges.

I don't ever shop at Meijer.

Walmart has a no gun policy but I do not know how they handle the enforcement of it.

Face it, it's their property...if they don't want you there armed, then don't go there armed. I go in Walmart carrying somewhat often, but it's concealed...so I never have any issues.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As it pains me to say, but sorry. That is not true.

I actually just read a section of Indiana Code this week where it specifically referenced officer being able to verify you were a proper person if you had a permit.

I can't find that passage right now, but here is different proof of that fact.

This is an article about a "Terry Stop" (1968 case about questioning people with subjective reasons) that happened in Massachusetts.
A businessman was CCW, cop "thought he saw" a hint of a handgun, then held the citizen at GUNPOINT while he disarmed citizen, had him prove he had a carry permit. Cop said he "couldn't verify the authenticity of permit" and so confiscated both permit and handgun, and made citizen go to police station later that day to recover them.
Citizen, quite understandably, was upset and filed action. Federal Judge who saw case was former Chicago $@#% attorney that was appointed by Bill Clinton. Of COURSE he ruled that officer was completely justified in actions.
What a POS!!
But in doing so, established a BS case of Terry Stops--just because you might have a (legally owned) gun.
" We have a federal court system that sort of recognizes our civil rights as gun owners but does not feel it is a problem if we are detained and questioned for simply exercising our rights"

BLOG.GOAL.ORG: Civil Rights Equals Detainment?! So Says the Federal Court

Have we been gaining liberties over the past 20 years ---or losing them like there is no tomorrow?

Well, I stand by my assessment, and that's the way I conduct business.
The case you speak of is clearly doesn't meet the Terry v Ohio standard. A person having a gun on their person, is not a evidence of a crime having been just committed, which is one of the key components of Terry. Obviously that judge got it wrong. I sure I don't have to illustrate to you, that judges are people just like anybody else, and often legislate from the bench. The case you speak of (if you can find a link, I'd be interested to research it) seems to indicate exactly that.

Fyi, I don't know everything (as much as I hate to admit it), and if you have information to the contrary, I always appreciate being informed.

 

[ATM]

I know this....walk into a Meijer with a gun strapped on. If they see it, store security will ask you to leave and come back without the firearm. If you don't then they will call the law, and they will file trespassing charges.

I don't ever shop at Meijer.

Walmart has a no gun policy but I do not know how they handle the enforcement of it.

Face it, it's their property...if they don't want you there armed, then don't go there armed. I go in Walmart carrying somewhat often, but it's concealed...so I never have any issues.

I open carry in Meijers and Walmarts all the time and have never had an issue.

Where are you getting your info?

 

[mrjarrell]

I know this....walk into a Meijer with a gun strapped on. If they see it, store security will ask you to leave and come back without the firearm. If you don't then they will call the law, and they will file trespassing charges.

I don't ever shop at Meijer.

Walmart has a no gun policy but I do not know how they handle the enforcement of it.

Face it, it's their property...if they don't want you there armed, then don't go there armed. I go in Walmart carrying somewhat often, but it's concealed...so I never have any issues.

Walmart does not have a no gun policy and their corporate HQ has been very explicit in their stance. Their stores operate under local law and, if it's legal to carry outside the store it is legal inside the store. I've seen people OC'ing in my local Walmart, with no hassles at all. They sell ammo, too. So does my local Meijer, where I've carried many times. And seen a few folks OC'ing there, too.

 

[PistolBob]

I open carry in Meijers and Walmarts all the time and have never had an issue.

Where are you getting your info?

I got that info about 10 years ago from a Meijer manager as he escorted me out of the store for legally carrying a handgun. He did show me where they had their no firearms policy posted on the bulletin board. Greenwood Meijer. I haven't been back since. He wasn't a dick about it, and told me I was welcomed back, without the gun.

I seldom visit Walmart, I try to not buy chinese made goods whenever possible.