"No outside food or drink"

[HeadlessRoland]

Who goes to the movies anymore? If I wanted to waste $20 on movies and $10 on popcorn and $5 on soda, I'd go to Walmart, buy 4 DVDs at $5 apiece, eight boxes of popcorn at $1.25 apiece, and two 12-packs of Mt. Dew and then throw them in the trash.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

What if the sign was written this way?

"ABSOLUTELY NO DRINKS OR FOOD!!
ANYONE CARRYING DRINKS OR FOOD IS EXPRESSLY DENIED ENTRY TO THESE PREMISES.
IF YOU CARRY A DRINKS OR FOOD INTO THIS BUILDING YOU ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE ARREST AND PROSECUTION."
​

Then it would be centered?

 

[stephen87]

I do agree that "no firearms" is not LEGALLY enforceable, that is you cannot have LE arrest someone for ignoring it. My question is about the sign that states that a person carrying a firearm is denied entry. I've not seen them anywhere, so I can't even imagine where to start looking for something like that.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That's okay. I just wanted to make it clear that I never claimed that.

Yes, because you can not address inanimate objects with this law. They do not qualify as "a person". When a person reads such a sign they can ignore anything that does not address their person specifically. Even though they may or may not be carrying a gun, have shoes on or not, have a dog with them, have food in their pocket ... doesn't matter. The law only allows the addressing of the person, not the objects on or around them (and arguably in them too).

Does this mean I can walk into a ladies shower room at the local Y then? It says no men allowed and does not say anything about trespassing?

 

[stephen87]

Of course, you just can't go in the men's shower room. We're all afraid of fluffy bunnies.

 

[Sylvain]

Of course, you just can't go in the men's shower room. We're all afraid of fluffy bunnies.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Of course, you just can't go in the men's shower room. We're all afraid of fluffy bunnies.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I do agree that "no firearms" is not LEGALLY enforceable, that is you cannot have LE arrest someone for ignoring it. My question is about the sign that states that a person carrying a firearm is denied entry. I've not seen them anywhere, so I can't even imagine where to start looking for something like that.

I've seen one at a movie theatre. Freaked me out and was very well worded.

 

[cobber]

Looks like we're about to have a test case on these questions.

However, might want to contact a defense attorney before putting your liberty at risk.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Looks like we're about to have a test case on these questions.

However, might want to contact a defense attorney before putting your liberty at risk.

I hope somebody posts it on Youtube.

 

[TheSpark]

Does this mean I can walk into a ladies shower room at the local Y then? It says no men allowed and does not say anything about trespassing?

That would be iffy. Describing your gender on the sign would be addressing your person, not an object in the case of a gun. I think it would have to say something about trespassing to hold legal weight though.

 

[JetGirl]

Until there is an actual case everyone can both be wrong and right

There you have it. Schrodinger's Bunny.

 

[KG1]

That would be iffy. Describing your gender on the sign would be addressing your person, not an object in the case of a gun. I think it would have to say something about trespassing to hold legal weight though.

Isn't a sign consisting of all persons carrying a firearm onto the premises and trespassing addressing specific persons?

 

[TheSpark]

Isn't a sign consisting of all persons carrying a firearm onto the premises and trespassing addressing specific persons?

No, because you can only address the person, not things on, in, or around them.

 

[stephen87]

Isn't a sign consisting of all persons carrying a firearm onto the premises and trespassing addressing specific persons?

Bingo. I believe you are addressing specific persons by adding the caveat that if they have a particular item, they specifically are not allowed.

 

[KG1]

No, because you can only address the person, not things on, in, or around them.

They ARE addressing the PERSON(S) carrying a specific prohibited item.

 

[TheSpark]

They ARE addressing the PERSON(S) carrying a specific prohibited item.

No, they are addressing the person and the object. "a person" takes away ability to legally address the gun.

And you just said it yourself "prohibited item". That is a policy. Their policies are not enforceable by law.

 

[stephen87]

No, they are addressing the person and the object. "a person" takes away ability to legally address the gun.

And you just said it yourself "prohibited item". That is a policy. Their policies are not enforceable by law.

Then why can you be trespassed after they ask you to leave? They are just enforcing their policy of "no firearms." Only difference is they have now verbally told you instead of telling you by way of signage.

 

[TheSpark]

Then why can you be trespassed after they ask you to leave? They are just enforcing their policy of "no firearms." Only difference is they have now verbally told you instead of telling you by way of signage.

Because they have a right to address your person and request you to leave for any reason (well almost any reason, for example if they say "get that black skinned guy out of here" they are likely violating other federal laws). Like I've said before, many times I believe, that is the only way they can enforce their policies. By addressing you specifically with the request, or rather demand, to leave. A sign saying you can't enter if you have this or that is addressing the presence of an object not you.

 

[KG1]

No, they are addressing the person and the object. "a person" takes away ability to legally address the gun.

And you just said it yourself "prohibited item". That is a policy. Their policies are not enforceable by law.

Skip the wording I used of "prohibited". You know full well they are addressing the person. The signage posted up front that notates trespassing by specific persons is a specific denial of entry. No different than what stephan is referring to as being trespassed after the fact.