business has a sign that says "no guns" but its not the state adopted sign?


PDA






hobgob
April 30, 2008, 10:57 PM
So I just got my CCW permit and have been carrying for the last 2 days. Today I came across a local natural foods grocery store that had on their door a sign that was white text that said something to effect of "no shoes, no sirt, no service" then right under that it said "no guns." In KS you have to have the image of the gun with the slash through and the text has to be seperate from the image. Too play it safe, I had my bro go inside to get what we needed. However had I carried in that place, whould I have been breaking any law?

If you enjoyed reading about "business has a sign that says "no guns" but its not the state adopted sign?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Art Eatman
April 30, 2008, 11:13 PM
Well, you offered: "In KS you have to have the image of the gun with the slash through and the text has to be seperate from the image." The store, per your statement, is not in compliance with Kansas law.

However, if a storeperson discovers that you are carrying, they can ask you to leave and be in full accord with the law. No difference from a bartender 86ing a drunk.

RNB65
April 30, 2008, 11:19 PM
The problem with trying to bypass the intent of a law by using a technicality is that the judge may decide that your technicality is irrelevant.
-

mekender
April 30, 2008, 11:36 PM
The problem with trying to bypass the intent of a law by using a technicality is that the judge may decide that your technicality is irrelevant.

if state law specifies that the sign must have specific dimensions or characters... the judge would be overstepping his authority to decide that law doesnt matter...

and that is assuming that there isnt any case history that backs up the state law specifics

bogie
April 30, 2008, 11:44 PM
Guys, what those signs say, whether they are "legal" or not, is "We do not want your business, because we think you are more dangerous than criminals who will ignore our signs." Point that out to the owners/managers - those folks are NOT psychic...

Standing Wolf
May 1, 2008, 12:03 AM
The problem with trying to bypass the intent of a law by using a technicality is that the judge may decide that your technicality is irrelevant.

It's the judges who should live in fear of the electorate, not we of them.

I don't ever do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots.

insidious_calm
May 1, 2008, 01:09 AM
May I direct you to the packet you recieved in your class titled "Legal issues related to the use of deadly force" and the page with KSA 21-3721 on it.

21-3721
Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
PART II.--PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Article 37.--CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
21-3721. Criminal trespass. (a) Criminal trespass is:

(1) Entering or remaining upon or in any land, nonnavigable body of water, structure, vehicle, aircraft or watercraft, other than railroad property as defined in K.S.A. 21-3761, and amendments thereto, or nuclear generating facility as defined in K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 66-2302, and amendments thereto, by a person who knows such person is not authorized or privileged to do so, and:

(A) Such person enters or remains therein in defiance of an order not to enter or to leave such premises or property personally communicated to such person by the owner thereof or other authorized person; or

(B) such premises or property are posted in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or are locked or fenced or otherwise enclosed, or shut or secured against passage or entry; or

(C) such person enters or remains therein in defiance of a restraining order issued pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1607, 60-3105, 60-3106, 60-3107, 60-31a05 or 60-31a06 or K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2243, 38-2244 or 38-2255, and amendments thereto, and the restraining order has been personally served upon the person so restrained; or

(2) entering or remaining upon or in any public or private land or structure in a manner that interferes with access to or from any health care facility by a person who knows such person is not authorized or privileged to do so and such person enters or remains thereon or therein in defiance of an order not to enter or to leave such land or structure personally communicated to such person by the owner of the health care facility or other authorized person.

(b) As used in this section:

(1) "Health care facility" means any licensed medical care facility, certificated health maintenance organization, licensed mental health center, or mental health clinic, licensed psychiatric hospital or other facility or office where services of a health care provider are provided directly to patients.

(2) "Health care provider" means any person: (A) Licensed to practice a branch of the healing arts; (B) licensed to practice psychology; (C) licensed to practice professional or practical nursing; (D) licensed to practice dentistry; (E) licensed to practice optometry; (F) licensed to practice pharmacy; (G) registered to practice podiatry; (H) licensed as a social worker; or (I) registered to practice physical therapy.

(c) (1) Criminal trespass is a class B nonperson misdemeanor.

(2) Upon a conviction of a violation of subsection (a)(1)(C), a person shall be sentenced to not less than 48 consecutive hours of imprisonment which must be served either before or as a condition of any grant of probation or suspension, reduction of sentence or parole.

(d) This section shall not apply to a land surveyor, licensed pursuant to article 70 of chapter 74 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto, and such surveyor's authorized agents and employees who enter upon lands, waters and other premises in the making of a survey.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, 21-3721; L. 1979, ch. 92, 13; L. 1980, ch. 99, 1; L. 1986, ch. 161, 3; L. 1992, ch. 183, 6; L. 1993, ch. 291, 79; L. 1996, ch. 30, 2; L. 1996, ch. 211, 2; L. 2002, ch. 141, 11; L. 2003, ch. 128, 17; L. 2004, ch. 129, 2; L. 2006, ch. 27, 6; L. 2006, ch. 200, 85; Jan. 1, 2007.

Emphasis mine.


The question you have to ask yourself is do you think the DA in your county would prosecute it. I am not aware of any successful prosecution for trespass in violation of a sign only. For that matter I'm not even aware of any attempts at it, BUT I was told by Chuck Sexton that students should not expect any support from the the AG's office in that circumstance. They clearly frown on it.

Have you considered talking to the owner? I also doubt that you would be noticed at all if you are reasonably discreet in your carry. I guess the question boils down to are you willing to be the test case? I'm not a lawyer. I am a Kansas CCH instructor, and I advise my students against this. YMMV


I.C.

hobgob
May 1, 2008, 02:22 AM
Thank you Insidious calm... I had forgotten to check that packet. I went straight to the AG website to see what they said. They simply gave the information about what a proper sign should look like. Somewhat helpful.
One of the main questions I have been asking myself is whether or not I should inform the business of their error. They won't be getting any of my business in the future unless they change their anti gun policy!

divemedic
May 1, 2008, 06:27 AM
That law would likely not apply here. trespass does not work that way. I do not have the applicable laws/cases in front of me, but a sign that reads "no shoes, no shirt, no guns" does not carry the force of law for trespassing purposes.

Now, of the owner/manager/staff asks you to leave, you must leave, or you are committing armed trespassing.

Schutzen
May 1, 2008, 10:24 AM
Hobgob,

Your post #8 is finally getting the idea. Vote with your checkbook. Send the business a nice, respectful letter stating that in the past you enjoyed doing business with them, but because of their "new" policy of no firearms on the premises you will no longer be trading with them. I usually include a statement that I am a CDW permit holder and I may or may not be carrying a firearm at any given time. However as a responsible citizen, part of my strategy for leading a safe life is to avoid "high risk" areas when possible. I chose not to frequent business that post as "CDW Free" because I believe this is an open statement to criminals that establishment is a "risk free zone" for criminal activity and therefore is a “high risk zone” for myself and my family.

While a letter like this may not change the owner/manager’s opinion of firearms, it will give a reasonable person cause to re-think the posting of an establishment as a “CDW Free”/”Criminal Activity Risk Free” zone.

jaholder1971
May 1, 2008, 10:40 AM
The question you have to ask yourself is do you think the DA in your county would prosecute it. I am not aware of any successful prosecution for trespass in violation of a sign only. For that matter I'm not even aware of any attempts at it, BUT I was told by Chuck Sexton that students should not expect any support from the the AG's office in that circumstance. They clearly frown on it.

I.C.,

I asked Chuck Sexton about this during the KSRA business meeting last year and he told me that no, cities and counties could not enforce criminal tresspassing for simply carrying concealed, that Preemption allowed for the misdemeanor charge of carrying into a properly posted place only.

In the political climate in Topeka right now, I would not expect any support in any CCW related defense from the AG's office, nor would I completely trust their advice.

TAB
May 1, 2008, 11:05 AM
I am a firm beleaver in respecting the wishes of others. I also beleave that those that say "concealed means concealed" are doing alot of damage to the "IMO" of the general public when it comes to CCWs

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2008, 11:10 AM
I also beleave that those that say "concealed means concealed" are doing alot of damage to the "IMO" of the general public when it comes to CCWs

If it's really concealed how will the general public ever know?

If the law says signs must be specific, and a gun owner/CCW holder follows the law by keeping his mouth shut and keeping the gun concealed what does that show the general public other than once again we are law abiding folks just minding our own business?

I'm not scared of that opinion at all.

TAB
May 1, 2008, 11:21 AM
No, one ever by mistake reveals they are carrying, just like no one but gun lovers read THR... In many case people are expressly saying they WOULD and DO break the law.

tell me how that does not cast a shadow on the rest of the commuity?

rr2241tx
May 1, 2008, 11:38 AM
This isn't KS but TX law has the same/similar signage language. Personally, I welcome law-abiding concealed carriers and make no secret about it. One condition though, if you're carrying when you come in, you may be asked to show it so it can be admired. I'd rather have a shop full of armed customers than a punk with a shiv. I wish TX was an open carry state.

rr2241tx

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2008, 12:02 PM
In many case people are expressly saying they WOULD and DO break the law.

Because as we've seen in this thread here, it is not clearly a violation of the law to carry in this business because their signage is incorrect.

So, to carry concealed anyway when you are not in violation of the law is a non issue, not sure why you'd want to make it one.
You are advancing the straw man position of what if it was illegal, but it doesn't appear to be in this case. Talking about what some random DA might do is silly. Is it a good idea in this case? Who knows, but it doesn't appear to be overtly illegal.

That said, the best course always is to refuse to do business with places like this, and be sure to let them know why. They might very well change their mind if presented with a reasonable discussion.

But there's no reason to hide from the general public that fact that we know and obey the law. I don't see where anyone here as advocated breaking the law.

WayneConrad
May 1, 2008, 12:04 PM
Why would you be so glad to contribute money to a bigot's till, that you should be worried only about whether the sign is lawful?

It is the intent of the sign that matters, and not its legality. You, and your money, are not wanted there.

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2008, 12:11 PM
Why would you be so glad to contribute money to a bigot's till, that you should be worried only about whether the sign were lawful?

Because sometimes there are places that you just need to get into during the course of the day and you may have to enter places you don't want to patronize but you have no choice.

If my customer wants to eat at Pizza Hut I take him to Pizza Hut, even though I don't like Pizza Hut.

There are times it's just unavoidable, but as long as it's legal you just do what you have to do.

WayneConrad
May 1, 2008, 12:22 PM
Because sometimes there are places that you just need to get into during the course of the day and you may have to enter places you don't want to patronize but you have no choice.
I grant you there may be such places where there is such a need that one needs to give money to an anti-rights store owner. I have been fortunate enough, or perhaps just stubborn enough, not to have had such a pressing need that I had to ignore a "no gun" sign to spend money at a bigot's store. What are those places in your life, where you have done what you have had to do, and ignored the non-legally-binding sign, and spent your money, that there was no alternative open to you that respected your rights?

mec
May 1, 2008, 12:35 PM
Texas law specifies that for criminal trespass with a concealed handgun to kick in, there must be proper notice- either verbal or with a very specifically defined sign. gun/red/circle/slash or " no guns allowed" do not create a violation.

At one time, the state rifle association kept a list of business that do post legal and binding anti chl signs. This chiefly helped members and other interested parties avoid shopping in those businesses if they wished to do so. I tried to routinely add a local business to that list but the the state association apparently has lost interest. the respondent didn't seem to know about the list (still on the web page at that time), delivered an unnecessary lecture about property rights and then ignored my report.

when the renewal notice came around, I ignored that also.

If you enjoyed reading about "business has a sign that says "no guns" but its not the state adopted sign?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!