Gun free zone stores

As how they can tell you your gun is not wanted. That is very simple, it is called property rights. It is their property not yours. They are legally allowed to refuse service to anyone as long as they do not discriminate due to race, color, creed national origin, or sexual orientation. Unfortunately gun owners don't fall into the "protected" class. About 5 months ago I went into a local Burger King and was told that they did not allow guns there. Before anyone asks open carry is legal in Virginia. I left and filed a formal complaint with their corporate office. A few day later I got a call from the franchise owner. He asked if I had a permit. I told him permits were not required for open carry in Virginia but I did have a permit and I also have a badge. He asked if I was police and what department I was with. I told him and then he slipped that the policy only applied to employees. He asked if I would return to that particular Burger King. I told him no. There were at least 2 others in town and many more resturaunts in town. Why do I have a permit when I have a badge? Sometimes I don't want to carry my badge on personal business.

gonoles_1980 said:

For example Target, or Levi Strauss that has a no gun policy, but no sign. I live in Florida, have a legal CC, how is it they can stop me from legally caring in the store. I don't believe store policy carries the weight of law. I guess if I have the instance where I have to defend myself in their store, I potentially could be banned. But what legal standing do these policies have?

Click to expand...

Target, Levi's, and Starbucks have weasel-worded their "gun policies." They have all published open letters "requesting" that their customers not carry guns into their stores. Target specifically stated that it wasn't a "ban." If they ask you to leave (in Oklahoma) even if they don't have a sign posted, if you don't you're technically trespassing. That said, I avoid Target due to prices; I avoid Starbucks because I like coffee, just plain ol' coffee, and I won't pay their prices either. Levi's? Meh.

One other minor point to remember about "no gun" policies in various commercial establishments... Most are not meant to be enforced at all -they're simply a means of keeping the business free from lawsuits that might arise if one of their customers injures someone with their carried weapon.... In our world today an awful lot of policies are put in place on the possibility that they might protect the business or other agency from legal action. Most of this is "big city" stuff -but not harmless at all....

lemaymiami said:

One other minor point to remember about "no gun" policies in various commercial establishments... Most are not meant to be enforced at all -they're simply a means of keeping the business free from lawsuits that might arise if one of their customers injures someone with their carried weapon.... In our world today an awful lot of policies are put in place on the possibility that they might protect the business or other agency from legal action. Most of this is "big city" stuff -but not harmless at all....

Click to expand...

Do you have any actual cases where businesses have been successfully sued and have been held liable for injures occurred by someone legally carrying a firearm?

steve4102 said:

Do you have any actual cases where businesses have been successfully sued and have been held liable for injures occurred by someone legally carrying a firearm?

Click to expand...

This one hasn't gone to court yet, but the victim of the theater shooting is suing Regal Cinemas, despite having a no-guns sign. In part, it is because they handled the event poorly, not evacuating the theater or treating it seriously, even though no one knew who the shooter was.

http://q13fox.com/2016/01/29/woman-shot-inside-renton-movie-theatre-blaming-regal-cinema/

Since Open Carry was passed here I'm seeing a much great frequency of signs banning open carry but welcoming concealed carry w/permit. When the law was first passed a lot of the business owners went into panic mode about openly armed customers and shootouts, etc., but as with everywhere else it's been a complete non-issue and a lot of the signs have come back down.

gonoles_1980 said:

For example Target,

Click to expand...

Target CEO merely requested that people do not carry into their stores. In the two stores that I sometimes shop at, I always see customers open carrying. With no interference from Target employees or other customers. I did breathe a sigh of disgust when I saw one person carrying a custom blinged Hi Point in a cheap Blackhawk holster.

I carry where I like. Concealed is concealed. And no gun signs on stores do not carry the weight of law in my state. If I am "made" and asked to leave, I will leave.

RX-79G said:

This one hasn't gone to court yet, but the victim of the theater shooting is suing Regal Cinemas, despite having a no-guns sign. In part, it is because they handled the event poorly, not evacuating the theater or treating it seriously, even though no one knew who the shooter was.

http://q13fox.com/2016/01/29/woman-shot-inside-renton-movie-theatre-blaming-regal-cinema/

Click to expand...

So, the answer is no.

You are saying that these signs -"they're simply a means of keeping the business free from lawsuits that might arise if one of their customers injures someone with their carried weapon..."
even though there has not been any such lawsuits?

Do you have any evidence that insurance companies are requiring or suggesting that their customers put up No-Guns signs, or are you just guessing again?

RX-79G said:

I personally don't care that much either way, but going into a posted gun free business IS illegal. The fact that there isn't a real penalty doesn't mean that you aren't violating the law. Which usually isn't tolerated in the legal forum.

Click to expand...

Farther down you mentioned that you were speaking of Oklahoma law. I'm not near OK, so I only too a minute to skim the discussion at http://handgunlaw.us/states/oklahoma.pdf, but that quotes 1290.22 as:

"The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person who has been issued a handgun license on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be deemed a criminal act but may subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property." (italics added)


(as an aside about how specific state laws can be, that page seems to say that OK doesn't allow CCW of calibers larger than .45, so you Desert Eagle and .500 S&W guys are SOL )

gonoles_1980 said:

For example Target, or Levi Strauss that has a no gun policy, but no sign. I live in Florida, have a legal CC, how is it they can stop me from legally caring in the store. I don't believe store policy carries the weight of law. I guess if I have the instance where I have to defend myself in their store, I potentially could be banned. But what legal standing do these policies have?

Click to expand...

Well in the cases you gave, you would be going onto private property and NOT your property. If you are not the owner or tenant (with appropriate lease agreement) and it is not otherwise mandated by law, then policy certainly may have the weight of law. Depending on the state, you may be able to be in the parking lot with your gun, but not enter the actual store with a gun, or you face trespass charges (as noted).

Just because a store may be a public place does not make it public property.

Well in the cases you gave, you would be going onto private property and NOT your property. If you are not the owner or tenant (with appropriate lease agreement) and it is not otherwise mandated by law, then policy certainly may have the weight of law. Depending on the state, you may be able to be in the parking lot with your gun, but not enter the actual store with a gun, or you face trespass charges (as noted).

Click to expand...

For some reason this whole idea is a bit of a confused mess that we wade through repeatedly. There are a few states (I believe I counted about 18 in the other recent thread on this) where "no guns" signs erected at a piece of private property have weight of law behind them to one degree or another. That weight ranges from said notice being considered sufficient to immediately press trespass charges, all the way up to felonies, depending on the specific wording of that state's statutes.

For all other states, signs of that type carry no weight greater than any other store policy sign like, "no shirt, no shoes, no service," or whatever. In other words, they give you notice that someone at the store could decide to ask you to leave because of this. If you do not leave when told to, THEN they could press trespass charges. Just as they could if you were yelling too loud, didn't wear shoes, said something that offended someone, etc.


So, "how can they stop me from legally carrying in the store?" By coming up and asking you to go away. After that, you're illegally in the store (carrying or not). And that holds true for any store (or home, or church, or whatever other private property) in any state.

Steve 4102... you actually made my point (I didn't say or even infer that such lawsuits were common -or had ever occurred at all...). In today's world "preventive measures" cost all of us a bit of freedom here and a bit there.... Some years ago I was permitted by the agency I worked for to work as a process server (strictly civil cases - and not in the city I worked for as a cop...). It was routine for attorneys in product liability cases to sue everyone in sight -then through the deposition process winnow out those not responsible (or without any "deep pockets"). One of the things they were looking for was any sign that anyone from the maker all the way out whoever sold whatever product was involved was perfectly willing to point the finger at someone else in the chain to escape any possible liability... That sort of stuff meant lots of work for me. It was only years later that I realized what was actually happening - long before "gun free zones".

Have you ever been in a garage with a prominent sign "due to insurance regulations customers are not allowed in work area" (or similar verbiage...). First off there's no such thing as "insurance regulations" , secondly -the sign is only there to reduce liability in the event that a customer was hurt... Those "no guns allowed signs" are much more about preventing a loss in a potential civil suit than anything else (similar rules in workplaces prevent employees from bringing or carrying a lawful, permitted weapon on the job site - not because of any real threat - but merely "in case" and to make sure that the company is in the best possible position if something does go wrong....). That's our modern world - you won't hear me cheering at all.....

Double Naught Spy said:

Well in the cases you gave, you would be going onto private property and NOT your property. If you are not the owner or tenant (with appropriate lease agreement) and it is not otherwise mandated by law, then policy certainly may have the weight of law. Depending on the state, you may be able to be in the parking lot with your gun, but not enter the actual store with a gun, or you face trespass charges (as noted).

Just because a store may be a public place does not make it public property.

Click to expand...

With that logic, we cannot carry anywhere indoors except our own homes. Something I highly doubt many of us would make into habit.

steve4102 said:

So, the answer is no.

You are saying that these signs -"they're simply a means of keeping the business free from lawsuits that might arise if one of their customers injures someone with their carried weapon..."
even though there has not been any such lawsuits?

Do you have any evidence that insurance companies are requiring or suggesting that their customers put up No-Guns signs, or are you just guessing again?

Click to expand...

Our modern culture is sue happy. Everything isn't our fault it must be someone else's. I am going to sue to cover my pain or displeasure in anyway even if I am at fault. Companies would rather enact policies that make no sense to avoid POTENTIAL lawsuits than deal with the possibility of one.

steve4102 said:

So, the answer is no.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that. I was sharing a local story that I'd been following.

steve4102 said:

You are saying that these signs -"they're simply a means of keeping the business free from lawsuits that might arise if one of their customers injures someone with their carried weapon..."
even though there has not been any such lawsuits?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that. You are quoting lemaymiami, not me. Don't do that.

pintler said:

Farther down you mentioned that you were speaking of Oklahoma law. I'm not near OK, so I only too a minute to skim the discussion at http://handgunlaw.us/states/oklahoma.pdf, but that quotes 1290.22 as:

"The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person who has been issued a handgun license on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be deemed a criminal act but may subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property." (italics added)

Click to expand...

Yup. Did you read the previous discussion in this thread. I know it is not "criminal". But the law can have a prohibition without the violation being "criminal", but that doesn't mean that it wasn' "against the law".

Sam1911 said:

For all other states, signs of that type carry no weight greater than any other store policy sign like, "no shirt, no shoes, no service," or whatever. In other words, they give you notice that someone at the store could decide to ask you to leave because of this. If you do not leave when told to, THEN they could press trespass charges. Just as they could if you were yelling too loud, didn't wear shoes, said something that offended someone, etc.

Click to expand...

Well, kinda.

There are actually three types of states - ones that make it criminal for taking a gun into a privately posted no-gun area, those that make no mention of those locations at all, and those that have specific laws about posted areas including specific repercussions for non-compliance with that section of the law. FL and OK have observably different laws, even if neither criminalizes the act. OK non-compliance will eventually get you a fine that is not designated as a "trespassing" penalty.

Frank Ettin said:

No, not "kinda." Sam is exactly right.

And you need to stop trying to explain matter of law. You have consistently demonstrated that you have no clue. You simply don't know what you're talking about and only confuse things.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that I don't always accept your non-explanation and insults as answers:

Frank Ettin said:

But law doesn't really mean anything without the authority of courts to take or force actions based on decisions regarding their application of the law to matters in dispute.

Click to expand...

So is there a law or not? You seem to be acknowledging that there are laws with no consequence by saying that they don't "mean anything". Which is not the same as saying there is no law.

In this particular case, you and Sam are claiming that the OK law is a trespass law, when the reality is that the statute never references trespass at all. It has a fine for non-compliance that is unique to the statute, and probably for good reason.


All I was getting at originally is that the state of OK has a law that instructs citizens how to handle banning firearms in public businesses. Compliance with a law, regardless of consequence for non-compliance, is still expected and is the moral behavior of a law abiding person. Living in a free society assumes that people will choose to do right, even when they are not under the coercion of legal force. I don't see that as "meaningless" even if you and Sam do.


This is all only a little different than the contrasting views you and Sam have on building AR pistols from receivers. Your take is that the law specifies a pistol must be built first before a rifle for legal compliance, so you must absolutely do so. Sam says that the ATF has no way of knowing or proving such a thing, so they could never enforce that law, making the application of that law to stripped receiver builds effectively irrelevant. Which of you is right?

This is all only a little different than the contrasting views you and Sam have on building AR pistols from receivers. Your take is that the law specifies a pistol must be built first before a rifle for legal compliance, so you must absolutely do so. Sam says that the ATF has no way of knowing or proving such a thing, so they could never enforce that law, making the application of that law to stripped receiver builds effectively irrelevant. Which of you is right?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but do you have no capacity to see that those two statements are NOT mutually exclusive? Is the subtlety of these statements too fine for you to process?

I have never, not once, told someone that they should, or even could get away with, build a firearm in violation of the law. The fact that the corners that the verbiage of the NFA, and the various opinions written by the BATFE, are tight little, often seemingly contradictory or impossible, ones makes no difference to whether we advocate following the law, and will not brook any discussion of violating it.

(I have entertained discussions of why for technical reasons and because of the ATF's own interpretations and rulings, it may be practically almost a moot point because most people would slide on the buttstock last and what the thing is just before that act is... )

I'll suggest that you don't put words -- or meanings behind them -- into my mouth.

Now, to look at Oklahoma:

The statute is Section 1290.22.
C. A property owner, tenant, employer, place of worship or business entity may prohibit any person from carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm on the property. If the building or property is open to the public, the property owner, tenant, employer, place of worship or business entity shall post signs on or about the property stating such prohibition.
D. The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person who has been issued a handgun license on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be deemed a criminal act but may subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property. If the person refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).

That right there, is a trespass. It's a textbook definition OF trespass. No, they didn't say the word "trespass." Just like I could describe a semi-auto rifle on the Stoner design without ever using the phrase "AR-15" -- but you'd probably be able to tell what I mean. This is not, NOT, a trespass simply because the legislature decided to spell it out in long sentence form, rather than use the common term.

I believe (without putting words in HIS mouth) that this may be what Frank is getting at when he says you don't understand law and should stop telling others what it is or isn't. I don't think one, necessarily, needs a law degree to have a working grasp of simple statues and prohibitions, but to look at the last sentence of subsection D up there and not see that as a trespass illustrates just how quickly and easily law gets confusing to the layperson.

Sam1911 said:

I'm sorry, but do you have no capacity to see that those two statements are NOT mutually exclusive? Is the subtlety of these statements too fine for you to process?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting statement, since I am the one trying to articulate the subtle difference between complying with a law that exists vs not having a law at all. In this case, a law that spells out exactly what the business owner must do to receive the protections outlined and what the perpetrator can expect for his non-compliance.

Sam1911 said:

I have never, not once, told someone that they should, or even could get away with, build a firearm in violation of the law.

Click to expand...

It certainly appears that you are saying someone "could" violate the pistol-first rule here, explaining that it would be too hard to for the ATF to prove otherwise:

Sam1911 said:

If you buy one as a stripped lower, new stock, then you can pretty much say you did whatever you want to say, first. It would be pretty complicated to prove otherwise.

Click to expand...

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ped-lower-become-an-sbr.809881/#post-10354260
You definitely did not say that they should do this, but you did say that they "could get away with it".

That's an interesting statement, since I am the one trying to articulate the subtle difference between complying with a law that exists vs not having a law at all.

Click to expand...

But that isn't working out, probably because the example you're giving doesn't mean what it says it means.

It certainly appears that you are saying someone "could" violate the pistol-first rule here, explaining that it would be too hard to for the ATF to prove otherwise.

Click to expand...

I am trying, there, to show what a mess the law makes of the jobs of the regulatory agency tasked with enforcing it, in light of modern technologies. I did not encourage anyone to actually do this. If they want to decide this is unprosecutable, I might even argue in agreement with them, because it could well prove to be so, but I wouldn't tell them to do it.

Now, stop trying to paint us in some dim light simply to bolster your failing argument.

Frank Ettin said:

And now you're trying to conflate law and morality.

Click to expand...

Conflate? No. I'm saying that the moral choice is to comply with law rather than avoid prosecution. Laws aren't moral. Choosing to follow them is.

Frank Ettin said:

In reality, there is a difference between getting away with committing a crime and avoiding committing a crime.

Click to expand...

There is also a difference between avoiding being a criminal and following the law.

And I don't disagree that the OK law is a type of "trespass". I'm saying that OK has a law that is separate from their regular trespass laws, and that law deals exclusively and particularly with public businesses and guns in a way that is more specific and different from how FL law treats the same issues.

Sam1911 said:

Now, stop trying to paint us in some dim light simply to bolster your failing argument.

Click to expand...

You understand that my "failing argument" is simply that people should observe and follow the OK law, regardless of the lack of penalties?

Not sure why that is such a stupid notion that multiple mods need to condemn it.