No Guns Allowed Signs

[christcorp]

when business owners incorporate, they tie the status of their corporations to government in such a way that the provisions of the BOR should extend to them as well. They are no longer acting as private citizens, on an equal basis with others.

SAT WHAT????

The Constitution and BOR is what grants power to government. Small Business, Companies, Corporations, etc... are NOT given POWER. Start your own small business some time and then tell me if you believe that a company has no rights and is treated EQUAL to government. Or at least on the same plane.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I love Texas cause if your not on the banned places list ie Fed and state buildings and you don't have that 30-06 sign I just walk on in.

 

[catspa]

Sorry for not being sufficiently clear on that, CC. As I stated in post #140 of your other thread:

"...if a business owner incorporates, he should be prepared to accept further limitations to his right of association. A corporation is an artificial entity with an artificial status, created and bestowed by government, which modifies the equal standing we had as private citizens. Why would you go through the process of incorporating your business unless you felt you had some advantage to gain that you couldn't enjoy as a private citizen? I'm not saying you can't make corporate policies, just that as an entity with a government-granted artificial status, your corporation can't infringe on the Bill of Rights. Or to put it another way, if the government is (or should be) bound by the BOR, they have no authority to grant a gun-show promoter an exempt status from it.

In addition, your corporate policies don't carry the force of law. If a customer disregards those policies, your recourse is limited to breaking off the transaction, unless a contractual agreement provides otherwise."

Here's why I think that, and you're free to disagree (as if I had to say so).

We the people, being created equal and endowed with rights by our creator, after the end of the War for Independence, were faced with the task of deciding what kind of government would be appropriate for to govern our (then newly formed) society. We already had state governments, and through them we sent delegetes to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, who came up with the Constitution, which our state ratifying conventions later approved. It made no mention of giving the government any power to create the artificial status of "incorporation", even though similar laws had existed in Britain since the 1760's or before, and the delegates must have been aware of them. Soon afterwards, the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution, to make good and sure it was understood that the federal government was bound to treat its citizens in a certain manner. The federal government operated under the BOR restrictions for quite some time, although now they have gutted many of them.

Later on, possibly as early as the 1850's, state governments began granting corporate status to business ventures headquartered within their boundaries. By the time of the 16th amendment (establishing the power to require a federal income tax) and the creation of the Federal Reserve System, corporate business status was being recognised and granted by the federal government as well, and this era also saw the Supreme Court ruling that the BOR was binding on state governments as well as the federal (by a process referred to, confusingly, as "incorporation").

Whether the federal government had the authority to grant corporate status, that authority not enumerated in the Constitution, or whether states do, if not specifically granted in their constitutions, is a discussion for another day (and probly another forum). But business corporations have come to be viewed in a legal sense as a separate entity from their owners, and enjoy certain tax benefits and limitations on liability which private citizens do not have. So what I'm saying is, an artificial entity (not a private citizen) operating under a government granted status does not have the rights that private citizens do, it only has the rights that its creator (i.e. a state or federal government) has the authority to endow it with. If the state and federal governments cannot infringe the BOR, they cannot create an artificial entity that can do so.

I never meant to say that business corporations were equal to the government in power, or that they were on the same plane, just that they are bound by the Bill of Rights because they were created by a government that is. Sorry for the confusion.

Parker

 

[christcorp]

I understand what you're saying Cat; but I think you would be surprised to know that many of the businesses we're talking about in your local town; are Mom and Pops and are NOT incorporated. The private pawn shop, coin shop, launderette, gun shop, etc... are more than likely not incorporated in any way, shape, or form. They are the same as a Home Based Business except they are renting/owning a store front property.

I still believe, live by and hold to the concept that a business owner has every right to set rules, policies, etc... for anyone patronizing his/her business/property. (And I will NOT change this position. I spent 21 years in the military defending the rights of ALL Americans). There are some rules that are City/state laws/ordinances; e.g. no smoking, must wear shirt/shoes (Health), etc... But there are a lot of privately constructed rules and policies by the business owners. And as long as they apply to EVERYONE and they don't discriminate against a person or persons; e.g. race, sex, age, etc...; then I believe the business owner has and SHOULD have every right to set such policies. Our local mall (PRIVATE BUSINESS owns the building and OTHER PRIVATE BUSINESSES lease space); has a rule/policy that during evening hours; after 6pm; that no CHILD under the age of 18 can be present in the mall without a parent/guardian. And they will be asked to leave if the disrespect this policy. And if the teen-ager refuses to leave, the police will be called and they will be escorted out.

The same applies to the gun store that are currently setting LIMITS to ammo and reloading. I.e. Customers are only allowed to purchase "X" amount of ammo or primers per day. This is not a law; it's a rule/policy that the business has instituted. There's no law that says they MUST sell the customer everything they have. Again; as long as the rules apply to everyone, I'm fine with it. The main reason is: I AM NOT FORCED TO GO TO THAT PLACE OF BUSINESS!. If I don't like the rule/policy/no firearm sign; I don't have to go in. That is not difficult.

But, for what it's worth; I think such a Rule/Policy by a business is a pretty stupid rule. Those who have a concealed weapon permit are probably close to 99.9% trustworthy individuals. They have been checked by the city, county, state, and feds for background checks. The criminals on the other hand is probably carrying concealed ILLEGALLY; and a rule/policy at a business will mean absolutely nothing to them. They'll still have their weapon. So the business owner is putting the trustworthy citizen and the criminal on the same plane. The business owner is obviously ignorant. But they also have the right to be ignorant. All I can do is try and educate them. They don't have to agree with me. They can continue to have such a policy. Maybe I'll disarm and enter the establishment; maybe I won't enter the establishment.

Either way; I will respect the property owner's rules/policies. Why; because I am not FORCED to go onto their property. The ONLY Right I have on another person's PROPERTY; is the RIGHT TO LEAVE!!!! Anything else, while on their property, is simply a privilege. Why the property owner may come up with such rules/policies is irrelevant. They are allowed to be stupid, ignorant, etc... And I'm free to not go in. This isn't a matter of agreeing or not agreeing. It's not a matter of if there's a law that says you have to. It's a matter of "MY RIGHTS" are no more important than anyone else's rights. And as such; my rights stop at another person's property, or if I am denying them from exercising their rights. And while I am on their property, it is a privilege. Because no one is forcing me to be there.

 

[catspa]

I'm self-employed (not incorporated), and only do business with people I like. People I don't like can go to h*ll (if they believe in it), so I see your point.

I admire your willingness to act consistent with your beliefs. My post addressed only my opinion of the legal concepts.

Parker

 

[Tamlin]

I'm amazed at the number of people who still don't understand that the Bill of Rights DOES NOT APPLY on private property, whether it's "open to the public" or not. Yes, you have a 2A right to bear arms, but Not In My Store. And why should I have to provide you with a safe storage option? Should I be required to provide you with a soapbox, so you can exercise your First Amendment rights, too? If I don't like what you're saying, I can tell you to get out. If I don't like what you are wearing, I can tell you to get out. If you don't like the storeowner's policies, take your business to his competition, and give him one of those cards that other posters have mentioned. No one is forcing you to go into his store!

 

[divemedic]

Except that there is no such right to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nowhere.

Property rights ARE civil rights, and are constitutionally protected. Read the 4th and 5th amendments to the US Constitution.

This is not correct. First of all, the BOR does not apply to me, I can infringe on your rights all I want, under the COTUS. If this were the case, you would be free to deny entry to anyone you wish. You could put up a sign that says "no blacks" and there is nothing the Govt could do about it.

The only thing the 4A and 5A do is protect you from unlawful search, and protect you from takings without due process. The court has repeatedly held that a temporary tresspass does not constitute an unlawful taking of your property.

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that in order to be an unlawful taking, the tresspass must cause the owner to lose significant economic or physical enjoyment of his property. A gun owner who carries a concealed weapon does not cause such an unlawful taking, as no one even knows that he has done so. There is LOADS of case law on this subject, in cases ranging from sidewalk easements, to handicap access, to beach access rights of way.

Sorry, but that theory has no basis in law. (This is why the challenges to the OK and FL "guns in parking lots" laws both failed on constitutional grounds)

 

[deadin]

The following is for the State of Washington. I don't know what the laws of other States are, but it might be worth checking your own State.

RCW 9A.52.010: Definitions.
(3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.
………. with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner……..

RCW 9A.52.070: Criminal trespass in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

RCW 9A.52.080: Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

RCW 9A.52.090: Criminal trespass — Defenses.
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or
(4) <This section is concerned with process servers and in not mundane to the discussion at hand.>

Carefully read RCW 9A.52.090(2) “It is a defense if the actor complied with all lawful condition imposed on access….”
The “No Firearms Allowed” posting is actually removing privilege and license to access . As stated earlier “If there isn’t a law making something illegal, then it’s legal”. There is no law that says a store owner can’t post a sign removing privilege other than those that are defined as discriminatory
in the statutes. (Race, Religion, etc.). The definitions in RCW9A.52.010 allows for license and privilege removal via a posting.

Same thing in RCW9A.52.090(3). It’s fairly obvious that if there is a sign saying “No Firearms”, a reasonable person couldn’t believe that the owner is going to grant him special privilege.

I contend that just entering a posted store with a firearm (and being detected) immediately makes one subject to prosecution if the owner so desires.They will probably just ask you to leave, but they don’t have to under the law. I know were I the owner and you chose to disregard my rights, I wouldn't care too much about yours.
Criminal Trespass in Washington is a misdemeanor, but it still can require a court date, fine, record, etc.

 

[TAB]

post 23 got it right. not fallowing others wishs when your thier guest is just about as far from the high road as you can get.

 

[catspa]

Given the defense in RCW 9A.52.090(2), The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises, the legal question might revolve around whether "no CCW's" is a "lawful condition" of access to a premises open to the public. Probly have to go to case law for that.

There is no law that says a store owner can’t post a sign removing privilege other than those that are defined as discriminatory
in the statutes.

There is a law, however, that says that the state legislature pre-empts the field of firearms law, which includes the prohibiting of CCW in certain places. It's not against the law for a store owner to post the sign, but posting a sign does not carry the weight of law.

As a practical matter, before a business owner could throw someone out of his store for CCW'ing, they'd have to know it first. It's kinda like hanging a sign that says, "No tattoos on your genitals".

Parker

 

[Rockwell1]

I'm amazed at the number of people who still don't understand that the Bill of Rights DOES NOT APPLY on private property, whether it's "open to the public" or not. Yes, you have a 2A right to bear arms, but Not In My Store.

I understand that completely I also understand that my right to self defense is in no way dependent upon the constitution is the document was never written or ceased to exist tomorrow, it affects my rights not at all.

My obedience to your sign could cost me my life or serious bodily injury (real, measurable harm) for which I doubt very seriously you would compensate my survivors.

However my disobedience to your sign actually affects you , how?

It's kinda like hanging a sign that says, "No tattoos on your genitals".

Coulda gone my whole life with out reading that

 

[TAB]

they'd have to know it first

most people that concealed carry, do a very poor job of it. Granted there are some that are very good, but for the most part that is not the case.

I don't need a reason to ask you to leave.

My obedience to your sign could cost me my life or serious bodily injury (real, measurable harm) for which I doubt very seriously you would compensate my survivors.

if your really worried about that, I recomend you never leave your house. who is going to pay for that ND you had injurying one of my employees? do you have 100k that you can get to right now? how about 500k? 1 mil? can you pay me to hire a replcement? Can you pay for my lost imcome?

its a double edged sword.

 

[catspa]

TAB: most people that concealed carry, do a very poor job of it. Granted there are some that are very good, but for the most part that is not the case.

How could you possibly know that? All you've ever seen are the poor ones. Everybody around you right now could be packing, and you'd never know it if they did it well. Which returns us to the point of this discussion, I guess.

You don't need a reason to ask me to leave, but then you'd be asking everyone to leave just in case they were carrying. Good luck with that.

Parker

Sorry, Rockwell1.

 

[searcher451]

I noticed for the first time recently that a certain gunshop I used to frequent in the central part of the state had a "No loaded guns inside" sign posted near the front door. I asked the guy behind the counter what was up with that, and he just grinned and shrugged, saying nothing. I haven't been back since and won't return the next time I'm in the area; plenty of other gun shops to visit.

 

[deadin]

There is a law, however, that says that the state legislature pre-empts the field of firearms law

It has nothing to do with "firearms law". It has to do with license and privilege to enter his store. It could just as well be anything that is not in a protected class.

 

[NotSoFast]

Although as a Californian who lives in a county that doesn't give out CCW permits thus I don't carry, if I were to encounter a sign like that, I would definitely make it known to the owner or manager that I would no longer do business there and find another shop that does allow guns to be carried by law abiding citizens.

It is proven that no gun zones attract crazies with guns and I'd rather not be there when they appear. I also disapprove of those who would rather I not exercise my rights.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I used to work in a bar. The boss decided that he did not want customers coming in wearing tank tops or sleeveless shirts because it tended to draw a bad element. Part of my job was to enforce that rule. I never will forget this one idiot who declared that it was his right to wear any kind of shirt he wanted and that I was discriminating against him because I let a girl in wearing a sleeveless summer dress. I told him that he indeed could wear whatever he wanted anywhere in the entire world but not in this bar. But if he did come back wearing a dress I would let him in.

It is really simple. Public places are those that you pay taxes to support.

 

[catspa]

Deadin, respectfully, the topic of "where is CCW legal?" is included in "firearms law".

Parker

 

[Rockwell1]

who is going to pay for that ND you had injurying one of my employees?

First tell me how that ND is going to happen if I never touch my sidearm unless I have need of it?

most people that concealed carry, do a very poor job of it.

What are you basing this on?

I don't need a reason to ask you to leave.

And if you do, I will and you'll have lost a customer who will go out of his way to let people know that

 

[deadin]

the topic of "where is CCW legal?" is included in "firearms law".

OK, Let's try it from this angle.. If, as you contend, a store owner doesn't have the right to deny you entrance because of a firearm, why does he have the right to ask you to leave because of a firearm? You should be able to tell him to pack sand.

 

[Isher]

Hmmm.......

This smacks to me of

"No shirt, no shoes, no service."

Needless, so say, I haven't gone down the Consitutional rabbithole

On that one.

Just throwing it out for general consumption.


isher

 

[deadin]

Needless, so say, I haven't gone down the Consitutional rabbithole
On that one.
Just throwing it out for general consumption.

Troublemaker!!

 

[rainbowbob]

It's kinda like hanging a sign that says, "No tattoos on your genitals".

Is there one of those smiley thingies to illustrate a "spit-take"?

For the past three weeks I have had to frequently visit a hospital (in Seattle) posted with a small sign at the entrance saying "No Weapons Allowed for Your Safety and the Safety of Others".

I'm not worried about being "made" - and I refuse to leave my firearm in an unguarded parking garage. I'm also not willing to walk around unarmed in the garage, on the streets, or in the psych ward I'm visiting.

In the unlikely event I was discovered carrying, I would leave if asked to do so.

 

[catspa]

Deadin: If, as you contend, a store owner doesn't have the right to deny you entrance because of a firearm, why does he have the right to ask you to leave because of a firearm? You should be able to tell him to pack sand.

I think I could. Recall that the definition of trespassing is, A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain and that the premises being open to the public is a defense, provided I have complied with the lawful conditions for access. I think when he called a deputy, I would ask, "Deputy, is disarming myself in compliance with the store owner's wishes a lawful condition for entry on these premises?" He knows it is not, but if he said yes, I'd ask him, "Please show me the statute that requires it."

At that point, I think he'd take me aside and say, "Okay, Mr. Parker, you've proved your point, both to this store owner and to me. Now you're starting to cause me an inconvenience, and I suggest you leave before I find something else to arrest you for."

I believe the "posting in a conspicuous place" clause of section 010 refers to property that is posted against all trespassing, not premises that are open to the public. I would change my opinion on that if you have applicable case law.

Now, WOULD I go to all that trouble just to pursue a legal point? Nah. I'd just smile as I walked past the sign, and smile on my way back out. I think what it comes down to is that I think my license to CCW legally trumps the store owner's nervousness about guns. If it were not so, I would have expected the legislature to provide a "CCW prohibited where posted" clause in the statute, as some states have, and some members have described to us.

A private home is different to me, and I would disarm or leave if the owner (or tenant, or family member) asked me to. Not because of the legal issue, but because it's their home, and I value the privacy of my home, and that's how far my respect extends. That and they probly have some guns of their own laying around, and I could get shot if I cause a scene...

edit to add: Bob, I see your problem. "No Weapons Allowed for Your Safety and the Safety of Others", huh? I guess you'll just have to carry your J-frame because you're a gun collector and you appreciate it's historic significance.

"Well, I wasn't carrying for my safety and the safety of others, honest. If I was, I'd be carrying a rifle..."

Parker

 

[bigfatdave]

most people that concealed carry, do a very poor job of it. Granted there are some that are very good, but for the most part that is not the case.

How could you possibly know that? All you've ever seen are the poor ones.

catspa, that is the smartest thing I've read all day. You point out something we all know, but from a new angle. "NO GUNS" signs are unenforceable, and erode the authority of anywhere that posts them without enforcing them (metal detectors or equivalent at EVERY entrance).
A property owner has a right to dictate who enters their property and what they bring, but I'm not going to worry about occasional violation of a posted sign, I'm certainly not about to go to a vehicle and disarm (telegraphing to every passer-by that there is a valuable and fenceable item in my vehicle), and what the hell are people who didn't drive themselves supposed to do?