No Guns Allowed Signs

[Tamlin]

Catspa, you are right about this thread going around in circles, but you are wrong about a store owner's sign not having the force of law. Here in AZ, if someone refuses to leave an establishment after being told to leave, OR IF THEY ENTER KNOWING THAT THEY ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING, it is the crime of Criminal Trespass, and they can be arrested. Do you not think that statutorily-defined crimes have the force of law? Yes, I agree, that the sign itself is not a law, and yes, I agree, that in most instances, the store owner needs to "make you" and then tell you to leave. If he never sees it, he doesn't know about it, and everybody goes about their business as usual. But the fact that you are entering, knowing that store owner is prohibiting you from entering, constitutes criminal trespass. The statute has the force of law; the sign is your notice. We are all adults; Do we all obey the speed limit signs all of the time? No, but we know the consequences if we get caught.

 

[chuckusaret]

Who's talking about spending dollars? I'm just going in there to handle their widgets in person to see which widget to buy online. Purely recon.

Heck, I thought I was the only person that does that.

 

[PhrankKastle]

I've only once seen a no guns sign in a business in NH and when I saw the sign I just went elsewhere I figured I'd repsect his rights and I'd rather spend my money in a friendlier establishment.

I do find the whole thing interesting as just last year in NH there was a bill to take away the peoples right to carry in the state legislature and it was voted down I think 280 to 19. When the 10th amendment states rights bill was voted on in NH this March I was in the balcony with probably 50 or 60 other openly armed people watching the floor debate and votes.

 

[Skykomish]

You may have a problem there. If the hospital provides mental health services, state law prohibits firearms.

That is an important bit of info I somehow missed. I'll have to re-read the statutes. You're right, that could be a problem more onerous than merely being asked to leave. This was at the UW psych ward.


Quote:
NorthWest Hospital is one that does this, however if you look carefully, the entire hospital is not posted. The ER and most of the external clinics are not posted.

Funny you should mention that. I just now came home from picking up my wife at the emergency entrance of NW Hospital (hyperglycemia). I looked and didn't see a sign.

Unfortunately, I spend quite a lot of time coming and going from various hospitals. Some of them are in pretty intense urban settings. Most of them have poorly lit, unguarded parking garages.

As others have said in so many words: I'll provide for my own defense, and be prepared to suffer the consequences in the unlikely event it should become a legal issue.

rainbowbob,

Was this a Restricted Access Area?

(c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public;

Subsection (1)(c) of this section does not apply to any administrator or employee of the facility or to any person who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300

 

[rainbowbob]

Was this a Restricted Access Area?

Yes.

Thanks for the citation.

It's interesting to note that at least the employees are not restricted, and there is a process (however awkward) for obtaining permission.

 

[divemedic]

Because no business is FORCING you to come into their establishment. The business owner doesn't have to assume any responsibility over you other than what's dictated by law;

Exactly- and no one is FORCING you to operate a business. Operating a business is not any more of a right that CCW is. You need a license for both, which places them firmly in the category of a privilege.

You say that a property owner only has to be responsible to me when dictated by law. I feel the same way about my responsibility to the property owner.

If you put up a sign that says "no guns," I have no responsibility to you other than what is required by law, and under the law a sign that places conditions on entry does not have the force of law. Even a sign specifying that I must wear shoes and a shirt does not mean a cop will arrest me for being shirtless in your store. You must tell me to leave in order for it to be trespassing.

Otherwise, I can put up a sign that says "By entering my property, you agree to hold me harmless" and that would mean that anything that happened from slipping on a wet floor to food poisoning would not be my liability. Of course that isn't the case.

 

[catspa]

For those members who feel that the wishes of the store owner should be absolute, I have a question. Does that extend to the customers thoughts and beliefs as well, while they remain on the premises?

When a restaurant posts "no shoes, no shirt, no service", it's a simple matter to glance at a person and see if they comply, although the details might be argued (is a tank-top a "shirt", what about flip-flops, etc.). However, if they posted "no atheists welcome here" or "no thinking about geometry" or "no entry to anyone who has ever visited France", compliance is not so obvious. We would reasonably expect them, if serious, to ask each customer to verify at the point of entry, or perhaps at the point of sale, and refuse further participation if a satisfactory answer is not recieved.

If a candy shop owner posts a sign that reads "no diabetics allowed", the customers who are diabetic are going to have to self-select for compliance, unless the store owner demands to see each person's medical records as a condition of entry. When considering pink underwear, or hidden tattoos, or CCW, or any other undistinguishable feature, is it reasonable for the store owner to believe that all passers-by will self-select for compliance?

In addition, we can reasonably believe that the store owner's intent in opening the doors for business is to conduct commercial transactions at a profit, not to change the beliefs of each customer to fit his/her own. As member Rockwell has asked (a number of times, with no answer that I've seen), how is the store owner harmed by the beliefs or actions of a customer that are completely unknown to him/her?

That is going to be the question in a civil action, when LEO's refuse to enforce "no CCW" as a criminal matter. And the store owner plaintiff will have to answer it in order to get anywhere.

Parker

divemedic: "By entering my store you agree to defer to my opinion on whatever subject we might discuss, even after you leave the premises. And buy me beer on Wednesday nights for as long as you live in this town." My store has been kinda lonely ever since I posted that sign...

 

[DammitBoy]

For those members who feel that the wishes of the store owner should be absolute, I have a question. Does that extend to the customers thoughts and beliefs as well, while they remain on the premises?

What is the purpose of such a silly question? It has no bearing on the topic at hand. Are you intentionally trying to deflect the thread off onto a tangent?

It is patently obvious to anyone interested in the topic that your question is not meant to add to the debate or conversation.

 

[catspa]

Similar to the question I asked about, does the "rules applying to everyone" actually mean everyone, this question intends to ask, when you say "the store owner's rights are absolute", do you mean absolute?

You have the right not to answer.

Parker

 

[JWJacobVT]

Local Bank has a No Guns sign. They also have the unarmed security guard. So I walk in after my shift across the street as an Armed security guard in uniform and behind me a State trooper also in uniform (yes with firearms). Then manager of the bank started having a fit and told us we had to leave, per the NO guns policy. The trooper and I looked at each other and completed our transactions, while a buddy of mine that works at the bank explained to the manager that the sign did not apply to us. He also informed her the anybody could have a concealed firearm, as Vermont allows that. She was not happy but she just moved up from Boston. I am not sure if the sign is still there but I will check Monday.

 

[DammitBoy]

The issue is not complicated, quit trying to gum it up with what if's.

Property rights trump your rights. Don't like it? Stay off of their property.

 

[catspa]

Since you're not offering statute or case law to support it, can I classify that as your (rather abruptly stated) opinion?

Parker

 

[DammitBoy]

What rights do you think you have on my property?

It's a rhetorical question. You have no rights on my property.

 

[catspa]

If you open your doors to the public for business, than I apparently do (according to the laws of my state. I have no knowledge of the laws of your state).

Parker

 

[divemedic]

The issue is not complicated, quit trying to gum it up with what if's.

Property rights trump your rights. Don't like it? Stay off of their property.

and yet the laws of my state say otherwise, signs do not carry the force of law. Unless the property owner is willing to put up a metal detector, and individually notify each armed person that they cannot enter, then there is nothing they can do to stop me. It is legal for me to carry, so I will do so.

Don't like it? Don't open you property to the public.

Again, if property rights trumped mine, then a property owner can chain shut his emergency exits, or deny entry to people based on race. Your argument is flawed.

 

[rainbowbob]

It is patently obvious to anyone interested in the topic that your question is not meant to add to the debate or conversation.

Well...I'm interested in the topic - and I think those comments DO add to the debate.

Sometimes stating an obvious absurdity clarifies the not-so-obvious absurdity.

Property rights trump your rights. Don't like it? Stay off of their property.

Private property rights may trump my rights...property open to the public is clearly a kettle of horses of a different color.

I don't have the option of taking my business elsewhere when visiting a loved one in a hospital.

Don't like it? Don't open you property to the public.

Again, if property rights trumped mine, then a property owner can chain shut his emergency exits, or deny entry to people based on race. Your argument is flawed.

The force of law applies in very fundamentally different ways to publicly accessed property as opposed to private property.

I can deny you access to my home or land for any reason or no reason at all. Not so with property open to the general public.

 

[Rockwell1]

What rights do you think you have on my property?

All of them

 

[divemedic]

Come to think of it, you are completely correct. I still retain my First Amendment rights while on your property. I cannot be arrested for speaking my mind on your property, nor can I be arrested if I have a book in my pocket. Sure, you can ask me to leave and have me arrested if I refuse, but I still cannot be arrested for the above acts.

The same is true for carrying a weapon in violation of a stupid sign: you can ask me to leave if you notice my weapon, but I cannot be arrested for having it, unless I refuse to leave when asked.

 

[catspa]

In Bob's case, there's a good chance that the premises in question are owned by an arm of the state government (University of Washington) or another political subdivision, or that their funding is derived from a public taxing district of some kind or another, which kinda negates the "private property" part of the equation.

Parker

 

[Mags]

How in the hell do you idiots think it is Legal when asked to leave on public property and you do not? You are now trespassing who cares why you were asked to leave you were asked by a property owner that has a public buisness not public property. Public property is property owned by goverment or municapalities in which case the goverment has no rights. basically what you dummies are saying if I say "leave get off my property!" and you do not are you saying I can not force you to leave or call the police. Seriously, I do not own a public buisness but I do not see the difference between a buisness property and my home. I would pay the bills at both so how do you have a right to be in my buisness if I do not want you there.

 

[John Parker]

I like to respect the owner's property rights by shopping elsewhere. Saves him/her and myself any hassles. If they don't want law-abiding citizens carrying guns on their property, then I'll spend my money elsewhere.

 

[Mags]

I like to respect the owner's property rights by shopping elsewhere. Saves him/her and myself any hassles. If they don't want law-abiding citizens carrying guns on their property, then I'll spend my money elsewhere.

Exactly we have the option to go elsewhere.

 

[catspa]

Mags, seriously, private property (your home) is not legally the same as commercial property that is open to the public. That's what we're saying. Whether we are idiots or dummies has nothing to do with that fact. If we refuse to leave your business property (when it is still open to the public), you can call all the police you like, but they're not going to enforce your business policies unless it's a matter covered by law.

The details of this might vary between states, but that's the argument. Do you wish to address it?

Parker

 

[Mags]

How is my home different form my buisness? ( I do not own a buisness) I own the real property and if i ask you to leave for whatever reason either home or buisness you must leave by law or you are trespassing PERIOD. BTW in NM if a place is posted you have to disarm before entering, I usually just don't frequent the places that are posted.

 

[divemedic]

How in the hell do you idiots think it is Legal when asked to leave on public property and you do not? You are now trespassing who cares why you were asked to leave you were asked by a property owner that has a public buisness not public property. Public property is property owned by goverment or municapalities in which case the goverment has no rights. basically what you dummies are saying if I say "leave get off my property!" and you do not are you saying I can not force you to leave or call the police. Seriously, I do not own a public buisness but I do not see the difference between a buisness property and my home. I would pay the bills at both so how do you have a right to be in my buisness if I do not want you there.

1 No one here is name calling. Please refrain from that, so the thread remains open.

2 No one here said we would refuse to leave if asked to do so. That would be illegal, and we have said that we continue to carry wherever and whenever it is legal to do so. For example, my employer has a policy prohibiting firearms on all property, even though there is a State law prohibiting them from having a policy, as long as I have a CCW and the firearms are locked in my vehicle in the parking area. Guess what? There is a gun in my car every day that I am at work, and there isn't a thing that they can do about it. (It is illegal for them to do anything, including asking me to leave)

3 There is a big difference and the courts agree with me on that one. For example, here is a partial list of things you can do in your home, that you cannot do in a business:

a) refuse entry to people on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc.
b) refuse to maintain a working fire alarm/suppression system
c) refuse to maintain handicapped access
as well as a host of other regulations that do not apply to homes.

Sorry, but there is no absolute right for a person to operate a business on that property without regard to the rights and safety of the public.