No Guns Allowed Signs
- Thread starter DeepSouth
- Start date
- Status
christcorp
Member
Cat; why do you continue to ask the same question, when the answer has been given numerous times? Is it that you just don't like the answer? ANY, let me repeat, ANY rule, policy, etc... that a business owner makes; MUST; let me say it again for those reading slow; MUST APPLY TO EVERYONE EQUALLY. So stop asking silly scenarios about atheists, people who visit France, gays, blacks, and any other subset of humanity. This answer has already been stated. And this answer is NOT my answer; it is Civil Anti-discriminatory law. Basically; it means that the rule/policy can not have anything to do with the nature of the individual. Oh, and you might not want to use the No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service example. In just about every state, that is NOT a merchant's policy. That is set by city/state health code. However; there are exceptions to this; e.g. a boardwalk snack-shack on the beach.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
I used to work part time as a bouncer and as a representative of the bar I had the power to eject people for any reason at any time. If they refused to leave after being told to go they were tresspassing and could be removed by force.
That being said, It is really bad for business to toss people out or refuse entry unless there is a really good reason. That reason was ALWAYS contingent on behavior that harmed or offended other patrons or damaged peoperty. I would go to extreme lengths to accomidate paying customers. Private enterprise is like that. The property owner has every right to make the rules but running off customers is bad for business.
That being said, It is really bad for business to toss people out or refuse entry unless there is a really good reason. That reason was ALWAYS contingent on behavior that harmed or offended other patrons or damaged peoperty. I would go to extreme lengths to accomidate paying customers. Private enterprise is like that. The property owner has every right to make the rules but running off customers is bad for business.
divemedic
Member
Actually, that is a great example: If I am not wearing a shirt, I am not going to jail. The only thing a business owner can do is ask me to leave. If I refuse, I am violating the law, but that has nothing to do with any sign, nor does it have anything to do with the fact that I am carrying a firearm.
Owen:
Of course a property owner can ask you to leave, but again, that has NOTHING to do with a "no firearms" sign.
Tamlin
Member
Mags:
Obviously, people have their minds made up - can't get them to think differently, or even consider the possibilities - even with facts or reason. They know what they know, and the rest of us be d@mned . . . sounds like liberals!
Obviously, people have their minds made up - can't get them to think differently, or even consider the possibilities - even with facts or reason. They know what they know, and the rest of us be d@mned . . . sounds like liberals!
divemedic
Member
Again with the name calling. Why can't anyone have a conversation without resorting to ad hominem attacks?
Let me use Texas Law* as an example:
A CHL commits a trespass under §30.06 if (1) the CHL carries a handgun on property of another without "effective" consent and (2) the CHL receives notice that entry on the property by the CHL with a concealed handgun is forbidden or (3) the CHL receives notice that remaining on the property with a concealed handgun is forbidden and the CHL fails to depart.
The real problem is what it means to receive "notice."
Notice can be oral or written. The statute provides no magic words necessary to receive oral notice. If either the owner, or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner, tells a CHL to leave, the CHL must leave. Period. Of course, if the CHL is truly concealing the handgun, it will be rare indeed that the CHL will receive oral notice to leave.
The more common situation the CHL will face is a sign that attempts to give the CHL "written communication" that the CHL is not welcome if the CHL is carrying concealed.
If the property owner (or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner) posts a sign, the sign must comply with the requirements of §30.06 to be effective notice to a CHL.
"Written communication" means either:
(1) a card or "other document" that has written language "identical" to the following:
"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun;" or
(2) A sign posted on the property that:
(a) "includes" the above language in both English and Spanish;
(b) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(c) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Thus, according to the statute, a proper §30.06 sign must have language identical to that quoted above, and the sign must be in both English and Spanish. The letters on the sign must be block letters and they must be at least one inch in height. They must also be of "contrasting colors." Lastly, the sign must be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public. Anything less is not "notice."
* I use Texas law because there is no Florida case law on the subject. I could not find ONE single case where a conditional trespass sign carried the weight of law.
Let me use Texas Law* as an example:
A CHL commits a trespass under §30.06 if (1) the CHL carries a handgun on property of another without "effective" consent and (2) the CHL receives notice that entry on the property by the CHL with a concealed handgun is forbidden or (3) the CHL receives notice that remaining on the property with a concealed handgun is forbidden and the CHL fails to depart.
The real problem is what it means to receive "notice."
Notice can be oral or written. The statute provides no magic words necessary to receive oral notice. If either the owner, or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner, tells a CHL to leave, the CHL must leave. Period. Of course, if the CHL is truly concealing the handgun, it will be rare indeed that the CHL will receive oral notice to leave.
The more common situation the CHL will face is a sign that attempts to give the CHL "written communication" that the CHL is not welcome if the CHL is carrying concealed.
If the property owner (or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner) posts a sign, the sign must comply with the requirements of §30.06 to be effective notice to a CHL.
"Written communication" means either:
(1) a card or "other document" that has written language "identical" to the following:
"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun;" or
(2) A sign posted on the property that:
(a) "includes" the above language in both English and Spanish;
(b) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(c) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Thus, according to the statute, a proper §30.06 sign must have language identical to that quoted above, and the sign must be in both English and Spanish. The letters on the sign must be block letters and they must be at least one inch in height. They must also be of "contrasting colors." Lastly, the sign must be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public. Anything less is not "notice."
* I use Texas law because there is no Florida case law on the subject. I could not find ONE single case where a conditional trespass sign carried the weight of law.
DammitBoy
Member
Gun shows are not open to the public. They are events made available to persons who wish to pay a fee for the priviledge of entry.
You are asked to abide by rules and standards set by the promoter to retain this priviledge. You violate the rules, you are ejected from the event.
Not the same as a public place. It is private property with restricted access.
You have no rights on my private property period. You come in uninvited and I can legally deprive you of your life.
I have a 2nd part-time job as a bouncer in a club. I can throw you out for any reason I choose to, you have no rights in my club. We can choose to restrict or deny service for any number of reasons.
I can throw you out for what you say, what you might try to do, for what you wear, for past behavior, for what I suppose you might be thinking, and for just looking at me wrong. Which is all perfectly legal.
I catch somebody with any kind of weapon in my club, they're going to jail and probably with several new bruises for their troubles.
You are asked to abide by rules and standards set by the promoter to retain this priviledge. You violate the rules, you are ejected from the event.
Not the same as a public place. It is private property with restricted access.
You have no rights on my private property period. You come in uninvited and I can legally deprive you of your life.
I have a 2nd part-time job as a bouncer in a club. I can throw you out for any reason I choose to, you have no rights in my club. We can choose to restrict or deny service for any number of reasons.
I can throw you out for what you say, what you might try to do, for what you wear, for past behavior, for what I suppose you might be thinking, and for just looking at me wrong. Which is all perfectly legal.
I catch somebody with any kind of weapon in my club, they're going to jail and probably with several new bruises for their troubles.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
That is false in many cases.
Most gun shows rent the physical location, they don't own it.
Some state laws, Texas for example, prohibits the renter from posting "no concealed handgun" signs if the physical building belongs to any government entity.
So, gun shows in Ft Worth Texas for example cannot post "no concealed handgun" signs because the building belongs to the City of Ft Worth and state law specifically prohibits restricting lawful concealed carry in buildings owned by government entities.
Sounds like you'd deserve to get shot. Being a business owner (or worse, an employee) doesn't give you the right to put your hands on someone. If I were legally carrying in your establishment (in some states it is perfectly legal to carry in bars - although I think it a bit foolish) and you attempted to put some bruises on me for whatever reason, you're just as likely to get shot as you would be to get your ass kicked. Anyone prone to violence should know there's always someone bigger than themselves. You might be able to put some bruises on me, but I might be able to break both your legs the minute you try. I'm not silly enough to think that I'd win (or want to win) any physical altercation, but I'm sure not going to stand there and take a pounding when I'm otherwise peacefully engaged. And I think we've already determined that people don't go to jail for "violating signs" that have no force of law.
These recent threads are pretty foolish - there are clearly two opposing camps here and it's unlikely either side will ever see eye to eye. State law prohibits me from carrying in a private business that has an appropriate notice? Great, I won't visit or I won't carry. State law is silent on the issue? I'll carry if I feel like it, despite a sign with no force of law behind it. You don't have to like it. You can think I am not showing an appropriate amount of respect to the business owner. You can even think I'm the worst kind of gun owner in the world. I, in turn, can think your sign is silly.
DammitBoy
Member
It is against the law to carry a gun in a bar in my state. Anybody with a weapon in my club is a risk that will not be tolerated. Any kind of weapon.
You would be swarmed by security and physically restrained until the police showed up to haul your butt off to jail.
Please explain why I 'deserve to be shot' for doing my job and physically restraining a person known to be breaking the law and the rules of our private establishment. I have a right to 'put my hands' on anybody who breaks our rules.
And it's not like we are going to give you a chance to draw a weapon...
You would be swarmed by security and physically restrained until the police showed up to haul your butt off to jail.
Please explain why I 'deserve to be shot' for doing my job and physically restraining a person known to be breaking the law and the rules of our private establishment. I have a right to 'put my hands' on anybody who breaks our rules.
And it's not like we are going to give you a chance to draw a weapon...
deadin
Member
Question for you "legal eagles" that say that all a store owner can do is ask you to leave. What if he asks you to leave, and not come back? Do you come back anyway because all he can do is ask you to leave again?
That would kind of throw the trespass laws out the window.
That would kind of throw the trespass laws out the window.
divemedic
Member
There is some confusion here:
1 If it illegal to carry in a given location, I either don't go there, or I disarm.
2 Since signs carry no force of law, I cannot be arrested for ignoring them. So I ignore them.
3 If the owner of a business (or his agent) asks me to leave, I will.
4 Attacking me when I have not used force? That business just paid for my house and my retirement. Ask Kmart. Their security guards cost them $7 million when they broke a trespasser's arm. Remember, in order for it to be trespassing, you have to tell them to leave, and then give them an opportunity to do so. If they refuse, THEN it is trespassing.
There are two main issues here, and that is the legal argument, and the moral one. The legal one is well settled: in states where there is no specific statute, ignoring a sign is not going to get you arrested.
The moral one? That is up to each of us to decide, and I have decided that my right to defend myself is more important to me than a business owner who wants to feel like an Emperor and boss people around.
1 If it illegal to carry in a given location, I either don't go there, or I disarm.
2 Since signs carry no force of law, I cannot be arrested for ignoring them. So I ignore them.
3 If the owner of a business (or his agent) asks me to leave, I will.
4 Attacking me when I have not used force? That business just paid for my house and my retirement. Ask Kmart. Their security guards cost them $7 million when they broke a trespasser's arm. Remember, in order for it to be trespassing, you have to tell them to leave, and then give them an opportunity to do so. If they refuse, THEN it is trespassing.
There are two main issues here, and that is the legal argument, and the moral one. The legal one is well settled: in states where there is no specific statute, ignoring a sign is not going to get you arrested.
The moral one? That is up to each of us to decide, and I have decided that my right to defend myself is more important to me than a business owner who wants to feel like an Emperor and boss people around.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I sure hope your establishment has a very good lawyer and lots of insurance, because you're going to get sued in a very big way with that attitude, if not shot along the way.
The law is not as much on your side in the case you describe as you seem to think.
You are not a sworn law enforcement officer, and the fact that you're working on someone's private property does not automatically entitle you to do anything you want.
You should really look into the legal aspects of what you are doing, you could be the one going to prison if you make a mistake enforcing your rules.
DammitBoy
Member
We only put hands on people in several instances.
1) They are involved in a physical fight, exchanging blows.
2) They are physically assaulting a customer or employee.
3) They are breaking the law.
4) They refuse to comply with our request for them to vacate the premises.
5) They are inebriated beyond their ability to stand or walk on their own.
6) They request our assistance.
We have a former police officer and an off-duty officer on our security staff. We know what we can do, what we can't do and what the law requires.
The only people going to jail are the ones who think they can break our rules. Happens every weekend. In fact, I'm getting ready to go now.
1) They are involved in a physical fight, exchanging blows.
2) They are physically assaulting a customer or employee.
3) They are breaking the law.
4) They refuse to comply with our request for them to vacate the premises.
5) They are inebriated beyond their ability to stand or walk on their own.
6) They request our assistance.
We have a former police officer and an off-duty officer on our security staff. We know what we can do, what we can't do and what the law requires.
The only people going to jail are the ones who think they can break our rules. Happens every weekend. In fact, I'm getting ready to go now.
As a civilian you simply do not have the right to put your hands on anyone that has "broken your rules" (or the law for that matter).
You may have done this and you may have gotten away with it in the past. There's a world of difference from manhandling some drunk in a bar to attacking someone that you believe is unlawfully carrying.
Your comments above, especially #3 and #4 are what will land you (or your peers) in trouble. #5 just maybe.
When you tell somebody to leave and they tell you to f.o., you don't get to pick them up and throw them out on their head. In both cases you call the cops and have them do it.
Granted, we've diverted a bit from the original thread as it sounds like your state doesn't permit ccw in a bar. But it doesn't permit you to enforce the law either.
divemedic
Member
A serious misunderstanding of the Castle Doctrine. That law does not make your home a free fire zone. Even so this discussion is not about your home, which I agree is a different situation from a business. You have opened your business to the public.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I sure would love to see you post the law on that.
Please show where anywhere in the US you may use deadly force simply because someone sets foot on your property.
We'll wait.....
I have seen amazing ignorance of how the law works in this thread. Some of you are just begging to be sent to prison or sued for everything you own.
You REALLY need to learn more about where you can use deadly force. Private Property Rights do NOT in and of themselves allow you to do whatever the hell you want.
DammitBoy
Member
danbrew said:
We do it every week. We don't have to 'call the cops' as we have an off-duty police officer on premises.
On a regular basis, when we are in the process of forcibly ejecting someone, there were police officers on-duty outside the club. The only thing the police have ever done is arrest the jerk we threw out.
We've only had one case of forced ejection from the club go to court in five years. The judge heard the complaint about us using physical force to eject a person who refused to leave. The judge asked why force was used, we explained and the case was dismissed.
Your opinion and reality are not the same thing.
LightningJoe
Member
The public library in my city has a sign saying it's illegal to carry a gun there. That's nonsense, of course. But I'm wondering: since it's not private property, could they post the correct 30.06 (Texas) sign? Who would have the authority to ban guns in a public building?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The results YOU have seen and what is actually LEGAL are not the same thing either.
Just because you have an off duty cop there, or haven't been sued yet, doesn't mean you are acting within the law.
The statements you have made indicate you clearly have operating procedures that are illegal and could result in arrest of civil suit for you and the other security folks.
THAT is reality. Seriously, be careful when you decide to fool with someone's civil rights or freedom, things can go bad in a hurry.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
No one can ban guns in a public building in Texas unless the building houses one of the specific prohibited places (court, jail, etc)
Texas law states that any building owned or leased by a government entity may NOT post the 30.06 sign.
An opinion from the Attorney General also says that if the government entity rents the building out the renter cannot post the sign either.
Can't remember where I saw that.
Just One Shot
Member
Revocation Process
Sheriff shall revoke license:
Failed to meet or fraudulently obtain to meet criteria in 2923.125(D)
Convicted or pled guilty to disqualifying Offense
Subject to Civil Protection Order or Temporary Protection Order
Knowingly carries handgun into prohibited place
Adjudicated mentally incompetent
Notify licensee by letter sent certified mail the reason for revocation
Licensee may come to the Sheriff's office to contest within 14 days of notice mailing.
If upheld Sheriff shall revoke and licensee must surrender immediately.
http://www.ohiomuskingumsheriff.org/concealed/revoc.html
- Status
