Sign says No Firearms in the window

Status
Not open for further replies.

ROW

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
58
Location
Poteau, Oklahoma
Just because a sign on a business says no firearms doesn’t mean you could be arrested if caught with one does it? I seriously really don’t know. I would think if you had proper papers from CC Class you would be ok, but the owner would be in there right to ask you to leave or put it in your car and come back to shop. This is not to be a silly question, I have seen the signs around for years and just wondered.
 
It depends on the state. In utah, "no guns" signs don't carry the weight of law on most situations. You have to be asked to leave a business by
someone with authority to speak for the business. There are some exceptions, but not very many.

Matt
 
ROW said:
Just because a sign on a business says no firearms doesn’t mean you could be arrested if caught with one does it?....
It depends.

First, it depends on what sort of business. In every State there are places it's flatly illegal to carry a gun, with or without a sign. For example, in Oklahoma it's illegal to have a gun on the premises of any business if the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises is the primary purpose of the business.

Second, it depends on the State. In Oklahoma it's my understanding that a "no guns" sign doesn't have the force of law, so one can be arrested only if he is asked to leave and doesn't.

In some other States, a "no guns" sign can have the force of law. For example, in Arizona, if a business is posted "no guns", entry with a gun is criminal trespass. In Texas, if the sign satisfies certain statutory requirement, entry with a gun is, itself, an offense.
 
My general rule of thumb is:

If the sign is on a government building, post office, or any school, it carries the full weight of the law.
And you had best not test it.


If it's on a private business it doesn't.

On the other hand, CCW means Concealed Carry Weapon.

So if they don't have a metal Detecter at the door, how would they know??

But I am not a lawyer.

You had best study up on your local, state, and federal laws.

And take a CCW class, which will spell it out for you in no uncertain terms in your local area.

rc
 
Doesnt fly Oregon or Washington. You can get arrested for trespassing for refusing to leave if asked but thats it.
 
Spot on.

You need to research your state's laws. Utah has already been mentioned, and that is the law I am most familiar with, as that is where I mostly carry.

In Utah, if one is carrying, and is asked to leave, or to remove the weapon from the property and does not, he/she can be cited with trespassing. However, as most who carry do so concealed, the only case I know of where someone has been asked to leave, was a cop, carrying his duty pistol, which made a bit of a stir. I'm sure others have been asked to leave establishments, but it never makes the news, and hasn't happened to anyone I know, and I know quite a few people who carry, but do so discretely.

In fact, I remember once being at a community function, and a neighbor was saying that she would feel uncomfortable if she was in a place where people were carrying, and that to her knowledge, she hadn't been. A few of us exchanged grins, as 3 of the 5 people she was speaking with were carrying right then. It's always a sign you are carrying well when someone who has spent hours with you armed has no idea you carry.
 
The best solution is to study up on state law.

Another question would be to ask said establishment if they honor the 1st, or other 8 Amendments to the US Constitution. I'm perplexed by those who vehemently argue their right to the 1st Amendment, while trying to deny others their rights of the 2nd.

Of course, if you are carrying appropriately concealed, it's rarely an issue.
 
2ndunamended said:
...Another question would be to ask said establishment if they honor the 1st, or other 8 Amendments to the US Constitution. I'm perplexed by those who vehemently argue their right to the 1st Amendment, while trying to deny others their rights of the 2nd....
Rights protected by the Constitution are essentially irrelevant when dealing with a non-governmental actor. As explained by the United States Supreme Court (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added):
....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ....
 
Considering that such a scenario as mentioned in the OP is between two private parties, and the Bill of Rights honors the liberties of individuals, I'd take that argument.
 
2ndunamended said:
Considering that such a scenario as mentioned in the OP is between two private parties, and the Bill of Rights honors the liberties of individuals, I'd take that argument.
Hogwash. Cite a case.

The Constitution regulates the conduct of government, not private parties.
 
Considering that such a scenario as mentioned in the OP is between two private parties,
...and that the Constitution has essentially ZERO to say about the conduct of voluntary interactions between individual citizens... the 2nd Amendment is of no help in this case.
 
Good discussion... as a practical matter "trespass while armed" is serious stuff and it would be a very good idea to avoid it, if at all possible. If memory serves, being armed in a trespass situation here in Florida is a felony... without the weapon it's only a misdemeanor...
 
Considering that such a scenario as mentioned in the OP is between two private parties, and the Bill of Rights honors the liberties of individuals, I'd take that argument.

What if the two parties disagree? Whose rights gets honored?
 
2ndunamended said:
Considering that such a scenario as mentioned in the OP is between two private parties, and the Bill of Rights honors the liberties of individuals, I'd take that argument.
I'm going to suggest a little light reading. Frank & Sam1911 are correct. The Constitution deals with the powers and limitations of government, not private individuals.
deadin said:
2ndunamended said:
Considering that such a scenario as mentioned in the OP is between two private parties, and the Bill of Rights honors the liberties of individuals, I'd take that argument.
What if the two parties disagree? Whose rights gets honored?
As with all things legal, the easiest answer is, "it depends." But let's take a look at the OP:
ROW said:
Just because a sign on a business says no firearms doesn’t mean you could be arrested if caught with one does it? I seriously really don’t know. I would think if you had proper papers from CC Class you would be ok, but the owner would be in there right to ask you to leave or put it in your car and come back to shop. This is not to be a silly question, I have seen the signs around for years and just wondered.
The property owner has a right to control certain things about his property. That includes who goes on and off (within certain legal boundaries), what kinds of conduct are permissible on his or her property, etc. But in the scenario described above, we're not talking about "the right to keep and bear arms." We're talking about "the right to keep and bear arms on someone else's private property when they don't want you to."

Let's say that I show up at your house with an AR slung at the low-ready. Do you think I have a right to parade around in your living room like that? No. It's your house. I have no right to be there in the first place, much less with an AR.

Once you start getting off into businesses, naturally, the analysis changes a little. For example, you cannot legally hold your store open to the public, but exclude one racial class. Race is a protected class. OTOH, you can hold your business open to the public, but exclude some other classes of potential patrons. Live music venues that serve alcohol and the 18-21 crowd come to mind. "18-21" is not a protected class.
 
Since we are just next door in Kansas a sign in the window is meaningless. Kansas Law is very specific about the type of signage and where they must be posted.

Violating the sign in private business is not a crime. However you can asked to leave and if you refuse then arrested for trespassing.

There are some other restrictions such as carry in some offices with metal detectors and security but I will not go into detail on this.

As others say; Take a Conceal Carry Class and remove all doubt where it is legal.
 
Last edited:
A layman's way to answer this is 'your rights stop when they infringe upon another's rights'.

Certainly, that is a common sentiment. However we should be somewhat careful with our terminology. The word "RIGHTS" gets thrown around by almost everyone, everywhere, in regards to just about every danged thing someone might want. A "right" to an education. A "right" to be free from hunger or cold. A "right" to privacy. A "right" to be free from fear. A "right" not to be offended. Etc.

We of all people should be very careful to only use the term "rights" to mean ... RIGHTS. Not wishes, wants, common courtesies, social norms, nice ideas, pleasantries of modern life. And to use them in their proper contexts, especially and specifically as our Constitution recognizes RIGHTS of the citizen to be free from government coersions and oppressions.

What once citizen does to another, or contracts with another for, or engages another citizen in, etc., really has nothing to do with the RIGHTS of either party (in all but a very few specific situations). As Frank and Spats have very clearly said, those interactions are generally guided by (mostly State level) statutes, customs, and social norms. Not by any legitimate sense of the word "rights."
 
I totally agree Sam.


You have a right to play your head banging music. I have a right to peace and quite.

But those are rights (not really a 'RIGHT' but more of a privilege) by local statutes guided by customs, and social norms ... Not 'RIGHTS' outlined in the Constitution.
 
What once citizen does to another, or contracts with another for, or engages another citizen in, etc., really has nothing to do with the RIGHTS of either party ... those interactions are generally guided by (mostly State level) statutes, customs, and social norms. Not by any legitimate sense of the word "rights."
Actually, contract rights, and the associated obligations, are very important elements of agreements among private parties and between private parties and government entities.

The definitions of the words "right" and "rights" are rather broad.
 
Ok, good point Kleanbore, no disagreement there, I took it a bit too far. But if you could expand to explain what the "rights" entail when applied there, and how that relates to our ideas of enumerated Rights, I'd appreciate it.
 
Whoa, boy! A discussion of rights!

In litigation, we spend a whole lot of time talking about them. We also tend to talk about them generally as "rights." However, the sources or nature of rights can vary pretty widely. You can have rights:
  • Under contract;
  • Under your state constitution;
  • Under the federal constitution;
  • By statute.
I'm sure that there are others, but those are just the ones that strike me off the top of my head.
 
Sam, did Spats cover it?

I might add "under common law" to the list.

And then there is international law....
 
Sure, at least to the degree of defining that there ARE rights beyond those enumerated under our Constitution.

But that better fills out what I was attempting to say before, and more correctly. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these ..." That goes on to explain certain general rights which the founders felt were inalienable from the human being, and yet able to be infringed. And we went on to append a Bill of Rights which more specifically defines those RIGHTS which the government is not allowed to infringe. One of the complaints at the time was that by specifying just those rights, the government might be seen as free to then infringe any other aspects of a citizens's RIGHTS to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (And some would suggest that it has quite happily spent the last 200 years doing just that.)

But beyond the "inalienable" (but infringe-able) rights that are written in our founding documents, what "rights" does one citizen legitimately claim from/over another?

Only those specified in a defined agreement that binds both of them.

Any time someone says, "if you do X, that violates my rights" the question that should immediately arise is "right granted by...?" If there is no agreement that binds both parties, any claims of one citizen infringing the rights of another become highly suspect.
 
Here is AZ it is a serious offense for a place that serves alcohol but there are very strict signage requirements that I see done wrong about 95% of the time. Non-AZ residents are exempt.

Anywhere else it is misdemeanor trespass in the 3rd degree--2nd degree if a fenced commercial yard (safe as no shirt, "no shoes, no service" or "employees only") and does not count as misconduct with weapons.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top