Does this have any legal weight? If they seen you carrying can the owners of the property have you kicked out or arrested?
Does this have any legal weight?
Does this have any legal weight? If they seen you carrying can the owners of the property have you kicked out or arrested?
depends on state law
same lawyeranon, i don't agree that it depends on state law. i'm not aware of any state where you're prohibited from telling someone to leave because they're armed. that would raise some significant constitutional issues unrelated to 2A, because the state needs to have a pretty good reason to tell private property owners they must (or can't) allow an individual on their property for whatever reason
this is completely wrong. you're still entitled to use a firearm in self-defense, even if you're trespassing. there are some states (like TX, in which i don't practice) where i believe there is a presumption against self-defense if you're committing a crime, but ultimately it's the jury's call if a homicide was justified under the circumstances
The problem is OP, being a homosexual, asked a double-barreled question and them people tried to answer it without reading the whole thing.
>Does a no guns allowed sign have legal weight
THIS depends on state law. Some states give no guns signs force of law. Some do not. Still other states only give certain no guns signs force of law. Signs having force of law means the carrying of a concealed firearm past said sign is a crime IN OF ITSELF and if you are spotted carrying past said sign you can be arrested and charged.
>Can a property owner ask you to leave/have you arrested if they see you carrying?
This does NOT depend on state law. In all 50 states a private property owner can ask you to leave their property for any reason and if you refuse to leave you can be arrested for TRESPASSING.
Worth adding that whether signs have force of law, unlike other gun-related law, does not follow any typical political contours or "gun rights", there are otherwise very gun friendly states where they do have force of law because conservative values also respect private property rights more extensively, and then very anti-gun places where they don't. Oregon for example does not give such signs force of law, Texas does. So never just assume.
In general law aside I think morally it's best to try to respect property owner's wishes unless there is a truly genuine NEED not merely a preference. But there's still an important practical difference in knowing if you're committing an actual crime or not.
YOur mention of Texas actually leads to further complications. Only CERTAIN signs in Texas have force of law. Only properly formatted and conHispanicuously displayed "30.06" and "30.07" signs have force of law. Other "no guns" signs do not. "51%" signs posted by places that serve alcohol also have force of law but only if the business in which they're posted actually gets more than 50% of its revenue from alcohol sales.
Texas is the big gay. They don't have those signs in Oklahoma
Well, Satan, it's because Texas up until like 10 years ago actually had pretty shitty gun laws contrary to reputation. They did a lot to uncuck themselves but they still have a little bit of residual gayness left over from the before times.
these confused yokels are a good example of what i was talking about with trespass versus a making it a crime to disregard the sign. The proudly "not a crime" state, Okalahoma, statute says, after noting that no one can restrict your right to carry in your car:
21 O.S. § 1290.22(E). The otherwise lawful carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property. If the person:
1. Has been informed by the property owner, business entity or manager of the business that the person is in violation of a policy that prohibits firearms on the property; and
2. Refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).
>in other words, that's trespass
Pathetic Texas, which is apparently not as based and trad, says:
Tex. Pen. Code Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
>here it's more specifically banned (and they give very clear requirements for signage elsewhere)
tl;dr this is a good example of how similar the two systems are, which is why these signs have "legal weight" (OP's words) in both systems.
>Has been informed by the property owner, business entity or manager of the business that the person is in violation of a policy that prohibits firearms on the property
A sign is not " the property owner, business entity or manager of the business". It is not trespass to enter a business with a no guns sign in a state where no guns signs to not have force of law. Also stop reddit spacing.
i forgot to reply to this sorry. also i'm spacing so that my responses are easier because they are long
anyway, "no trespassing" signs exist for a reason. property owners can't be everywhere, all the time. so they're allowed to inform others that they have no permission to enter the land by reasonably placing signs. i'm aware of no reason why these signs couldn't be more specific, since they'll still provide very clear notice. (i.e. "no trespassing from december - april")
thus my interpretation for the purpose of OP's question
Even better yet, those signs only apply to CHL holders, non-CHL holders can legally carry, and can ignore them without penalty, because the verbiage in those signs specifically states they only apply to CHLs. Texas is a fucking cuck state.
Tx has constitutional carry you homosexual third-worlder. Go fuck yourself and rot in a ditch in your shithole gulag bitch. You will NEVER, fucking NEVER in a million years amount to anything, you'll rot to death in your gulag without ever experiencing freedom.
Your ignorance is second only to your asininity. Those 30.06 signs still exist both on stores and in the statutes, as do the other statutes regarding the CHL licensing, and there are still a ton of CHLs running around. If you are not a CHL holder - if you are purely exercising your constitutional right to carry - those signs do not apply to you, because the statutes around those signs state that they apply to CHL holders only - which made sense back when only CHL holders could carry. If you do have a CHL then you are legally notified by a 30.06 sign but a constitutional carrier is *not*.
Now fuck off back to your mommy's boyfriend's basement.
in my state they can ask you to leave. if you dont then its a tresspass citation if you hang around long enough for the cops to show up and "do their job"
Like everyone else says it mostly depends on state law, though:
>in my state they can ask you to leave
In EVERY state you can always be told to leave private property for any reason, no additional special law is needed. Someone can tell you to gtfo because they don't like your hair style. If you refuse now it's trespassing. What varies is whether signs create a cause BEFORE any other warning/order, and/or any extra penalties. In places with some sort of right to roam then it's more complex further because you may still be able to traverse property anyway but even then there's always details, like going through woods 500' from a home isn't the same as going through someone's lawn 10' from their house.
>>in my state they can ask you to leave
>In EVERY state you can always be told to leave private property for any reason, no additional special law is needed.
In some states, Minnesota for example, the carry law establishes standards for "gun free zone" signage and then reiterates the "trespass" code. In other words, the sign is completely toothless.
You're both pretty.
>legal weight
Depends.
>kicked out
Yes.
>arrested
Not until after you refuse to leave.
>any legal weight
You might get BTFO in government buildings or K-12 campi
>can the owners of the property have you kicked out
Yes
>or arrested?
Only if you refuse to leave after being told (this is considered trespassing)
You are trespassing if you bring a gun into the premises if signage exists and you can reasonably have been expected to read that signage. You are already trespassing if you enter the property while carrying. Anything you do while on that property is aggravated by the fact that you were trespassing. Good luck finding a lawyer to defend you if you knowingly brought a firearm into private property where you knew firearms were forbidden and defended yourself with it.
This is not true as a universal, it depends on state law anon.
>You are trespassing
Depends on the jurisdiction. In my state, it isn't trespassing until they ask you to leave and you refuse.
So Elisjsha Dicken was prosecuted for bringing a firearm into a prohibited space?
Cool story bro!
In my state, the only sign on private property that carries the weight of law is the 4-223 sign, and only if it is posted in the correct place and only if that property allows consumption of alcohol on the premises.
On any other private property, leaving when asked does not constitute a trespass.
Sounds like you live in a cuck state, best of luck with that.
homosexual shills, i'm not gonna point out every homosexual in this thread but just remember this, the board is infested with actual european dogs, third-worlders, and discord homosexuals, spending their waking hours engaging in demoralization posting on this board (they got actual discord groups for raiding boards lol) Anyway these signs mean fuck all, they hold no legal weight and even if they did no one follows it. I'm yet to see a single person getting in trouble over that or some homosexual company trying to sue a person for carrying on their "property". Anyway fuck third-worlders, fuck the homosexual europeans, and fuck the shills.
Might as well be.
lawyeranon here. you can always tell anyone to leave your property and they must do so. and it is a violation to enter property where you have notice that you are not welcome. thus "no trespassing signs"
if there's no "no trespassing" sign, then you would only be committing a crime after you were told to leave but refused (or returned)
if there is a "no trespassing" sign, then you expose yourself to criminal liability if you enter the property. however, it's defendable, because the state still has to prove you were aware of the "no trespassing" sign
i believe this is intended to function the same way as a "no trespassing" sign but I don't think it's very well done. if you wanted to do a better job, imo, you would write it to read "no trespassing by anyone in possession of a firearm."
>if you wanted to do a better job, imo, you would write it to read "no trespassing by anyone in possession of a firearm."
Exactly what I was thinking. Surprising you never see a sign like that for businesses who don't want guns around.
same lawyerfag
having dealt with police officers on a regular basis since more or less 2006, i can tell you that even the most perfect signage is not likely to mean they'll arrest/cite. they didn't sign up for this stupid shit.
if you go on a property with a sign like this (or one using my "better" language), what's going to happen is they will tell you to leave. you don't because [insert reason]. the cops will come, hand you a written notice not to trespass, and tell you they're very sorry but if you don't follow this, they're gonna have to cite you. and then they will.
really the only way you get arrested is if you start a lengthy speech about how you are a free person and only pay taxes to your state government because you DID NOT CONSENT to being born UNDER TYRANNY and the IRS does not have JURISIDICIONAL AUSTERITY over your PERSON, etc., etc.
this does not please law enforcement
>having dealt with police officers on a regular basis since more or less 2006, i can tell you that even the most perfect signage is not likely to mean they'll arrest/cite. they didn't sign up for this stupid shit.
I'm a security guard for a large business that operates outside of city lines. I can tell you for a fact that cops absolutely will press arrest if we tell them to. Why? Because they have to — we're the ones who actually make the arrest. Cops have to come and accept delivery of the trespassed shitbag if we have arrested them.
>Because they have to
Cops don't have to do shit.
Either you are not a lawyer, or the state of legal education in this country is laughably incompetent.
lol what state are you in? cops in nyc will arrest you and take your guns if they find you even if you're traveling and have them unloaded and locked in the trunk separately from ammo per FOPA
>really the only way you get arrested is if you start a lengthy speech about how you are a free person and only pay taxes to your state government because you DID NOT CONSENT to being born UNDER TYRANNY and the IRS does not have JURISIDICIONAL AUSTERITY over your PERSON, etc., etc.
I always get a chuckle watching sov-citz get tazered mid chimpout
I really fucking hate cultural osmosis sometimes, we never used to get sovereign citizen type schizos over here a decade ago, and now they're ALL over the fucking place burning their IDs and claiming the law doesn't apply to them because they're CZECHOSLOVAK citizens and the 1993 breakup was illegal, ipso facto the government has no authority over them.
t. Czech
Pretty sure businesses are slightly different from personal property, since businesses are expected to be open to the public by default. They can obviously still ask you to leave, but unless they're screening people as they come in I don't think a sign like that would have the same legal weight as if it were in someone's yard.
Lawyeranon: seriously, do NOT advise people on state law where you do not practice and are ignorant of.
>i don't agree that it depends on state law
Well your agreement is not important, what matters it the state law, and it does indeed vary and manner. Go look through
>https://handgunlaw.us/
or one of many other sites and specifically the section for each state under
>Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?
In states like New York, it's a base misdemeanor that can easily turn into a felony.
In contrast in states like Montana such signs do not have any force of law. If you are asked to leave you must leave, but you can ignore the signs before that.
same lawyerfag
what i meant was that i don't think there is a state that prohibits restricting possession on your own land. the reason i'm confident is because it's a constitutional issue; i don't see how such a statute could survive a challenge
i'm really talking about normal private property situations
i practice in multiple states in new england. what you're talking about is not what OP was asking. but if you are dumb enough to tell a cop in NYC that you have a gun in the trunk, buddy, you need a lawyer more than most
usually this comes with an example of what you think is laughably incompetent? i'm not the other dude you were responding to, if that's the issue.
What OP was asking about was clearly and directly whether such signs have the force of law in and of themselves. And the answer is state by state. They do not in New Hampshire for a NE example, they do in VT (or NY of course).
>despite me saying cops aren't eager to arrest you I really meant they are eager to arrest you but those times don't count
Yeah.
it's possible, as in the new york statute cited above, to make it a crime to be armed on private property marked with a "no guns" sign. but that doesn't mean it's NOT a crime in the absence of such a law, because people can still give you notice you're not allowed on their property while carrying. If you disregard their notice--which could include a sign--that'll create probable charge (aka they can charge you they want) for criminal trespassing.
OP's question was "does this have legal weight," and one thing OP wanted to know was "can the owners have you kicked out OR arrested?"
in other words - OP is asking "is this a crime" OR "is this grounds for getting expelled." Find me one state where the answer isn't yes to one of the "OR" questions, and I'll concede that you're a better lawyer than me. But no matter where you are, I believe such a sign has legal weight.
>cops being eager to arrest
i doubt what any security guard about law is accurate generally, but having no experience with whatever he's into, i'm conceding that my own experience is limited to 15 years of interactions with town, county, state, and federal LEOs, all of whom do not enjoy stupid disputes between neighbors, exes, or businesses and homeless/crazy people, which make up the majority of "no trespass" notice activity
>but that doesn't mean it's NOT a crime in the absence of such a law,
Yes, it literally does. If it's not specifically illegal it's not a crime.
>because people can still give you notice you're not allowed on their property while carrying
Which doesn't turn it into a crime when that doesn't meet the legal elements of trespassing (further, there can be varying grades of "trespassing" many of which aren't felonies in and of themselves).
>but that doesn't mean it's NOT a crime in the absence of such a law,
"All not forbidden is allowed"
You're not a real lawyer.
i think your analysis fails to appreciate that there are multiple ways for something to be a crime. a criminal statute can ban something very specifically (i.e. no drinking under 21), but in addition, the common law interpreting a more general statute (i.e. no lewd and lascivious conduct) can interpret what violates that statute (i.e. what constitutes lewd and lascivious conduct? does groping? flashing? public sex? public jerking off? etc.). i personally find more general laws very frustrating because they allow judges and juries to impose their own sense of morality on some things, but that's a different conversation.
no trespass laws have been around for several centuries and it's no secret what you can and can't do. what's happening in NY (and other states), frankly, is that they're making this "gun sign" issue more explicit to virtue signal. ("look what we're doing to protect you from eric klebold!") and you're sort of adopting a counterfactual position that would make sense if places like NY made sense
if you don't believe me, find one of these signs in a "no crime" state. figure out what county or town it's in. call the sheriff/police. tell them "just so you know, I'm about to go on this property with a firearm." then, see if they prosecute you for trespassing even though there's no law making it a crime to disregard those signs. i think the chances are pretty high that if they've got the time, you'll get cited.
in my other couple of responses, i gave a few examples of language in other states' trespassing statutes which would make it a crime to disregard any kind of notice (oral, on a sign, whatever). the fact that in some of them this isn't a felony doesn't mean it's not a crime, though.
> the common law interpreting a more general statute (i.e. no lewd and lascivious conduct) can interpret what violates that statute
You're literally not a real lawyer. Every state got rid of it's common law reception statutes for criminal offenses by the 20th century. You're either a retard trolling or a 1L who thinks they're Scalia after taking one semester of Crim. Stop fucking playing pretend and stop reddit spacing.
if you think "america got rid of common law" is how you're going to prove i'm literally not a real lawyer, you're not starting from a position of strength. here, for example, is a 2011 case from nevada it took me about 12 seconds to find on google interpreting what constitutes lewdness under a statute banning lewd and lascivious conduct
this guy, however, gets it
derp, forgot to paste link:
https://casetext.com/case/wilson-v-state-3449
Here's the relevant summary:
We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence that Wilson's conduct was lewd or lascivious, and was sexually motivated as required by NRS 201.230(1). The charges against Wilson involved two young girls who are sisters, A.S. and C.S. Wilson lived next door to the girls with his girlfriend Tonja, her teenage daughter J.F., and other family members. From February 2007 to early 2008, J .F. and Tonja babysat A.S. and C.S. while their mother worked the night shift as a cabdriver. Occasionally, the two girls would sleep at Wilson's home while their mother worked. A.S. and C.S. were 8 and 10 years old, respectively, when this childcare arrangement began.
During that time, Wilson at various times touched A.S.'s genitals, breasts, buttocks, and the “roof” of her buttocks. Wilson also showed her pornography on his cell phone and on the walls of his garage, though A.S. explained that he did not touch her during those incidents. Similarly, Wilson touched C.S.'s buttocks, clavicle area, sides of her breasts, and thighs. He also touched her on her shoulders, lower back, and sides of her body while showing her pornography. Additionally, he told both girls that he would hurt their mother if they told anyone about the touchings. Based on this evidence, we conclude that a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson committed eight counts of lewdness with a minor under the age of 14 years.
Therefore, we affirm the district court's judgment of conviction.
The fact that you don't know what a reception statute is but know how to research cases proves to me you're a 1L. Get off PrepHole and go outline, retard.
"the fact that you provided a case within 30 seconds proving that i fundamentally do not understand the legal system employed by the vast majority of the western world, and am completely wrong about the issues raised by this thread, proves you are not a lawyer"
-you
The legal system employed by the vast majority of the world is the continental system, not common law. You'd know that if you were outlining like I told you to.
what an incredibly useless response:
I said the WESTERN world. that means america, which runs the west, england, and some former british colonies that don't hate us. The rest of the civilized world (and somehow louisiana) uses civil law, which is derived from the french and has absolutely no relevance to any of this (unless you're in louisiana in which case, lol).
i do not know what the fuck the continental system is, and am proud not to. i'm guessing you're outing yourself as not american and if that's the case, i guess i'll look at your responses through that lens. (also, i'm sorry to tell you this but all that stuff they tell you about america is actually LESS awesome than it really is)
pic somewhat rel
Why would a 1L in an American law school spend his time outlining the civil law (the UCC excluded)?
Did your civpro professor not briefly go over the alternative systems to Anglo-American common law for context on day 1? Mine did.
I'm sure it came up in one of the venue cases, but it's not something that I ever thought to block out like Eerie, Personal Jurisdiction, and Twiqbal. I probably picked it up more in a basic comparative civics course in undergrad.
Correct. The situation in Arizona is similar. It's only a crime to carry in certain places like bars and schools. Other places the sign has no legal weight. It can become misdemeanor trespass if you're asked to leave and don't.
Montana's law provides that trespassing criminalizes: (1) A person enters or remains unlawfully in or upon any vehicle, occupied structure, or premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. Privilege to enter or remain upon land is extended either by the explicit permission of the landowner or other authorized person or by the failure of the landowner or other authorized person to post notice denying entry onto private land. The privilege may be revoked at any time by personal communication of notice by the landowner or other authorized person to the entering person. M.C.A. 45-6-201.
>in other words a sign that says "no trespassing if you have a gun" or "only people without guns are allowed on this land" would work
On Arizona,
AZRS 13-1502 makes it a crime to enter into property with "reasonable notice prohibiting entry,"
>in other words this sign probably works there too
>AZRS 13-1502 makes it a crime to enter into property with "reasonable notice prohibiting entry,"
A no guns sign doesn't prohibit entry,
i mean, if you can convince a jury "i had no idea that I wasn't allowed to be there, even though I was carrying a gun and read a sign that said no one with a gun was allowed on the property," then i suppose you can. but i think it's a pretty tough row to hoe
and frankly, if you're making an argument in a jury trial, that means that things have already gone wrong in several ways
A "no-guns" sign does not prohibit entry. A "no-entry" sign prohibits entry. Any person has a legal right to be on private property held open to the public UNLESS they are trespassed from the property by the owner or the agent. A sign saying I can't carry a gun is not a command by the owner or his agents that I personally am not allowed on the property.
i don't know if you're the other anon i was talking to, but as i noted in my first response
the language creates some ambiguity. ambiguity doesn't just mean that you're home-free, though. it means that a judge and, if necessary, a jury would have decide whether this gave reasonable notice. i think many would say it does
your second point about it having to apply to you personally has no basis in reality. "no trespassing signs" do not have to say "no trespassing, this means you, Cleetus McGillicuddy" to function.
There is no ambiguity in the language. A no guns sign does not prohibit entry. Now go outline.
Theres definitely ambiguity in your autism.
i suppose you think that "no shirt, no shoes, no service" doesn't prohibit going into a business without a shirt or shoes, either?
i HATE to bring this issue into a thread because it guarantees things will go off topic. but, without speaking positively or negatively about COVID, masks, or california, there are examples of convictions for trespass for disregarding a "no mask" sign that is similar, like this:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-21/o-c-woman-who-refused-to-wear-a-mask-found-guilty-of-trespassing
it wasn't criminal because of the lack of a mask. it was because she had notice, disregarded it, and went inside. this violated Cal. Pen. Code. 608.2 PC, which prohibits entering or remaining on someone's property without permission.
Pretty sure that according to the sign it's the gun that is trespassing, not you.
Private property Private rules
>owners of the property have you kicked out
The owners of the property can have you kicked out for eating a ham sandwich or any other reason.
>or arrested
depends on the jurisdiction.
The owner of a private property can have you kicked out for basically any reason.
>"Sir you need to leave"
>"Make me"
Now what?
>>"Sir you need to leave"
>>"Make me"
>Now what?
They either do in fact make you (with a gun) or they call the cops, who will make you (with guns), depending on jurisdiction/situation. Are you retarded?
I'll say the same thing to the cops.
Who's an edgy boy? You are! Look at how edgy you are! It just makes me want to pinch your cheeks.
The cops will then shoot you. They will face no consequences for that except paid time off. /k/ will then no longer have to see your retarded posts. The world will then be a somewhat better place.
They call the police and you get trespassed retard.
They call the police who will come and make you leave.
watch them cry as the cop arrests them
They call the cops who will escort you off the premises. Or pull a gun themselves and tell you to GTFO or get a face full of lead.
Are you retarded? What did you think the answer would be?
Private property generally means they can make whatever rules they want within reason.
Still trying to make the sovereign citizen bullshit work?
If state law makes it a crime to bring a gun past a "No-Guns" sign then yes the sign has legal weight. Otherwise it's only an issue if the owner sees you carrying and asks you to leave. If you don't leave then you're trespassing (armed trespass as well depending on the jurisdiction).
The law isn't what matters
What matters is if you are printing and get caught
Concealed is concealed
Alive is alive
And dead is dead
This is a chat gpt thread.
Nope
I take my shooter to school with me every day
Conceal carry properly and you need not worry.
The real answer is this; they have as much legal weight as the officer attending the callout, and the judge if it gets that far, each think that it has. This isn't going to go to a jury, and most of you aren't going to have the spare cash around to appeal, so you'll just have to gripe forever about your miscarriage of justice at the hands of Judge Karen and Sherriff McTrotter.
It depends on the sign and the state. Some states do have legally defined signage available to property owners and knowingly disregarding a properly displayed sign is a criminal offense. Otherwise, it may open you up to a tortious trespass, but they would have to show that you intentionally ignored the rule, either by showing evidence you knew the sign was there or ignored a request to leave after being informed. This is generally an uphill battle, and unless you have a lot of money a plaintiff's lawyer is not going to take such an uphill case. If you still refuse to leave then it goes back to criminal trespass and the police can be called. As a general rule, if you are carrying, it is incumbent upon you to be aware of where it is legal and not legal to bring your weapon.
If you shoot a basket ball american in self defense, they can go after you legally because you weren't allowed to have a gun on your person.
if they can’t stop me, then I carry anyways because if they can’t stop me, then they can’t stop anyone else either
except for banks, I don’t fuck with banks
banks do not prohibit you from carrying in places that arnt urban shitholes.
>Does this have any legal weight?
Usually.
>If they seen you carrying can the owners of the property have you kicked out
Yes.
>or arrested?
Only if you refuse to fuck off once the owner kicks you out, meaning you're now trespassing, which you really shouldn't be doing unless you're very dumb.