Do "NO GUNS" signs carry force of law--YES

All I see there is trespassing law...?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I see what your saying, but is saying no guns the same as being "forbidden so to do by the person who has lawful control of said premises" ?
 
If you read the language closely it says guilty of trespass even if being forbidden by posted sign. Therefore if one enters with a firearm despite observing the "firearms prohibited" sign, they are then guilty of trespass...Unless I am completely off on this.

I wasn't even aware of this but handgunlaw.us brought it to my attention and I followed along to the MGL website to find this..
 
There is, I think, a crucial distinction in that a "NO GUNS" sign does not prohibit a person, as the statute states in its first sentence: Whoever, without right enters or remains in or upon . Once you've been asked to leave, you must do so.

Now....IANAL, and all that, but this has been discussed before. I'm sure that others will be along to weigh in. BTW - The sign at the Natick Mall, by this interpretation, prohibits you from purchasing knives at Williams Sonoma. [rolleyes]
 
so by that logic if you entered a store not wearing shoes and they have one of those "shoes required" signs you're subject to arrest?

I don't think so... I think they ask you to leave THEN if you don't you are trespassing on private property and subject to arrest (probably get a summons).
 
Another_David said:
so by that logic if you entered a store not wearing shoes and they have one of those "shoes required" signs you're subject to arrest?

I don't think so... I think they ask you to leave THEN if you don't you are trespassing on private property and subject to arrest (probably get a summons).
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be a smart____but I think, technically yes. Now, of course what would actually happen if you weren't wearing shoes? They'd probably ask you to leave, but in the case of an "outed" firearm, they'd MUCH more likely dial 911. Arrest first, ask questions later.
 
Ultrarunner said:
I'm not trying to be a smart____but I think, technically yes. Now, of course what would actually happen if you weren't wearing shoes? They'd probably ask you to leave, but in the case of an "outed" firearm, they'd MUCH more likely dial 911. Arrest first, ask questions later.
Click to expand...

true, but you don't need a sign or a law for that sort of treatment in Mass [wink]
 
If you read the language closely it says guilty of trespass even if being forbidden by posted sign. Therefore if one enters with a firearm despite observing the "firearms prohibited" sign, they are then guilty of trespass...Unless I am completely off on this.
Click to expand...

This would be the concept of "algorithmic trespass" - having entered a property in violation of posted condition. If this was in fact supported by law, any establishment to write whatever "laws" it wanted and post a list of conditions the violation of any of which would be rendered criminal. Violate a dress code, sneak food into a theater, say something offensive and *bing* - instant criminal. Just try getting a cop interested in prosecuting who walks past a "jackets and ties" required with a polo shirt on, and who responds with "If the business doesn't want me here, I will be glad to leave".
 
[popcorn]

...just waiting for the "concealed means concealed" crowd to basically say it's OK to break the law since you won't get caught because concealed means concealed. [rolleyes]

IANAL but the wording seems pretty clear. If you've been forbidden either by word or written notice you are breaking the law. No one will arrest you for violating a dress code, but the emotions will be very different when weapons are involved.
 
cockpitbob said:
[popcorn]

...just waiting for the "concealed means concealed" crowd to basically say it's OK to break the law since you won't get caught because concealed means concealed. [rolleyes]

IANAL but the wording seems pretty clear. If you've been forbidden either by word or written notice you are breaking the law. No one will arrest you for violating a dress code, but the emotions will be very different when weapons are involved.
Click to expand...

so when the police and armored car guys with their guns enter the mall with the "no firearms permitted" sign are they trespassing too?

[popcorn]
 
Another_David said:
so when the police and armored car guys with their guns enter the mall with the "no firearms permitted" sign are they trespassing too?

[popcorn]
Click to expand...

Irrelevant since they no doubt have permission. That would be like trying to get a fortune 500 company to enforce the corporate no-guns sign against the CEOs protective detail.

No one will arrest you for violating a dress code, but the emotions will be very different when weapons are involved.
Click to expand...

Probably no emotions if handled politely. "Yes, I have an LTC ... here it is ... if you want me to leave I will be glad to do so". As a practical matter, the only real risks are (a) if you start claiming you have some sort of "right" to remain on the property and refuse to leave; (b) if the responding officer has a bug up his/her rear and sends a report to the licensing officer in your town suggesting suitability be re-examined, and (c) if it happens in your own town (as the chief will read the daily reports if it's a small town).

The "simple answer" is "would you feel comfortable if the individual who controls you license found out you did it?".
 
Last edited:
I find that we collectively try to justify what we feel is right despite the law. IMHO, play it very conservative, if you're not 100% certain, it's not worth the risk. MA doesn't like guns. Prosecutors and LEOs will strike hard and fast whenever the chance arises (in some cases the law wasn't violated at all, but they loooove to make an example of folks here).
 
cockpitbob said:
just waiting for the "concealed means concealed" crowd to basically say it's OK to break the law since you won't get caught because concealed means concealed.
Click to expand...

Not sure about you, but I don't notice, read, or care what the signs at the entrances to the mall, supermarket or any other business states. If I didn't read it or comprehend I have not been properly notified. AND concealed means concealed.
 
I was in AZ back in June. They have a very specific law describing what a business must do to notify potential customers that firearms are prohibited. There is a specific sign they must post in a specific location. Failure to do so nullifies the ban. One of the exemptions from having to comply as a customer? Being from out of state. I love it.

A different world from this shit hole.
 
joe847 said:
What about the property rights of the business owner?
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing about the right of a business to deny entry to anyone they see fit. The question is one of "does a business have the right to criminalize otherwise lawful behavior?".

If you feel the "property rights" makes it reasonable to criminalize carry past a no guns sign, do you also feel that a property owner should be able to have someone prosecuted for violating a dress code or any aspect of the lawyerish "code of conduct" you generally see posted in fine print somewhere in a mall? If no, what is the basis for the difference?

The three logical choices are:

- A property owner has the right to have someone prosecuted for trespass for violating any posted condition of entry

- No such right exists, but the property owner may expel such a person.

- The right exists only for politically disfavored activity such as lawful carry

So, which of the above are you arguing?
 
A sign that states "No Trespassing" has law behind it. A sign that states "No Parking Tow Away Zone" has law behind it most likely a city ordinance. Just like "Handicap Parking Only" signs have a law behind them.

Some states have specific laws about "No Gun Signs" they then have the force of law behind them. Some state exactly what the sign must say/size/etc. Some say any type sign that is visible and would come to the attention of anyone entering.

Now "No Trespassing Signs" are posted on property that the owner wants no one to enter. There property is not open to the public. Just like your home. Put a No Trespassing Sign up and the salesman calls at the door he is trespassing and you can have him charged. Put up a sign that states "No Soliciting" and if there is no specific Ordinance to back up that "No Soliciting" sign then you have to ask them to leave first. That is why most Cities have a "No Soliciting" Ordinance to give that sign the force of law. A business is open to the public and the public is invited in. If they put up a "No Trespassing Sign" on a store front then anyone who entered would be in violation of the Trespassing Law. Just like the No Shirt/No Shoes/ No Service Signs mean they won't serve you and have to ask you to leave. Like was stated earlier the sign says "No Entrance without Shirt with Collar." If you enter without a collar you can't be charged unless they ask you to leave and you refuse. Any business can refuse you service for legit reasons.

Now on www.handgunlaw.us I put they do have the force of law. The reason I did that is because I had an Attorney in MA tell me you could be charged. I don't really agree with him but who would you believe, Gary Slider or An Attorney? I had to go with what the Attorney stated.

The reason I don't agree with him is because many states have trespassing laws stated the exact same way what trespassing is in MA and in those other states they have to ask you to leave first. I first carried MA as not sure and to look at every "No Firearms" sign as having the force of law until further info is obtained. The Attorney contacted me via email stating that they did so I had to go with that. I will always err on the side of caution when there is not enough info. I don't want to be responsible for someone getting arrested and maybe losing their right to carry. I also knew that when I added the No Firearm Signs Section to Handgunlaw.us there would be some states that would be questioned no matter which way I worded it. It is just very difficult to know exactly how the laws will be applied.

I had Pennsylvania as The signs didn't have the force of law. Then there was a huge discussion about this and after contacting three sheriffs, 2 attorneys and One Judge I had 4 telling me they didn't have the force of law and 2 that stated they did. So I now carry PA as ????????? Not Enough Information Available.

I just can't go with what someone posts on a forum. I have to go with what someone in the system in a position to know a lot more than me tells me. If I get someone in a position of authority in MA tell me they don't I will most likely change it to ??????? Not enough Info. Until I get that from someone in a position that should know I have to go with they do have the force of law in MA.

__________________
Gary Slider
Co-Owner Handgunlaw.us
Member Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.
 
Gary - A more appropriate thing to say would be "While there is no statute that gives signs the force of law, some attorneys are of the opinion that one could be charged with trespass for violating such a sign, whereas there are also some attorneys in MA who will tell you this is not a crime. In other words, absent precedent, there is no clear answer".

Presenting a simplistic answer to what is, in fact, a complex question does not serve any useful purpose as it only adds to, rather than reduces, confusion on the issue. I can give you contact info on an attorney who will almost certainly tell you that such carry is not criminal - would that cause you to change the posting based on the "authority" of the member of the bar?

As to "can be charged with" - we at Comm2A have seen multiple cases where someone has been charged with something that is not a crime. For example, in MA carrying a handgun with an expired MA LTC is a civil infraction, not a fine, unless the subject has either applied for a renewal and been denied or become statutorily ineligible. But, that doesn't prevent charges from being levied. Ditto for the lawful storage of a gun, not on one's person, in a motor vehicle parked on school property.

If you call a dog's tail a leg, the dog still has 4 legs (unless it's been in some sort of accident or had an amputation), although some people will think such a dog has 5 legs. Similarly, if you charge someone with a non-crime, it doesn't make it a criminal offense.

Keep up the good work with handgunlaw.us. Your references to "official sites" is probably the best part of your site, since it lets visitors confirm the information you so nicely summarize.
 
Last edited:
Jesse C. Cohen said:
I see the biggest problem here would be if you go to a venue that has posted no firearms signs, your failure to obey them could trigger an unsuitability suspension.
Click to expand...

Yup, and even that is dependent on circumstances. There is a huge difference between having to explain to the licensing officer why you found with a gun on you when the ambulance picks you up at the mall after a medical emergency (the only case under which a properly concealed gun will be found) where there is a small no gun sign buried somewhere on the sign posted on some entrances, but not on every anchor store's entrance, and trying to sneak a gun past an obvious security checkpoint at a clearly posted venue that searches patrons on the way in.

Of course, this is assuming a sane and reasonable licensing officer, not one that is looking for any excuse to revoke an LTC.

Jesse - since your the only one with the sheepskin in this thread, how about your opinion. Yes or no - is violating a "no guns" sign criminal trespass in MA?
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Nobody is arguing about the right of a business to deny entry to anyone they see fit. The question is one of "does a business have the right to criminalize otherwise lawful behavior?".

If you feel the "property rights" makes it reasonable to criminalize carry past a no guns sign, do you also feel that a property owner should be able to have someone prosecuted for violating a dress code or any aspect of the lawyerish "code of conduct" you generally see posted in fine print somewhere in a mall? If no, what is the basis for the difference?

The three logical choices are:

- A property owner has the right to have someone prosecuted for trespass for violating any posted condition of entry

- No such right exists, but the property owner may expel such a person.

- The right exists only for politically disfavored activity such as lawful carry

So, which of the above are you arguing?
Click to expand...

I am not saying that a property owner can criminalize something through signage. I am just saying that a property owner should have an absolute right to expel someone for any reason. Don't like like left handed red heads? You can ask them to leave. If they don't it turns into a simple case of trespassing.

As a gun owner I would not patronize a business that had a no firearms sign. First because I feel that property rights should be nearly absolute and as such I would feel a moral obligation to respect the owners wishes. Secondly because, screw you hippie!
 
Rob Boudrie said:
"While there is no statute that gives signs the force of law,...
Click to expand...
I'm not following you on this one. What am I missing? Doesn't Secion-120 (linked in the 1st post) do just that? Give a trespassing sign the force of law? The way I read Section-120 the property owner can notify "by posted notice".
...having been forbidden so to do by the person who has lawful control of said premises, whether directly or by notice posted thereon,...
Click to expand...
 
I am just saying that a property owner should have an absolute right to expel someone for any reason.
Click to expand...
Bingo - but I don't think that was ever an issue in this discussion. The problem is some people use "property rights" as justification for "binding signage" laws.

As a gun owner I would not patronize a business that had a no firearms sign.
Click to expand...
Unless that business is the only place in town that can keep you from getting dead, or part of an oligopoly in which all providers of the service have the same policy. And yes, this does happen.

- - - Updated - - -

The way I read Section-120 the property owner can notify "by posted notice".
Click to expand...
But, where is the line. What about a notice "Entry is based on adherence to our code of conduct, and any violation thereof shall constitute criminal trespass"?
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Massachusets is a Constitutional Carry State for residents only
2
Replies
33
Views
782
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
"...possess prior to 9/13/14" Line in the Law
Replies
1
Views
153
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
eFA-10 For Shotgun Purchased Out of State, What Do I Put In The Dealer Info Area?
Replies
3
Views
182
Rick O'Shea
Rick O'Shea
  • Locked
Does Massachusetts have the best "gun control laws" for Pro-2A people?
Replies
28
Views
533
Picton
Picton
Looks like the Mass police now LOVE the Senate gun control law.
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
s&w3913
S
Back
Top Bottom