NO WEAPONS ALLOWED - sign

[doobie]

Signs in NH, VT, MA are not binding. I'm going to carry unless the feds or state says I can't. If asked to leave, I leave.

 

[seanc]

You are right Mark056, however;

I sneak booze and cameras into Fenway Park and various concerts. I have worn metal spiked shoes at the course. No Diving = Time for a cannonball!

Doesn't necessarily mean I disrespecting these places. Its just these rules don't apply to me .

At Fenway I feel it's not fair that a I am restricted to buy booze from one vendor, or at the course only pro's can wear metal cleats, and I will not sue if I break my neck diving into a three foot pool..

Same with "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED". I don't trust that someone else can protect me from a firefight. However, I am sure the property owner means well....... Maybe this is more of a legal liability issue.

Is this sarcasm? Or is the arguement here that a property owner's Rights are fine and dandy just as long as I get to do whatever I want to regardless of their rules?

 

[RKG]

I seem to recall that there was a court case several years ago where a group wanted to pass out some kind of flyers, and the mall where they were doing it objected and had them removed. The group sued, saying that the mall was infringing on their First Amendment rights. I believe that the court found FOR the group, saying that the mall was now the equivalent of public property since that was where people congregated.

Wish I could remember more, but I'm sure that someone out there will remember this case and maybe know more.

Any way, there is a huge difference between my home, where if you're not invited you have no business being, and my (hypothetical) store, where I have the doors open and the public is invited to come in and shop.

I think this is what you are thinking about:

In Logan Valley Plaza, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment conferred a right of leafleting on private property constituting a shopping center.

In Lloyd v. Tanner, the Court cast doubt about the correctness of its decision in Logan Valley Plaza, and in Hudgens v. ??? the Court explicitly overturned Logan Valley Plaza.

All of the foregoing involved the question of a federal right under the First Amendment. In a case called Pruneyard something, the California Supreme Court effective reacted a Logan Valley Plaza right under the state constitution, and on appeal the Supreme Court held that Hudgens did not prevent a state from doing so.

In a case called Commonwealth v. Hood, the SJC declined to create a state-constitution-based free speech right to enter upon private property, at least outside of the labor organization or citizen petition process.

[Note: all the foregoing is from memory; hence the lack of cites. Likewise, I haven't researched this issue in years, but I believe the foregoing summary is still accurate.]

I should add: I don't think there is a distinction between your home and your store. Some people are presumptive invitees to your home (such as the mailman and the FedEx guy, who would not be considered trespassers for walking up to your front door), and the people who enter your store are also invitees. The signal quality of an invitation to enter real property is that it is revocable by the owner at will.

 

[Producer]

Is this sarcasm? Or is the arguement here that a property owner's Rights are fine and dandy just as long as I get to do whatever I want to regardless of their rules?

A little of both. I don't go to my friends house packing. Rules are ment to be broken

But if someone sees "no diving" at the motel and then dives in a breaking his/her neck, I suppose it would be harder for them to get money from the motel in a civil case.

I wonder if the same can be applied in this "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED." For instance an armed robber getting shot by a clerk, and then suing the store.

 

[Raoul Duke]

There probably aren't a whole hell of a lot of cases covering people off the street bringing guns in malls when the mall had a sign saying they weren't allowed to . Most of this is because if the patron is "detected" somehow they tell the mall to FOAD and just leave, no court case necessary.

-Mike

It sounds like, for those who aren't just looking to pick a 2nd A fight/argument with mall management, the key is discretion once again.

If you go to the mall, you'll ignore the sign because you're already concealed, right? No harm no foul. Now, if "they" do see it, perhaps you should just leave and consider the experience an object lesson that you need to re-evaluate your CCW strategy. If you're forced to use your weapon you have other more pressing concerns no doubt. I don't know, I guess the whole thing sounds like a non-issue to me. Am I not seeing the whole picture?

 

[drgrant]

It sounds like, for those who aren't just looking to pick a 2nd A fight/argument with mall management, the key is discretion once again.

If you go to the mall, you'll ignore the sign because you're already concealed, right? No harm no foul. Now, if "they" do see it, perhaps you should just leave and consider the experience an object lesson that you need to re-evaluate your CCW strategy. If you're forced to use your weapon you have other more pressing concerns no doubt. I don't know, I guess the whole thing sounds like a non-issue to me. Am I not seeing the whole picture?

I generally agree with this.... it's not really a problem in states
that obey what I call the "trespass standard" WRT signage and
so on. In those states, a gun is no different than someone
bringing a dog into a mall that says "no non-service dogs". If you
can hide the dog you can probably get away with it. If not, they'll
kick you out.

In states that have binding signage, then it can become more
of a real issue, because then someone is violating a criminal law if
they carry against binding signage, a law which is being put into
effect by posting of a certain signs in a certain manner by a private
entity. That's another issue altogether. This disease seems
to be confined to mostly "new CCW" states.

-Mike

 

[Raoul Duke]

In states that have binding signage, then it can become more
of a real issue, because then someone is violating a criminal law if
they carry against binding signage, a law which is being put into
effect by posting of a certain signs in a certain manner by a private
entity. That's another issue altogether. This disease seems
to be confined to mostly "new CCW" states.

-Mike

Yeah, you're right. I forget all about the concept of binding signage as a mass resident.

 

[FITH]

I do exactlly what all good convicts would do...follow all signs. Just like the Restraining Orders..follow them too...

[size=+2]NO WEAPONS ALLOWED[/size] sign. Most of us have seen them in malls, stores, sporting events, schools, airports just about everywhere. What are we, law abiding LTC holders to do?

Leave it home? Lock it up in the car/truck? Or say the 'the hell with it I carring it anyway'.

As a rule I don't carry much (LTC - Class A, for over 35 years). What do you do? What can they do to you if catch you with it ignoring the "sign"?

Thanks for the replies.

Mike1911

 

[mark056]

I do exactlly what all good convicts would do...follow all signs. Just like the Restraining Orders..follow them too...

You know that there are some who would take your last statement very seriously. If you got yourself into a jam where a restraining order was issued, you are on record as saying that you wouldn't obey a restraining order. Also too, if a licensing authority were to read that, this might raise questions about your "suitability" for a LTC.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, just some food for thought. Maybe I'm getting a bit paranoid in my old age, but things come back from the past to haunt us with astounding regularity it seems, and the internet is forever, no matter how many delete keys we hit.

You might say: "Well I use a screen name"...well just how easy could a dedicated individual track you down?

This might be "much ado about nothing," but then again, this old world seems to be getting weirder and weirder. Please somebody out there reassure me that I am overthinking this.

Mark L.

 

[Fsorrent]

You know that there are some who would take your last statement very seriously. If you got yourself into a jam where a restraining order was issued, you are on record as saying that you wouldn't obey a restraining order. Also too, if a licensing authority were to read that, this might raise questions about your "suitability" for a LTC.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, just some food for thought. Maybe I'm getting a bit paranoid in my old age, but things come back from the past to haunt us with astounding regularity it seems, and the internet is forever, no matter how many delete keys we hit.

You might say: "Well I use a screen name"...well just how easy could a dedicated individual track you down?

This might be "much ado about nothing," but then again, this old world seems to be getting weirder and weirder. Please somebody out there reassure me that I am overthinking this.

Mark L.

Seems to me that the OP who posted that was joking, merely referencing how convicts don't follow the "no gun's allowed" rules or the "restraining orders". I didnt appear to me that the OP actually did anything himself.

 

[mark056]

Seems to me that the OP who posted that was joking, merely referencing how convicts don't follow the "no gun's allowed" rules or the "restraining orders". I didnt appear to me that the OP actually did anything himself.

That's what it seems to me too, but who is to say it couldn't be used out of context someplace, sometime? Forgive me if I didn't make that obvious. Perhaps you are more optimistic than me, or more trusting, which overall is probably a good thing but life experience and my experiences in the intelligence community and the criminal justice community have taught me that anything you say or do can and perhaps will be taken out of context to satisfy an adversary's objective and be used against you.

You haven't reassured me yet.

Mark L.

 

[Producer]

In this state you have no rights with an RO against you. Just say he or she violated it is good enough proof in this state. So why investigate?

 

[KimberCT]

I didn't see any sign.

 

[TomH]

Carry and "miss" the sign on the way in. Someone like me wouldn't see the sign anyway because I don't pay attention to ads/signs at malls... waste of my time.

 

[dwarven1]

That's what it seems to me too, but who is to say it couldn't be used out of context someplace, sometime? Forgive me if I didn't make that obvious. Perhaps you are more optimistic than me, or more trusting, which overall is probably a good thing but life experience and my experiences in the intelligence community and the criminal justice community have taught me that anything you say or do can and perhaps will be taken out of context to satisfy an adversary's objective and be used against you.

You haven't reassured me yet.

Mark L.

You won't get it from me, either. I had a GREAT post the other day and before hitting the Submit Reply key looked at it again... and decided that I REALLY didn't want that out there. No, I won't tell you what it was about - let's just say that it could easily come back to bite me in the ass.

 

[clinotus]

That's what it seems to me too, but who is to say it couldn't be used out of context someplace, sometime? Forgive me if I didn't make that obvious. Perhaps you are more optimistic than me, or more trusting, which overall is probably a good thing but life experience and my experiences in the intelligence community and the criminal justice community have taught me that anything you say or do can and perhaps will be taken out of context to satisfy an adversary's objective and be used against you.

You haven't reassured me yet.

Mark L.

I hear you, but we are gun owners and shooting enthusiasts. EVERYTHING we say is going to be taken out of context. I remarked in another thread that I would shortly consider arming my toddler due to the recent spate of Home Invasions.
Is the possibility real that DSS could come pounding on my door in the AM? Yep.
How about it the boston.com thread where that other forum was making light of joses comment about always going to the door armed? Again it was taken out of context.

We cant be akin to an oppressed group trying at all times not to piss off our masters. We can speak and speak freely and if it was a joke or whatever it can be clarified as we do tend to police ourselves in some cases. But you are correct that sometimes we do need to police ourselves a bit further at the keyboard.

 

[fubar]

I ignore it.

Like the man said - " No Blacks , No Irish , No RKBA . " Doesn't apply to me , far s I am concerned.

Now , If Mr. OwnerOfBestBuy invited me to dinner and asked me to leave my piece at home , then it wouldn't be a problem - because i'd decline. Their customer service is so bad I'd never accept.

 

[Jose]

In Ohio the sign is binding. The charge, however, is not a weapons charge, but a criminal trespass charge. Same charge if I refused to leave some place where I was no longer wanted. The difference is that mere armed presence in a posted place is considered criminal trespass, without the need for anyone to ask you to leave and your refusal to same.

Concealed means concealed.

BTW, some "new" CCW states have laws even better than Mass in this regard. Check out Missouri's CCW laws.

 

[Erebus]

In Ohio the sign is binding. The charge, however, is not a weapons charge, but a criminal trespass charge. Same charge if I refused to leave some place where I was no longer wanted. The difference is that mere armed presence in a posted place is considered criminal trespass, without the need for anyone to ask you to leave and your refusal to same.

Concealed means concealed.

BTW, some "new" CCW states have laws even better than Mass in this regard. Check out Missouri's CCW laws.

In this state I would never push the issue if I was asked to leave. I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that a criminal trespass would be grounds to declare you unfit and yank your LTC. Especially when carrying a weapon was the original dispute.

 

[Palladin]

Signs? I don't see no stinkin' signs!

 

[45 acp]

I can't remember seeing a "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" sign anywhere. Maybe I'm just naive or like most just ignore signs in general. Besides concealed carry is supposed to be concealed how would anyone know?

 

[Mike-Mike]

We should be boycotting those places and we should let them know that.

I remember Blockbuster video had a No Guns policy. I read about it in an NRA mag. I immediately cut out the article and put it in an envelope with my 2 blockbuster cards. I included a note that said. " I'll go to west coast video, Thanks"

What's funny is, At that time I very rarely even carried. I respect their right to not allow guns. Now they respect my right to go to the other place.

Note: I was told that blockbuster did repeal that policy.

 

[tuna]

I'm still confused about the issue of "binding signage" and "trespass standard". I asked once, and was told that MA does not have binding signs, but what says that?
Does there need to be a law the makes the signs binding?
I've found places in the MGL that appear to say that posting a place works for trespassing, but nothing with regard to just firearms. See earlier thread http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=32058

Can someone explain this in small words? I'd really like to see something in writing (besides faceless names on the internet) that defines the trespass standard and sign policy for Massachusetts.

 

[Jose]

Tuna, I think the difference is that in some states ignorance of the private propety sign posting "no weapons" or some such is defacto a crime regardless of whether or not anyone asks you to leave the premises, while in others the sign means nothing legally speaking. IOW, you can walk right past it and ignore it without breaking a law. Only if someone asks you to leave (presumably the found out somewhow you are armed) and you refuse can you be charged.

Ohio is the former, while Massachussetts is the latter.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

but what says that?

It's what it doesn't say. Some states (for example, TX law 30.06 - yes, that's really the statute number) makes carry in violation of the sign a specific criminal offense. Absent such a statute, there is no legal difference between carrying in place posted "no guns" and wearing a T shirt in a place posted "No T shirts permitted".

 

[Producer]

I ignore it.

Like the man said - " No Blacks , No Irish , No RKBA . " Doesn't apply to me , far s I am concerned.

Now , If Mr. OwnerOfBestBuy invited me to dinner and asked me to leave my piece at home , then it wouldn't be a problem - because i'd decline. Their customer service is so bad I'd never accept.

+1

 

[tuna]

So it is perfectly legal to walk into a fast food joint that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service" until and unless someone tells me to leave? You're doing something legal and the manager chooses to deny service if he notices you barefoot, and all he can do is tell you to leave.

 

[FunYun]

So it is perfectly legal to walk into a fast food joint that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service" until and unless someone tells me to leave? You're doing something legal and the manager chooses to deny service if he notices you barefoot, and all he can do is tell you to leave.

Only if there is no law against it.

There is no law pertaining to weapons and signage in MA, though that does not mean it does not exist for other signage.

Once he tells you to leave, you must, or you can be arrested. I don't see why this is in question.

 

[drgrant]

Tuna, I think the difference is that in some states ignorance of the private propety sign posting "no weapons" or some such is defacto a crime regardless of whether or not anyone asks you to leave the premises, while in others the sign means nothing legally speaking. IOW, you can walk right past it and ignore it without breaking a law. Only if someone asks you to leave (presumably the found out somewhow you are armed) and you refuse can you be charged.

Ohio is the former, while Massachussetts is the latter.

+1000. PC 30.06 compliant signage is legally binding; a stupid "no guns" sign on a store in MA, NH, VT, ME, and probably a dozen other states is not. Some states have different gradients to binding signage as well. EG, places like FL have binding signage around booze serving establishments that meet certain qualifications but not a whole lot else.

FWIW even in binding signage states it is VERY IMPORTANT that people read the law... . In TX there are a lot of "no guns" signs, but very few of them are actually 30.06 compliant- and according to the law, if the sign is not compliant, it doesn't mean anything and is not binding. Very few businesses have PC 30.06 compliant signage because the signs have to be large, obnoxious, and printed in english and spanish. At things like malls, every entrance must also have signs. In TX the law only works in the property owners favor if they are 100% in compliance with the requirements. If the law is not followed to the letter the legal concealed carrier will win by default, because the law there is very clear about these requirements.

-Mike

 

[tuna]

Thank you all for your explanations. Sorry to have been slow on the uptake. No offense, but I tend to not trust "some guy on the internet" too much when it comes to the possibility of going to jail.


Now back to our regularly scheduled banter.