If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
[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
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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".but what says that?
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.
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.
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.