lets say you are CCW in a business with no carry allowed

[Aguila Blanca]

In the example provided, he is in a place of Business with no carry allowed. Businesses are privately owned and privately regulated. If you are caught carrying a weapon into a place that does not allow it, and you are not brandishing, or causing a criminal disturbance of the peace, the worst thing that could happen is that they ask you to leave.

Sorry, but you're wrong, too.

In some states, the law stipulates specific penalties for ignoring a "No guns" sign, even if you haven't been detected and asked to leave verbally. Someone already mentioned the Texas 30.06 sign. In Texas, and some other states, the sign must meet very strict criteria to have the force of law but, if it meets those criteria, no additional request to leave is required.

Other states allow posting to have the force of law but don't stipulate the language or appearance of the sign.

And still other states don't say anything on the topic.

It's never a good idea to give blanket advice based on the law in ONE state.

[Tom Servo]

Once, you do that - my opinion is that it is an easement of your property rights. Many differ on this.

The debate breaks down to this:

• Those of us who feel that private property rights take precedence
• those who feel that the right to protect life takes precedence, and
• those who really haven't thought either viewpoint through and just shout "concealed means concealed!"

I'm with the first group, but Glenn's made some very convincing arguments for the second view.

There may be times when one has to carry into a business that prohibits firearms. Banks (in areas where it is not illegal) are one such case. Where do we draw the line? I'm not sure.

[LordTio3]

Sorry, but you're wrong, too.

In some states, the law stipulates specific penalties for ignoring a "No guns" sign, even if you haven't been detected and asked to leave verbally. Someone already mentioned the Texas 30.06 sign. In Texas, and some other states, the sign must meet very strict criteria to have the force of law but, if it meets those criteria, no additional request to leave is required.

Other states allow posting to have the force of law but don't stipulate the language or appearance of the sign.

And still other states don't say anything on the topic.

It's never a good idea to give blanket advice based on the law in ONE state.

That's why this followed 2 sentences later...

(I am not a lawyer)

And the bad idea wouldn't be to give blanket advice; it would be to TAKE blanket advice from someone who DOES claim to know exactly the rules and regualtions involved.

Just sayin...

~LT

[BamaBowtie]

I am one of those that tend to ignore the No Firearms signs. Unless it's a government building/school I'm carrying. I do try to avoid those places but once in a while I have to go to one.

For those that disagree with me just ask Suzanna Hupp (google it) what she thinks about "No Firearms" signs. That story is the most influential in my decision to ignore the signs when possible.

[Powderman]

It's a very simple equation for me, if they don't want me carrying (their decision) then they don't want my money (my decision).

Most succinctly and adequately defined.

In other words....there it is. If you don't want me to carry in your business, you don't want my business.

[Tom Servo]

For those that disagree with me just ask Suzanna Hupp (google it) what she thinks about "No Firearms" signs. That story is the most influential in my decision to ignore the signs when possible.

Actually, the analogy is disingenuous. Luby's restaurant wasn't posted. Suzanna Hupp left the gun in her car because concealed carry was illegal in Texas at the time. The ban was from the state, not the business.

Now Texas has concealed carry, and businesses may elect to ban guns if they choose. The main difference is that citizens have a choice. If a restaurant bans guns, I can simply eat somewhere else. If it's a business I care about, then I make an attempt to convince the owner to change the policy.

[MLeake]

1) Concealed carry was not legal, at that time in Texas. Carrying anywhere would have been a crime.

2) Now that they have concealed permits, there's still no reason why Dr. Hupp would only be able to choose from restaurants that ban carry.

So the question is, why don't you just find restaurants and businesses that don't restrict carry, and deny your hard-earned cash to those that do?

[Wag]

Going from memory and some hearsay here, but a few years ago, a guy walked into a local Wal-Mart strapped, even though there was a sign on the door prohibiting firearms. The sign was covered up by the sliding door and not visible to the guy when he walked in.

As he stood in line at the photo counter, another man came in and jumped over the counter and began stabbing the clerk who was working the counter. The armed gentleman drew and fired, killing the attacker.

Wal-Mart had the balls to sue the guy for carrying illegally in the store but in the process, they drew a lot of bad press. Wal-Marts in this area no longer post that sign.

A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I went into a Flying Star cafe and had dessert. As we left, we saw their "No Firearms" sign. How we missed it going in is beyond me at this point because it wasn't hidden at all. But we would have had to spend a mountain of money to get off on that, regardless of the outcome.

--Wag--

[alan]

At the risk of oversimplifying matters, the following comes to mind, regarding No Weapons Signs in a business establishment.

1. Would the proprietor be responsible for the safety of customers who, while abiding by his expressed wishes, he had posted a No Weapons Sign, were unarmed in his store, and were injured as a result of criminal action therein? Has this ever been setteled in any court? I'm not any sort of legal expert either.

2. That old adage about it being better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 comes to mind at this point.

[Tom Servo]

Would the proprietor be responsible for the safety of customers who, while abiding by his expressed wishes, he had posted a No Weapons Sign, were unarmed in his store, and were injured as a result of criminal action therein?

There's never been a successful case brought. I think we're a long way from being able to field one.

I imagine I'd have to prove that a) the owner's policy forbidding guns directly influenced the shooter's actions, and b) significantly reduced my ability to defend myself.

[HuttoAg96]

In Texas, as already mentioned, they have the 30.06 statute. If the business posts a sign that is pretty close to the correct signage, e.g. right verbage but maybe incorrect size or color, I don't take a chance (and I usually don't go in either, but that's actually never come up). Businesses with the "gunbuster" sign or simple text like "firearms prohibited" - I'm lookin at YOU, Cinemark - I just cruise right on in. The sign is legally meaningless. They won't know I am carrying unless the feces hits the oscillator anyway.

[BamaBowtie]

Not the best example I admit. Another thing to consider is the number of places that post these signs for insurance purposes. One of the few posted places I do go to is a jewelry store. I started my account years ago in another state, after moving down here I found the local store posted. None of the store's in Alabama were. I talked to the manager and told him up front I would not do business with them if they did not respect my right to self defense. He told me the sign was there because of the insurance company and told me to pay it no attention! One of my local gun shops has a no loaded weapons sign. Once he gets to know you a bit and feels comfortable with your safe handeling of firearms he doesn't mind if you carry in his shop.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I need a lawyers help on this but I have heard of a legal idea that is called "the law of greater good" or something like that. I could very well be wrong but it states something like; "if you break a lesser law (carrying in prohibited place) but by doing so you prevent or stop a bigger offense (murder) that the DA may decline to prosecute." Or something like that.

DISCLAIMER I am NOT a lawyer and are not offering legal advice. However, for purposes of the discussion and this seems relevant to the OP I put it out there.

A similiar legalism to this is one I actually heard in school where a burgular (committing a crime) broke in a house and discovered grisly evidence that a serial killer lived there, told police and his info produced search warrant that defendant tried to quash but could not even though the info was "discovered" during an illegal act.

My feeling is that in the OP presented whether to prosecute the gunnie would be a DA descretionary call?

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by csmsss

I consider this the height of arrogance and rudeness. You KNOW you are not welcome in an establishment with your firearm, yet choose to enter it anyway just because you think you can get away with it. I can tell you that you would never be welcome in my home.

Since I'm so arrogant and rude, I could care less of what you think. I don't care to visit your home either, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by alan

At the risk of oversimplifying matters, the following comes to mind, regarding No Weapons Signs in a business establishment.

1. Would the proprietor be responsible for the safety of customers who, while abiding by his expressed wishes, he had posted a No Weapons Sign, were unarmed in his store, and were injured as a result of criminal action therein? Has this ever been setteled in any court? I'm not any sort of legal expert either.

2. That old adage about it being better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 comes to mind at this point.

This is more along my line of thought. I personally believe that a "No Firearms Alllowed" sign is MUCH more likely to attract criminals. Is the business going to ensure my security? I don't believe so.

[clemsonbloz]

in SC you are possibly screwed..

if you..

Are somewhere you can legally be

have a proper CCW

stopping the comission of a violent crime

you are immune criminal or civil prosecution

Now.... if you use your pistol in a business that is banned(a sign, somewhere that serves alcohol, daycare, etc),, you are not immune to the prosecution...

More than likely you avoid ciminal charges,, but you are gonna get your ass sue'd off in a civil trial!

But, most signs do not meet the legal requirments set down by our state law enforcement division.. They must be a specific size, specific lettering, specific location,,, etc.. Most places have misplaced or mis-sized signs,, and you can ignore them!!!

[alan]

I think, and this my personal opinion only, likely an inexpert opinion at that we've reached the point of circular conversation, possibly interesting, but going nowhere.

As to the lack of a relevant court case being anywhere brought, I certainly cannot say. Ditto for "being a long way" therefrom. Additionally, whatever might "make sense" to me, or "stands to reason" is a purely personal stipulation, one that carries NOTHING in the way of the force of law.

Suffice it to say that should the merchant "post" their business establishment, such action on their part being offensive to you or I, that we simply stay away. We might politely inform the merchant that he is loosing any possibility of our patronage, his reaction to that being his choice, then simply let it go at that. I once heard that the best way to get a mule's attention was with a 2 x 4. That just might prove correct, however all the effort garnered you was perhaps the momentary attention of a mule. How much is that worth?

[Tom Servo]

it states something like; "if you break a lesser law (carrying in prohibited place) but by doing so you prevent or stop a bigger offense (murder) that the DA may decline to prosecute." Or something like that.

I'm not aware of anything like that on the books, but it happens sometimes in practice. In self-defense cases, DA's have been known to forgo charges, grand juries have no-billed the charges if considered, and juries have found defendants not guilty of lesser malum prohibitum stuff.

Then again, I'm sure there are cases where they don't. I wouldn't stake my future on it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I wouldn't stake my future on it.

Would you stake your life on it? If you get my drift

[Tom Servo]

Would you stake your life on it? If you get my drift

I'm not sure I do.

I pray I never have to harm another person in anger. I don't want to pull my gun at any point. If I do, there's very good reason for it. Most likely, a jury will see that.

I stress "most likely" because it could go horribly wrong. Everyone should consider that the next time they decide to chant "concealed means concealed" while carrying somewhere that doesn't want them doing so.

[Talin342]

Just a couple observations that I wanted to make.
Per Glenn E. Meyer:

Commercial property is not immune to changing expansion of rights. It used to be OK for a commercial enterprise to discriminate based on race and religion. It's not anymore. Fine with me.

I will admit that while in practice that is generally true, I can't think of a federal statue that prohibits that practice. While there may be various state laws prohibiting general discrimination, I don't believe that it generally applies to most businesses (with the possible exception of banks).

Surely, you've been in a restaurant or bar and seen a sign stating "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Anyone means anyone. The expansion of rights, however, does prevent the discriminiation on the basis of religion, race, and gender by the GOVERNMENT.

Being from Texas and because, unfortunately, the no carry statue has a cool name (30.06). Maybe the carry statue should be referred to as statute .45. I'll use it in the following missive.

Remember that the same legislation that enacted 30.06 also permits you to carry a concealed weapon. As citizens, we are responsible to follow all laws not just the ones that we find convenient. Take the example of speeding I am sure that everyone has at one time or another broken the speed limit. Does breaking the limit and injuring someone make you any less guilty than breaking the limit and just getting a ticket? No, the point is that the laws are there to protect the rights of both those that carry and those that DO NO want to carry.

[Idahoser]

I can see the philosophical value of a discussion like this, even though upon reflection we all will of course recommend you not put yourself in this position.

So were I to discover myself in this scenario, I think my best option is to hide myself and my companions from the fray, if possible; my weapon is for the defense of me and mine, not people who choose to disarm themselves and their customers.

If I'm an intended target, well then, it's better to be tried by 12...

[Skadoosh]

If a commercial business has the right to disarm me, does that mean they are then responsible for my safety?

[Wag]

Valid question but circumstances have not yet provided a courtroom test.

In the meantime, since the law does allow a business to keep you and your gun out with a little signage, you risk not only your rights, but the rights of others when you violate that rule. A lot of people have worked very hard to promote and enact legislation to allow CCW. Breaking the rules compromises the efforts of those people.

--Wag--

[Tom Servo]

If a commercial business has the right to disarm me, does that mean they are then responsible for my safety?

Nope. They're responsible for not creating dangerous situations, and they are expected to handle those as they come up, but that's within reason.

I'd have a very, very hard time convincing a jury that Squat-n-Gobble was criminally negligent because their "no guns" sign made some deviated pervert come in and shoot up the place.

If it's such an emotional issue, let me ask: has anyone but me ever politely approached the management and tried to convince them to change their policy?

[alan]

Tom Servo:

Re the "polite" request you made of management somewhere, what did you get by way of reply?

Having said that, the following reflects my thinking on this subject.

1. It's the other guy's establishmet.

2. That being established, the proprietor bears responsibility for the safety of people, in his establishment.

3. The state, being convinced that I'm one of the Good Guys, issued me a concealed carry permit or license.

4. The proprietor chooses to make his establishmenbt a "no guns zone", I being a law abiding type, who is licensed by the state to carry concealed weapons, assuming that I enter the premises, abides by the owners desires, rendering myself without defensive weaponry while in his establishment.

5. While in his establishment, I'm injured by another, who didn't abide by the ower's expressed desires, and who also acted in violation of the law.

6. At this point, it seems logical to me, being perhaps handicapped by my engineering background, that the proprietor bears responsibility for my injuries.

7. I could be all wet here, but I still subscribe to the theory that 2 + 2 = 4, as I mentioned earlier, I could well be handicapped by my engineering background.