CCW not welcome in Disney Springs

[davidsog]

I don't see it that way, in Florida or anywhere else. Don't confuse how the law is usually enforced with what it actually does. the law might not have a criminal penalty for carry on private property against the owner's wishes written into it, but that is not the same as "owner has no say".

'

In the State of Florida, prohibited areas are specifically noted in the State Statue. If the area is not one of those specifically mentioned prohibited areas under the law....

You can carry concealed. A private owner can place all the "No Guns Allowed" signs up he wants and it has no bearing or effect on the law. It is simply NOT a prohibited area no matter how much he would like it to be.....

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Absolutely right. If they ask you to leave, you must leave and can be charged with armed trespass should you refuse to leave. ...

However, to be clear, the sign has no weight under the law and you can carry there all you want. That is Florida Law. Why is that so hard to digest and why do folks want to think or make a case it is otherwise.

The statements in your two paragraphs are contradictory. The first paragraph is correct. In the second paragraph you wrote, "... you can carry there all you want." This statement is NOT correct. The place is private property and the owner can establish any rules they wish (as long as the rules aren't in conflict with state law). Since you have already acknowledged in your first paragraph that the owner can kick you out for carrying (or for many other reasons, in fact), clearly you canNOT "carry there all you want."

[smee78]

A sign (legal or not) would let law abiding citizens know their position at the open air mall.

Also an over weight guy with a dog is not real security, a radio and a water bottle don't make them armed security that can stop a threat.

Also I'm so grateful they paid for a cab, really?

If they are so proud of their stance then why not put it out there for us law abiding citizens to know about. That way the whole event could of been avoided, and yes I did feel like a criminal. Two "security" people with a dog, two local sheriff, an admin person all around me right there in front of everyone walking by, what would you think of the person in question? With all that attention then they must of done something wrong if the real cops are involved right?

I will be contacting them and letting them know why I wont be spending any more money with them.

[davidsog]

The statements in your two paragraphs are contradictory. The first paragraph is correct. In the second paragraph you wrote, "... you can carry there all you want." This statement is NOT correct. The place is private property and the owner can establish any rules they wish (as long as the rules aren't in conflict with state law). Since you have already acknowledged in your first paragraph that the owner can kick you out for carrying (or for many other reasons, in fact), clearly you canNOT "carry there all you want."

I kind of thought this was common sense so thanks for clarifying it. If it was really common, they would not have had to add a 5th Principle of Patrolling.

You can carry there all you want as long you are not made as carrying, LOL.

[davidsog]

as long as the rules aren't in conflict with state law

They are in conflict with state law as state law defines the prohibited area's and is specific in the fact private signs are not recognized. They will not be enforced upon CCL holders for carrying a concealed weapon into your signed off private property.

[davidsog]

Here are the only prohibited areas under Florida Law:

(12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
1. Any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05;
2. Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station;
3. Any detention facility, prison, or jail;
4. Any courthouse;
5. Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;
6. Any polling place;
7. Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
8. Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
9. Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
10. Any elementary or secondary school facility or administration building;
11. Any career center;
12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
13. Any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
14. The inside of the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or
15. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.
(b) A person licensed under this section shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle for lawful purposes.
(c) This section does not modify the terms or conditions of s. 790.251(7).
(d) Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Once more, paragraph 15 states:

(15) The Legislature finds as a matter of public policy and fact that it is necessary to provide statewide uniform standards for issuing licenses to carry concealed weapons and firearms for self-defense and finds it necessary to occupy the field of regulation of the bearing of concealed weapons or firearms for self-defense to ensure that no honest, law-abiding person who qualifies under the provisions of this section is subjectively or arbitrarily denied his or her rights. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Legislature does not delegate to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services the authority to regulate or restrict the issuing of licenses provided for in this section, beyond those provisions contained in this section. Subjective or arbitrary actions or rules which encumber the issuing process by placing burdens on the applicant beyond those sworn statements and specified documents detailed in this section or which create restrictions beyond those specified in this section are in conflict with the intent of this section and are prohibited. This section shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. This section is supplemental and additional to existing rights to bear arms, and nothing in this section shall impair or diminish such rights.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2018/0790.06

[Double Naught Spy]

That way the whole event could of been avoided, and yes I did feel like a criminal. Two "security" people with a dog, two local sheriff, an admin person all around me right there in front of everyone walking by, what would you think of the person in question? With all that attention then they must of done something wrong if the real cops are involved right?

So talking with Disney, security, and the cops equates with feeling like a criminal? That is pretty extreme. Would you have felt the same way dealing with all those people when reporting a crime?

It really isn't that big of a deal. You are blowing things out of proportion. You got caught with a gun on Disney property. They made sure you weren't a bad guy. They made sure you were duly informed that they don't want your gun on their property. They didn't treat you badly. You weren't cuffed, arrested, or anything like that. All they did was talk with you.

In the grand scheme, this was pretty much a non-event except that you lost a little time and you opted to find off-site lodging for your firearm (which you didn't have to do, but chose to do).

I will be contacting them and letting them know why I wont be spending any more money with them.

Good. That is what you should have done in the first place. If you are not happy with how you were treated at a given business, going vocal on a forum isn't apt to bring you any resolution to the issue other than allowing you to blow off some steam, but that really doesn't deal with the actual issue. Deal with Disney. Ask them why you didn't know guns weren't allowed on their property. See what they tell you.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

They are in conflict with state law as state law defines the prohibited area's and is specific in the fact private signs are not recognized. They will not be enforced upon CCL holders for carrying a concealed weapon into your signed off private property.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong again. The fact that the signs (if there were any) do not have force of law only means that the police cannot arrest you instantly if you are found to be carrying on property where the owner has posted a sign prohibiting firearms. That doesn't mean that carry of firearms is therefore allowed. It means that if they catch you, you can be asked to leave. If you don't leave, you can be arrested ... not for carrying a firearm, but for criminal trespass because you refused to vacate the premises after the owner or his agent revoked your permission to be there.

In short, there is no conflict with the state law. The state law only establishes those places where you can be arrested on the spot for carrying, without being first given the option of leaving peacefully. The legal right of a private property owner to prohibit carry on his/her/its property is not limited by the fact the state chose to enumerate certain classes of premises as not requiring a specific request to leave before you can be arrested.

[davidsog]

That doesn't mean that carry of firearms is therefore allowed.

I am not wrong again.

Again, the STATE says they DO NOT enforce ANY "No Firearms" signage outside of the listed prohibited areas. Very simple and very cut and dry....

If you don't leave, you can be arrested

If you do not leave my house when I tell you too, you can be arrested for the same thing. I do not need a reason outside of I want you gone. It is trespassing and the same thing you are trying to link to guns.

That has nothing to do with the some private individual deciding he or she wants to attempt to regulate CCL holders in the State of Florida by placing a sign at the door. The state does not recognize that.

In short the "trespassing" has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS. It is simply the fact that private individual owner does not want YOU on the property.

When asked by them, you must leave or you are trespassing. Nothing about "Carry a Gun in a Prohibited AREA"....because it NOT a prohibited area.

[44 AMP]

In short the "trespassing" has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS. It is simply the fact that private individual owner does not want YOU on the property.

Except that when the reason the owner doesn't want you on the property is because you have a gun.

So the Florida law doesn't recognize private signs as legal commands. Fine. They aren't legal commands, but they ARE information for you, making you aware of the owner's requirements.

How is it you demand property owners respect your rights but you refuse to respect theirs???

Think its ok to carry concealed where it is prohibited as long as you don't get caught? I suppose its ok to commit any offense, as long as you don't get caught, right??

Just because something doesn't have a direct criminal penalty appended by law, doesn't mean its an ok thing to do, and only wrong if you get caught.

Better tried by 12 than carried by 6? of course, but does your personal need to feel secure trump property owner's rights? This is NOT a situation where you are legally forced to be in. You chose to go there. You chose to carry, where the owners prohibit it. You are CHOOSING to violate their rights for your own sense of security. That's just wrong.

If your principles are that inflexible, simply don't go to those places. No one is making you go there.

You may think their rules are stupid, but that doesn't matter. If you aren't willing to follow "my house, my rules" then I don't want you in my "house" and I can understand where others might feel the same way.

[rickyrick]

I avoid going places that don’t want me to carry. Easy. When I must go into a place that doesn’t want me to carry a gun, I disarm myself or leave the gun at home.

In these modern times, I rarely need to conduct business away from my phone, lol. Most of my outings are between work and home and the rest is recreational. I have groceries delivered a lot nowadays, and most places will bring the stuff out to my Jeep without even having to go in.
I respect “No Guns” signs whether they carry the force of law or not.

Outside of a bullet detecting dogs and the like, if you get caught concealed carrying... you are doing it wrong or you’re a bigger dummy than me or both.

[Double Naught Spy]

In short the "trespassing" has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS. It is simply the fact that private individual owner does not want YOU on the property.

This is wrong, particularly in this case. Disney wants the people, not the firearms. Disney offered to accommodate the OP by storing his gun for him.

Also in this case, trespassing has EVERYTHING to do with having a gun.

[Don Fischer]

This is no big deal, just don't go to Disney anymore. Private property and they have a right to say you can't carry there. You have the right to not go there again, your call! I carry in most everywhere I go. Remove my gun to go into Sheriff's office, turn in insulin needles; remove the gun and leave it in the car. I don't carry into post offices other than here at home. Really really small office and seldom anyone there. Nothing wrong with an owner not allowing you to have gun's on their property, get over it! Of course that mean's I'm not going there! Funny thing. Went to a local, local as it get's from here, gun show last year. They had guy's at the door checking for concealed weapons. Had to remove the clip, clear the action then they tied the action open with a wire tie. My first stop was the john! So what bad guy is stupid enough to go into a gun show and threaten people with a gun? I'll tell you what one; the one with a death wish!

Get over it, bye bye Disney!

[Mainah]

I got flagged by TSA a few years ago because they swabbed my hands and got a false positive. The screener who swabbed me yelled an alert to other staff members and suddenly I was in a long line of people staring at me. I was escorted into a small room by two other TSA agents in full view of everyone. It was humiliating and I can appreciate the op's reaction to some extent.

However Disney has the absolute right to prohibit concealed carry on their property. The overweight security guy may have been unarmed, but I suspect that he wasn't the only member of their security team who was engaged in this. He was only the visible one. And he did "catch" the op.

Imagine trying to sort through the good guys and the bad guys in a crowded place like that if things went bad.

[davidsog]

This is wrong, particularly in this case. Disney wants the people, not the firearms. Disney offered to accommodate the OP by storing his gun for him.

No it is not wrong.

The argument is whether or not the State of Florida bestows special rights upon private owners who place "No Guns Allowed" signs on their property.

FACT - The State of Florida does not recognize such signage and bestows no special legal rights upon private owners or give them any special ability to restrict CCL holders entering their property.

That is fact.

[zukiphile]

FACT - The State of Florida does not recognize such signage and bestows no special legal rights upon private owners or give them any special ability to restrict CCL holders entering their property.

That's correct. It isn't a special right, just the ordinary right of an owner.

There are exceptions to the general right of an owner to exclude people from a property or his business. If I decide I'd like to exclude black people from my hotel in Atlanta, I don't have that right because there is an exception to the general owners right, and that exception has a basis in legislation and case law.

However, if I want to exclude people who part their hair in the middle or wear brown shoes with blue suits, I can deem a trespasser members of the public who make that choice. I don't even need a sign. I can just tell a fellow in a blue suit that unless he removes his brown shoes, I want him to leave. If he refuses, then I have remedies for the trespass.

In the Disney scenario above, their exclusion doesn't face the kind of legal prohibitions that the idea of an all white hotel does, so the closer analog is the brown shoe exclusion.

That doesn't make the Disney choice fair or wise, just permissible.

[davidsog]

How is it you demand property owners respect your rights but you refuse to respect theirs???

Emotional sensationalism and not at all what was said or being discussed. Please turn that high powered perception upon the written word of my post to understand that it is simply an illustration of the point:

The argument is whether or not the State of Florida bestows special rights upon private owners who place "No Guns Allowed" signs on their property.

FACT - The State of Florida does not recognize such signage and bestows no special legal rights upon private owners or give them any special ability to restrict CCL holders entering their property.

A property owner has no special rights simply because he posted a "No Firearms allowed" sign and then caught a lawful CCL holder exercising his lawful CCL privileges.

[davidsog]

That's correct. It isn't a special right, just the ordinary right of an owner.

Bingo!!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

FACT - The State of Florida does not recognize such signage and bestows no special legal rights upon private owners or give them any special ability to restrict CCL holders entering their property.

Once again, I respectfully submit that you are misstating the situation when you say that the state of Florida "does not recognize" such signage. (And, in fact, in this case there was no signage involved, anyway.)

As I explained above, the situation is that in Florida the signs do not have force of law such that ignoring a sign and carrying on posted property is automatically a criminal offense and subject to instant arrest. The fact that the signs do not have force of law in that context does not invalidate a property owner's right to control what happens on his/her/its property. If you carry where the owner has notified you that firearms are not allowed, then by definition you do not have the owner's permission to be there, and you are trespassing.

Trespass is unlawful, and you can be asked to leave the property. If you refuse to leave after being asked to do so, it becomes criminal trespass and you can be arrested. The charge will be criminal trespass rather than carrying a gun, but it's still an arrest, and it's still as a result of your carrying where you have been notified that you are not allowed to carry.

In the case under discussion here, apparently there were no signs, so the first notice smee78 had was when security told him he wasn't allowed to carry. Fair enough. He then had notice. His choices then were

• Leave
• Surrender the gun temporarily (if offered the option) and stay
• Refuse to leave and refuse to surrender the gun ... and get arrested for trespass

To reiterate: the state of Florida does recognize the signs. It recognizes them as giving notice to visitors of the owner's policies and desires, and thus as forming the basis for a charge of trespass if you ignore the signs.

Originally Posted by davidsog

The argument is whether or not the State of Florida bestows special rights upon private owners who place "No Guns Allowed" signs on their property.

I don't think anyone has argued that the signs convey to property owners any special rights. What the signs do is provide notice, thereby triggering the owner's ordinary right to invoke the law regarding trespass. If you walk past a sign that says "No firearms allowed," you are by definition trespassing. Trespassing is illegal. The state recognizes this, and has codified it in statute.

[spacemanspiff]

Are we required to answer honestly whenever security asks if we are armed? They are not law enforcement officers.

[davidsog]

If you carry where the owner has notified you that firearms are not allowed, then by definition you do not have the owner's permission to be there, and you are trespassing.

The State of Florida does not just charge CCL holders with trespassing out of the blue. The owner can only ask you to leave. If you comply, he has no other legal recourse.

A property owner has no special rights bestowed under the law for restricting CCL holders lawful carry in the State of Florida.

However, if I want to exclude people who part their hair in the middle or wear brown shoes with blue suits, I can deem a trespasser members of the public who make that choice. I don't even need a sign. I can just tell a fellow in a blue suit that unless he removes his brown shoes, I want him to leave. If he refuses, then I have remedies for the trespass.

In the Disney scenario above, their exclusion doesn't face the kind of legal prohibitions that the idea of an all white hotel does, so the closer analog is the brown shoe exclusion.

That doesn't make the Disney choice fair or wise, just permissible.

Excellent illustration.

[Doyle]

Are we required to answer honestly whenever security asks if we are armed? They are not law enforcement officers.

In the case of Disney, they are LEs. I don't remember if they are deputized by City or County department though - or if they fall under some other type of organization.

[labnoti]

Don't answer the question dishonestly.

The dog's alert is not probable cause that a crime was committed and cannot be used to search your person.

The correct response to the question if you're carrying, "I don't answer questions."

You can still be asked to leave private property, but your firearm never has to become the issue. Either the property owner wants you shopping there or they don't. They can make up their mind.

[davidsog]

Are we required to answer honestly whenever security asks if we are armed? They are not law enforcement officers.

No, there is no requirement of notify an officer or anyone else.

To be clear, Florida Statute 790.06 - “License to carry concealed weapon or
firearm” states that an individual has no “duty to inform” a law enforcement officer that
they are carrying a concealed weapon or firearm (some states do, however). In no way
should a CFL holder feel that they are viewed as a criminal by the police. Officers are
aware of the stringent steps CFL holders must go through when issued a license.

https://www.cityofrockledge.org/Docu...actions?bidId=

[Doyle]

No, there is no requirement of notify an officer or anyone else.

A "duty to notify" is totally different than failing to answer a direct question. Never confuse the two.