Knightrider03m
Member
In my state, a no gun sign is useless.
Do you carry in a "gun-free zone?
- Thread starter CigarGuy
- Start date
cshoff
Member
That is absolutely incorrect. There is no prohibition on carry in banks in Missouri at all. None. In fact, banks aren't even mentioned in RSMO 571.107.1 (1) - (17) as being one of the places in which your permit "does not authorize" you to carry.
The truth is, if you possess a valid concealed carry endorsement, there are no "prohibited places" in the Missouri CCW law. In fact, if you read RSMO 571.107.1, it does not use the word, "prohibited" even once.
Rather, what 571.107.1 (1) - (17) does is specify places in which your CCW endorsement "does not authorize" you to carry. In statutory language, there is a HUGE difference between actions that are "prohibited", and actions that are simply not authorized by the mere presence of a CCW endorsement.
So now that we have some basis established for what this section of law actually does, we can look further into the statute at 571.107.2 which points out that, while an endorsement doesn't authorize the person holding the endorsement to carry into the places specified in 571.107.1 (1) - (17), carry into those places by an endorsement holder is NOT a criminal act. In fact, it's not even an infraction. At most, it could subject the endorsement holder to denial or removal from said premises. Only if the endorsement holder refuses to leave does it rise to the level of an infraction, and even then it is not the presence of the gun that is the infraction, rather, it is that refusal to leave that is the infraction.
So where is a CCW permit holder actually "prohibited" from carrying in Missouri? 571.107.1 (9) specifies that your endorsement does not authorize you to carry in "any place where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by federal law". So if there is a federal prohibition on the carry of firearms into a certain building or onto a certain property that is located in Missouri, then that prohibition is valid and you are subject to abide by it (think Post Office, Federal Court Buildings, VA Hospital, Social Security Administration Office, etc).
If you only read Chapter 571, you might come to the conclusion that those places where carry is prohibited by Federal Law are the only places in Missouri where a CCW Permit holder is truly prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm, and you would be ALMOST right. However, due diligence demands that we dig deeper to make sure we have all of our bases covered.
Upon further examination, we find in RSMO 578.305 that firearms are also PROHIBITED on public buses (under our "Bus Hijacking" law - Section 578-305 Bus hijacking, definition, penalty--ass), furthermore, we find that violation of that law is a Class C felony. We also find that, under an obscure law that allows political subdivisions in Missouri to enter into agreements with political subdivisions in other states, (RSMO 70.441), that the possession of firearms is prohibited on Metro Link trains as well (RSMO 70.441.3 (11) - Section 70-441 Definitions--provisions to apply in int) and that such possession is a misdemeanor offense (RSMO 70.441.4 (1) ),
So there you have it. There are actually THREE prohibited places in Missouri where people who hold a valid MISSOURI CCW endorsement may not carry:
1. Areas in which the carry of firearms is prohibited by federal law.
2. Buses used for public transportation.
3. Metro Link trains
If you are carrying on a non-resident permit issued by another state, you can add a 4th place to that list:
4. Any place that meets the federal definition of "school zone", or within 1000 feet of any place that meets the federal definition of "school zone" that doesn't fall under some other exemption specified in that section of federal law.
If you are carrying on a valid Missouri CCW endorsement, then #4 does NOT apply to you in "school zones" located in Missouri.
TexasArmed
Member
Thanks for your clarification on Missouri. I would always check the law if I traveled there. There are more than 3 places in Texas that are prohibited. But on the school zone
I made the assumption that carry was prohibited in the school parking lot, and missed that question on the CHL test.
Everyone else did too. Turns out it is not legal to take the handgun into the school but can be secured in the vehicle, and unless there is a 30.06 sign posted in the school parking lot, it is not restricted in Texas
The following is a list of restricted CHL carry for Texas.
Churches are legal too unless posted with 30.06 proper signs. Also in Texas, if a hospital does not have a 30.06 sign, or unless someone gives proper notice, ie. a 30.06 sign is proper notice, or someone in authority tells you to leave
you must leave.
Texas CHL Prohibited Places
1. On premises of 51% establishments.
2. On premises of high school, collegiate or professional sporting event.
3. On premises of a correctional facility.
4. On premises of hospital or nursing home, without proper authorization, if proper notice is given.
5. In an amusement park, if proper notice is given.
6. On premises of established place of worship, if proper notice is given, or you have received actual verbal notice.
7. At any meeting of a government entity, if proper notice is given.
("Proper Notice" means the 30.06 sign)
(Premises does not include parking area)
Of course VA Hospitals and Federal guildings have their own restrictions which apply and may or may not have signs.
Ghost_Soldier
Member
keith44spl
Member
Originally Posted by Moonman
In OHIO it's a CIVIL TRESPASS issue, not a criminal one.
Only to get my parking stub validated!
Su Amigo,
Dave
Chuck1217
Member
Ref: banks, Federal buildings- would not risk my permit. Haven't really been to stores that were posted- guess it depends, but I really want to keep my permit, and if there's the slightest chance I could blow it- just for principal- nah, I would disarm. Too old for the hassle, and there's always a CHANCE someone will make you- ya know, bump against you- a hug- ya just never know.
cshoff
Member
If I had a dollar for every time I hear that, or every time I hear, "I was misinformed by a cop", I could be putting away a nice retirement fund.
Cano
Member
I just carry it.
Just conceal it very good.
And when the wolves come and the sheep start to cry you just pull it out and snd the wolf to go nite nite.
And the sheep will love you and squeeze you forever.
Good night kids.
Just conceal it very good.
And when the wolves come and the sheep start to cry you just pull it out and snd the wolf to go nite nite.
And the sheep will love you and squeeze you forever.
Good night kids.
dwpmusic
US Veteran
Well, I voted to take it back to the car but I have to admit that sometimes I don't. Honestly, when I'm carrying my Ruger LCP I've found myself inside a "no carry" store before I even realized it was still in my back pocket.
ordy
US Veteran
In Pa., it is criminal trespass and cause for your carry permit to be revoked. I really don't want to take a chance with that so I shop elsewhere.
mkk41
US Veteran
But if yer packing ILLEGALLY , come on in!
This is a tough poll to answer, due to some states having strict carry restrictions regarding signage, and some states have less strict interpretations.
Well, sort of... In PA the aggregate interpretation is that signage in private businesses do not carry the weight of law; however if discovered carrying and requested to leave, a refusal can result in some form of trespass charge.
I am not a lawyer.
In the strictest interpretation, regardless of the state, I think one should consider that the sign was posted by the owner, thus making his [erroneous ] intentions clear, that he does not want guns present on his property.
The problem is of course that those poor misunderstood miscreants armed with bad attitudes and guns will not in any way consider that sign as a hindrance to their bad intentions.
Check out handgunlaw.us where Gary has added state signage laws in the past year.
Well, sort of... In PA the aggregate interpretation is that signage in private businesses do not carry the weight of law; however if discovered carrying and requested to leave, a refusal can result in some form of trespass charge.
I am not a lawyer.
In the strictest interpretation, regardless of the state, I think one should consider that the sign was posted by the owner, thus making his [erroneous
] intentions clear, that he does not want guns present on his property. The problem is of course that those poor misunderstood miscreants armed with bad attitudes and guns will not in any way consider that sign as a hindrance to their bad intentions.
Check out handgunlaw.us where Gary has added state signage laws in the past year.
Sorry the initial question wasn't clearer.
The poll was not on the proper or improper size of the sign. It was whether you would ignore the sign, if you were legal otherwise, and give the store your business.
I guess some of you are saying it depends whether the sign is the proper size(turning around and leaving) or the sign is the improper size(you'd go in)?
Martimus
US Veteran
The one issue I have with the concept of "Gun Free school zones" is that my home sits within 1000 feet of a public school. Even though my home is private property, I could be considered in violation of this silly legislation simply by walking out to my vehicle with a firearm...
Fortunately my CCW permit gives me the right to carry within 1000 feet of a school (but not directly on school grounds). Yet another reason why I'm glad to have that permit!
Fortunately my CCW permit gives me the right to carry within 1000 feet of a school (but not directly on school grounds). Yet another reason why I'm glad to have that permit!
My response was with respect to the presence of a sign, which I thought was your intent. Your poll choices are fine; the fact that in some states the signs carry the weight of law could influence the regard / disregard responses of the voters.
If I was actually breaking the law by disregarding the sign I wouldn't. But here in PA there is less of a legal bearing on the signs, so I choose to ignore if I must enter the facility, but otherwise I take my money somewhere else. Thus my comments on the difficulty of getting answers to your poll.
Beejabbers
US Veteran
In the poll I said go back to the car. Fact is I USUALLY, but not always; get in the car with the pistol and don't go back.
Beejabbers
US Veteran
silentflyer
Member
In Va. along with the "usual",schools,government buildings,places that serve alcohol, etc. the CC laws specifically mention "private property the owner has posted with a sign" and you can lose your CC permit if they catch you.
team sidewinder
Member
I don't like putting my gun back in the car so I just don't go there. I don't want somebody stealing my car with my gun inside loaded and what the thief could do with my gun. I will keep MY gun on MY person. I have heard too many police dispatchers telling officers of a stolen car with guns inside.
TexasArmed
Member
In the strictest interpretation, regardless of the state, I think one should consider that the sign was posted by the owner, thus making his [erroneous
The problem is of course that those poor misunderstood miscreants armed with bad attitudes and guns will not in any way consider that sign as a hindrance to their bad intentions.
Check out handgunlaw.us where Gary has added state signage laws in the past year.
Yes the state makes all the difference. And in Texas if it is not a legal 30.06 sign, I would not mind honoring the unenforcable sign provided the business owner posted an additional sign that he accepts responsibility for any criminal acts that happen on his property. I suspect that few business owners are willingt to do that, so if they want compliance with the sign, it needs to be legally enforcable.
Do you have a cite in RSA for this?
I've never found any such language and since I vacation there, I tend to try to keep up with the laws in NH.
I also didn't see any such signs, but I didn't go to shopping malls (other than Merrimack Outlets) or theaters while there.
bluegrassarms
Member
OK, that's funny.
In Kentucky it's only trespass if you are asked to leave and refuse. even entering with a sign in place isn't illegal, just if you don't cooperate if they tell you to leave. Since concealed carry means it's highly unlikely anyone will ask you to leave, I tend to ignore it and observe only the Kentucky statutes on where to not carry.
I'll try to shop elsewhere as well, but in a pinch I don't have a problem going in if I'm not breaking the law.
One caveat -- I do think it's reasonable for gun stores to ask people to not carry loaded in the store just out of risk of confusion, someone absent mindedly pulling out their gun to compare and it getting confused with an unloaded weapon or some other scenario. At the very least absolutely don't unholster a loaded weapon in the store, but I'm OK with their logic on that one.
The problem w/gong back to the car to secure the weapon is now you have subjected the gun to being stolen. That creates a worse problem b/c now there is a loaded gun floating around w/some nut who may use it for who knows what.
It appears that those who post "Gun Free Zones" have created a solution for a problem that did not exist.
It appears that those who post "Gun Free Zones" have created a solution for a problem that did not exist.
andrewb70
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 211
I voted "turn around and never go back." I respect the wishes of a business, no matter how misguided they might be, based on the moral principle of non-aggression. It is not a legal argument because there are plenty of laws that are immoral. Let me elaborate.
We (thankfully) live in a society that offers us many choices when it comes to where we procure food, drink, entertainment, clothing, etc...Individuals enter a place of business on a voluntary basis for the purpose of mutually beneficial exchange. When I visit a grocer it is because I prefer to have food instead of the money in my pocket. The grocer prefers to have the money in my pocket instead of the food on his shelves. By definition, exchange can only take place when both parties have the desire, ability, and the means to facilitate said exchange, otherwise the exchange cannot take place. Exchange, also by definition, is voluntary. Every individual chooses numerous exchanges throughout the day.
Let's get back on point. When a business places a "no guns sign" on its door it sends a certain signal. Some perceive (incorrectly) that the business is looking out for their best interest. We all know better, because we know that "gun free" zones are more dangerous. However, what we think and what we know is irrelevant because doing business with any establishment is voluntary. So if a business chooses to not allow guns (or swords, or knives, or people wearing purple for that matter) is their prerogative. I in turn have a choice to make. I either respect their wishes and enter the establishment without my gun (or not wear purple) or I choose another establishment that does not have said rules. It is that simple...
I will even go one step further and state that it is immoral for anyone to NOT respect the wishes of the business establishment because not doing so is an act of aggression. Exerting aggression when none was exerted towards me is immoral.
Andrew
We (thankfully) live in a society that offers us many choices when it comes to where we procure food, drink, entertainment, clothing, etc...Individuals enter a place of business on a voluntary basis for the purpose of mutually beneficial exchange. When I visit a grocer it is because I prefer to have food instead of the money in my pocket. The grocer prefers to have the money in my pocket instead of the food on his shelves. By definition, exchange can only take place when both parties have the desire, ability, and the means to facilitate said exchange, otherwise the exchange cannot take place. Exchange, also by definition, is voluntary. Every individual chooses numerous exchanges throughout the day.
Let's get back on point. When a business places a "no guns sign" on its door it sends a certain signal. Some perceive (incorrectly) that the business is looking out for their best interest. We all know better, because we know that "gun free" zones are more dangerous. However, what we think and what we know is irrelevant because doing business with any establishment is voluntary. So if a business chooses to not allow guns (or swords, or knives, or people wearing purple for that matter) is their prerogative. I in turn have a choice to make. I either respect their wishes and enter the establishment without my gun (or not wear purple) or I choose another establishment that does not have said rules. It is that simple...
I will even go one step further and state that it is immoral for anyone to NOT respect the wishes of the business establishment because not doing so is an act of aggression. Exerting aggression when none was exerted towards me is immoral.
Andrew
cmort666
Member
Until recently, I couldn't carry into liquor serving restaurants, including Chipotle. I didn't hold that against the business. Whether they agree with it, it was the law.
In Ohio, "no guns" signs have the force of law. I don't enter posted businesses while armed. I routinely enter posted parking lots, since to do so is not a crime, but instead civil trespass. They have to KNOW you're armed, tell you to leave, and you have to refuse before a crime is committed. Given that I'm not prone to waving my firearm around in parking lots, they never know.
If there are two similar businesses, one that's posted and one that's not, my preference is for the non-posted one. I don't ABSOLUTELY boycott posted businesses, but they get a LOT less of my business. There's a Barnes & Noble about ten miles from my house and a Books-A-Million about a mile from my house. The Barnes & Noble is in a posted mall and the Books-A-Million isn't. Guess which one I go to twenty times more often than the other. You have a right to post your business. You have NO right to my money.
In Ohio, "no guns" signs have the force of law. I don't enter posted businesses while armed. I routinely enter posted parking lots, since to do so is not a crime, but instead civil trespass. They have to KNOW you're armed, tell you to leave, and you have to refuse before a crime is committed. Given that I'm not prone to waving my firearm around in parking lots, they never know.
If there are two similar businesses, one that's posted and one that's not, my preference is for the non-posted one. I don't ABSOLUTELY boycott posted businesses, but they get a LOT less of my business. There's a Barnes & Noble about ten miles from my house and a Books-A-Million about a mile from my house. The Barnes & Noble is in a posted mall and the Books-A-Million isn't. Guess which one I go to twenty times more often than the other. You have a right to post your business. You have NO right to my money.
Similar threads
- Locked
