Why CC Holders Should Ignore Anti-Gun Signs Posted in Stores

[PAMedic=F|A=]

http://wizbangblog.com/2014/05/23/wh...ted-in-stores/

They are popping up all across the country, little stickers on the front doors of businesses, restaurants and retail outlets informing concealed carry holders that they are not welcome to carry their legal firearm inside. But if you are a concealed carry holder you should ignore these attempts to curtail your rights. If you are legally armed, feel absolutely free to enter and patronize those stores with your firearm no matter what these anti-Constitution store owners want.

First of all, these stores have no right whatever to tell you that you aren’t allowed to observe your Second Amendment rights inside their establishments. No mere shop owner has the capability or the right to prevent Americans from enjoying their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

This may sound like a contradiction for many conservatives. After all, most conservatives and gun owners are very supportive of rights in general and the right of private property owners to do what they want on their own property is no less important than our Second Amendment rights. So, how can conservatives and gun owners on one hand claim to support private property rights yet on the other feel it perfectly OK to tell the owner of that property that they cannot ban a CC carrier’s gun inside?

For one thing, the ship has sailed on the claim that owners of private property have free reign to do anything they want on their property. The Supreme Court has repeatedly, for instance, told business owners that they cannot discriminate against patrons based on their sex, race, creed et al. The law states that a mere store owner cannot hamper people’s civil and Constitutional rights just because they have private property rights. One right, in other words, does not trump all–or any single–other rights.

Therefore, it is perfectly logical to state that if a store cannot refuse to serve a gay or a person of a particular race or religion because this refusal violates their Constitutional rights, then a store owner cannot act to prevent a patron from observing their Second Amendment rights, either.

But, some may still be stuck on the whole idea that a private business has certain rights to say what they want allowed on their own premises. Here a quote from Thomas Jefferson reveals why a business has no right to summarily remove a patron’s Second Amendment rights.

In his Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following: “It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.”

In other words, if a shop owner says he isn’t curtailing your Second Amendment rights by just keeping you from carrying in his shop, he is not correct. For telling someone they cannot have the tools (the gun, in this case) to observe their right then they are essentially barred from having those rights. This, incidentally, is a good argument against ammunition restrictions, too.

There is also a safety issue to consider. The whole reason that every state in the union has enacted concealed carry laws was to give citizens the means to prevent crime. A cc holder carrying his gun is just as much for the safety of those around him as it is for himself. If a store, then, is telling patrons not to carry their firearms, that store is inviting criminals to prey upon their patrons.

Here it is apropos to note that a restaurant in Durham, North Carolina was recently robbed at gunpoint even though it had its little “no guns” signs on its front door. Note that the sign only prevented legal, law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. It didn’t stop any crime–in fact it may have invited it.

Then there is the whole point of a concealed carry license holder carrying a concealed weapon. A concealed weapon is not visible to those around the carrier. Therefore, if no one else even knows you are carrying, this cannot possibly hurt the store. This means a shop owner’s whining about your gun is nothing else but a political act and his political ideology does not trump your legal right to carry.

Speaking of legality, if the state says you are legally allowed to carry your firearm, how is it that a shop owner imagines he has the right to trump even state law?

Many store owners, though, are telling gun owners that this is no big deal. An easy solution, they say, is that gun owners should just leave their guns in their cars. This is an entirely dangerous thing to do. Leaving a gun unattended in a car invites break ins and theft. If my car gets broken into and my gun stolen while I am in Starbucks shouldn’t the coffee shop be held liable? After all, they insisted I leave my gun in may car before I went in for some coffee, didn’t they?

In the end, gun owners who are legally carrying their firearms should feel free to ignore these little no gun signs. These signs do not hold any legal restrictions over your right to carry. Certainly as a gun owner you may realize that these businesses are telling you that they do not want your business and you may just refuse to spend your money with them. But if you don’t care what these shop owners think and you like their wares, then feel free to ignore their powerless little signs and patronize them with your gun.

So, yes, dear store owner. Your little sign means nothing to me. It has no force of law and your little sign cannot trump my Constitutional rights. I will ignore your sign and carry my gun into your establishment whether you like it or not.

[Gangle]

As far as I am aware the no firearms signs/decals do hold a force of law in many states, but in many others they do not.

"“No Firearm” signs in Pennsylvania have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law"

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/pennsylvania.pdf

[scruff]

Their property, their rules. You don't have any moral or Constitutional authority to carry there. As far as the court limiting the rights of property owners to choose who they will serve, I don't believe that's Constitutional, but that's irrelevant anyway, because the court will never do the same by mandating your 2A rights on private property..

[Shisno]

I wonder what would happen if instead of "no guns" signs, we replaced that with another constitutionally protected right. What if, the private property owner put up a no 4th or 5th amendment sign. And while you're on the property, a police officer comes up to you and starts asking you a number of different questions. And when you refuse to answer those questions, you're arrested for trespassing. Or he comes up to you and demands to go through your phone and look at call history and text messages. And while he's at it, he does a full pat down search. But you refuse, and are then arrested for trespassing.

Would that hold up in court? Would the argument that you simply didn't have to go on that property be enough to justify what they are doing on the property?

[tl_3237]

As far as I am aware the no firearms signs/decals do hold a force of law in many states, but in many others they do not.

"“No Firearm” signs in Pennsylvania have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law"

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/pennsylvania.pdf

That citation you provide from handgunlaw.org is misinformed and has been argued many times on this site. The author of that opinion is a member here named Gary Slider and he has engaged in discussion at http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-car...-gun-sign.html.

While it is true that "No Gun Signs" are not a violation of the UFA they nonetheless represent a private property owners "condition of entry". With proper notification through signage, entry onto private property contrary to those conditions constitutes a defiant trespass under 18 PA CS §3503(b) and is actionable without "being asked to leave".

[DennisH82]

Their property, their rules. You don't have any moral or Constitutional authority to carry there. As far as the court limiting the rights of property owners to choose who they will serve, I don't believe that's Constitutional, but that's irrelevant anyway, because the court will never do the same by mandating your 2A rights on private property..

^^^^^ This, property rights are just as important as the right to carry. If a private property owner doesn't want anyone armed on their property then power to them. Folks that excersize their 2A rights can go elsewhere to give their buisness. I am not liking the attitude that oozes from that article, would do more harm than good IMPO.

[tl_3237]

I wonder what would happen if instead of "no guns" signs, we replaced that with another constitutionally protected right. What if, the private property owner put up a no 4th or 5th amendment sign. And while you're on the property, a police officer comes up to you and starts asking you a number of different questions. And when you refuse to answer those questions, you're arrested for trespassing. Or he comes up to you and demands to go through your phone and look at call history and text messages. And while he's at it, he does a full pat down search. But you refuse, and are then arrested for trespassing.

Would that hold up in court? Would the argument that you simply didn't have to go on that property be enough to justify what they are doing on the property?

As I understand it constitutional rights extend to protection from governmental actions not those of a private individual. Private property owners can pretty much post any conditions of entry/use (not contrary to protected class discrimination laws) and are enforceable by, at a minimum, ejection for from the property for violation. They do not modify or diminish your rights with respect to interactions with Government agents on or off their property.

[Shisno]

As I understand it constitutional rights extend to protection from governmental actions not those of a private individual. Private property owners can pretty much post any conditions of entry/use (not contrary to protected class discrimination laws) and are enforceable by, at a minimum, ejection for from the property for violation. They do not modify or diminish your rights with respect to interactions with Government agents on or off their property.

Ok fair enough, let's switch it up a little bit. Instead of a LEO coming up to you, it's the property owner. What then?

[bigandy1966]

Apparently not. I have to disagree. If I had a bakery and told a client that I would NOT make them a gay themed cake, I would be forced to to this by the courts or face fines. (colorado v. phillips) So in this we are forcing a business to provide services to a classification of people, gays, despite a moral objection of the business owner and his belief that he has the right to serve whomever he wants to.. The courts decided that it was illegal to discriminate against a class of people based on sexual orientation. So if the gays have a right to be married (at least in Colorado), and are afforded protection based on that right as a class of people (Gays) and are protected from discrimination by private busnesses, then by extension I should not be discriminated against based on my class of people ( armed citizens) practicing their right to be armed enumerated in the Constitution in the bill of rights.

[tl_3237]

Ok fair enough, let's switch it up a little bit. Instead of a LEO coming up to you, it's the property owner. What then?

Depends on the specific situation.

For example, a sign ostensibly nullifying the Fourth Amendment protection by stating that all parcels subject to search can be enforced by the property owner PROVIDED he is authorized to do same under an enabling statute. Assuming such a posting and your are stopped at the exit of a mercantile establishment, being suspected of having purloined something of value, your parcels can be searched against your will by the owner or his agent – not because it was posted but because statutorily he has been given that authority under 18 PA CS §3929 Retail Theft. Assuming the same situation in a non-mercantile situation where there is no applicable authorizing statute, then you could refuse the search with the resultant potential for a defiant trespass charge.