DuckSouth.com

Deltamud77 wrote:Chevy...the "sign" component of Subsection (13) has always been construed separate and apart from the other places prohibited from carrying (it is an "in addition to" legislative addition and as such is construed separate and apart from the specifically listed places of prohibition). As such, the enhanced carry does not give access to places that place an appropriate sign probiting firearms. You have no reason to trust me because you don't know me...but I am telling you that I dealt with this first hand.

I have the right as a business owner to prohibit an invitee from taking a firearm on my property no different than a shoes and shirt required sign. A proper sign is legal notice of my desires. It does not take a visible recognition and verbal request by the owner.

You can choose not to believe me. That is not my concern...I am telling you what the law is regarding this issue though.

We will agree to disagree. You are telling me your interpretation of the law. I am not a lawyer but I have also spoken with lawyers, as well as law enforcement officers, and instructors teaching the endorsement classes on this issue and they have all had a different opinion on it than you do. Apparently Jim Hood is mistaken too per his opinion on the issue.

My initial statement that I can be asked to leave and charged with trespassing if I refuse to leave but I cannot immediately be charged for illegally carrying a concealed weapon past a sign "prohibiting carrying of a pistol or revolver" with my enhanced carry permit stems from those coversations I have had with the lawyers, leo's, and instructors regarding the subject. If you can show me case law or some type of proof to your statements, I will gladly admit my being wrong. Until then, we will just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of the law.

tombstone wrote:I do not see where a federal builidng is mentioned anywhere. Airports are not mentioned but we know we can not carry there.

I can assure you it has to come off in a fed building. Even while on duty when I go to fed court or in to us attorney's office I have to remove it.

We will have to agree to disagree. I understand your position and it sounds like you have sound reason to believe as you do. I have spoken with numerous judges on the subject as well as legislators, prosecutors and the lobbiest from NRA that had the enhanced carry bill introduced. They view it as I do and different from the AGs office.

You are correct about the trespassing component of the violation. However, by simply entering the premises with a sign barring entrance with a firearm, you are subject to the trespass charge. Even if the legislature intended as you suggest, they are constitutionally barred from drafting a law that deprives a land owner of rights...which this most assuredly would do no different than entering posted land without permission, or walking into a store with no shirt on when a sign clearly requires such. A proper sign is legal notice.

The sign is notice for both trepassing and for unlawful carrying. I can assure you that there are judges in this state that view the language in subsection (13) of 45-9-101 as separate and apart from the enhanced carry endorsement as it pertains to a sign posted on the outside of a building or other location. The language "in addition to" prior to the description of the sign being displayed in that subsection sets these areas apart from those specifically listed in the first part of the subsection.

This has actually been a big point of contention with the universities in the state and the allowance of guns on campus, and in particular, at athletic events.

So, maybe we are both right...maybe it depends on what judge you end up in front of, or what law enforcement officer you encounter as to how it is charged and ruled upon. There are judges in the state that read it like I do, and there may be some that read it like you do too...I am sure there are.

No harm, no foul...the legislature needs to clean this entire statutory framework up...reasonable men can certainly disagree because it is drafted so poorly.

so carrying in a post office is a no-no?

SHANE704 wrote:so carrying in a post office is a no-no?

Big Time No No!!!!

There is a Code of Federal Regulations rule against carrying in a post office, but there is a lot of debate about this issue. It is federal property, so they can kind of make it up as they go when it gets down to it dealing with the present Justice Department. You will be dealing with federal law enforcement, not state.

Deltamud77 wrote:There is a Code of Federal Regulations rule against carrying in a post office, but there is a lot of debate about this issue. It is federal property, so they can kind of make it up as they go when it gets down to it dealing with the present Justice Department. You will be dealing with federal law enforcement, not state.

Same thing with the VA where I work!! It's in our federal handbook that if we get caught with a Firearm in our Vehicle..In the parking lot...it is Immediate Grounds for Termination!!!

Buckwabit wrote:

SHANE704 wrote:so carrying in a post office is a no-no?

Big Time HAY-YELL No No!!!!

Fixed that for ya.

Buckwabit wrote:

Deltamud77 wrote:There is a Code of Federal Regulations rule against carrying in a post office, but there is a lot of debate about this issue. It is federal property, so they can kind of make it up as they go when it gets down to it dealing with the present Justice Department. You will be dealing with federal law enforcement, not state.

Same thing with the VA where I work!! It's in our federal handbook that if we get caught with a Firearm in our Vehicle..In the parking lot...it is Immediate Grounds for Termination!!!

Yep...the Federalies don't play around. I think it is the exact same CFR that is applicable to VAs as is applicable to USPOs, but I would need to look. It is one of those nebulous federal "rules" that can be harmless or devastating, depending on who you are dealing with and what party is in office.

Buckwabit wrote:

Deltamud77 wrote:There is a Code of Federal Regulations rule against carrying in a post office, but there is a lot of debate about this issue. It is federal property, so they can kind of make it up as they go when it gets down to it dealing with the present Justice Department. You will be dealing with federal law enforcement, not state.

Same thing with the VA where I work!! It's in our federal handbook that if we get caught with a Firearm in our Vehicle..In the parking lot...it is Immediate Grounds for Termination!!!

That actually makes sense, seeing as where the VA is typically located. I think our governments put their offices in less than desirable locations on purpose.

jacksbuddy wrote:

Buckwabit wrote:

Deltamud77 wrote:There is a Code of Federal Regulations rule against carrying in a post office, but there is a lot of debate about this issue. It is federal property, so they can kind of make it up as they go when it gets down to it dealing with the present Justice Department. You will be dealing with federal law enforcement, not state.

Same thing with the VA where I work!! It's in our federal handbook that if we get caught with a Firearm in our Vehicle..In the parking lot...it is Immediate Grounds for Termination!!!

That actually makes sense, seeing as where the VA is typically located. I think our governments put their offices in less than desirable locations on purpose.

The bad thing about it is that we have windows broken out all the time and stuff slolen..so let's say you were going to be slick and hid yours under you seat, and your truck got broken into..then you can't report it as stolen on VA property or your'll be fired.

SHANE704 wrote:so carrying in a post office is a no-no?

chevy01234 wrote:

Deltamud77 wrote:Chevy...the "sign" component of Subsection (13) has always been construed separate and apart from the other places prohibited from carrying (it is an "in addition to" legislative addition and as such is construed separate and apart from the specifically listed places of prohibition). As such, the enhanced carry does not give access to places that place an appropriate sign probiting firearms. You have no reason to trust me because you don't know me...but I am telling you that I dealt with this first hand.

I have the right as a business owner to prohibit an invitee from taking a firearm on my property no different than a shoes and shirt required sign. A proper sign is legal notice of my desires. It does not take a visible recognition and verbal request by the owner.

You can choose not to believe me. That is not my concern...I am telling you what the law is regarding this issue though.

We will agree to disagree. You are telling me your interpretation of the law. I am not a lawyer but I have also spoken with lawyers, as well as law enforcement officers, and instructors teaching the endorsement classes on this issue and they have all had a different opinion on it than you do. Apparently Jim Hood is mistaken too per his opinion on the issue.

My initial statement that I can be asked to leave and charged with trespassing if I refuse to leave but I cannot immediately be charged for illegally carrying a concealed weapon past a sign "prohibiting carrying of a pistol or revolver" with my enhanced carry permit stems from those coversations I have had with the lawyers, leo's, and instructors regarding the subject. If you can show me case law or some type of proof to your statements, I will gladly admit my being wrong. Until then, we will just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of the law.

From Chevy's cold dead hands!

duramax wrote:

chevy01234 wrote:

Deltamud77 wrote:Chevy...the "sign" component of Subsection (13) has always been construed separate and apart from the other places prohibited from carrying (it is an "in addition to" legislative addition and as such is construed separate and apart from the specifically listed places of prohibition). As such, the enhanced carry does not give access to places that place an appropriate sign probiting firearms. You have no reason to trust me because you don't know me...but I am telling you that I dealt with this first hand.

I have the right as a business owner to prohibit an invitee from taking a firearm on my property no different than a shoes and shirt required sign. A proper sign is legal notice of my desires. It does not take a visible recognition and verbal request by the owner.

You can choose not to believe me. That is not my concern...I am telling you what the law is regarding this issue though.

We will agree to disagree. You are telling me your interpretation of the law. I am not a lawyer but I have also spoken with lawyers, as well as law enforcement officers, and instructors teaching the endorsement classes on this issue and they have all had a different opinion on it than you do. Apparently Jim Hood is mistaken too per his opinion on the issue.

My initial statement that I can be asked to leave and charged with trespassing if I refuse to leave but I cannot immediately be charged for illegally carrying a concealed weapon past a sign "prohibiting carrying of a pistol or revolver" with my enhanced carry permit stems from those coversations I have had with the lawyers, leo's, and instructors regarding the subject. If you can show me case law or some type of proof to your statements, I will gladly admit my being wrong. Until then, we will just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of the law.

From Chevy's cold dead hands!

I sure am glad they made upgrades in home protection weapons...