Buffalo Wild Wing. - Page 4
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56
Like Tree37Likes

Buffalo Wild Wing.

This is a discussion on Buffalo Wild Wing. within the Businesses Against Firearms & 2nd Amendment forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by walt629 Nothing like a good game of craps! UM... I prefer to do that in the head!!!!!...

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walt629 View Post
    Nothing like a good game of craps!
    UM... I prefer to do that in the head!!!!!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGJOHN621 View Post
    In NYS, prohibition signs for firearms do not carry the weight of law, nor can they be used as a trespass warning. The trespass law in NY states that you must be able to prove that the person warned of trespass has received the warning before they are bound by it. (In criminal theft or shoplifting cases, we used to have pictures of the perps taken with written trespass notices in their hands like booking charts to prove this for future cases). The bottom line for NY is that you must be asked to leave. Only then can you be held accountable for trespass if you do not leave, gun or no gun.
    I guess this is what I was wondering. I'd love to see the case law cite that supports this. Not saying its not correct but instead I wonder about all these comments about "not the weight of the law". Does anyone really have any legal authority to cite to? Where are you getting that from? Just wondering.

  3. #33
    SR40c's Avatar
    SR40c is offline Done told her once...
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGJOHN621 View Post
    In NYS, prohibition signs for firearms do not carry the weight of law, nor can they be used as a trespass warning. The trespass law in NY states that you must be able to prove that the person warned of trespass has received the warning before they are bound by it. (In criminal theft or shoplifting cases, we used to have pictures of the perps taken with written trespass notices in their hands like booking charts to prove this for future cases). The bottom line for NY is that you must be asked to leave. Only then can you be held accountable for trespass if you do not leave, gun or no gun.
    Same way in Iowa. They have to ask you to leave. If you refuse, then you can be charged with trespassing if you are still there when the cops get there. Even then, it's only a trespass charge. No weapons charges will be filed. It's the same whether there is a "criminal protection zone" sign is posted or not.


    I used to be a government-educated stooge. By the grace of God, I repent. -Robert Burris

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Minnesconsin
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Certainly glad my local bww does not have these signs posted.... matter of fact last time I was there I was carrying eating with my family ... along with bout 20 officers at some meeting two tables away....

  5. #35
    CathyInBlue's Avatar
    CathyInBlue is offline Tool Maker
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Indiana Code 35-43-2

    IC 35-43-2-2
    Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
    Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
    (1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
    (2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
    (b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
    (1) personal communication, oral or written;
    (2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; or
    It would appear that if a gun-buster sign is conspicuously posted at the main entrance in such a way that it is likely, not guaranteed, just likely, to come to the attention of the general public, then entry to the establishment by a person CCW would constitute entering the real property after having been denied entry. Looks like I've been wrong about gun-busters in Indiana. Merely being in the establishment while CCW with a gun-buster on the front door is black letter law trespassing. It also says nothing about auxiliary entrances, just the main entrance. So, seeing a gun-buster on the main entrance and then going around to the side entrance where there is no gun-buster would still be trespassing by someone CCW, while seeing a gun-buster on an auxiliary entrance and going around to the main entrance would NOT constitute trespassing.

    Of course, at the local mall, the no-firearms policy is written in letters about 1/8" tall near the bottom of a plaque off to the side, next to a soda machine which shadows it from the mercury vapour lighting, of a 10-door double-bulkhead atrium. I would not think that was likely to come to the attention of the public, so CCW at the mall is still not trespassing until ordered to leave by mall cops.

    This Indiana trespass law is written such that even if the General Assembly adopted something like the Texas 30.06 statute, it would still be trespassing if a business used a generic gun-buster since the language used is either/or.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    126

    Default

    In Kentucky, they do not carry the weight of law. If they ask me to leave and I refuse, it's a trespass. If I'm ever asked, I will leave.

    Further, I disagree with the property rights assertion. If I own a building open to the public, can I ban people of a different race or religion? Can I ban someone who carries in cigarettes but does not smoke them? Of course not. Seeing the sign, walking back to your car to stow your gun is riskier than taking it in. I would like to ask the owners of those restaurants if they would rather I carry or the guy who just broke into my car carry it. What is safer?

    These companies put up these signs under pressure from their insurance companies. Insurance companies are becoming a defacto government. The insurance company is only interested in reducing liability NOT in improving safety. Believe me, there is a difference. If someone walks into a restaurant and guns down 10 people, there is no liability, Mr Insurance Man is happy. If someone returns fire and kills the intruder before he kills the other 8 people, there is a risk of lawsuit.

    These signs become back door gun bans.

    Definitely, if you own private property that is not open to the public, then property rights come into play.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Off of I-80 between Des Moines and Cheyenne
    Posts
    1,207
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The two things that were wrong with the OP's actions that day, IMHO, are:
    That he gave $ to a bass-ackwards business, and that he posted the incident here at all. Period.
    1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
    2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me. http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/nraletter.htm

  8. #38
    cmhbob's Avatar
    cmhbob is offline Sig fault.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364

    Default

    So I suppose the "No shirt - no shoes - no service" signs don't carry the weight of law, either? And those signs have no place on a business that's open to the public, right? Same with the signs on some banks these days taht tell you to remove hats, hoods, and sunglasses?
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thoricuncle View Post
    In Kentucky, they do not carry the weight of law. If they ask me to leave and I refuse, it's a trespass. If I'm ever asked, I will leave.

    Further, I disagree with the property rights assertion. If I own a building open to the public, can I ban people of a different race or religion? Can I ban someone who carries in cigarettes but does not smoke them? Of course not. Seeing the sign, walking back to your car to stow your gun is riskier than taking it in. I would like to ask the owners of those restaurants if they would rather I carry or the guy who just broke into my car carry it. What is safer?
    WHOA!! This is actually wrong on a lot of levels. In fact, a business that is open to the public CAN LEGALLY refuse service under certain circumstances and to certain people. Of course it is illegal to discriminate against federally protected "classes" of people (race, religion, sex, disability etc) but a business is certainly within its rights to refuse smokers, gun carriers or people without shirts. Likewise a business owner can refuse to allow people to enter with their "colors" on. The test is whether it serves a legitimate business interest. So, I still believe if you enter a premise in violation of a posted prohibition to do so it is tantamount to a trespass. People keep tossing this "weight of the law" phrase around without really even knowing what it means. Weight of the law refers to whether you have violated some criminal statute for entering a business in violation of a posted sign precluding it. That means that jurisdiction has specifically wrote a code saying it's a crime of some sort to do so. BUT just because there isn't such a statute does NOT mean you are not guilty of a trespass even before being asked to leave. To determine if so, you would have to research in depth the case law of your jurisdiction to see what if anything has been written on it. Someone earlier posted a good response that that issue was decided upon but don't count on that always being the case and please stop relying on the "weight of the law" phrase. It's a separate issue. Again, whether it can be considered a trespass is all jurisdictional dependent.
    Disclaimer: In no way should any post be deemed legal advice and no such legal advice is being given. All posts are for entertainment purposes only and should not be construed as rendering legal advice as no such attorney client relationship is created herein.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Sure, they can ban smoking. But read my post again, can they ban me carrying cigarettes? Of Course not.

    As I also stated, in Kentucky, they have to ask you to leave first. Regardless of the sign. However, I would suggest that every Kentuckian verify that. Anyone who uses advice on an internet forum to determine the legality of an issue, is a fool.

    This is a sad state of affairs. Eventually, everyone will have these stupid signs up. Their insurance companies are forcing them to have them up. More and more firearms will be left in the cars, or worse, in the home.

    Imagine being a bad guy, seeing a guy walking to the restaurant, reading the sign, turning around and heading back to his car, dropping something off and then returning to the restaurant. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was just dropped off. A door wedge and 30 seconds later, the door is open and your firearm is heading down the street.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •