Signage Question

[cardin]

I'm trying to determine which statute or municipal ordinance - if any - governs the signage used by a business to disallow weapons. I can't find anything about signage in the SDA. Is there a requirement somewhere that says a business MUST post a sign if it wants to disallow? Is there case law? Or is this just a common sense policy?

Any info would be appreciated

[NavyLCDR]

Is there a requirement somewhere that says a business MUST post a sign if it wants to disallow? Is there case law? Or is this just a common sense policy?

Any info would be appreciated

No. Probably. Yes.

However, don't confuse a private property owner's right to ban firearms on their property with making it illegal to carry a firearm on their property. Two entirely different issues. In Oklahoma, a sign prohibiting firearms on private property such as Wal Mart only expresses the desire of the property owner to not have handguns on their property. It does not make it illegal to carry a gun on their property. If they ask you to leave because of your gun, and you do not leave, you will be guilty of trespassing whether or not they have a "no guns" sign posted anywhere, but not necessarily illegally carrying a firearm.

Now, in Texas, if the sign complies with 30.06, to carry past that sign, in most cases, would be illegally carrying a firearm.

[cgiven1]

Title 21 Chpt 53 Section 1290.22 - Business Owner's Rights

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.

B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

Common sense says it must be posted or you can't be prosecuted for violating a policy that is not known. Oklahoma has pre-emption so state law would apply. If you are asked to leave then you have been informed of the policy and must leave.

[CAPTAINJACK]

YES, but to answer the question, No there are no oklahoma statutes concerning signs size, shape, color, or usage. The reason being as stated above,is that it is not illegal to carry into say a gas station that displays such a sign so the state cannot dictate there usage, as it is out of their pervue. The other thing that most businesses should consider before displaying such a sign, is that to deny someone their legal right to carry on their property means that the business owner is now legally responsible for their (the customers) safety.

[NavyLCDR]

The other thing that most businesses should consider before displaying such a sign, is that to deny someone their legal right to carry on their property means that the business owner is now legally responsible for their (the customers) safety.

That is simply not true, for one reason. The person enters the establishment voluntarily, knowing the conditions set forth by the sign. You have a choice to go into that particular store unarmed, or to go into the next store down the street without a sign posted. If you could post statute or case law that provides a basis for your statement, I would very much like to see it.

[Stan45]

Posted: No Firearms Allowed

Merchants have no general duty to safeguard their customers other than to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn customers of dangers that might not be apparent. They are not insurers of their customers' safety. They are not generally responsible for the illegal acts of third parties. That is, there is no liability against the merchant if some third party intentionally hurts one of the merchant's customers. On the other hand, if a merchant forbids people who are licensed to carry guns from bringing their legal guns onto his premises under the guise that he is protecting their safety, he has then assumed an obligation that he did nOt previously have. He has undertaken the specific task of protecting his customers. That undertaking creates a special relationship between the customer and merchant which did not previously exist. If the merchant, having created the special relationship, then fails to take other steps necessary to protect his customers from the criminal acts of others, he can be held liable for injury to his customers by the illegal acts of third parties.

State laws that specifically encourage businesses to exclude guns owners are troublesome. For many people the ownership and carrying of a firearm is an expression of philosophy. It is a belief in the integrity and worth of the individual, common citizen. It is a statement that the one who carries a gun is not willing to be a victim and will not give up his or her life or property without extreme objection. In a large number of assaults, the mere display of a firearm expresses the intent and feelings of the licensed holder in such unambiguous terms that the assailant abandons his attack.

Posted: No Firearms Allowed

[NavyLCDR]

Posted: No Firearms Allowed

On the other hand, if a merchant forbids people who are licensed to carry guns from bringing their legal guns onto his premises under the guise that he is protecting their safety, he has then assumed an obligation that he did nOt previously have. He has undertaken the specific task of protecting his customers. That undertaking creates a special relationship between the customer and merchant which did not previously exist. If the merchant, having created the special relationship, then fails to take other steps necessary to protect his customers from the criminal acts of others, he can be held liable for injury to his customers by the illegal acts of third parties.

However, all of terms of the "special relationship" that you mention must be agreed upon by both parties. A store posts a sign that says no firearms. That is only ONE term of the "special relationship". It can safely be assumed that by the customer entering the premises, having seen the sign, is agree to that ONE term specified on the sign: No Firearms. However that is the ONLY term specified on that sign. Lacking some other actual communication of an additional term that the proprietor of the business is assuming responsibility for the customer's safety - that agreement simply does not exist.

Again, if someone would like to post a citation to a statute or case law that says the proprietor automatically assumes liability for a violent act committed by a third party upon a customer for the sole reason of forbidding firearms on their property, I would love to see it.

[Stan45]

The college in Virginia just paid out 4 million; they had a no gun policy. That should be a start for a good case law.
Jurors returned the verdict Wednesday in a wrongful death civil suit brought by the parents of two students who were killed on April 16, 2007.
Might be interesting to see what the judge said about this one.

Mall was responsible for customers safety
Houge sued the mall owner for negligent security. The company argued that the fault lay with the contract security officers who responded inappropriately. The jury found in favor of Houge and awarded her $40,000 in damages. The mall owner appealed. The Mississippi Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, determining that the mall owner could not delegate its liability to a contract security company.


Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Supreme Court of Louisiana, 752 So.2d 762 (1999)
Posecai was robbed of $19,000 worth of jewelry in a Sam's parking lot which, although near a high-crime area, had only had three predatory offenses in the six and a half years before the robbery, only one of which had been similar to the robbery in question. Does a store owner owe a duty to protect customers from the criminal acts of third parties under these circumstances? Held No, using a balancing test between store owner and customer, there was a low foreseeability that the crime would occur and its gravity was slight.

Here we have two business with different court decisions. The bottom line is how good is the lawyer.


Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd., 650 So.2d 712 (La.1994) Plaintiff was raped in her apartment and sued management company for failure to provide for safety of residents. Should fault be allocated between the rapist and the management company? Held No, just to the management company, because 1) the failure to provide safety encompassed the rape, 2) comparison as public policy would reduce incentives for providing safety, and 3) intentional and unintentional torts cannot be compared.


The below from a Premises Liability Law Firm web page.
An owners’ legal duty to provide safe premises for their patrons, renters and guests includes a duty to protect them against harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties when those criminal acts are foreseeable. Criminal acts are foreseeable when their occurrence can reasonably be expected under the circumstances.
Negligent security cases often involve violent criminal attacks such as rape, assault and battery, murder, robbery and more recently, terrorism. These cases have been successfully concluded against owners/operators of businesses including: shopping centers, banks, bars, hotels, restaurants, schools and universities, airlines, parking lots, condominium and apartment buildings, homeowners' associations, event promoters, night clubs, strip clubs, video arcades, bowling alleys, private security companies, daycare facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, and office buildings.

[Skiluvr03]

There has been a lot of confusion and arguments on this question, but I'm on the bandwagon that says, the owners can just ask you to leave, or it is tresspassing. What is sad, a lot of LEO's don't even know some of the basics of the CCW law, I asked one about carrying in a County Hospital and he had no clue. I still don't know the answer to that one.

[dragon6]

County Hospital, that comes under the heading of government facility doing business with the public. My reading of the SDA would say we can't carry there.

Romans 8:37