Carrying Concealed in Malls - Page 6
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70

Thread: Carrying Concealed in Malls

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    About the part of your post I put in bold for emphasis... please read the following carefully because I am using the word "you" in a generic sense... not in a directed at "you" personally sense....

    Someone does know you are carrying.... you do. Which means you know you are sneaking in a gun where it is not allowed to be.... and if you aren't also "knowingly" violating trespass law... you are, or at least should be, aware that by your actions you are demanding your right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting the owner's equally as valid private property rights.

    To wolf_fire... I agree with you that any business that doesn't want me to be there with my gun doesn't want my money either. I wish more folks would make it a point to contact those businesses and let them know why they are losing business since, if the owner doesn't know he is losing money there is no incentive for him to change his rules/policy. A good way to do that is to send the gun banner a polite note and a copy of the receipts showing how much money you spent at his competitor's business.
    Completely agree. My father and the military taught me about the word integrity.... doing the right thing regardless of who may be watching.

    Anyone that would trample on someone else's rights knowingly in my opinion has absolutely no integrity.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Geosan1030 View Post
    The point, dogshawred, is that it is not illegal. At least not here. A sign does not have the force of law.

    I will not carry into a place where I am prohibited to carry by federal or state law.
    I realize this thread is specifically about private property, but I can't help but take note as regards the bold text above, federal or state prohibitions are exactly where they need to be protested and disregarded by all who carry.

    I fall kind of in between where you and Bikenut are. Actually, I think Bikenut and I have had this same discussion before, but whatever, I get and mostly agree with him, but I also get and agree to a slightly lesser extent Geosan's position. The reason it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other is that I've lived in this state for 21 years now and have literally never seen a sign telling me to disarm before entering. So I really don't have to risk getting PO'ed or having someone get PO'ed at me while arguing about it.

    What I wish though, is that there were no gun-owners, here or anywhere else, who would argue that any of our governments (local, state or federal) have the right to disarm us, especially on properties that We, The People own. But the bold text in the quote above represents a huge majority of gun-owners as far as I can tell, and the requisite level of conviction needed to stand on the principle that we legally limit government, it cannot legally limit us in our exercising of our rights, represents a minuscule minority in this country.

    Sorry to interrupt. Had to take note of that "little" thing. Now back to property rights vs. gun rights in a country where the unfettered right to exercise either is all but non-existent.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #53
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Geosan1030 View Post
    While I see the word knowingly, I focus on the word unlawful. Since the statute concerning the gun buster sign says it is not a criminal offense (not unlawful) to ignore the sign, does the trespass statute (511.080) apply?

    Bikenut, I posted Kentucky's statute concerning trespass. The dictionary definition is generic, the statute is what someone would be prosecuted under.

    And, I agree with you. I would know that I'm breaking the law; so, if it comes down that I'm trespassing, whether they ask me to leave or not, I need to rethink my decision. But, right now I, and a LEO (Detective-Sergeant) is leaning in my direction.

    His summation, like mine, is that it is not unlawful to ignore the sign, therefore it is not trespassing unless you are asked to leave and you refuse.

    I think I will write the AG and see if I get an answer.

    This is from USLegal.com regarding trespassing law (and the wording is nearly identical to Kentucky's law):

    A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling or premises, or if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders. A person commits criminal trespass who, knowing he does not have the owner’s effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof. Laws vary by state, so local laws must be consulted to determine applicable requirements. It is a defense to the crime to show that an element of the crime, such as knowingly entering or remaining without authorization, is lacking. An attempted criminal trespass requires that a defendant act with the intent to commit criminal trespass, and his conduct must constitute a substantial step toward committing the aggravated criminal trespass.

    The following is an example of a state statute defining "remain unlawfully":

    A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not licensed, invited or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building which is not open to the public..."
    The part of Kentucky law that focuses on this states,

    "A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises."
    As has already been pointed out, KY 237.110 (17) states,

    "If thebuilding or the premises are open to the public, the employer or businessenterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying concealedweapons is prohibited. Possession of weapons, or ammunition, or both in avehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the weapons,or ammunition, or both are not removed from the vehicle or brandished whilethe vehicle is on the premises… Carrying of a concealed weapon, or ammunition, or both in alocation specified in this subsection by a license holder shall not be a criminalact but may subject the person to denial from the premises or removal from thepremises, and, if an employee of an employer, disciplinary measures by the employer. "
    It appears that you have an interplay between two sections of Kentucky law. The following quote from the case, Harlie Lewis v Commonwealth of Kentucky:

    KRS 511.090 defines "enters or remains unlawfully" as follows:

    (1) A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or uponpremises when he is not privileged or licensed to do so.
    (2) A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remainsin or upon premises which are at the time open to thepublic does so with license or privilege
    unless he defies alawful order not to enter or remain personally communicatedto him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person. (Emphasis added.)

    What we garner from these two statutes is that there is a presumptionthat one who enters and remains in a building that is open to the public has alicense or privilege to be there. Indeed, if the building is open to the public, onedoes not unlawfully remain in the building absent revocation of his or herlicense or privilege... The plain language of the statute makes clear that in order for the licensee to "know" his license has been revoked, the owner of the building or one with authority must "personallycommunicate" the revocation to the licensee.

    In addition to verbal revocations, this Court has found non-verbalactions to suffice. In Wilburn, we found that the owner of a liquor store firing agun at two assailants attempting to rob the store was the "functionalequivalent" of the store owner "personally communicating" his revocation of theassailants' licenses to remain on the property. 312 S.W.3d at 324," (http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2011-SC-000395-DG.pdf).
    It appears that two things are true.

    First, while it is not a criminal act for you to carry in violation of a posted policy, if you are discovered doing so you can be asked to leave the premises. Presumably, at that time the policy will be communicated to you personally. Such communication would constitute a lawful order as the property owner has the right to dictate what is permitted on his property.

    However, if you attempt to remain on the property or return in violation of this communication (which effectively revokes your license to be there unless you are in compliance with the communicated policy of the property owner), you may be guilty of a crime.

    That's just my take on the law.

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    -snip-

    Sorry to interrupt. Had to take note of that "little" thing. Now back to property rights vs. gun rights in a country where the unfettered right to exercise either is all but non-existent.

    Blues
    We are on the same page about that Blues...

  6. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    SIGH..........

    Here we go again with SOME on here who think the rules of a "property owner" somehow trump natural rights/laws.... If you are truly honest with yourself, you will know without a doubt that someones "rules" do not trump natural rights/ laws....

  7. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    SIGH..........

    Here we go again with SOME on here who think the rules of a "property owner" somehow trump natural rights/laws.... If you are truly honest with yourself, you will know without a doubt that someones "rules" do not trump natural rights/ laws....
    Interesting.... are you saying that having control over your own property (making rules that limit access) ISN'T a natural right equally as valid as all the other natural rights? If so wouldn't that mean anyone and everyone could come and use your stuff as they saw fit? Could I just move into your house, eat your food, drive your cars, regardless of any rules you have that say I can't? And if you say I can't aren't you exercising your private property right to make the rule that say I can't? After all... it is private property rights that give you the "right" to say (make a rule) that I have to stay out so you can keep your stuff.

    And before we go off on a tangent about the private property of a home being different than the private property of a business that is open to the public..................... while some folks don't agree with that the fact is both are still considered private property and private property rights still apply to both.

  8. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    SIGH..........

    Here we go again with SOME on here who think the rules of a "property owner" somehow trump natural rights/laws.... If you are truly honest with yourself, you will know without a doubt that someones "rules" do not trump natural rights/ laws....
    I would be interested to see you attempt to validate this idea with Supreme Court rulings or unambiguously-related quotations by Founders of this once-great nation. I'll start with such a quotation:

    “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams
    Ol' Sam, I believe, would have said that if a property owner thought the "best manner they can" defend their property were to disarm visitors to it, that was well within his legal determination to make.

    Whether it makes you sigh or not, Axe, you should be able to substantiate what you say above. Good luck.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    -snip-As has already been pointed out, KY 237.110 (17) states,

    "If thebuilding or the premises are open to the public, the employer or businessenterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying concealedweapons is prohibited. Possession of weapons, or ammunition, or both in avehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the weapons,or ammunition, or both are not removed from the vehicle or brandished whilethe vehicle is on the premises… Carrying of a concealed weapon, or ammunition, or both in alocation specified in this subsection by a license holder shall not be a criminalact but may subject the person to denial from the premises or removal from thepremises, and, if an employee of an employer, disciplinary measures by the employer. "
    -snip-

    Harlie Lewis v Commonwealth of Kentucky

    KRS 511.090 defines "enters or remains unlawfully" as follows:

    (1) A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or uponpremises when he is not privileged or licensed to do so.
    (2) A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remainsin or upon premises which are at the time open to thepublic does so with license or privilege unless he defies alawful order not to enter or remain personally communicatedto him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person. (Emphasis added.)

    What we garner from these two statutes is that there is a presumptionthat one who enters and remains in a building that is open to the public has alicense or privilege to be there. Indeed, if the building is open to the public, onedoes not unlawfully remain in the building absent revocation of his or herlicense or privilege... The plain language of the statute makes clear that in order for the licensee to "know" his license has been revoked, the owner of the building or one with authority must "personallycommunicate" the revocation to the licensee.

    In addition to verbal revocations, this Court has found non-verbalactions to suffice. In Wilburn, we found that the owner of a liquor store firing agun at two assailants attempting to rob the store was the "functionalequivalent" of the store owner "personally communicating" his revocation of theassailants' licenses to remain on the property. 312 S.W.3d at 324," (http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2011-SC-000395-DG.pdf).
    -snip-
    Black letter law says for the property owner to put up a sign that specifically addresses concealed carry... wait... it says that if the property owner wants to prohibit concealed carry signs SHALL be posted meaning signs are required in order to prohibit concealed carry? Did I read that right?

    But then... I'm confused... did Harlie Lewis v Commonwealth of Kentucky leave the door open for a future court to decide if the "non-verbal action" of a sign is the "functional equivalent" of being personally being notified of a revocation?

  10. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    54

    Carrying Concealed in Malls

    It has always been my position that if I'm confronted by mall (or whatever) management and asked to leave, I must promptly do so or I could be charged with trespassing.

    Reading through the cited case, it seems to lean in my general direction but still leaves a small bit of ambiguity as to what constitutes personal communication. It appears that a sign does not suffice (though being shot at does), especially if the sign is posted in only one location (I checked) and the fact that Kentucky does not specify what a sign would look like or say.

    My guess is that Kentucky would have to set out a regulation dictating size, shape and wording in order to remove ambiguity, much like other states have done. At that point, wouldn't KRS 237.110(17)'s

    "Carrying of a concealed weapon, or ammunition, or both in a location specified in this subsection by a license holder shall not be a criminal act..."

    become null and void?

    I guess that's been my point all along: if a sign does not have the force of law, the trespass statute does not apply.

    Also, as I was reading through the various statutes, I don't see where the misdemeanor gets bumped to a felony because of the firearm. Must have been amended at some time.

  11. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

    And before we go off on a tangent about the private property of a home being different than the private property of a business that is open to the public..................... while some folks don't agree with that the fact is both are still considered private property and private property rights still apply to both.
    Actually, they are two entirely different things (private vs business properties) and your cute try at distorting my point above is quite frankly, pulling smelly stuff out of your backside.... because you have utterly FAILED to distinguish that a BUSINESS invites the public onto their property, Yet, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999% of the rest of us (non business owners, you know those with ACTUAL private, non-business property) have NOT invited the public onto our properties.

    The other thing you KEEP DOING every time we have this discussion (what is this, the 4th or 5th time?) is you keep ignoring the big gorrilla in the room that RIGHTS are different than RULES....... I, as a landowner/homeowner, etc... can make ANY rule I want, yet if someone breaks those RULES on my property, they have NOT infringed on any of my RIGHTS.... they have simply broken a rule.... Why cant you understand something as simple as that?

    Just for good measure... I will add this: How can someone wearing pink panties on my property infringe on my RIGHTS if I never see that they have them on? (and you know how much I hate those things, and have a billboard posted on my property line advertising the fact that I forbid them on my property so they cannot claim ignorance of my RULE)

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 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
  •  
Quantcast