"No firearms, violators will be treated as trespassers"

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Since this thread is nine pages long and nobody bothered to even quote the criminal trespass law or any cases concerning it, I think we should.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1595250.html

Consider it a starting point for understanding what the law says and how courts interpret and apply those words.

 

[Jack O A T]

THREE POINTS:

1-- The Georgia statutory law, even the Georgia constitutional provisions about a right to keep and bear arms, mean nothing at all when it comes to private property owners, even businesses open to the public, taking action against guns on their property.
And if you want to compare gun owners to historically-oppressed minorities like blacks or women (not a "minority" but a historically-marginalized group often denied equal rights and equal opportunities), GOOD LUCK GETTING A COURT TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. That's why anti-discrimintion laws based on race, religion, national origin, etc. can be applied to store and restaurant owners and most places of employment.

2-- Government entities in control of private property, and any private or corporate person who is managing or controlling government-owned property, should no longer have the power to use the criminal trespass law to enforce any anti-gun policy or rule there. That's thanks to recent changes in our gun laws per HB-60 that took effect July 2014. However, the legislature didn't modify one word of the Criminal Trespass law itself, so very few people property managers, security guards or cops will know about the subtle change HB 60 slipped into our law regarding public lands and facilities. Anybody who reads the criminal trespass statute itself, 16-7-21, would think that it applies equally to public or private property and can be triggered by any effective notice given for any reason-- they don't like your hat, you have an evil look in your eyes, you remind the property owner of somebody that used to bully him in his troubled childhood, etc. The Criminal Trespass law doesn't say that the reason to exclude or eject somebody from property as to make sense or be logical.

3-- I do not know of ANY prosecution under 16-7-21 (criminal trespass) that was ever based on the "notice" coming from a sign. All of the hundreds of cases I have read where high-level courts have interpreted and applied this law have involved situations where the notice was personal, directed specifically to the offensive/ unwanted person. Usually verbally, sometimes in writing, and sometimes both.
Therefore I doubt that a sign can fill the role of legally effective notice.

If signs were legal trespass notice, than anybody who goes barefoot into a restaurant where the sign says "shirt and shoes required" would be trespassing right then and there, right? Even before some representative of the business told the person to leave and don't come back barefoot.

If signs were legal notice, then any woman who brings her own Raisinets into a movie theater so she does't spend $5 for a box of them from the movie concession stand is "trespassing" right? If the movie theater finds out what she's doing, they don't have to give her the option to throw out the candy or leave; they could have their security staff do a citizen's arrest on her on the spot. Correct? I think not.

Maybe under some circumstances a sign might work. Such as one the size of a billboard posted directly over the one and only entrance to a store saying:
"SHANQUANELLE RODRIQUEZ-MACMURPHY, AGE 31, OF TYRONE, GA: YOU ARE FORBIDDEN FROM ENTERING THIS STORE! If you have anything to say about it, put it in a letter and mail it. Do not set foot on this property for any reason."

That's good stuff and pretty much my understanding of it.

Since this thread is nine pages long and nobody bothered to even quote the criminal trespass law or any cases concerning it, I think we should.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1595250.html

Consider it a starting point for understanding what the law says and how courts interpret and apply those words.

That's very interesting stuff, especially the "authorized representative" definition. Seems a bit tricky, not that I would push my luck after being asked to leave. Just good to know.

 

[renault314]

THREE POINTS:

1-- The Georgia statutory law, even the Georgia constitutional provisions about a right to keep and bear arms, mean nothing at all when it comes to private property owners, even businesses open to the public, taking action against guns on their property.
And if you want to compare gun owners to historically-oppressed minorities like blacks or women (not a "minority" but a historically-marginalized group often denied equal rights and equal opportunities), GOOD LUCK GETTING A COURT TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. That's why anti-discrimintion laws based on race, religion, national origin, etc. can be applied to store and restaurant owners and most places of employment.

2-- Government entities in control of private property, and any private or corporate person who is managing or controlling government-owned property, should no longer have the power to use the criminal trespass law to enforce any anti-gun policy or rule there. That's thanks to recent changes in our gun laws per HB-60 that took effect July 2014. However, the legislature didn't modify one word of the Criminal Trespass law itself, so very few people property managers, security guards or cops will know about the subtle change HB 60 slipped into our law regarding public lands and facilities. Anybody who reads the criminal trespass statute itself, 16-7-21, would think that it applies equally to public or private property and can be triggered by any effective notice given for any reason-- they don't like your hat, you have an evil look in your eyes, you remind the property owner of somebody that used to bully him in his troubled childhood, etc. The Criminal Trespass law doesn't say that the reason to exclude or eject somebody from property as to make sense or be logical.

3-- I do not know of ANY prosecution under 16-7-21 (criminal trespass) that was ever based on the "notice" coming from a sign. All of the hundreds of cases I have read where high-level courts have interpreted and applied this law have involved situations where the notice was personal, directed specifically to the offensive/ unwanted person. Usually verbally, sometimes in writing, and sometimes both.
Therefore I doubt that a sign can fill the role of legally effective notice.

If signs were legal trespass notice, than anybody who goes barefoot into a restaurant where the sign says "shirt and shoes required" would be trespassing right then and there, right? Even before some representative of the business told the person to leave and don't come back barefoot.

If signs were legal notice, then any woman who brings her own Raisinets into a movie theater so she does't spend $5 for a box of them from the movie concession stand is "trespassing" right? If the movie theater finds out what she's doing, they don't have to give her the option to throw out the candy or leave; they could have their security staff do a citizen's arrest on her on the spot. Correct? I think not.

Maybe under some circumstances a sign might work. Such as one the size of a billboard posted directly over the one and only entrance to a store saying:
"SHANQUANELLE RODRIQUEZ-MACMURPHY, AGE 31, OF TYRONE, GA: YOU ARE FORBIDDEN FROM ENTERING THIS STORE! If you have anything to say about it, put it in a letter and mail it. Do not set foot on this property for any reason."

in regards to your first point, that "The Georgia statutory law mean nothing at all when it comes to private property owners, even businesses open to the public" - how can you reconcile that statement with the fact that the state banned smoking from businesses (private property)? You would have us believe that if a bar owner wants to let his patrons smoke inside then that is his prerogative, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Clearly the personal preference of the property owner does not trump state law.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

The smoking analogy isn't useful here. The government has actually passed laws that tell certain kinds of business owners that, as a condition of maintaining an keeping their license (license to serve food, license to serve alcohol, license to operate any sort of business) they must put up "NO SMOKING" signs and actually help the State enforce the law.

The State did not do the same thing for guns. Not in a PRO-gun way, nor in an ANTI-gun way.
The government did not pass any law telling private property owners that they must allow firearms at their business locations or facilities.
The government did not pass any law telling private property owners that they must ban guns, put up signs, and make diligent efforts to enforce the gun ban.

The State has a lot of power to regulate things that affect the public's health, safety, welfare, and even community morals. This is called the "POLICE POWER." States have a general police power. Cities and counties do not, but they can be delegated such power by the State.
Congress does not have a general police power, and neither does any federal agency. However, this fine point of constitutional law has never stood in the way of federal judges letting the federal government do whatever it wants. Nobody really cares about identifying a constitutional source of power or authority for the feds to take some action.

Since the State of Georgia has a general police power, it can use that power to ban smoking. It could ban tobacco entirely, just like marijuana.

Are you arguing that the State of Georgia has the power to MANDATE that all private property owners allow tobacco use? Do you think the government has that much power? Can the government insist that while all restaurants must be non-smoking, all bars and nightclubs that don't serve food MUST be smoke-friendly places, even if the bar's owners would rather have a smoke-free club?

 

[renault314]

The smoking analogy isn't useful here. The government has actually passed laws that tell certain kinds of business owners that, as a condition of maintaining an keeping their license (license to serve food, license to serve alcohol, license to operate any sort of business) they must put up "NO SMOKING" signs and actually help the State enforce the law.

The State did not do the same thing for guns. Not in a PRO-gun way, nor in an ANTI-gun way.
The government did not pass any law telling private property owners that they must allow firearms at their business locations or facilities.
The government did not pass any law telling private property owners that they must ban guns, put up signs, and make diligent efforts to enforce the gun ban.

The State has a lot of power to regulate things that affect the public's health, safety, welfare, and even community morals. This is called the "POLICE POWER." States have a general police power. Cities and counties do not, but they can be delegated such power by the State.
Congress does not have a general police power, and neither does any federal agency. However, this fine point of constitutional law has never stood in the way of federal judges letting the federal government do whatever it wants. Nobody really cares about identifying a constitutional source of power or authority for the feds to take some action.

Since the State of Georgia has a general police power, it can use that power to ban smoking. It could ban tobacco entirely, just like marijuana.

Are you arguing that the State of Georgia has the power to MANDATE that all private property owners allow tobacco use? Do you think the government has that much power? Can the government insist that while all restaurants must be non-smoking, all bars and nightclubs that don't serve food MUST be smoke-friendly places, even if the bar's owners would rather have a smoke-free club?

If the state can tell bar owners they cannot allow smoking, I don't see the difference in telling them that they must allow it.
my argument is that if the state can mandate "no smoking" regardless of the owners preference, then state law trumps corporate policy. There is a maximum daily rate that can be charged by hotels which has been established by the state. What if the owner wants to charge more? too bad. By that line of thinking, a sign that says 'no guns' can be ignored, regardless of the corporate policy, because state law says I can carry and state law trumps owners private policy.

 

[BillMe45]

Enough of these threads to warrant the ODT getting an attorney on a retainer !

Luckily we have GAgunLAWbooklet for free

 

[BillMe45]

To the original point. Its just bully BS scare tactics. There afraid of firearms so there going to try and scare you out of carrying with words and phrases like "trespasser" and "fullest extent of the law" even "douchebag" vvv check this one out

 

[RamRoddoc]

To the original point. Its just bully BS scare tactics. There afraid of firearms so there going to try and scare you out of carrying with words and phrases like "trespasser" and "fullest extent of the law" even "douchebag" vvv check this one out
View attachment 522374

Where?

 

[BillMe45]

Where?

http://gawker.com/pub-gets-crap-for-banning-guns-calling-pistol-packers-1546550250

 

[chucklenut]

To the original point. Its just bully BS scare tactics. There afraid of firearms so there going to try and scare you out of carrying with words and phrases like "trespasser" and "fullest extent of the law" even "douchebag" vvv check this one out
View attachment 522374

Wheres this asshat at?