-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
"No firearms, violators will be treated as trespassers"
- Thread starter sinac84
- Start date
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
I used to read all georgia code pertaining to guns but have not done it in about 3 years but that was the law last I checked
Because it's only illegal to carry in the restricted areas outlined by law examples include schools and courthouses but when the sign is on the door it is a policy not a law similar to the no shirt no shoes so service sign police could not arrest you for being barefoot but could make you leave the establishment Its the rule vs the law
I work in retail and if I call the police because you refuse to leave the property they will not arrest the person until they return. Because the first time is the on the record statement of barring the person from the property
I was thinking of having postcards printed up. They would specify why I did not go to that store and why I spent X amount of dollars at some other named store. These could be sent to CEOs and mall management. A few million of these sent out might make a difference.
Laws are not always right. Business owners rights do not trump personal protection IMHO. Business owners are allowed to discriminate against people from coming into their business. It is because they dont "like" you. In other words, they dont want to do business with you. Thats fine with me, I can take a hint. What I dont like about that is they decide who they can discriminate against. No Shirt No Shoes No Service is OK but if a business owner decides you are gay, then they get a lawsuit filed against them and lose. If a business owner has a right to keep you off the premises, they why does that stop him/her from discriminating against anyone for any reason? The way I see it is you cant have it both ways. If the owner has the right to ask you to leave, then you have to leave. They should not be forced to do business with you. But it looks like the law sees it differently. Maybe we should all get together and file a class action suit against any businesses displaying those signs. We are being denied out rights.
Laws are not always right. Business owners rights do not trump personal protection IMHO. Business owners are allowed to discriminate against people from coming into their business. It is because they dont "like" you. In other words, they dont want to do business with you. Thats fine with me, I can take a hint. What I dont like about that is they decide who they can discriminate against. No Shirt No Shoes No Service is OK but if a business owner decides you are gay, then they get a lawsuit filed against them and lose. If a business owner has a right to keep you off the premises, they why does that stop him/her from discriminating against anyone for any reason? The way I see it is you cant have it both ways. If the owner has the right to ask you to leave, then you have to leave. They should not be forced to do business with you. But it looks like the law sees it differently. Maybe we should all get together and file a class action suit against any businesses displaying those signs. We are being denied out rights.
I rather not support these establishments with my money. IF I see a sign like that, I go elsewhere. I will not take my kids there anymore after seeing that sign at a location. We left, I told my kids about the sign and one of my sons (he is 5) response was "oh, they dont want you to protect us? Thats silly!" We went to catch air instead and never looked back : )sinac84 said:
I say effective concealment is always key my job has the same sign and as an employee I am obligated to comply and ask folks to not carry but if it was concealed I wouldn't be able to say a thing also most often they act angry and aggressive and I tell them I carry too and you make us all look bad .
To the general public all they see is aggressive angry guy with a gun
Lastly I was at Wal-Mart and I saw a small gangster type guy open/concealed a glock and a 32 round mag.
Wal-Marts policy is they don't mind So long as it remains concealed.
At the time I was carrying with 2 mags so we both had about the same amount of ammo and a gun
Soneone called the police on him and they showed up to talk to him while I walked right by doing the same thing CONCEALED and surprise no-one call the cops on me . If You intend on OC be prepared to hit a few speedbumps along the way
Wal-Marts policy is they don't mind So long as it remains concealed.
At the time I was carrying with 2 mags so we both had about the same amount of ammo and a gun
Soneone called the police on him and they showed up to talk to him while I walked right by doing the same thing CONCEALED and surprise no-one call the cops on me . If You intend on OC be prepared to hit a few speedbumps along the way
Yup. Its always the nail that sticks up that gets hammered.
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."
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."
Similar threads
