Gun free zone stores

RX-79G said:

...going into a posted gun free business IS illegal. ....

Click to expand...

That is not accurate. It depends on state law:

1. First, pretty much every State has a short list of specific places at which it's illegal to have a gun. (There is also federal law on the subject with regard to federal facilities.) Such places are often government offices, police stations, certain places of public assembly like music festivals or fairs, etc. The exact list varies by State. In some States the list is very short. In others it's broader. One generally commits a crime just by entering one of those places with a gun, often whether or not the location is posted.
   
   
2. But with regard to private property posting some form of "no guns" sign, the laws come in one of two forms:
   
   
   • In some States the crime is not committed unless/until one is asked to leave and refuses to do so. So merely entering the premises with a gun is not, itself, a crime. To be subject to arrest and prosecution one must not only enter the premises with a gun, but he must also refuse to leave when asked to.
     
     
   • In other States, e. g., Arizona and Texas, one commits a crime simply by entering the properly posted premises with a gun. In such States one is subject to immediate arrest and prosecution if found on the properly posted premises while carrying a gun, whether or not he immediately leaves.
     
     
   • Also note that in some States a "no guns" sign has no legal effect unless it satisfies certain statutory requirement as to form, content and/or style. Other States have no such requirements, and a "no guns" sign would be given legal effect as long as it provided clear notice that entry while carrying a gun is not permitted.

RX-79G said:

Is a law that has no penalty not still a law? It seems like a strange distinction to say that something isn't illegal just because you can't be arrested or ticketed, even though it is on the books as a prohibition.

Click to expand...

Good God!

I wish you'd stop pretending that you know anything about law.

In order for a crime to have been committed, certain things must have occurred. This things are defined by the law and are usually called the elements of the crime. If the elements of the crime have not occurred, no crime has been committed.

So in some States a crime is committed if, but only if, these elements are present: (1) private property is properly posted to the effect the the carrying of guns in not permitted on the property; and (2) one carries a gun on that property; and (3) one is discovered with the gun by someone with the authority to manage the properly; and (4) the person carrying the gun is asked by someone with the authority to manage the properly to leave; and (5) the person with the gun doesn't leave.

In some other States a crime is committed if, but only if, these elements are present: (1) private property is properly posted to the effect the the carrying of guns in not permitted on the property; and (2) one carries a gun on that property.

And yes, if one can't be arrested/ticketed for doing something, how can one say that thing is illegal? So, for example, I can not be arrested or ticketed for drinking whiskey in my living room becuase it's not illegal for me to drink whiskey in my living room. On the other hand, in many States I can be arrested/ticketed for drinking whiskey in my car while parked on a public road because doing so is illegal in those States.

Art Eatman said:

The Texas legislature mandated specific wording for its "no guns" signs; violation is a criminal offense. A sign which merely says only "No guns" has no legal onus beyond the owner's right to order you to leave if he learns that you're carrying.

Click to expand...

Yes, and some other States also have specific form, content and/or style requirements as well. For example, Arizona has specific requirements for a "no guns" sign used by a bar or restaurant serving alcohol; but no special requirement for a sign used by another type of business.

RX-79G said:

...I asked the question because every law doesn't have an associated penalty that turns an illegal act into a criminal act.....

Click to expand...

If an act or a thing is "illegal", performing that act or having the thing has legal consequences. In the context of entering property while armed, when that property is posted "no guns" the usual consequence with which people are concerned is a criminal charge -- often a form of criminal trespass. And in any case, the term "illegal" in context involve adverse consequences involving governmental action.

So we talk in terms of an illegal act, like criminal trespass, giving rise to prosecution by a governmental entity and criminal sanctions -- like incarceration or a fine. Certain other types of illegal conduct, such as building an addition to your house without proper permits, can give rise to different forms of sanctions imposed by governmental authority -- such as monetary civil penalties or even enforceable orders that the construction be demolished.

But in the world of civil wrongs, things like breach of contract or commission of a tort (like negligence), we don't refer to the conduct as "illegal." We refer to such conduct as creating a cause of action in the injured party, i. e., such conduct being actionable. The remedies must be pursued through actions in court initiated by a private party -- not the government.

Trespass can be both a crime and a tort. If criminal trespass is committed, the injured party calls the cops and the trespasser gets arrested. If one wants to pursue civil recourse for a trespass, he can file a lawsuit to demand payment for damage actually caused by the trespasser, or, in the case of a continuing trespass (e. g., a structure encroaching on your land), perhaps an injunction.

So in the case of a lawsuit seeking to redress a tortious trespass, if you win you'll get a judgement at some future time to the effect that the defendant owes you money or is ordered by the court to do something or to not do something. You then have to enforce the judgment.

Obviously, if someone comes into your store lawfully carrying a gun, and you've posted that you don't want someone with a gun in your store, a civil action for trespass is not a very useful remedy. The only recourse which is useful to you is, in some States, use the correct type of sign so you can call the cops and have the guy arrested, or, in other States, ask him to leave so that if he doesn't you can call the cops and have him arrested.

RX-79G said:

....I'm specifically talking about laws like Oklahoma, that says that a property owner can prohibit you from carrying and lists the steps that can be taken against you because you violated that prohibition. .... If you do not follow the law as written, are you doing something "against the law" or not? If it is not a violation of a law, how can a it be specifically used as the rationale for removal under penalty of a $250 citation?....

Click to expand...

Because if you don't leave upon being asked, i. e., any permission you might have had to be on the private property has been withdrawn, you commit the crime under Oklahoma law of criminal trespass.

RX-79G said:

....Example: The Constitution lays out how state Legislatures are to fill vacancies in Congress. There are no specific penalties attached to this law, so it would be difficult for anyone in the Legislature to be found guilty of a crime if that Legislature failed in its duty. But it is still a violation of the highest law in the land - an unlawful failure to act......

Click to expand...

One also needs to be familiar with the context -- where "law" comes from, what it is and how the process works. It might help to think of "law", i. e., statutes enacted by legislative bodies, constitutions and charters adopted by political entities to govern the operations of those entities, and past judicial opinions, as a tool used to decide the outcome of a dispute or disagreement. So when a court writes an opinion deciding a matter in contention, it is explaining how it applied the law to the facts and circumstances in order to decide the outcome.

Those disputes can range from a question of whether someone committed a crime and goes to jail to whether someone failed to perform a contract and owes money damages to whether someone negligently drove his car causing an injury for which he must compensate someone to which relative gets deceased uncle Joe's house, etc. And that's just the type of the iceberg.

There are laws which relate to process -- how litigation proceeds. And there are laws related to outcome -- what acts or circumstances create civil or criminal liability. But law doesn't really mean anything without the authority of courts to take or force actions based on decisions regarding their application of the law to matters in dispute.

RX-79G said:

Why do you discount the possibility that the concern is stupid and unsafe gun owners, like the one who shot himself in the Levis store?

Click to expand...

I agree that is a completely legitimate concern, and I fully understand the position of business owners.

Being safe with our guns is our responsibility. Incidents like this Levi incident, or this, or this, or this, where a gun owner's carelessness results in an unintentional discharge in a place of business encourage businesses to restrict the lawful carrying of guns on their premises.

While there are many responsible gun owners out there, a business has no reasonable way to determine who is responsible and who is not. And even though there are many responsible and competent gun owners, I see a lot of the opposite at the range every time I'm there. And the "Training? I ain't got no training. I don't need no stinkin' training." crowd has its representatives on this and other gun boards.

While the business might not necessarily have any legal liability, it's going to have to clean up after an incident -- which can require shutting down the business for a time. And if someone gets seriously injured, the clean-up of bodily fluids can be a pretty nasty and expensive chore -- one the guy who caused it might not be able to foot the bill for.