with your last statement. My personal decision is that I either don't go into or disarm before entering any place that is posted. But taking the concept a step further to the USACE situations, technically many of us violate the Federal "no firearms" laws and the specific responses that I've gotten from Corps employees on this forum have been that no one is going to prosecute for those offenses unless there is a "bad shoot" involved. In that case, the violation of a firearm on Corps property would be an add on charge. As far as the "good shoot" in a posted environment, I don't remember seeing a story like that anywhere and given the length of time that concealed carry has been allowed and the number of posted places, one would think that it should have already happened somewhere. Left leaning prosecutors seem to have pursued charges even when there wasn't a legal infraction or where a legal infraction was questionable, like in the Handog incident.Jusme wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:16 amThis thread will garner a lot of attention.
The following is just my opinions, IANAL, and since, as you said all of these things are hypothetical, namely, because as far as I know, there have been no cases, where any of the scenarios, have occurred
In my opinion, anytime someone knowingly carries past, a legally posted 30.06 sign, they have created, a situation, that even if there are no major consequences, they start out on the wrong side of the law, no matter their personal, rationalizations. That being said, if something should happen, where that person was forced to use their gun, in a self defense, or defense of a third person, scenario, there is the hurdle, to clear, as to why they had the gun in that location. As I said, I am not a lawyer, and I don't know whether, the property, owner, or the State, would actually be the complainant, in a trespass case against the LTC holder. If it is the property owner, they can decline to press charges. However, if it is the State, or if a left leaning, prosecutor, decided to go after the LTC holder, it could turn into really bad time, both legally, and financially. Not to mention, the type of press coverage, something like that would generate. And then, since, the LTC holder, was in violation, at the time of the shooting, even if it is a clear case, of justified, self defense, the BG, and/or his family, would be able to file lawsuits, that the LTC holder would not be protected against.
While no one, likes the thought, of being in a situation, where they are disarmed, everyone has to weigh the risk/reward, of disobeying the law. JMHO
It would be interesting to take a poll on how many people use the drive up mailbox on Postal property with a gun in their car. Technically, that is a violation and perhaps carries more of a penalty than going past a 30.06 sign.