Open-Carry Poll

[VMI77]

For one thing, the discussion is about businesses open to the public, not private citizens. As a private citizen I can control to a fairly large extent who can enter my property, but my control is not even close to as absolute as you suggest. A business open to the public is subject to much more infringement by law and regulation. For example, the law doesn't allow a business to let their customers smoke.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. We are not even seeing basics in the same light for us to agree on a detailed refined idea. I don't see a business as any different from a house. Both are private property and the owner should be able to make the rules. You seem to see a philosophical difference between the two because it is a business.

I would point out that the problem I see with your argument is that it is along the lines of "I am already violating your rights so I can just add another violation and it is ok". You see, I don't see the laws on smoking - or most other business rules - as morally correct. They are an infringement on the business owner's rights to use his property. I would not dispute the facts that this is going on, nor would I even dispute the fact that the government has the authority to do so very heavily. I was debating the moral right or wrong of a proposed law as I see it. So, as I said, reasonable people can disagree reasonably, and we can agree to disagree on this.

Actually, we're not so much in disagreement philosophically. I think our disagreement is more on the practical level. I agree that many of the infringements on property owners are beyond the limited powers allowed the government by the constitution (not quite prepared to call all of them immoral), but that's the world we live in. I also agree that there is a sense in which my right to carry could be considered another infringement, but again, that's the world we live in: property rights are not what they should be.

So what do we do about it? I don't see how conceding our rights when no one else is conceding theirs is going to advance the rights of property owners or CHLers. The control freaks and nanny staters imposing these regulations are not going to concede any of their cherished rights and privileges. Furthermore, you and I may be willing to live in a system where the rights of property owners are something closer to absolute, but frankly, most of the people we're among are not. What we have is a system of limited arbitraged rights, and I think it is a mistake to concede any of your rights under such a system because it is inherently unfair and cannot be made more fair by such concessions. I think this is especially true when that right is a fundamental human right to self-defense.

[Charles L. Cotton]

No it wouldn't, unless you are saying that the State of Florida won't allow private property owners to exclude armed licensees. Is that what you are saying?

Chas.

It sounds like they're saying a sign doesn't have teeth in Florida, which is a little different, and that matches what I heard. Of course management can tell a person to leave and they're trespassing if they don't. However, the way I heard it works in Florida, it's not a crime to ignore a "no guns" sign (or a "no blue socks" sign) posted in a store. If they see your gun (or your socks) and ask you to leave, then you have to leave or you're trespassing, irregardless of whether they even have a sign.

Yup, it's Texas thats differnt here. Most states, "no guns" is just like "no shirt no shoes no service", they can tell you to leave and call the cops to make you if you don't. But in Texas if your carrying a gun while you trespass the penalty jumps up to a year in jail, class a instead of class c.

Change the penalty in 30.05, problem solved.

Well not in Florida, nor, to my knowledge, in any other state. If you have citations to any other state's trespass statutes that require verbal instructions to leave, I'd love to have them. I just confirmed Florida law with Marion Hammer, head of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, that property owners can post enforceable signs and they don't have to be special signs like the TPC §30.06 "big ugly sign." In fact, the Florida code expressly states that unauthorized entry onto posted land is prima facie evidence of intent to commit trespass. The Florida code even authorizes the property owner to take a trespasser into custody and detain them until the police arrive. So it's clear that verbal instructions to leave followed by a refusal to do so is not required to be prosecuted for trespass in Florida.

Also, trespass while armed is a felony in Florida!

Once again, Texans are far better off with TPC §30.06.

Chas.

(1) The unauthorized entry by any person into or upon any enclosed and posted land shall be prima facie evidence of the intention of such person to commit an act of trespass.

Any owner or person authorized by the owner may, for prosecution purposes, take into custody and detain, in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, any person when he or she reasonably believes that a violation of this paragraph has been or is being committed, and he or she reasonably believes that the person to be taken into custody and detained has committed or is committing such violation. In the event a person is taken into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called as soon as is practicable after the person has been taken into custody.

If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(I am currently in South Florida) After reading Charles post I was a bit concerned about the legality of 'no guns' signs that may be posted here. I asked a family friend that is a Captain with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. He told me you can be asked to leave if you walk past a sign and only arrested if you then refuse to leave. Not really 'feeling it', I asked a local LEO that I saw at the local Publix store. He is an officer with the Palm Beach Gardens PD. He stated the same thing--you could only be arrested if you refuse to leave when asked. I again asked about the force of the sign and he said that a 'no guns' sign is not the same as a No Trespassing sign.

I looked up the FS and found the first line of the statute interesting:

http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/in ... 10.08.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
810.08
Trespass in structure or conveyance.
—
(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.

Here is an interesting article:

http://blogs.naplesnews.com/florida-law ... apons.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the LEO's described to you is the procedure used by most LEO agencies in Texas as well, but it is not the law. It also isn't what is written in the Florida statutes either. Note that §810.08(2)(c) authorizes a property owner to detain and hold a trespasser until the police arrive. This would not be in the code if no trespass occurs until the person is told to leave and refuses to do so.

I didn't see anything in the Florida Code that describes any required language to bar entry to a structure or dwelling, but §810.011 does specify requirements for posting "land." One of the requirements is the use of the words "No Trespassing." Since the statute addresses specific language required for land but not for structures/dwellings, the legislative intent is clear. Equally important is the absence in the statute of any language requiring a verbal order to leave and/or the refusal to leave.

Section 810.08(1) that you quoted above also makes it clear that entry into a structure without authorization constitutes a trespass. The reference to "license" does not refer to a concealed carry license, or any other type of license. (If it did, it would have to identify the specific license; i.e. CHL, driver's license, hunting license, etc.) When used in statutes, and case law dealing with a premises, "license" is a legal term for someone who has permission to enter the property. For example, when dealing with a property owners duty to people on their property, the applicable legal terms are "trespasser, licensee, and invitee." Which category one falls in determines the property owner's duty to that person. A "licensee" is one who is allowed to enter the property, typically for the licensee's benefit. An "invitee" is a person who the property owner asked to come into the property for the property owner's benefit. A business' customers and potential customers are licensees.

If you think about it, it wouldn't make sense to require a verbal command to leave property in order to prosecute for trespass. If that were the case, signs would be rendered meaningless and be relegated to nothing more than saying "you can't come in here with X, unless I don't catch you." Here is another example, if a verbal command to leave is a required element of trespass, then the owner of a business who forgets to lock the doors when he leaves could never prosecute someone for trespass. And what about businesses that have buildings/structures without doors like car washes and pavilions? They can never be locked so people could enter after hours and never be prosecuted for trespass. That's not the law in Texas or any other state of which I am aware.

Of course I'm not a Florida attorney and there could be case law that invalidates everything I have written. However, Marion Hammer is the driving force behind the great strides Florida has made in terms of gun rights and I think should would know about any such cases.

Chas.

[AJ80]

I would still support open carry if it resulted in more 30.06 signs.
That way I could better tell which businesses are more inline with my values instead of risking transactions with businesses who may use my hard earned money to support causes that I don't agree with.

[stevie_d_64]

I voted "no" as worded...

But I have to ask something that has been itching me for years about this issue...

What is the "fix" to keep a reactive public from posting 30.06 signs just in response to a "tweek" in Texas law that would allow Texans to carry openly in businesses...

I go back to thinking how SB501 worked out for us in 2005...Yes, there were some concessions and modifications, but for the most part that bill worked out pretty good for us...

Would there be a way to respect private property rights and ownership to businesses and still be able to compell business owners to relax and understand that people who are doing this are not the problem in some way, shape or form???

I have always thought that it has been time (long overdue) for Texas to grow up and understand that other states are doing this, and that there are very few problems with it, other than the occasional frantic, and panicked call to 911 about a man with a gun issue...To which most are resolved without too much of an issue...

I believe our Law Enforcement community in this state would accept the change in the law with some very reserved reservations, but with a respect to the will of the people in this state...As they have been doing so, in an outstanding manner concerning Concealed Carry since 1995-96...

But hey, I've made my position on having the option to carry openly or concealed for years...And due to some study and discussions with folks here, I am absolutely happy with the way things are now, and if it jeapardized any provisions in our law as it stands now, then certainly we should wait till we figure out a way to fix this without doing so, or allowing anything to restrict or infringe on our right to keep and bear arms...

[jdhz28]

I voted yes, I didn't care about more signs. I would just do what I do now, avoid those places. Unfortunately, after reading what everyone else posted, I have since changed my mind. We don't make up a large enough percentage of the population...even if we don't trade with the establishments that have signs posted what would have been accomplished? We would have made things harder on ourselves, and possibly others. God forbid, the signs go up and I can't go into my favorite restaurant on Friday anymore, right about the time some nut decides to take out his aggression. Where are all the armed citizens???? Down the street at a restaurant that is firearm friendly. I should have thought about it longer before voting.

[C-dub]

If you think about it, it wouldn't make sense to require a verbal command to leave property in order to prosecute for trespass. If that were the case, signs would be rendered meaningless and be relegated to nothing more than saying "you can't come in here with X, unless I don't catch you." Here is another example, if a verbal command to leave is a required element of trespass, then the owner of a business who forgets to lock the doors when he leaves could never prosecute someone for trespass. And what about businesses that have buildings/structures without doors like car washes and pavilions? They can never be locked so people could enter after hours and never be prosecuted for trespass. That's not the law in Texas or any other state of which I am aware.

Of course I'm not a Florida attorney and there could be case law that invalidates everything I have written. However, Marion Hammer is the driving force behind the great strides Florida has made in terms of gun rights and I think should would know about any such cases.

Chas.

Isn't there something that also depends on the business hours? For instance, if a shop owner leaves for lunch, forgets to lock the door and a customer walks in I wouldn't think that customer could be arrested for trespassing. If it were after hours and the owner forgot to lock the doors I would think that could be prosecutable.

Also, thanks for the class at Cabelas. Can't wait for another.