Gun Show CHL Question

[boomerang]

I also think that right or wrong, if someone openly violates the posting or policy at one of these places, they will get tossed out and/or prosecuted.

If you openly violate any policy you're likely to get tossed out. That's true regardless if the policy is no guns, no outside food, no hats, no photography, no blue shirts, no shirts, no underwear, etc. If they tell you to leave you have to leave. No arguments there.

They can have whatever policy they want but the law is the law. I'm still confused what law someone breaks by having a gun at a gun show.

In the drinking discussion you asked for examples. Here's a chance to live up to your own standards. SHOW ME. Show me someone who was prosecuted under 30.06 for carrying a gun at a gun show and they didn't have a ND or assault someone or do something else wrong.

So I would feel a lot more comfortable defending myself from some trumped up charge of PI after having a beer, than I would defending myself in a test case after getting thrown out of a venue (owned by the government) and posted by a private business operating on the site that is holding a 250 year lease.

That's your choice. Nobody is trying to force you to go on government property when you're carrying and nobody is forcing the other gentleman to drink anything stronger than tea when he carries.

Best of luck at the match.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I'm still confused what law someone breaks by having a gun at a gun show.

To be honest, so am I. It might possibly be 30.06. Or not. No test case that I know of.

And being that there's been no test case, I obviously can't show you someone who has been prosecuted for packing at a posted show (that wasn't also doing something else wrong). One big reason for this is that if the gun is concealed, who will know they are packing? I know through direct experience that I can take my little Keltec 32ACP practically anywhere (where there are no metal detectors) and it's my secret. And who would know about incidents where someone got "made" and the security people simply asked them to leave and they complied. I'm sure the show people would, as a matter of policy, make every effort to resolve such incidents "quietly" to avoid adverse publicity or problems with the venue owner.

But I do not want to be the test case, and I would not advise anyone else to "volunteer" for that position either. I would cheerfully shut up and never raise this topic again, except when I read where someone blithley (IMO) advises someone else that they can carry in these places if they want to because the law is "clear" and that they will win in court if it comes to that. It bothers me. I worry that some innocent soul will take that advice and get themselves in trouble that could have easily been avoided.

If that makes me a bad guy, so be it.

And note that this issue doesn't just apply to gun shows. There are all sorts of events held in government-owned buildings (like civic centers, etc.) where a private event operator leases the venue from the government and posts it. It's the same deal. Does "owned or leased by a government entity" mean that if a government entity has any ownership interest at all that the property cannot be enforceably posted? Or does the intent and meaning of the statute refer to the entity at the end of what may be a "chain" of ownership, leasors, sub-leasors, leasees, etc., meaning the entity who has operational control of the property at the time. (Like, if I lease the property for 30 years, they give me the keys and I control who can enter and who can't, within the laws regulating public accommodations, etc.)

I've got my opinion on this, and others have theirs. Mine is certainly in the distinct minority on this board. But as it has never been litigated, no one really knows for sure where the courts would draw the line.