No Gun Signs/Store Policy

[BJXDS]

This in reference to Virginia, however other states may have similar laws, regulations, or policies that could be equally applied.
The number of business that have a no firearms allowed policy in the member agreement is growing, ie Costco.
This is assuming a valid CHP.

My understanding is, if there is a no gun sign, and if you are asked to leave and don’t, the police can be notified and you can be charged with trespassing. This applies to public and private property.

It seems to me that both the policy and sign serve the same purpose, to notify you that they do not want you to have a gun on their property.

Concealed firearm" means a firearm hidden from common observation, including a firearm hidden when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the firearm's true nature.

Case in point. A man attempts to enter Costco, the greeter says, Sir, I believe you have a firearm on your person and store policy prevents you from entering, unless you are LE. If the man denies he has a firearm and enters and the police are called, do the police have the right to ask if you have any weapons or ask to search based solely on the greeter’s word just because the man may have been printing or because the greeter saw a bulge that could have been a firearm?
What burden of proof is needed by the person or establishment to show that the person in question has a firearm?

In Virginia there is no obligation to notify LE when legally carrying concealed, but I also can see why an officer would want to know if someone has a weapon.

[Sensei]

A couple of thoughts.

1) A private business is within its rights to search your belongings as a condition for entry. So, a Costco greeter who sees a bulge could ask to see what you are hiding under your shirt in order to enter. That rarely happens since it’s bad for business.

2) Most states that issue a concealed carry permit require you to disclose your weapon whenever contact with a LEO occurs. In my state, the bar is very low for my obligation to disclose.

[Robinson]

I'm not sure being searched by an officer has anything to do with it -- if the business wants you to leave they can ask you to leave. Refusing would constitute trespass, which changes your status. Especially if the police are called and tell a person to leave, refusing at that point is probably not a good idea whether armed or not. Your only recourse might be civil court after the fact.

In Georgia, being armed -- even openly -- does not constitute RAS. Trespass might constitute RAS but I don't know.

[JohnO]

Business cards available from a CT Gun Rights group.


http://ctcarry.com/Store/Swag/GetProductImage/8a87c6d1-54fb-4117-8673-0e0d6e69c3f5

http://ctcarry.com/Store/Swag/GetProductImage/c1f5d98c-826c-4095-917a-5bdecce9fba0

[Peally]

Non-issue. The signs make corporate feel happy and they're incredibly easy to ignore. All they are is a lawyer bitch sign, for what purpose they serve they might as well not exist.

Never heard of anyone ever being charged for the trespass while carrying in a posted business here in WI, and there's a lot of stupid CCW people out there that would have naturally higher chances of being made.

Police can search you if they have a reason to, obviously. In WI there is no need to disclose anything, if I were to get pulled over for speeding the entirety of the conversation would be "whoops, my bad I was speeding, I'll take the ticket have a nice day."

[Casual Friday]

In WA, unless it's prohibited by state or federal law the signs are just decoration. Ignore and proceed.

[TGS]

Case in point. A man attempts to enter Costco, the greeter says, Sir, I believe you have a firearm on your person and store policy prevents you from entering, unless you are LE. If the man denies he has a firearm and enters and the police are called, do the police have the right to ask if you have any weapons or ask to search based solely on the greeter’s word just because the man may have been printing or because the greeter saw a bulge that could have been a firearm?
What burden of proof is needed by the person or establishment to show that the person in question has a firearm?


The police always have the right to ask........like everyone else, police have the right to walk around freely and approach/talk to anyone they want. If they ask if they can search you and you agree, that would be a consensual search and they don't need any further justification other than you agreeing to it.

If the police can identify a bulge on you that they can articulate as being consistent with a weapon, they can detain you and perform a Terry Frisk against your will.....basically a limited search. Without getting too nitty gritty, any contraband they find during this frisk will be fair game.

[joshs]

If the police can identify a bulge on you that they can articulate as being consistent with a weapon, they can detain you and perform a Terry Frisk against your will.....basically a limited search.

Wouldn't the officer also need reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime? (Assuming that carrying a carrying a concealed weapon is not a crime and a permit is only an affirmative defense).

[TGS]

Wouldn't the officer also need reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime? (Assuming that carrying a carrying a concealed weapon is not a crime and a permit is only an affirmative defense).

Right, the crime here being trespassing if the property told the CCW'er they weren't allowed on premises.

[STI]

Um, get a better holster.

[joshs]

Right, the crime here being trespassing if the property told the CCW'er they weren't allowed on premises.

That's what I get for not carefully reading the post you quoted . . .

[TGS]

That's what I get for not carefully reading the post you quoted . . .

Nah, I think that one's on me....I wasn't clear given my statements on frisking immediately followed a small paragraph about cops being able to walk around anywhere/talk to anyone, consensual encounters, etc.

[Cypher]

Most states that issue a concealed carry permit require you to disclose your weapon whenever contact with a LEO occurs. In my state, the bar is very low for my obligation to disclose.

This actually isn't true. The last time I checked the number it was 9 states (literally 1/5 th) and one of them (Texas) had no penalty for failure to disclose.

That said lying to a cop causes far more problems than it solves.

[Cypher]

I only know of two places that have those signs in the Springs. One is my bank and I ignore it. The other is the place where I go to get my yearly UA for my Guard Card.

The UA place I respect because I used to work there and I know them. They have a good reason for their sign. Apparently right after I left some idiot from one of the armored car services came in for HIS UA and decided to play big shot and clear his weapon before stepping on the scale. He promptly put one right through the wall. From that day forward ZERO weapons were permitted in the Clinic

[Kyle Reese]

I have a simple philosophy;

If an establishment advertises that they prohibit guns on their property, I oblige them. They are telling me that they don't want my business.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Non-issue. The signs make corporate feel happy and they're incredibly easy to ignore. All they are is a lawyer bitch sign, for what purpose they serve they might as well not exist.

Never heard of anyone ever being charged for the trespass while carrying in a posted business here in WI, and there's a lot of stupid CCW people out there that would have naturally higher chances of being made.

Police can search you if they have a reason to, obviously. In WI there is no need to disclose anything, if I were to get pulled over for speeding the entirety of the conversation would be "whoops, my bad I was speeding, I'll take the ticket have a nice day."

It depends on the jurisdiction. In Texas if the meets legal requirements ( a .30-06 or .30-07 sign) and you go in anyway, its an actual crime (misdemeanor I believe, it changed recently). Gunbuster signs may be theoretically ignored but I am not going to test the theory.

[TC215]

Wouldn't the officer also need reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime? (Assuming that carrying a carrying a concealed weapon is not a crime and a permit is only an affirmative defense).


The police always have the right to ask........like everyone else, police have the right to walk around freely and approach/talk to anyone they want. If they ask if they can search you and you agree, that would be a consensual search and they don't need any further justification other than you agreeing to it.

If the police can identify a bulge on you that they can articulate as being consistent with a weapon, they can detain you and perform a Terry Frisk against your will.....basically a limited search. Without getting too nitty gritty, any contraband they find during this frisk will be fair game.


Right, the crime here being trespassing if the property told the CCW'er they weren't allowed on premises.

That's not how it works. For a Terry frisk, you have to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the person is both armed AND dangerous. There have been a lot of cases thrown out where officers haven't met the "and dangerous" part. Armed doesn't automatically equal dangerous.

Terry v Ohio
Sibron v New York
Adams v Williams
U.S. v Bustos-Torres
etc

As far as any contraband being fair game, that's governed by Minnesota v Dickerson, which says that the item felt must me "immediately apparent" to be contraband. If you have to manipulate it, it's a search, and is outside the scope of a Terry frisk.

[Hambo]

Are Costco greeters that sharp-eyed?

[Peally]

Are Costco greeters that sharp-eyed?

The sharpest.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8zNsUTWsOc

[TGS]

That's not how it works. For a Terry frisk, you have to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the person is both armed AND dangerous. There have been a lot of cases thrown out where officers haven't met the "and dangerous" part. Armed doesn't automatically equal dangerous.

Terry v Ohio
Sibron v New York
Adams v Williams
U.S. v Bustos-Torres
etc

As far as any contraband being fair game, that's governed by Minnesota v Dickerson, which says that the item felt must me "immediately apparent" to be contraband. If you have to manipulate it, it's a search, and is outside the scope of a Terry frisk.

Hence why I wrote this....should have been more clear, I guess.


Without getting too nitty gritty,