The Cop Who Took Down the Terrorist In Minnesota is a 3 Gunner, CCW Instructor

[HCM]

GA law requires specific and individualized notice for criminal trespass purposes. I have not been able to find a single court case where the mere presence of a sign constituted such specific and individualized notice under my state's law. I suppose that if the prosecution could prove that a person read such a sign, understood such a sign, and then willfully ignored such a sign that a valid legal argument could be made; however, if the response is "What sign?" there is simply no case for criminal trespass. If a person carries into an establishment posted as "no firearms", it is not a violation of our carry laws. If they refuse to leave after being told to do so by an authorized representative of the property.

I fully realize that the law in other states is different.

GA statutory law (16-11-138 OCGA) also states that if a person who is carrying illegally uses their firearm in lawful defense of self or others that they have an absolute defense against the carry law violation.

Again, I fully realize that the law in other states is different.

As for private property rights, I have the absolute right to restrict access to my property for any reason. I have the absolute right to restrict access to my property for no reason at all. Then again, my property isn't open to the public.

I did once bar all employees of a certain publication from my property after they woke me up from Sunday afternoon nap by knocking on my door and trying to sell me a subscription for the umpteenth time. It was one of my finer moments. I chased down the van carrying all of the "college students trying to earn some money" (none of which had an actual college ID) so that they could all be served specific and individualized notice.

Just out of curiosity, were they Americans or Isaraelis?

[jlw]

Just out of curiosity, were they Americans or Isaraelis?

All that knocked on my door were American. They had to have surveillance in my house to know when napping was occurring. This was back when I worked rotating shifts, and violations of sleep time were harshly judged.

[HCM]

All that knocked on my door were American. They had to have surveillance in my house to know when napping was occurring. This was back when I worked rotating shifts, and violations of sleep time were harshly judged.

I'm just finishing a year of nights, I understand completely.

[RevolverRob]

I never did understand this... really.

I'd agree with the above when "Private Property Owner" = "Homeowner", however, when "Private Property Owner" = "Commercial Business Premises", it seems to me that the law already imposes many restrictions on what is allowed and not allowed on those premises, regardless of the opinion of the owner (discrimination laws, employment/labor laws, handicap access/parking, every imaginable type of licensing, etc, etc, ad infinitum). Why is it that a right protected by the Constitution is not included in the list of things a business owner cannot prohibit? Total BS.

I think it is very important to remember...Commercial Business Premises are still privately-owned properties. It's also important to remember that sometimes that property is owned by the business owner, but more often, by a commercial landlord. In some cases, no guns signs on the buildings have no more to do with the business and their proprietors inside than they do with the Landlord making the decision. Often that decision is made from a liability standpoint. If the landlord follows the law and makes legal no-guns signs, then if a concealed carrier, carries there, and then gets in a gunfight, they are virtually free of all legal liability due to the shooting. And perhaps more importantly, they can potentially sue the CCer who did the shooting for damages. Which is one of the reasons why I strongly recommend anyone who carries a gun regularly get an umbrella policy for at least a million bucks. Of course nothing is stopping you from counter-suing, but good luck making it stick.

This is the one sticking point that does now and will forever remain a sticking point for concealed carry. And that is, private property. We either, amend the constitution or enact by executive of judicial decision that no property owner/proprietor can impede your constitutional rights...all of them. OR we accept that property and business owners have the right to deny service to whomever they want. OR we have state laws that prohibit discrimination. Enterprising civil rights attorneys could probably make some good headway in this by arguing that concealed handgun carriers are a constitutionally protected class and therefore have the same protections against discrimination as those with alternative religious/sexuality/gender/race/ethnicity etc. But since we have federally defined protected classes, it will be difficult to make this case.

Man, I really hate to say this...but if there was one thing we could get from a new "assault weapons ban". Would be to "give up" AR15s in exchange for congressional recognition of gun owners as a protected class. That would REALLY turn the tables on gun ownership in this country. Of course we should not have to do that, nor am I advocating such an approach, merely spitballing out loud here.

[Mr Pink]

I see a lot of discussion about legal carry issues, when IMHO the more important topic is how a competitive shooter (USPSA, IDPA and 3-gun) was able to survive a lethal encounter, when we all know competition will get you killed in the streets (or in the mall).

[Lon]

In Ohio there's 2 different penalties for violating the no guns signs on private property. If it's a building, it a criminal trespass - misdemeanor of the 4th degree. It's posted in a parking lot, it's a civil trespass and not enforceable by the police. Unless/until the gun toter is told to leave by the property owner once they find out about the gun and refuses to leave. Then it's a criminal trespass. Clear as mud, right?

[olstyn]

In Ohio there's 2 different penalties for violating the no guns signs on private property. If it's a building, it a criminal trespass - misdemeanor of the 4th degree. It's posted in a parking lot, it's a civil trespass and not enforceable by the police. Unless/until the gun toter is told to leave by the property owner once they find out about the gun and refuses to leave. Then it's a criminal trespass. Clear as mud, right?

Funny how laws are so different, state to state. In MN, it's illegal for parking lots to be posted, even if the building the parking lot is for is posted. MN's laws are surprisingly well thought out in that regard. The parking lot thing makes it at least vaguely reasonable to be carrying and stop to go somewhere that's posted; at least you can disarm/rearm in your car without violating anything.

[Lon]

Ohio's gun laws are dumber than hell.

For example, when we first got the concealed carry law passed in 2003/4, you had to carry the pistol in very specific ways in the car. One of which was in plain sight on your person. Well, motor vehicles included motorcycles. So they forced a bunch of guys to ride around open carrying on their bikes because they didn't have anywhere else to put their gun. They got that fixed. You also couldn't pull into a school parking lot to drop off your kid at school. They fixed both those issues. Kinda. Now you can pull into a school parking lot to pick up a CHILD, but not your wife.

For many years there was an obscure definition of machine gun in our laws. Semi-auto rifle with 30 rd mag? No problem. Same rifle (or a glock 9mm) with a 32 rd mag or bigger inserted in the gun? Machine gun = felony (without a tax stamp). Finally got that fixed last year or the year before.

But, we can own machine guns, SBRs and suppressors with the proper tax stamp.

[olstyn]

We just finally legalized suppressors here very recently, so we're no paragon of gun law perfection, but at least when our shall issue carry permit law was passed, the folks who wrote it were pretty clearly thinking about how it would actually work, and it shows. One example is that it's just a permit to carry, not a permit to carry concealed. While this does mean that open carry is legal (but only with a permit), the merits of which people can debate until they're blue in the face, it also means that you aren't going to get arrested for brandishing or failure to conceal if your shirt rides up, which is nice.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ing-protection

Article discussing training. One thing that bothers me as that when folks say a good guy with a gun in an intensive incident - it turns out that the good guy or woman may have training. Then we have the folks who don't want to train. That is used against carry arguments. I used to get that at work. Folks would say that they would trust me to carry on campus but not the untrained yahoo.