Why I was against open carry

JM44-40 said:

Veggie,

I've read many of your posts over the last two years and you seem to be very knowledgeable and legal oriented. Some of your research has been outstanding.

I'm not a career politician at all; my service ended years ago.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, it appears, and I underline the word appears, that my constitutional rights may be diminished as I can no longer carry in as many places as I once could if I respect the business owner's wishes. This is my only concern.

I hope this all works out as far as the gun buster signs.

Click to expand...

Have you thought about approaching the owners of these local, small town businesses and politely tell them you've been carrying concealed in their establishments for years, and that with their permission, you'd like to continue doing so? A gunbuster sign is a generic sign addressing the public at large. They carry the weight of trespass only, and only then if the owner presses the issue and you refuse to leave. If the owners invite you to continue shopping there with the knowledge that you will be carrying, the signs no longer apply to you. If they refuse, then you'll know where they stand, which is against your constitutional rights, period!

The original argument was that disregarding the sign was breaking the law which insinuated doing so was a violation of the SDA. If that we're the case, then posted business would be included in the list of places where it is prohibited to carry. They clearly are not. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of any of it. I'm just pointing out that people are adding words to the law that aren't there to support their arguments.
If you end up being charged with trespass because of an anti 2A business owner, you have not committed a gun related crime. You have trespassed only, which is not a gun crime.

Dukester said:

The original argument was that disregarding the sign was breaking the law which insinuated doing so was a violation of the SDA. If that we're the case, then posted business would be included in the list of places where it is prohibited to carry. They clearly are not. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of any of it. I'm just pointing out that people are adding words to the law that aren't there to support their arguments.
If you end up being charged with trespass because of an anti 2A business owner, you have not committed a gun related crime. You have trespassed only, which is not a gun crime.

Click to expand...

So then would you agree if I said this:
While not a violation of the SDA, carrying a firearm past a "no guns" sign my result in a trespass charge. The necessity for a business owner to verbally ask a person to leave would depend upon the local laws regarding what constitutes trespass.

hrdware said:

So then would you agree if I said this:
While not a violation of the SDA, carrying a firearm past a "no guns" sign my result in a trespass charge. The necessity for a business owner to verbally ask a person to leave would depend upon the local laws regarding what constitutes trespass.

Click to expand...

Fair enough

hrdware said:

Without any of us being an attorney ourselves, the disagreement is just that, a disagreement.

I will say that the state defines a trespasser as follows: a person who enters the real estate of another without the permission of the person lawfully entitled to possession.

I would then say that if a sign has been posted, the owner has revoked your permission to be there while carrying a firearm. That's how I read the law, your interpretation is different than mine, and until there is case law to back it up one way or another, it is all conjecture.

If either of you have a documented cite to authority or case law about this, I'd love to see it.

Click to expand...

Right back at you, find me one instance, since CC was implemented, where someone was cited for trespass as a result of a gun buster sign at a public place.


I'll save you some time, there aren't any. Furthermore there are no instances of a person being charged or cited for unintentionally exposing his/her firearm that I could find.

JM44-40 said:

Veggie,

I've read many of your posts over the last two years and you seem to be very knowledgeable and legal oriented. Some of your research has been outstanding.

I'm not a career politician at all; my service ended years ago.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, it appears, and I underline the word appears, that my constitutional rights may be diminished as I can no longer carry in as many places as I once could if I respect the business owner's wishes. This is my only concern.

I hope this all works out as far as the gun buster signs.

Click to expand...

Sir, our constitutional rights are diminished by government, not by a store owner who is within his rights to not allow firearms in his establishment. As far as the businesses that do this, they will either respond to market demands or not. As for me, I will go concealed or go some place else to do business.

uncle money bags said:

Sir, our constitutional rights are diminished by government, not by a store owner who is within his rights to not allow firearms in his establishment. As far as the businesses that do this, they will either respond to market demands or not. As for me, I will go concealed or go some place else to do business.

Click to expand...

^^^Another one who gets it!! Right on the money UMB.

redmax51 said:

Right back at you, find me one instance, since CC was implemented, where someone was cited for trespass as a result of a gun buster sign at a public place.


I'll save you some time, there aren't any. Furthermore there are no instances of a person being charged or cited for unintentionally exposing his/her firearm that I could find.

Click to expand...

Those would be at the municipal level. Have you really searched the records of every municipal court in Oklahoma?

Veggie Meat said:

Those would be at the municipal level. Have you really searched the records of every municipal court in Oklahoma?

Click to expand...

No and I have no interest in doing so. Anyone is welcome to prove me wrong if they wish. I will continue to carry anywhere I want that is not specifically prohibited by statute. After carrying for more than 23 years w/o as much as a second glance from anyone much less a challenge, I have no worries of detection anyway.


BTW, if there had been any incidents of this nature, one of our blood hounds, like you VM, would find it.

redmax51 said:

No and I have no interest in doing so.

Click to expand...

So then you can't defend that there aren't any.

I personally believe there are some, but its all hearsay and I'm not going to bother to dig for the solid evidence to back it up.

Either way, to say that there have or haven't been trespassing charges related to carrying a firearm in a posted privately-owned establishment is indefensible until someone really wants to go search through every single municipal trespassing case since 1996.