Business Owner's Rights

[TulsaBandit]

I just wanted to clear something up that I see a lot on these forums.

A lot of people here are making the claim that just because there is a No Firearms sign on the door of a business does not make it illegal for you to do so. That the business can get you for "trespassing" only.

I spoke to a couple law enforcement friends and one SDA instructor here in Tulsa and they all state that the claim is false. It is absolutely illegal for you to carry into any business where a No Firearms sign is posted. That the rights of business owner's according to 21 OS 1290.22 overrules any state or city regulation of the Self Defense Act.

21 OS 1290.22:

"Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity."

Yes, I know that concealed means concealed and your life is more important than the risk of breaking the law. But, if on the off chance that you make a mistake like flashing the firearm bending over to reach something, or printing accidentally and someone witnesses and calls the police. Well you just lost your CCL for awhile plus you might see quite a few fines.

 

[Go_Ordnance]

Huh? All that says is that the your right to carry per the SDA does not trump a business owner's right to say "not in my place".

That's not the same as "being illegal".

 

[Quick_Draw_McGraw]

A business has a lot of rights that they can use to ban or remove someone from their property.

The snippet just proves one of the many reasons that they can legally ban/remove you.

The resistance of someone to the ban/removal is what will get you wrapped up in a trespassing charge.

Furthermore the state supreme court protected the rights of gun owners by stating a business can not legally ban you from bringing a gun to work and storing it in your vehicle while at work. That ruling acknowledges a businesses right to not have a gun in the work place, but it protects the rights of CCW holders to arrive and department from their business and park on company property with their weapon.

 

[BryanDP]

That phrase only deals with the right of the business owner to hang the sign. What you're looking for is the place in the SDA where it states that it is a crime to go against the wishes of the business owner. It will be followed by the penalties for violating the law. Since you have your lawbook out could you cut and paste that section? I'm especially interested where it states that by going against the wishes of a private business owner you would lose your license for a while and might see quite a few fines.

Bryan

 

[TulsaBandit]

Huh? All that says is that the your right to carry per the SDA does not trump a business owner's right to say "not in my place".

That's not the same as "being illegal".

Either way, you may get your CCL revoked and some fines. I just thought that it was important to let people know that the signs mean that you cannot legally carry into that business. It is not a request as some members on here think that it is.

 

[BryanDP]

Either way, you may get your CCL revoked and some fines.

Says who? Please post the place in the SDA where it covers the penalty for carrying against a business owner's wishes or even states that doing so is a violation of the law.

Bryan

 

[TulsaBandit]

Says who? Please post the place in the SDA where it covers the penalty for carrying against a business owner's wishes or even states that doing so is a violation of the law.

Bryan

Like I said, this was the information I was given by the instructor and the law enforcement personnel that were there.

I cannot find a case for or against either argument. Does anyone else have anything stating either way?

I know that this is quite a debate among forums members, can any of you law enforcement officers provide any hard insight to each claim? I've done some research and have seen both sides of this issue.

 

[jbarnett]

As a general rule I don't believe everything I hear.

 

[Spiff]

Like I said, this was the information I was given by the instructor and the law enforcement personnel that were there.

I cannot find a case for or against either argument. Does anyone else have anything stating either way?

I know that this is quite a debate among forums members, can any of you law enforcement officers provide any hard insight to each claim? I've done some research and have seen both sides of this issue.

This might come as a surprise, but instructors and law enforcement personnel often don't know the law.

My instructor (Marshall Luton - who runs TDSA Tulsa and is also a cop) agreed that carrying past a sign on private property did not carry any consequences other than a trespassing charge if you refused to leave.

 

[BryanDP]

I cannot find a case for or against either argument. Does anyone else have anything stating either way?

Yes. The Oklahoma SDA which does not state that it is illegal nor provide penalty for going against a business owner's request.

I know that this is quite a debate among forums members

I really haven't seen much debate on this forum about it. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I've done some research and have seen both sides of this issue.

I'd be curious to see your research on the side of the issue that supports the claim you made in your original post.

Bryan