Gun busters

[HarveyDanger]

Last night as I was laying in bed trying to sleep a question came into my mind; I, along with many of you, ignore gun busters signs and continue to carry in places that ate posted up. What COULD happen though if you were carrying at a store where you weren't welcome? Could that call your self defense claim into question? Would it nullify it?

I already know someone will respond "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and I would probably agree with that thinking I was just running situations through my mind at 2 am.

I know that at my job I would be fired, but even our security isn't armed so I'm taking that risk. Discuss.

 

[hrdware]

I will attempt to answer this in two parts: what the law says, and what happens in practice. First the disclaimer - I am not a lawyer.

My interpretation of "what the law says":
State law is specific in that the state has preemption in all things firearms, however they do not have preemption when it comes to trespass laws. In doing some reading on various city laws, the definition of "trespass" can vary. Some locations specify that you trespass when you remain in a location after you have been asked to leave...our normal standard definition. However, the city of Sapulpa also has this definition for trespass: "Trespass shall also mean the act of entering upon or remaining on private property when such is plainly forbidden by signs, markings, or otherwise..." I read this to mean if a gunbuster sign is posted in Sapulpa, the sign serves as your notice. (Others will disagree with me I'm sure, but this is how I read it. Maybe Sapulpa gunbuster signs would have to indicate you are trespassing if carrying. I don't know the answer, but I am going to assume they don't for the rest of my discussion.). Therefore it is my opinion that in Sapulpa, carrying past a gunbuster sign could get you charged with trespassing without having to be asked to leave.

My interpretation of "what happens in practice":
It is again, my opinion, that if an officer is dispatched for trespassing, the officer will first try and get you to leave peacefully and just be on your way. I believe that the officer has to witness you being asked to leave and your refusal but I'm not 100% certain of this. (I'm sure one of our LEO members will be along shortly and correct me if I'm wrong). It is after all, in the officers best interest to try and get you to leave peacefully than for them to have to cite you. If you are refusing to leave a place, do you really think a piece of paper is going to make you happier to leave? At this point the encounter would most likely devolve into a physical confrontation, something most officers would probably want to avoid.

Now, in order to claim Self Defense, 3 conditions have to be met. First, you have to have reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to you or another. Second, you have to be in a place you are legally allowed to be. Third, you can't be doing anything illegal. So we will assume that as an SDA holder, the first condition has been met. For the second condition, you can't be someplace you aren't legally allowed to be...a prohibited place for example, or someplace you have been told you aren't allowed in the store any longer for some reason. So we will assume you can be in the local convenience store without issue. Third, you can't be doing anything illegal. In locations where trespassing does not have a definition that includes signage, you aren't doing anything illegal if you haven't been asked to leave. Now in Sapulpa where there is a definition for signage, are you automatically violating the trespass law?? If so, then self defense would not fly because you are doing something illegal. (I'm sure I'll get flamed for those last couple of sentences.)

Luckily though, as of November 1, 2013, new state law goes into effect that does wonders for clearing this up.

The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person who has been issued a handgun license on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be deemed a criminal act but may subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property. If the person refuses to leave the property and a peace officer is summoned, the person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).

To me this indicates that if you carrying past a gunbuster sign in and of itself is not illegal (no matter what a city definition of trespass is). The only illegal act would be not leaving when asked to do so, thus resulting in a citation and fine up to $250.

 

[WessonOil]

As I understand it, should you have to use it, you're subject to lawsuits that will cost you a fortune...and the business may be one of them to file a lawsuit.

Weigh that against being dead.

 

[hrdware]

As I understand it, should you have to use it, you're subject to lawsuits that will cost you a fortune...and the business may be one of them to file a lawsuit.

Weigh that against being dead.

I hadn't thought about the lawsuit issue, however after Nov 1, 2013, but business will have no liability so shouldn't be one of the groups trying to sue you. Only innocent bystanders whom you accidentally injure would be the ones suing you.

 

[WessonOil]

I hadn't thought about the lawsuit issue, however after Nov 1, 2013, but business will have no liability so shouldn't be one of the groups trying to sue you. Only innocent bystanders whom you accidentally injure would be the ones suing you.

Please do remember that a lot of businesses have the signs up because the owners hate gun owners and the SDA.

They can very well sue just to make you suffer, or just to make some money.

 

[Glocktogo]

As I understand it, should you have to use it, you're subject to lawsuits that will cost you a fortune...and the business may be one of them to file a lawsuit.

Weigh that against being dead.

Negative. If the shoot is ruled a good shoot, you're immune from civil suit.

About the only think I could think of civilly would be a business owner that filed for loss of revenue for the period in which the business was closed for the investigation, due to your actions.

As posted, the intent of the law was the exact opposite of the 30.06 laws in Texas. They wanted to make sure persons exercising their rights under the law didn't inadvertently commit a crime that could get them barred from carrying. The trespass portion is retaining property owner rights sufficiently and balances the right of the individual.

They can always have the popo advise you of criminal trespass after their investigation is concluded. I'd advise you to leave when released and not speak to the property owner further.

 

[Gabriel42]

If the shoot is ruled a good shoot, you're immune from civil suit.

Bingo!