Why I was against open carry

[redmax51]

This actually depends on who is interpreting the signs. I have had lawyers tell me that the signs do contain force of law and not other notice need be given. Much like a no smoking sign or a no shirt no service sign. However, given that information, the city of Moore Police Department requires the owner or manager to give a verbal request before they can charge a person with trespass. The sign at Chuck-E-Cheese specifically states the sign serves as your notice.

Chuck-E-Cheese doesn't have a clue and you need to talk to some more knowledgable attorneys. Any area not specifically prohibited by statute is not "illegal" to carry in. That's what statutes are for.

 

[Dukester]

Chuck-E-Cheese doesn't have a clue and you need to talk to some more knowledgable attorneys. Any area not specifically prohibited by statute is not "illegal" to carry in. That's what statutes are for.

+1. It seems that people would rather go along with what they hear other people say than actually reading the laws for themselves. The OK SDA is written in very clear language and people should stop adding words and meanings that simply are not there.

 

[hrdware]

\

It doesn't depend on anything of the sort. The signs are not legally binding. Period. Business owners have to ask you to leave before it is even trespassing, not just in Moore.
Chuck E Cheese can put anything on their sign that they wish. It still doesn't make the sign legally binding. That's like a sign that say, "Not Responsible For Accidents" but you get hurt in their store and it's their fault. That sign means nothing. Texas, however has the 30.06 sign that actually is legally binding. Oklahoma has no such sign.

Chuck-E-Cheese doesn't have a clue and you need to talk to some more knowledgable attorneys. Any area not specifically prohibited by statute is not "illegal" to carry in. That's what statutes are for.

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.

 

[hrdware]

+1. It seems that people would rather go along with what they hear other people say than actually reading the laws for themselves. The OK SDA is written in very clear language and people should stop adding words and meanings that simply are not there.

Yes, it is written clearly. It says business owners have rights and can control the carrying of firearms onto their property. The SDA does not talk about trespass at all. Therefore I asked people familiar with the law.

Would you mind pointing out to me where in the SDA it says a business owner has to ask you to leave and that signage has no force of law.

 

[Dukester]

Yes, it is written clearly. It says business owners have rights and can control the carrying of firearms onto their property. The SDA does not talk about trespass at all. Therefore I asked people familiar with the law.

Would you mind pointing out to me where in the SDA it says a business owner has to ask you to leave and that signage has no force of law.

Since you cannot prove a negative, show me where it says they do. Why don't you start here: Title 21 1277 Unlawful Carry In Certain Places

 

[hrdware]

Since you cannot prove a negative, show me where it says they do. Why don't you start here: Title 21 1277 Unlawful Carry In Certain Places

I never said businesses that were posted were prohibited places. I said a sign may be construed to be a legal written form of trespass notice. Nothing in the SDA deals with trespass. Since you continue to claim that notice must be verbal, I'm asking you to provide a cite to authority that clearly states you have to be verbally told to leave a place before any trespass charge can be applied.

After digging further, it seems that this can be a much debated law because the state does not have preemption here. I have already stated how the state defines a trespasser and read this AG opinion on the topic. All it says is the person in control of the land (business) must demand a person to leave (does not specify oral or written) and if the person does not then they can be charged with 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, by verbal command of the owner, his agent, or employee, of after having been directed to do so by a police officer, although this sentence shall not apply to persons including employees whose presence upon the premises is authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of such premises.

My reading of this leads me to believe that in the City of Moore a gunbuster sign may serve as trespass notice (again, no case law exists).

Trespass shall include each and every actual entry upon the premises of an owner or other person in lawful possession of the premises without the express consent of the owner or other person in lawful possession. Trespass shall also mean remaining upon the premises of an owner or other person in lawful possession after having been told to leave the premises by the owner, or the agent, or employee of the owner or other person in lawful possession of the premises. Trespass shall also mean the act of entering upon or remaining on private property when such is plainly forbidden by signs, markings, or otherwise, by verbal command of the owner, his agent, or employee, of after having been directed to do so by a police officer,
although this sentence shall not apply to persons including employees whose presence upon the premises is authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of such premises.

This section of the Sapulpa city code has the same type of language but also talks about express consent of the owner. It is my opinion, that if the owner puts up a gunbuster sign, and you carry past the sign, you no longer have the owners permission to be there and are trespassing even though no verbal notice was given.

Trespass laws vary by locality and are not covered in the SDA nor are they preempted by state law.

Which brings me to two conclusions: 1) People should know and understand the trespass laws in areas they normally frequent, 2) Until case law has been established, this will be a debate that continues.

 

[Dukester]

"I never said business were prohibited places that posted were prohibited places. I said a sign may be construed to be a legal written form of trespass notice."

This is what I like to refer as a contradiction. You can't have it both ways.

 

[hrdware]

"I never said business were prohibited places that posted were prohibited places. I said a sign may be construed to be a legal written form of trespass notice."

This is what I like to refer as a contradiction. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can. There is a difference between a prohibited place and trespassing on private property. Prohibited places are defined in statute, trespass is up to an individual or business.

 

[Dukester]

Actually, you can. There is a difference between a prohibited place and trespassing on private property. Prohibited places are defined in statute, trespass is up to an individual or business.

No you can't. Walking into a prohibited place results in suspension or loss of your license because it is a violation of the OK SDA. The other is trespass which is completely unrelated to then SDA regardless of why you were asked to leave and would have no effect on the status of your license.

 

[hrdware]

No you can't. Walking into a prohibited place results in suspension or loss of your license because it is a violation of the OK SDA. The other is trespass which is completely unrelated to then SDA regardless of why you were asked to leave and would have no effect on the status of your license.

As far as effect on your license I agree, I never said that a trespass would have any effect on your license. I did re-read an earlier post and found the mangled sentence where you might have interpreted me to mean that. The sentence "I never said business were prohibited places that posted were prohibited places." has now been edited to read, "I never said businesses that were posted were prohibited places." which was my original intent.

I did say that a posted sign may serve notice that you could be charged with trespass for carrying into a business that posted a "No Guns" sign. I even found and posted statutes from 2 different cities that could be interpreted to support that assertion and gave my reasons for believing it.

The only time I mentioned the SDA was to say that the SDA did not address trespassing.