Remember that gun store that said they would stay open in defiance of the governor's order?
Well, the State Police shut them down anyway.
If they're so freakin' defiant, why don't they keep re-opening until they're dragged out in handcuffs (to be cited and released)?
Do 'no guns' signs have the force of law?
There is no law prohibiting guns in places posted 'no guns.' Failure to leave or disarm when requested to do so would be a trespassing violation, 6-3-303. This section would have to be liberally applied to allow a sign banning a particular behavior, carrying a firearm, to constitute trespassing. Common understanding of the law in Wyoming a 'no guns' sign is a request and a verbal warning by security or the property owner/management is the warning that must be heeded to avoid a violation. A guest or patron of a public business is not an intruder. Frontier Carry is not aware of any case law or legislative intent regarding firearms and this section
Where concealed firearms are prohibited
The below does not apply to open carry (other restrictions may apply). This applies only to concealed carry.
No person authorized to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to paragraphs (a)(ii) through (iv) of this section shall carry a concealed firearm into:
Can I carry in a bar? Can I drink while armed?
You may not carry a loaded firearm ("with a cartridge therein") or hunt while intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance, 23-3-307 (a hunting regulation, but nonetheless applicable). You can openly carry a firearm in a bar or restaurant, though concealed firearms are more strictly regulated. 6-8-104(t)(vii) prohibits concealed carry only in "any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic liquor and malt beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to that purpose." This would define bars and bar areas of restaurants, but not the main dining areas of restaurants.
About open carry
This does not apply to open carry. Concealed carry is heavily regulated. This may be regarded as a fortunate oversight by the legislature or a recognition that openly carrying firearms is constitutionally protected. Whatever the case, citizens and authorities are more sensitive to open carry, and in light of a lack of laws or court cases documenting an affirmative right to openly carry at the above locations, caution is advised.
Businesses and police may not be aware of the difference in the law between open and concealed carry.
A Canadian man went on a shooting rampage and killed 13 people, including a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer. The rampage seems to have started with the killer targeting people he knew before killing others randomly.
While all mass shootings are disturbing, this one has a facet we haven't really seen. The killer went far out of his way to complete his police disguise. Early news reports state he was wearing a police uniform and driving a Ford Taurus Police Interceptor dressed up to look like an RCMP vehicle.
That's right; he was driving a fake police car. We don't have an actual photo of the car (the RCMP photo looks like a standard RCMP vehicle with the number photoshopped for the alert), but most people aren't savvy enough to spot minor differences in police vehicles.
Killers like to copycat each other. Could this become a disturbing new trend?
I'm going to let this 230 year old piece of paper argue why all of this is wrong. (no, not the clipping).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
North Carolina state constitution
Sec. 12. Right of assembly and petition.
The people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances; but secret political societies are dangerous to the liberties of a free people and shall not be tolerated.
No guns signs
'No guns' signs have the force of law; you may not carry CONCEALED on private property when 'no guns' signs are posted or by verbally notifying persons upon entering the property, 10.8.2.16 NMAC.
It is generally illegal to carry a firearm in an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages, unless it is a a restaurant licensed to sell only beer and wine that derives more than 60% of its income from the sale of food. If the business is posted or the citizen is asked to leave/disarm, then it is a gun-free zone regardless, 30-7-3.
It is illegal to carry a loaded or unloaded firearm on any premises licensed for the dispensing of alcoholic beverages (bars, restaurants). An owner, lessee, tenant or operator of the licensed premises or their agent/employees are exempt. Additional exemptions:
A concealed handgun licensee may carry a concealed firearm (not open carry):
It is illegal to carry a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant or narcotic, 30-7-4(2). No person shall consume alcohol while carrying a concealed handgun, 10.8.2.16B.
No guns signs
No guns signs do not have the force of law on private property. Failure to leave or disarm would only be trespassing. Banks and establishments that serve alcohol, which may be posted, are regulated separately. Hotel owners are prohibited by law from banning firearms, 70-24-110.
You may not carry a concealed firearm a in an establishment that serves alcohol on the premises (bars and restaurants), 45-8-328. It is illegal to carry a concealed firearm while under the influence of an intoxicating substance, 45-8-327. This does not apply to open carry, however many establishments are mistaken about the law.
Concealed carry is prohibited in a bank, credit union, savings and loan institution, etc. during normal business hours, except when using a drive-through, ATM, or depository, 45-8-328. This does not apply to mall or grocery stores with bank kiosks unless one goes into the actual banking area. This does not apply to open carry.
On open carry
"No gun" signs in Montana don't have the force of law regarding open carry. Like for anything else, if they don't want you to carry, the owner/operator has the right to ask you to leave, cover up, or disarm. If you don't, they can have you trespassed.
Reactions to open carry will be mixed. Very few businesses will be aware that they cannot legally ban open carry under the above statutes. Cops will likely be ignorant too.
Raleigh Police arrested protesters protesting the shutdown of non-essential activities. To which the police department provided Exhibit 1 in the civil rights lawsuit coming soon to the Fourth District Court.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
North Carolina state constitution
Sec. 12. Right of assembly and petition.
"The people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances; but secret political societies are dangerous to the liberties of a free people and shall not be tolerated."
Police in Kentucky placed warnings and collected license plates after a church service on Easter Sunday. A lawsuit was filed to stop the illegal ban of a drive-in service. In Mississippi, police issued tickets to churchgoers. The US DOJ is looking into the matter.
These actions were highly unconstitutional and totally unjustified. Whatever the police thought they were accomplishing will cost them their credibility. Politicians, health officials, and police administrators don't understand that they aren't protecting anyone's health when they do this and the public relations nightmare is far more dangerous to them than whatever infection risk is to the public.
Cops want to protect people and ensure the law is obeyed. That has a way of creeping into your brain where your mission to enforce the law often goes against common sense. Add a politician or two and the upper echelon of the department pushing you forward and you do dumb stuff. The weird justification is that you are protecting the people from themselves, essentially.
And if you're wrong, then the courts can sort it out. Cops get stuck in this mentality from courts literally second-guessing police, either correctly as justice or wrongly as often happens. They become resigned to letting the system work. It becomes easy to say "an order is an order, and this isn't something horrible like take their guns or put the Jews in a boxcar," so they follow it. The woman was presumably booked and released, so what skin is it off their back?
Arresting people for paddleboarding to make an example of them to other beach-goers make sense if you need to make an example of someone to show you mean that the back is really closed. And I bet those two deputies from LA County feel really stupid and sorry about the whole thing. Shutting down public spaces to recreation is just asinine, but arresting people for going to the beach or park isn't quite the red-line that arresting protesters or harassing people on Easter Sunday at church is.
On an unrelated note, LAPD is nearing widespread mutiny at some of the things they have been asked to recently. That's not something you'll see in the LA Times.
We need to make the shutdown-related constitutional issues a red-line issue for police. While the lawsuits are going to be epic, they come at the cost of the taxpayer. Elected officials, health officers, and unfortunately line cops need to go to jail over this. Why individual cops? To get them to think twice about "letting the courts sort it out." Sure, arresting cops for civil rights violations will piss off other cops and demoralize them, but it is necessary pour encourager les autres.
Right now, a lot of cops could care less about the unconstitutional restrictions and are doing a really crappy job of following orders, if they are at all, but these cops in Raleigh and others across the country need to fear the US Attorney more than firing. Some cops are better at avoiding this than others. In many places, a lot of cops simply don't care, or if they have to, are doing a deliberately poor job of enforcing the shutdown orders.
Police administrators and elected officials have to realize that putting police in this position severely erodes the public trust. It antagonizes the public against police and makes law enforcement more difficult. If the shutdown and the unconstitutional enforcement continues, it will sow the seeds of rebellion.
It's not too crazy to say someone who doesn't have the patience for the courts to go one step too far and start shooting. We're not at that stage yet, but angry people in tough times tend to think it's earlier than it is. We need to avoid violence and to do that the federal government needs to sort out the petty tyrants at the state level. The President can give cops cover for telling the bosses to shove it.
While we're at it, public health officers need to answer for bizarre shutdown orders and on what basis the orders were made. Due process demands that orders be based in things like science. For instance, why is it illegal for Walmart to sell clothes when you're already in the store for food? How does shutting down a brick-and-mortar store not create unfair competition in favor of Amazon and mail-order businesses? Price gouging being labeled unfair competition is just hypocrisy.
It's time for federal lawsuits and indictments. Maybe even some very awkward arrests of cops and public officials for state civil rights law violations.
18 U.S. Code § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law
hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Arizona law defines two type of retailers: off-sale retailers, liquor stores/package stores where consumption on the premises is illegal, and on-sale retailers, such as bars and restaurants.
A common misconception is that it is legal for a concealed weapon permittee to carry a firearm inside an establishment that serves alcohol (bar/restaurant), as long as the firearm remains concealed and the carrier does not drink alcohol. This only applies when there is not a 'no-guns' sign posted. A 'no-guns' sign means no guns, period, permit or not. If the sign does not meet the below requirement, 4-229 is not enforceable.
'No guns' signs and alcohol 4-229
A person may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises. A person shall not carry a firearm on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer if the licensee has posted a 'no guns' sign. 4-229B does ban open carry if a sign is posted.
The sign must meet the following requirements to be enforceable:
Concealed carry with a permit legal without a 'no guns' sign 4-244(29)
It is illegal for any person to be in possession of a firearm while at an establishment that serves alcohol except:
Defenses to 4-229
These are not exemptions; you may still be arrested and prosecuted and argue them in court.
Illegal to serve or sell alcohol to someone carrying a firearm or allow them to remain 4-244(30)
A licensee or employee cannot knowingly permit a person in possession of a firearm to remain on the licensed premises or to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a person in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer. It shall be a defense to action under this paragraph if the licensee or employee requested assistance of a peace officer to remove such person. Concealed weapon permittees may stay as long as there is not a 'no guns' sign posted and they do not consume alcohol.
It is illegal for any person in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer to consume spirituous liquor. 4-244(31)
"Spirituous liquor" includes alcohol, brandy, whiskey, rum, tequila, mescal, gin, wine, porter, ale, beer, any malt liquor or malt beverage, absinthe, a compound or mixture of any of them or of any of them with any vegetable or other substance, alcohol bitters, bitters containing alcohol, any liquid mixture or preparation, whether patented or otherwise, which produces intoxication, fruits preserved in ardent spirits, and beverages containing more than one-half of one per cent of alcohol by volume 4-101(31).
We're living in a world gone insane. Criminals are being released from prison and jails, while peaceful protesters are arrested. Does anyone wonder why people have been buying guns at rates never seen before?
No guns signs
No gun signs do not have the force of law on private property, except in establishments that serve alcohol.
"Public establishment" means a public building; not private property that is open to the public. 13-1302 only applies to the government, not private entities.
You may not enter any "public establishment" (public buildings) or a public event carrying a firearm after a "reasonable request" by the operator not to (13-1302). Storage, usually lockers, must be provided (13-3202.01) This does not apply to private property unless they serve alcohol on-site (see below).
You cannot consume alcohol at an establishment that serves alcohol, you cannot possess a firearm on the premises, and signs have the force of law even for concealed weapon permittees. Without properly posted signs, a permittee can carry concealed. 4-229 and 4-244
More about this tomorrow.
Employee protection/parking lots
Generally, a property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business cannot prohibit a person from lawfully transporting or storing a firearm in a locked vehicle out-of-sight. 12-781
For more content,