Defensive Carry banner

Accidentally carried into a NO CC building, but others' lives are threatened

12K views 105 replies 57 participants last post by  STLRampage 
#1 ·
Here's the situation: Let's say you accidentally carried into a "NO CC" building such as a store (non-federal law, court building) because you missed the sign posted on the front door. While inside, a robber comes in with a gun and does what all robbers do. Your life is not in immediate danger because the robber is pointing the gun at the cashier or other customers and you know you can take him/her out from your position. would you do it knowing it's a "no CC" zone?

Personally, if the life of my love ones or those who came with me are in danger and I know I can settle the situation nice and clean without risking others' lives, I would do it regardless. If the strangers' lives are in danger, I may not bother. What would you do?

Reason I asked this is because I've accidentally walked into a few stores and have missed the "no CC" sign. Someone held the door opened for me as I walked in and I don't remember ever seeing a "No CC" sign the previous many times i've been there. Didn't realized it until I walked out that a "No CC" sign was recently posted..
 
#38 ·
Indeed. The discussion seems to have taken a different course here but the essence of the question posed in the original post is; would you be willing to face the consequences of being discovered in violation of a store's posted gun buster policy to stop a violent crime and possibly save a life or lives? In my opinion, for any man of conscience the course is clear.
 
#40 ·
I don't know if you could call a gunbuster sign notification. One could argue that to be notified a business would have to specifically notify a particular person. Because in honesty a sign isn't going to be seen by every person that enters a business. Someone could be standing between you and the sign, you could have been looking at someone or something else as you entered, or any number of reasonable things and not see the sign. Of course I say this noting I am not licensed to practice law in the state of Wisconsin and would urge anyone that is in Wisconsin to seek competent legal advice before doing something that gets you arrested. Telling the judge that the guys on a forum said you could do something isn't going to work as a defense.
 
#41 ·
I'm not a lawyer, either. This site, tho, assures us that in Wisconsin, signs do indeed have the force of law:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/wisconsin.pdf
I also wouldn't want to use the I-didn't-see-the-sign defense when appearing before a judge on a firearms charge.
 
#43 ·
In the face of what is no doubt a felony(armed robbery)drawing and firing on the assailant would classify as justifiable homicide and count as a positive defense against any possible charge of trespassing with a firearm. Thats the rule in MN atleast, not sure about WI. In all seriousness, should it come to that, count on the NRA to get involved.
 
#45 ·
It's impossible for a robber to bring a gun into a no-gun store....there's a sign stopping him.




I'm confident a good lawyer could get you off the hook if the shoot is otherwise lawful defense. There is no moral difference between carrying a gun past a sign before the robbery, or running out to your care and retrieving a gun to bring to bear on the robber after it's begun.

Fortunantly gun-busters signs are a joke in my state and we walk right past them.
 
#48 ·
Mjr_Fail,

I spoke to a couple State Troopers (friends) regarding exactly what you are pointing out a few weeks ago. The law does clearly state that signs have "force of law" in Wisconsin. My trooper buddies agreed that the signs were sufficient notification for you to not be on the property with the firearm. Therefor you could easily be charged for the trespass.

We also spoke of the Milwaukee shooting at Aldies and they also confirmed that the majority of officers would not pursue a charge for the CC'er acting in defense of innocents. One cited case law, but I'm too old to keep that in memory.

My solution is to avoid places that are posted. I do try to notify their management of the loss of my business and the risk they are increasing because of the choice to be posted and then I move on. I feel no need for me to find loop holes to financially support a business that provides clear notice that they don't want mine.

If I were a passerby, and a scenario was going down that I was dragged into, that's a different thing and I'm engaging.
 
#49 ·
How does that stop the robbery?
 
#50 ·
After speaking to my local DPS and ATF, I learned that carrying onto this kind of property is not a crime but instead a request. Unfortunately if any action was taken to defend yourself and others it could be used against you in court as proof that you’re not truly a law abiding citizen (though we know that is not the case). If you are confronted at one of these establishments about your CC (given they somehow see it or notice your armed) they can ask you to take the fire arm out and/or ask you to leave. If you refuse they will most likely call the police, they will come and being a law abiding citizen you should still be at the location but maybe not inside to show you’re not an actual threat. The police do not have the right to arrest you but we all know this may not be the case stated by authority, they will take a report and you should be on your way.

As for the question would I protect myself and my family, it is without question a yes. In any case of self defense involving the discharge of your firearm resulting in death and or serious bodily injury, you will go to jail for an un disclosed amount of time, I would rather go knowing that I did what I could to protect my family and myself.
 
#51 ·
After speaking to my local DPS and ATF, I learned that carrying onto this kind of property is not a crime but instead a request. Unfortunately if any action was taken to defend yourself and others it could be used against you in court as proof that you’re not truly a law abiding citizen
Kind of a red herring argument. I don't see any jurisdiction attempting to pursue that charge if you've performed a justifiable action.

After all... You can't abide by the sign, if you didn't notice the sign when you went inside.

The only way I see them using that against you is if you screwed up royally and got someone killed (other than the robber) and they are charging you for criminal negligence or murder. Then, that is the least of your problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCone
#58 ·
I guess if something bad happened to those places and im outside, i still wont hlp. I will just dive off. If i am inside and see innocent people get shot and im not in the line of sight, i will be takint off even if knowing for sure i couldve prevented it. Some people and places need to learn it the hard way lol
 
#61 ·
Sorry, I can't seem to figure out this "multi-quote" thing.

In an effort to not continue pirating this post, I will create a new post to continue responses.
 
#63 ·
When you tell someone they cannot otherwise lawfully carry into your business, you are denying that person their right to be lawfully armed on their way to and from your business. Your policy is extending byond your property, and you have no right to do that.
Oh wait let me guess. Gunlockers in front of the business so you can check your firearm right?

A property owner is responsible only for his business. There is no case law, statute or legal opinion stating that anyone is responsible for your travels to and from outside of their business. If you have something please post it.
 
#64 ·
Oh wait let me guess. Gunlockers in front of the business so you can check your firearm right?
No, a Blackhawk holster on my belt, at my expense.

A property owner is responsible only for his business. There is no case law, statute or legal opinion stating that anyone is responsible for your travels to and from outside of their business. If you have something please post it.
What are you talking about?
 
#65 ·
Like trying to knock sense into a mushroom. Some things aren't worth the effort.
 
#66 ·
LEO carries a sidearm for their protection, not yours.
Keep that in mind if ever in a situation like what was asked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K7lvo and ArmyMan
#67 ·
Here in VA, the signs don't carry force of law. All that can happen regarding the signs is if I ignore them and am asked to leave (how are they going to know if its concealed, right?) and then if I don't leave I can be charged with Trespassing.

Regardless, if I am in any business that's being robbed and I feel that I or my loved ones are in danger then I'm going to shoot. If the robber isn't threatening someone's life and the situation seems calm enough then I'll just keep my hand on the grip under my shirt and then be a good witness.

There are so many possiblitlies of how it could go down. For example: I'm in the back of the store and a robber is holding up the cashier at the front and hasn't fired a shot then I'm going to stay put and not put myself in the action unless the action comes to me. But... if I'm standing right there by the register while some thug is waving a gun around then I would feel threatened and would open fire if I get a chance to draw.
 
#71 ·
I'm fairly confident that a no-underwear sign would be met with full voluntary compliance :image035:
 
#74 ·
Armyman. Once again the same rhetoric and answering a question with a question to change the topic.

You made this statement.

When you tell someone they cannot otherwise lawfully carry into your business, you are denying that person their right to be lawfully armed on their way to and from your business. Your policy is extending byond your property, and you have no right to do that.
Here is my reply.

A property owner is responsible only for his business. There is no case law, statute or legal opinion stating that anyone is responsible for your travels to and from outside of their business. If you have something please post it.
So then you respond with a question like this.

What are you talking about?
I have broken this down in as simple as terms as I can for you short or writing it in crayon. A private property owner is not responsible for you traveling to and from their business, period, no responsibility, no legal requirement. Absolutely nothing supports it anywhere. As stated in other topics you have made the choice to carry a firearm and they have made their choice not to allow firearms in their store and that is their right which is supported by law.

I have posted the definition of private property, basically any property which is not owned by the state or community as a whole is private property. I have posted the portion of the Constitution that states that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

So the local state, county, city and the people who reside there enforce the laws, rules and regulations of their jurisdiction.

It is your choice to take a bus, ride a bike, walk and so on the Government did not force you to it is a choice. Now if you feel that the Government needs to provide a van to come around and pick you up and drive you to work because you are carrying a gun, send your name in and I am sure they will put you on a list somewhere so when that program becomes available you will have appropriate transportation to work.

So why do you continue to argue the point? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when FACTS and CASE LAW show that that opinion is not correct it is time to back up and regroup.

Signs in different states mean different things in regards to trespass, being asked to leave and so on. We all realize you will walk past a sign and carry anyway if the sign does not carry the weight of law, we all realize that you consider your rights above everyone else's. You can post all day long "It doesn't matter" but the fact remains it does.

You are an invitee to the property which I also posted the legal definition and status of such an invitee.

An invitee is only an invitee within the scope of permission granted by the landowner.
What is so hard to understand? You have no legal reference to your statements only an opinion that you are more important than anyone else. A private business is exactly that "PRIVATE" and they have the legal right to say what happens there and it is backed up by the law.
 
#75 ·
A private property owner is not responsible for you traveling to and from their business.
I never said business owners were responsible for customers while in transit.

I said business owners were denying a right to a person going to or from their business. And yes there is supporting case-law as this is how guns-in-cars laws have been passed, and held up in court.

Customer or employee when you open your business to the public you are already bound by numerous restrictions as a condition of your voluntary business license.

For example:
State high court says gun in car is legal at University of Kentucky

A University of Kentucky graduate student and employee was wrongfully fired for having a gun in his car, the Supreme Court of Kentucky has ruled.

~snip~

Mitchell filed suit, saying his firing violated the state and federal right to bear arms. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of UK, and Mitchell appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

The justices said the case presented two conflicting issues: the right to bear arms versus UK's right to prevent them on campus. In the end, a majority of justices concluded that the conflict had to be resolved in favor of the intent of the Kentucky General Assembly.

"We base this on the General Assembly's explicit statement that the concealed-carry licensing statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the right to bear arms, as well as the legislature's clearly expressed policy of exempting a person's vehicle from firearms regulation," the decision said.

Justice Wil Schroder, writing for the court, said the law is "clear and unambiguous."

"It forbids a public organization, such as a university, from prohibiting the possession of a firearm in the glove compartment of a vehicle," Schroeder wrote. "There can be no other reasonable interpretation of the statutory language."
Another state allows guns in employees’ cars at work.
July 27, 2011 by Fred Hosier

About a month from now, a 14th state will allow employees to store legally owned firearms in their locked, privately owned vehicles while at work.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed the bill into law. It takes effect Sept. 1, 2011.

A worker’s individual and constitutional right to self-defense does not end when they drive onto their employer’s property,” said State Senator Glenn Hegar (R), the bill’s sponsor. Hegar calls the measure “good policy that provides workers with a means of viable self defense while commuting between their homes, their workplace and anywhere in between.”
Hegar says he sponsored the bill in response to a number of instances in which employees had been denied the right to protect themselves while traveling to and from work because their employers adopted “overly restrictive policies.”

When an employer bars firearms on company property … they rob their employees … of their right to safety,” Hegar said.[/COLOR]
Maine Moves To Allow State Workers To Bring Guns To Work
By David Schepp
Posted Mar 14th 2012 @ 9:55AM


Legislation passed by Maine lawmakers that permits state employees to bring concealed weapons to work has raised concern among state gun-control advocates, while backers of the bill say it merely puts the state's workers on parity with those privately employed.

The Maine House of Representatives passed the bill handily Monday -- 84-55. It would allow a state worker to bring a gun to work, provided that the worker has a permit to carry a concealed weapon and keeps the firearm in his or her car, the Bangor Daily News reports.

"All it does is reaffirm rights under the Second Amendment. This actually restricts it a little bit by saying you need a permit and saying you need to lock your car," Rep. David Burns, a Republican, told the newspaper. "I don't give up constitutional rights just because I become a state employee."
NRA says FedEx opposition 'reason' to pass Tennessee gun bills
By Richard Locker
Posted April 17, 2012 at 10:28 a.m., updated April 17, 2012 at 11:52 p.m.


NASHVILLE -- Two guns-in-parking-lots bills sailed out of a House committee Tuesday after a National Rifle Association lobbyist declared that FedEx's opposition is "the reason this bill needs to pass."

One of the bills allows handgun-carry permit holders to keep guns in their locked vehicles on most parking lots in the state -- including public and private schools, colleges and universities -- and forbids most employers and business property owners from banning them.

The second forbids employers from asking current and potential employees questions about their gun ownership, gun-carry licensure and carry habits, and gives employees and job candidates who are asked such questions a right to sue.
..so it doesn't matter that someone isn't being forced to work or shop at a given place. It doesn't matter at all.

It is your choice to take a bus, ride a bike, walk and so on the Government did not force you to it is a choice.
That doesn't matter.

I'm not forced to be a certain religion but an employer still can't discriminate against me. I'm not forced to work for any given employer but my employer still can't stop me from storing a gun in my car on his property. Choice is irrelevant here.

Again, customer or employee when you open your business to the public you are already bound by numerous restrictions as a condition of your voluntary business license, for example:

If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

~snip~

Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.
I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.


******
If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

For example:
South Dakota Code 20-13-23

20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.
When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.

I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.


*****
The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.
 
#76 ·
You have answered your own question so to speak.

I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.
As the law stands now and will probably be for a long time to come lawfully carrying a firearm will not be added to the list of protected classes. It still comes down to it is your choice to carry and that can be changed unlike changing the color of your skin. Until that time comes you can preach all you want about it on the internet but don't give the impression that what you are saying is anymore than your particular wants and not law of the land.

I want McDonald's to bring back the McRib more that once a year but don't think that will happen either. Either or good luck in your endeavors.
 
#77 ·
You have answered your own question so to speak.
I wasn't aware I asked a question at all. I must be having a long night.

I didn't choose to be alive, and I now have the right to defend myself. Life, and self-defense are inalienable rights, which means it cannot be taken away, even willingly (inalienable rights can not be voluntarily surrendered).

Self-defense > land ownership. Your corporate profit margin is not worth any human being's life
 
#81 ·
Hypothetical scenarios suck.
 
#86 ·
Signs of 'no CC' carry no lawful weight in my state. "I didn't see it." Swear! A local Subway that I go to was just robbed at gunpoint last Saturday. Second time in about 5 months. Won't be going there anymore. As far as when I would shoot, etc.? I guess I would have to wait and see what develops in any given situation.

Pointing a gun at me, my daughter or wife would probably get return fire. Isolated Convenience store where robber is 'focused' on clerk with NO shots fired I would simply 'prepare' and hope I wouldn't have to engage. I'm not LE, and my GOAL is to get myself, my daughter, and my wife OUT.
 
#87 ·
My local big mall has signs on SOME entry door but not on all. If I walk in through the east entrance, there is absolutely nothing there. I checked for sure. So I always enter and exit via that door and make sure to look up at the cameras recording all people coming in so I can prove I went in the unmarked door. I also found out from a cop that the signs they do have are not legal....SC has strict rules about their size, color and wording. All wrong.
 
#88 ·
If i knew the place was a no cc or no gun i would only draw if my own safety or my family was jeopardized. After which I would rub it in and walk outside. By rub it I would show my cc permit and suggest I could have stopped it and wait outside for police cause im still a witness.

If i didnt realize it was posted I would react as normal.
 
#91 ·
Any sign, whether I saw it or not, would have no bearing on the actions I would take. Right is right.

If I have to wait for my pistol to be returned, but someone is alive to hug their child, or see their daughter be born, or hold their first grandchild, it's a trade off I can accept. If I have to hire an attorney (and I hate attorneys) to beat the misdemeanor trespass charge, it's still worth it.

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. I sleep well at night, because I always try to do what is right, for the right reasons. It's really that simple for me.

Be safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bark'n and USM1976
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top