Misleading information on CC

[JasonGH]

Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to bring this up and ask everyone if they have ever had to deal with anyone in a position of authority in regard to legal carry and their ignorance of the law and how was it dealt with? Also, if a person who has a CPL can be denied access to a private event held at a public venue based solely on if they are in legal possession of a firearm? What brought me to ask this question can be found here: PAX Security Mini-FAQ and Weapons Policy - Penny Arcade Forums It is an interesting read.

I was doing research into attending PAX and if I would have any issues in CC while there. I came across this thread on discussing what was and was not allowed when it comes to costumes and it turned into a discussion on legal carry at PAX and at the Convention center. What bothers me is that one of the people stated that the court could essentially override the protections given by having a CPL at a place that is considered to be public property based on "what was left out" of a statute of law.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[dukalmighty]

From what I read they are addressing weapons being used as part of any costume,It's up to you to know what your state carry laws are and if a private company renting a venue can prevent people from legally carrying.

[JasonGH]

That is what it starts out as, but it turns into a debate on CC 35th post down. A user named GilesG makes the first post on the issue and from there it goes into the meat of the debate. While I understand that the post is concerning costumes it does go into the issue of CC.

[JasonGH]

Also, I want to make clear that I am not looking for legal advice, I just wanted to bring this up and see what everyone else thought about it.

[archer51]

What are the laws of the state the arcade is located in. That is what you need to worry about. Do signs carry the weight of law there? My personal opinion is that if they don't want me carrying there, they don't want my money either.

[NotMallNinja]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here here!

[bandrich]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^x2
Here, here again. Well stated as they say.

[mcp1810]

Are they charging admission?
Check your local laws. Usually if someone is selling tickets you are in effect entering into a contract with them. Those terms unless there is state or local law to the contrary may include that weapons are not permitted. As long as they apply the rules uniformly to all attendees they are not discriminating. If their ban on weapons is legal and you disregard it you are trespassing.

[chiefjason]

IMO the guy has a wrong understanding of the law. You don't enforce "what is left out of the statute." What is left out of the statute is still legal in my uneducated non lawyer opinion. That's how things work here anyway. What is not prohibited is lawful.

But I'm also taking your word for what he said, since I have not interest in reading the thread. But if that's the basis of his claim, it sounds off to me.

Also, you would need to know about your state preemption laws. That would tell you whether a statute can be temporarily overridden by a local or state agency. Some times they can, sometime they can't. It all hinges on the wording of any preemption legislation.

[Glhadiator]

With more and more people obtaining CCW permits nationwide for self-defense, it is only natural that the whackos will look for venues where they can apply their carnage without fear of being shot at in return.

If I feel that an event is dangerous enough that I need to carry and the city, contractor or whoever tells me I can't carry there, then I don't go. IMHO creating these 'no-gun' zones/areas/events only emboldens the criminal to act.

If a place of business or event insists that I must place myself in a position of vulnerability to enter, then it is up to me to decide to break the law and enter anyway, not carry and place myself in a position of vulnerability, or not patronize them. Since I am a law abiding citizen I will always choose not to patronize them. I can always spend my money somewhere that respects my rights.

Sometimes I think that we forget the rights of the property owner. If an establishment feels strongly about not letting someone carry in their establishment, that is their right as defined by each states definition of property rights. Of course the criminal pays no attention to such things. Which is why gun laws are stupid in the first place.(Arggggghhh..don't get me started!)

To be more direct to your question. As already stated it is your responsiblity to know the laws in your state. I suggest that you read and understand the gun laws in your state pertaining to anything you have questions about. I would never go by the advise of some volunteer yahoo wannabe security guy posting on the internet like the one you linked to in your post. For that matter that includes anyone here on this forum. Remember, advise is great but it won't hold up in court. Know the law, Obey the law, and take Personal Responsibility for every action you take. Which is the antithesis of criminal behaviour.

[BenGoodLuck]

Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to bring this up and ask everyone if they have ever had to deal with anyone in a position of authority in regard to legal carry and their ignorance of the law and how was it dealt with? Also, if a person who has a CPL can be denied access to a private event held at a public venue based solely on if they are in legal possession of a firearm?

You have two different issues here:

1. Dealing with a person in a position of authority who is ignorant of carry laws.
2. Denial of a person with a CPL to a private event at a public venue.

If you are carrying concealed and are in compliance with the law, then neither of the above issues should apply. They will not know you are carrying and you won't be telling them. The discussion in the link you provided is about costume weapons. From how I understand most concealed carry laws and trespassing in general, anyone can ask you to leave their property for any reason. In the PAX case, they may not be legally allowed to deny you access to the event, but why put yourself in a "test-case" scenario. If you are legally able to conceal carry, do so and don't tell.

[simon]

BenGood Luck,hit it on the nailhead.....conceal carry,don't worry about it....

[_Hawkeye_]

I have problems with any place that is opened to the public denying entry based upon a constitutionally protected civil right. Whether that right is protected by the 14th amendment or the 2nd

[ccw9mm]

Depends on the state laws where you are. Private individuals and groups generally have the right to invite whom they wish onto the property. On public property with private events, often the state's statutes specify certain limitations or exemptions to this basic equation. Sometimes it varies based on whether admission is charged, or whether it's considered a "public gathering," or whether it's on public land, or being administered by a public agency/department. In some cases, it'll involve federal law (ie, a private group demonstrating at the local post office, though it won't mean you can carry there merely because the protest's there). The legal tangle's a wonderful bit of social engineering, ain't it? Gotta love it.

I have problems with any place that is opened to the public denying entry based upon a constitutionally protected civil right.

So do most of us. But it's a fact that the 2A coexists with property rights, and the statutes support limitation and restriction of the right to bear arms. Until it changes lawfully, it'll continue to be one of the potholes along the path of societal redemption that we'll need to live with.

[_Hawkeye_]

So do most of us. But it's a fact that the 2A coexists with property rights, and the statutes support limitation and restriction of the right to bear arms. Until it changes lawfully, it'll continue to be one of the potholes along the path of societal redemption that we'll need to live with.

I guess it is ok, in an private store, that is open to the public, to say kick out people based upon skin color? I mean it is private property. But when you open a private property to the public, you shouldn't get to exclude members of the public based upon a constitutionally protected right. Whether it is the 2nd amendment, protecting firearms, or the 14th, protecting people of different skin colors. Private property that is not open to the public, sure, but private property that is open to the public should be, and in some cases is, held to a different standard.