Trespassing

[skidmark]

Firearms aside, if I disregard a sign barring sunglasses, no shirts, cellphones or strollers, am I committing trespass?

Yes.

stay safe.

 

[wrightme]

Yes.

stay safe.

No.


Stay safe.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Yes.

stay safe.

Another brilliant but flawed analysis of trespassing law.

Keep 'em coming.

I would ask for a cite but I think it was just your opinion & no cite exists.

 

[Bikenut]

If, as you state, it is that way in Mich, you should easily be able to present case law which indicates that a 'no shirt' etc sign, does constitute 'notice of trespass.'
Please note, it isn't relevant whether the law differentiates between some signs, it is whether the law recognizes ANY such sign as the legal notice mentioned in statute of 'after having been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.'

IOW, for that law to actually apply, such 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' signage would need to be actually recognized by courts as a notice to such person that they legally have 'been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.' Once a person has been notified directly by a business owner or agent thereof, there is no question. The question remains as to whether the sign legally qualifies as such notice. Your claim does require case law to support, not opinions of persons (whoever they are) posting on web forums.

Cite?


It used to be lawful for property owners to do exactly that. Are you advocating a return to segregation?

You are asking me to search and find some court ruling that upholds what the law that I posted says. Or, in other words, to find a case where someone in Michigan was prosecuted due to disobeying a sign. You want me to find case law that supports the actual law itself. I do not know how to search for such and freely admit so. Yet the law I cited for Michigan stands as it is. Accept it or don't.

And I added this link:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?285362-quot-no-firearms-quot-signs

To where a Michigan attorney explains it better than I can. The link requires signing up for the MGO forum and if you don't wish to do that to read the attorney's explanation then......................

As for returning to segregation? Nice way to put it so that the issue becomes tainted with racism. The private property right to deny entry/access means the property owner has the right to deny entry/access. That would be regardless of race, color, creed, religion, dress, and what is hidden in that mode of dress. Now make no mistake... I'm saying the actual right itself gives the property owner the power to do that... I didn't say it was moral or even wise in all cases since a business owner would lose business (profits) if he were to engage in segregation. However... he still has the right to.

And I'm saying that any laws that punish the property owner for denying entry/access by restricting who the property owner cannot deny access to are just as much infringements upon private property rights as are gun control laws that punish folks for bearing arms by restricting what, how, who, where, and why, a person can carry a gun.

Which is why I cannot understand why those who rail against government laws that infringe upon the right to bear arms would be asking the government for laws that infringe upon the private property right to deny access to those who bear arms.

 

[skidmark]

No.


Stay safe.

So you are saying that no trespass ever takes place just by disregarding (notice how I did not say "violating"?) the sign barring sunglasses, no shirts, cellphones or strollers - or are you suggesting that no trespass occurs until a person in charge tells you you cannot be there in that condition? Or are you saying that one must be given written notice of trespass (a "do not ever come here again" letter) and disregard that before a trespass takes place?

stay safe.

 

[wrightme]

You are asking me to search and find some court ruling that upholds what the law that I posted says.

No, that is not true. I am stating that the law does not define what you claimed.

Or, in other words, to find a case where someone in Michigan was prosecuted due to disobeying a sign. You want me to find case law that supports the actual law itself. I do not know how to search for such and freely admit so. Yet the law I cited for Michigan stands as it is. Accept it or don't.

No, I want you to find case law that shows that a 'no firearms allowed' or a 'no shirt, no shoes...' sign is actually legal notice of trespass.

And I added this link:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?285362-quot-no-firearms-quot-signs

To where a Michigan attorney explains it better than I can. The link requires signing up for the MGO forum and if you don't wish to do that to read the attorney's explanation then......................

Like i said, I could not access the content. And, a post on a web forum isn't a cite, it is an opinion.

As for returning to segregation? Nice way to put it so that the issue becomes tainted with racism. The private property right to deny entry/access means the property owner has the right to deny entry/access. That would be regardless of race, color, creed, religion, dress, and what is hidden in that mode of dress. Now make no mistake... I'm saying the actual right itself gives the property owner the power to do that... I didn't say it was moral or even wise in all cases since a business owner would lose business (profits) if he were to engage in segregation. However... he still has the right to.

Civil rights laws say you are incorrect. Either that, or you do recognize the actual violations of private property rights as a valid function of our government.

And I'm saying that any laws that punish the property owner for denying entry/access by restricting who the property owner cannot deny access to are just as much infringements upon private property rights as are gun control laws that punish folks for bearing arms by restricting what, how, who, where, and why, a person can carry a gun.

Then you appear to be taking the position that civil rights laws are violations of private property rights.

Which is why I cannot understand why those who rail against government laws that infringe upon the right to bear arms would be asking the government for laws that infringe upon the private property right to deny access to those who bear arms.

Those who would be doing that asking, view the gun right as a civil right. Do you agree or disagree with this view?

 

[wrightme]

So you are saying that no trespass ever takes place just by disregarding (notice how I did not say "violating"?) the sign barring sunglasses, no shirts, cellphones or strollers - or are you suggesting that no trespass occurs until a person in charge tells you you cannot be there in that condition? Or are you saying that one must be given written notice of trespass (a "do not ever come here again" letter) and disregard that before a trespass takes place?

stay safe.

I am stating that no one has shown that the signs such as 'no shirts' etc, are actual legal notice of trespass. i.e., absent any other contact by a property owner, is the simple action of walking past such a sign, cause for arrest for trespass? That IS the equivalent of the position you have taken.

 

[WalkingWolf]

What amazes me, leaving out the law, what kind of person outright goes against the wishes of a property owner.

Come on, you guys know damn well when they post a no guns sign they mean YOU with a gun. Why do some of you insist on being jerks and bringing excuses for the anti's to say we cannot be trusted.

IMO if you act like an A$$ you should be treated like one.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Firearms aside, if I disregard a sign barring sunglasses, no shirts, cellphones or strollers, am I committing trespass?

My bank has "no hats" signs ... but I wear a hat in there anyway ... never been convicted of trespassing.

 

[OC for ME]

"No shoes, no shirt, no service." means just what is states...no service, maybe, if no shoes and/or shirt. The option to tell the shoeless and/or shirtless customer to leave the property remains available, the exercise of that option also remains available.

Now, if a bikini clad damsel, with no shoes/shirt, were to enter my soda shop I would certainly not ask her to leave and I would make an exception to the no shoe/shirt rule.

In Missouri a property owner must use a sign that states "no trespassing" or a purple mark placed as indicated in the law. A gun buster sign is not a no trespassing sign. A "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign is not a no trespassing sign. Different states, different requirements/definitions.

RSMo 569.150

 

[OC for ME]

What amazes me, leaving out the law, what kind of person outright goes against the wishes of a property owner.

Come on, you guys know damn well when they post a no guns sign they mean YOU with a gun. Why do some of you insist on being jerks and bringing excuses for the anti's to say we cannot be trusted.

IMO if you act like an A$$ you should be treated like one.

your post does not apply to the minions of the CC Industrial Complex...just ask them.

 

[wrightme]

What amazes me, leaving out the law, what kind of person outright goes against the wishes of a property owner.

Come on, you guys know damn well when they post a no guns sign they mean YOU with a gun. Why do some of you insist on being jerks and bringing excuses for the anti's to say we cannot be trusted.

IMO if you act like an A$$ you should be treated like one.

What each person decides for a course of action is separate from what is legal or illegal.

 

[WalkingWolf]

What each person decides for a course of action is separate from what is legal or illegal.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[wrightme]

:lol::lol::lol:

So, you disagree or agree that the legal determination is a separate subject?

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Then you appear to be taking the position that civil rights laws are violations of private property rights.
Those who would be doing that asking, view the gun right as a civil right. Do you agree or disagree with this view?

I am saying that any laws that restrict exercising a right are infringements upon that right. Doesn't matter what right it is... an infringement is an infringement even if someone (such as those who carry guns) benefits from that infringement (such as laws restricting private property rights).

Now.. are you saying that the law should define rights? I do not have that belief since that puts rights, all rights, at the mercy of whoever has the power to make the laws.

I believe that rights should define the law.. not that the law should define rights.

There are those (not saying you personally) who would prefer the law spell out in detail what is, and what is not, .... permissible.... just so they have the feeling of safety of knowing what not to do.

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

 

[WalkingWolf]

So, you disagree or agree that the legal determination is a separate subject?

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Bikenut]

For the portion in bold, do you have ANY example of any state or municipality where such sign would have the force of trespass law notification?

Not VA but TX law addresses


What do Jay Walking and Trespass have in common? (other than being minor crimes)

Thank you Marco...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm

Please note Sec. 30.05.
CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

Bold added by me for emphasis...

I wonder if it will be necessary to find case law for Texas?

 

[wrightme]

I am saying that any laws that restrict exercising a right are infringements upon that right. Doesn't matter what right it is... an infringement is an infringement even if someone (such as those who carry guns) benefits from that infringement (such as laws restricting private property rights).

Now.. are you saying that the law should define rights? I do not have that belief since that puts rights, all rights, at the mercy of whoever has the power to make the laws.

Where are you getting that from?

I believe that rights should define the law.. not that the law should define rights.

On that point, we are in agreement.

There are those (not saying you personally) who would prefer the law spell out in detail what is, and what is not, .... permissible.... just so they have the feeling of safety of knowing what not to do.

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

Look at my sigline....

 

[wrightme]

Thank you Marco...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm

Please note Sec. 30.05.
CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

Bold added by me for emphasis...

I wonder if it will be necessary to find case law for Texas?

30.05 isn't in question, 30.06 defines such signage as we were discussing.


A sign indicating that entry is forbidden, is not in question.

TX 30.06 specifically defines signage under statute, covering trespass with a firearm.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm#30.06

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden;
or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun";
or
(B) a sign posted on the property thati) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

This is separate from the signage that states that 'entry is forbidden,' and it does specifically state that a sign including the 30.06 citation verbiage is 'notice of trespass.' This is much different than any claimed 'no guns allowed' signage that does not cite a relevant statute that shows such sign to be a valid 'notice of trespass.'

 

[wrightme]

There are multiple points being conflated in this discussion:

1) "Gunbuster" signs that are not defined in statute but that are most similar to 'no tanktops' in legality.

2) Signs defined in statute such as in the TX 30.06 cite.

3) Signage or notification of trespass on closed property as in the TX 30.05 cite.

4) Verbal or written 'notice of trespass' given to an individual/s by the owner or agent of a property open to the public.

5) What a person chooses to do after understanding the legalities surrounding items 1-4.

6) Whether any of the items discussed as 1-5 infringe or invade individual or property rights of ourselves or others.



Those six items are not the same, though they are related.


Oh, and:

7) Whether such legislation is a cause of rights or because of rights.