Common retailers with “no firearms” signs?

[Gawernator]

You do not have to be asked to leave, it is sufficient that there is a notice that you are not welcome.

Got any basis for this claim? You're just wrong, sorry but I'm a licensed PI and do this for a living. People put up no trespassing signs but that doesn't mean I can't walk up to their door or their driveway and serve them a subpoena. Both unwanted and passed a no trespassing sign - yet it's not criminal trespass Penal Code section 602.1. If they tell you to leave the property and you refuse, you can be arrested and charged however.

Penal Code 602.1 is about refusing to leave after notice, not magic instant trespass because of a sign.

Edit: also by your logic every LEO and everyone carrying under LEOSA including CI agents are all committing a criminal trespass PC602 when they walk into a mall with a no firearms sign on the door and are criminals breaking the law. Sounded better in your head didn't it? haha

 

[italianzero]

Got any basis for this claim? You're just wrong, sorry but I'm a licensed PI and do this for a living. People put up no trespassing signs but that doesn't mean I can't walk up to their door or their driveway and serve them a subpoena. Both unwanted and passed a no trespassing sign - yet it's not criminal trespass Penal Code section 602.1. If they tell you to leave the property and you refuse, you can be arrested and charged however.

Penal Code 602.1 is about refusing to leave after notice, not magic instant trespass because of a sign.

Edit: also by your logic every LEO and everyone carrying under LEOSA including CI agents are all committing a criminal trespass when they walk into a mall with a no firearms sign on the door and are criminals breaking the law. Sounded better in your head didn't it? haha

Yes, I'm a licensed attorney and I do this for a living. What I said is not in conflict with anything you say here. "No Trespassing" is not the same as "No Firearms Allowed on The Premises" (or something of that nature). Serving a subpoena is a legitimate purpose and also expressly authorized by law. You are not patronizing a business or visiting a home, you are serving legal process. Your lack of understanding of the law is further highlighted by your statement about LEO... You did not score the points you think you did.

If you go into a business to shop and are carrying a firearm or have a dog, and there is a sign that says "No Dogs" or "No Guns", and you go in anyway you are trespassing. Feel free to think differently.

 

[Gawernator]

Yes, I'm a licensed attorney and I do this for a living. What I said is not in conflict with anything you say here. "No Trespassing" is not the same as "No Firearms Allowed on The Premises" (or something of that nature). Serving a subpoena is a legitimate purpose and also expressly authorized by law. You are not patronizing a business or visiting a home, you are serving legal process. Your lack of understanding of the law is further highlighted by your statement about LEO... You did not score the points you think you did.

If you go into a business to shop and are carrying a firearm or have a dog, and there is a sign that says "No Dogs" or "No Guns", and you go in anyway you are trespassing. Feel free to think differently.

Really, what is your practice?

You’re changing the subject. Your original claim was that in California a posted ‘No Firearms’ sign makes someone immediately criminally trespassing the moment they enter a business open to the public while carrying. Cite the statute or case for that exact proposition. Penal Code section 602.1 cuts the other way, because it addresses refusing to leave a business open to the public after being asked. That is why I asked for authority and you still have not provided any. Process service is a separate issue and does not rescue your original claim. Which CA law or code gives you the ability to trespass to serve a court doc?

You are a lawyer but couldn't cite even one code or law or court opinion to backup your statements?

 

[1911-CV]

Not an attorney, but our Sheriff's CCW training says CCW carriers have to be asked to leave and fail to comply to be trespassing in California; regardless of any no guns allowed signs. It's a slide in their presentation materials and the same information is contained in the materials from the adjacent county.

 

[Gawernator]

Not an attorney, but our Sheriff's CCW training says CCW carriers have to be asked to leave and fail to comply to be trespassing in California; regardless of any no guns allowed signs. It's a slide in their presentation materials and the same information is contained in the materials from the adjacent county.

Yep because that is the law!

If that other guy is an attorney which I doubt, dang sure would suck to be his client. Lmao, there are some pretty dumb lawyers though.

 

[weaverftw]

Not an attorney, but our Sheriff's CCW training says CCW carriers have to be asked to leave and fail to comply to be trespassing in California; regardless of any no guns allowed signs. It's a slide in their presentation materials and the same information is contained in the materials from the adjacent county.

Mind sharing what two countries you’re referring to?

 

[ikeo1]

Plus, are they not technically supposed to at least put up a sign?

No, because it’s members only and you sign the agreement to be a member.

 

[weaverftw]

No, because it’s members only and you sign the agreement to be a member.

Not if you go in just to buy alcohol, if they had no sign and you never read the contract you’d be fine

 

[ikeo1]

Not if you go in just to buy alcohol, if they had no sign and you never read the contract you’d be fine

You can’t go in without the membership typically. The ones I saw with alcohol where it’s separate is not the same as the main. Unfortunately, “not reading the terms” is not a strong argument. Like I get it, but they trust people. This is just like their return policy, some people take advantage of the trust.

 

[pingpong]

I don’t read any of them because I can’t read.

 

[weaverftw]

You can’t go in without the membership typically. The ones I saw with alcohol where it’s separate is not the same as the main. Unfortunately, “not reading the terms” is not a strong argument. Like I get it, but they trust people. This is just like their return policy, some people take advantage of the trust.

The Costcos I go to all just have alcohol in the same area as everything else. You can walk right up and go in the main entrance and just say “I’m here to buy alcohol” instead of giving a membership card and they let you in. You couldn’t buy anything but booze at the register, but you’re in the main shopping area. If anything were to happen, that person could say “I was there to buy a pack of beer, I’m not a member, I was never given any written notice they don’t allow guns, there is no sign outside, etc” and they be on pretty solid ground to say they were lawfully carrying there even if their IA says no carry where businesses prohibit it.

That’s all I meant by “never saw the contract;” if you’re a member, that’s not an excuse

 

[ikeo1]

The Costcos I go to all just have alcohol in the same area as everything else. You can walk right up and go in the main entrance and just say “I’m here to buy alcohol” instead of giving a membership card and they let you in. You couldn’t buy anything but booze at the register, but you’re in the main shopping area. If anything were to happen, that person could say “I was there to buy a pack of beer, I’m not a member, I was never given any written notice they don’t allow guns, there is no sign outside, etc” and they be on pretty solid ground to say they were lawfully carrying there even if their IA says no carry where businesses prohibit it.

That’s all I meant by “never saw the contract;” if you’re a member, that’s not an excuse

Not sure if you can have CCW while buying alcohol these days. I don’t think you can go where they are even serving it too.

I hear ya. We have all these limits that’s we’re expected to know.

 

[1911-CV]

Not sure if you can have CCW while buying alcohol these days. I don’t think you can go where they are even serving it too.

I hear ya. We have all these limits that’s we’re expected to know.

Hopefully not a serious comment. The restrictions are on any establishment selling alcohol for on-site consumption.

 

[ikeo1]

Hopefully not a serious comment. The restrictions are on any establishment selling alcohol for on-site consumption.

Yes for consumption but you never know with this silly state of they’re going to extend it to buying.

It’s a half sarcastic and serious post. I just don’t know if people are going into Costco with a CCW specifically to buy alcohol to bypass the membership rules. Why can’t we be normal?

 

[treelogger]

Your original claim was that in California a posted ‘No Firearms’ sign makes someone immediately criminally trespassing the moment they enter a business open to the public while carrying. Cite the statute or case for that exact proposition.

Not a lawyer, except I do play one on TV and have stayed in a Hampton recently.

Seriously, the term "trespass" in California law is used very confusingly.

One meaning of the term is: to enter someone's property or business illegally, meaning against the law, or unwelcome, meaning while knowing that one is not supposed to. There are also other meanings that are used in tort law, and you can see some of those in section 602 (and I don't mean 602.1 here). Trespassing has civil consequences, like becoming liable for certain damages.

Another meaning of the term is the criminal trespass statute, defined in 602.1: If you are in a place where you are not supposed to be (including the two definitions above), and you are asked to leave, either by law enforcement or the owner or their authorized agent, then you can be criminally cited, prosecuted and convicted under 602.1.

Here is the important thing that people like to forget: You are already trespassing BEFORE you are asked to leave. But you can't be cited under 602.1(a) until and unless you've been asked to leave and don't (or refuse). The "being asked to leave" is not a necessary ingredient for trespass, but it is a necessary element for "criminal trespass", if we define that as "violating sections 602 and further".

But that is all a distinction without difference. The real question here: Is a CCW valid while trespassing, in particular in a place that explicitly tells people "no guns allowed"? I've yet to find anyone (and that includes both Matt Cubeiro and my attorney) who have conclusive said either yes or no. We know that having a CCW does not mean that one is allowed to carry a gun while doing certain things. One example is PC 12022: If you commit a felony while carrying a gun, you will be punished more harshly with an extra year of jail; and having a CCW does not exempt from that. So in effect, the CCW is not "valid" in the sense of not allowing one to carry while committing a felony. One could restate the question above as "is a CCW valid while committing a trespass", of a particular kind of trespass.

My worry is: You go into Costco with a gun. For some reason (metal detector, printing), Costco security calls the cops instead of politely asking you to leave. You get arrested and charged, and go to jail for a year. All because under a reasonable (but not the only possible) interpretation of the law you did not have an operational CCW at that moment. I don't know of any case where this has happened yet, but I don't want myself to be the first one, and I don't wish it on anyone else either.

 

[weaverftw]

Not sure if you can have CCW while buying alcohol these days. I don’t think you can go where they are even serving it too.

I hear ya. We have all these limits that’s we’re expected to know.

You can carry while buying alcohol you just can’t consume any obviously. You can’t carry in a place that SERVES alcohol, but Costco doesn’t. So no restaurants with bars (or that deliver wine to tables and pour it etc) but you can go into a grocery store that sells alcohol as long as they don’t serve it on site. At least this is how the law reads to me and what a couple CCW instructors I’ve spoken to say.

 

[1911-CV]

To beat this dead horse one more time, I'll concede that almost anything can happen and court systems get things wrong every once in a while. But we can't live our lives avoiding every imaginable wrong outcome. We have to live in the real world and deal with actual threats.

Now there are some small number (2?) of IA's that say you must stay out of places posted with no guns signs. Assuming your CCW was issued by one of the small number of agencies stating this, do they comply with PC 26200 and indicate this restriction on the license itself? It's not good enough to have text on the license referring you to additional restrictions described elsewhere (reference the AMA with attorney Cubeiro, LINK and see text below). I thought not.

I am not a lawyer but read the material available....

PC 26200:

(b) In addition to the restrictions and conditions listed in subdivision (a), a license issued pursuant to this chapter may also include any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the licensing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which a licensee may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

 

[weaverftw]

To beat this dead horse one more time, I'll concede that almost anything can happen and court systems get things wrong every once in a while. But we can't live our lives avoiding every imaginable wrong outcome. We have to live in the real world and deal with actual threats.

Now there are some small number (2?) of IA's that say you must stay out of places posted with no guns signs. Assuming your CCW was issued by one of the small number of agencies stating this, do they comply with PC 26200 and indicate this restriction on the license itself? It's not good enough to have text on the license referring you to additional restrictions described elsewhere (reference the AMA with attorney Cubeiro, LINK and see text below). I thought not.

I am not a lawyer but read the material available....

PC 26200:

(b) In addition to the restrictions and conditions listed in subdivision (a), a license issued pursuant to this chapter may also include any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the licensing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which a licensee may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

Yeah so Sac County Sheriff saying on a piece of paper they hand you when you get your license that you’re not allowed to carry in a business with a “no firearms” sign is meaningless because they didn’t put it on the license itself. I’m still hesitant to be the test case and deal with the attorneys fees but that sounds technically correct

 

[ikeo1]

You can carry while buying alcohol you just can’t consume any obviously. You can’t carry in a place that SERVES alcohol, but Costco doesn’t. So no restaurants with bars (or that deliver wine to tables and pour it etc) but you can go into a grocery store that sells alcohol as long as they don’t serve it on site. At least this is how the law reads to me and what a couple CCW instructors I’ve spoken to say.

Right, I was being a little sarcastic because we have these limits. I’m well aware you can’t carry a CCW where alcohol is consumed. My sarcasm was about going into a place where it’s not allowed to buy alcohol, which I actually didn’t know you could do in CA without a membership. I wouldn’t put it past the state to make it illegal to touch a bottle. Like what treefaeller said if you print and get trespassed it’s going to cause some issues because it happens. People who carry CCW who don’t conceal well and they get reported especially in CA.

I used to be a CCW instructor for a bit but since the state kept making things more difficult decided to stop that. There’s too many nuances to keep up with and the cost is getting ridiculous

 

[weaverftw]

Right, I was being a little sarcastic because we have these limits. I’m well aware you can’t carry a CCW where alcohol is consumed. My sarcasm was about going into a place where it’s not allowed to buy alcohol, which I actually didn’t know you could do in CA without a membership. I wouldn’t put it past the state to make it illegal to touch a bottle. Like what treefaeller said if you print and get trespassed it’s going to cause some issues because it happens. People who carry CCW who don’t conceal well and they get reported especially in CA.

I used to be a CCW instructor for a bit but since the state kept making things more difficult decided to stop that. There’s too many nuances to keep up with and the cost is getting ridiculous

They’re actually required to open alcohol sales to the general public as a condition of their liquor license I believe