Do "no Gun" Signs Carry Force Of Law?

[jlg]

.

 

[BRLAShooter]

Wait for it, wait for it...

Concealed means concealed... LOL



I'm no expert, but my understanding is that private property can post no gun signs, and you aren't allowed to bring your gun in. But, how would they know if the gun in question was truly concealed?

 

[jlg]

.

 

[spanky]

afaik they are not legally binding but, if asked to leave, you must.

 

[david210]

If it's a place that not on the list of banned places you can carry than I would say your fine law wise. The store can asked you to leave but as far as the law I don't know any or can find a law that you could be arrested for. 14:95 Illegal carrying of weapons or 14:103 Disturbing the peace would not apply in that sitiution.

 

[JadeRaven]

The owners/residents could use force to remove you from the property. How much force is up to them

 

[charlie12]

I don't try to read everything on the front of a store. I know where I can't carry and I know Winn Dixie is not a church so I don't spend my time looking for signs.

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

I don't try to read everything on the front of a store. I know where I can't carry and I know Winn Dixie is not a church so I don't spend my time looking for signs.

+1

 

[buddy_fuentes]

Why would you want to do business with someone that is against what you stand for? If it has a sign up stating that I cannot carry a gun in their business...I ain't going to darken their door! I can spend my money elsewhere.

Buddy

 

[XD-GEM]

afaik they are not legally binding but, if asked to leave, you must.

This. The closest thing is RS 14:63.3, but, strictly speaking, it concerns entry per se and not banning specific actions on a property.

RS 14:63.3

§63.3. Entry on or remaining in places or on land after being forbidden

A. No person shall without authority go into or upon or remain in or upon or attempt to go into or upon or remain in or upon any structure, watercraft, or any other movable, or immovable property, which belongs to another, including public buildings and structures, ferries, and bridges, or any part, portion, or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, including by means of any sign hereinafter described, by any owner, lessee, or custodian of the property or by any other authorized person. For the purposes of this Section, the above mentioned sign means a sign or signs posted on or in the structure, watercraft, or any other movable, or immovable property, including public buildings and structures, ferries and bridges, or part, portion or area thereof, at a place or places where such sign or signs may be reasonably expected to be seen.

B. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the parish jail for not more than six months, or both.

Added by Acts 1960, No. 78, §1. Amended by Acts 1963, No. 91, §1; Acts 1968, No. 647, §1; Acts 1977, No. 445, §1; Acts 1978, No. 694, §1.

 

[Ray Adams]

They can ask you to leave, and you should. If not you can be charged with trespassing. Those signs tell the bad guys come on in, no one has a gun in here. That being said, I agree I will not shop in those places or anywhere that guns are off limits unless I have no choice. Then I don't carry there. Even if I am carrying concealed, which most of the time I open carry during the summer because a 45 is hard to conceal and be confortable.

 

[BRLAShooter]

Didnt we have a member who tried out the 'Remaining after Forbidden' law?

 

[Bayoupiper]

Didnt we have a member who tried out the 'Remaining after Forbidden' law?

Yep.

And he hasn't been heard from since.



.

 

[honestlou]

afaik they are not legally binding but, if asked to leave, you must.

I believe they are legally binding. Title 55, section 1309:

G. No concealed handgun permit issued pursuant hereto shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:

....
13. any other property or premises where access by those possessing a concealed handgun is restricted by the property owner, lessee or lawful custodian.

If you are carrying in violation, it is a misdemeanor, subject to $500 fine and six months in jail. And of course, that is grounds to lose your permit.

 

[CEHollier]

afaik they are not legally binding but, if asked to leave, you must.

Originally Posted by BRLAShooter
Didnt we have a member who tried out the 'Remaining after Forbidden' law?

One of our members can attest to that.

 

[charlie12]

Originally Posted by BRLAShooter
Didnt we have a member who tried out the 'Remaining after Forbidden' law?

One of our members can attest to that.

But he's missing now maybe he needs his picture on a milk carton

 

[charlie12]

Texas has a sign law that I think makes it pretty clear.

http://www.texas3006.com/signs.php

 

[XD-GEM]

I believe they are legally binding. Title 55, section 1309:

G. No concealed handgun permit issued pursuant hereto shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:

....
13. any other property or premises where access by those possessing a concealed handgun is restricted by the property owner, lessee or lawful custodian.

If you are carrying in violation, it is a misdemeanor, subject to $500 fine and six months in jail. And of course, that is grounds to lose your permit.

Hm, that would be a good question for Morgan Allison to address. Your citation is from the Louisiana Administrative Law Code. IIRC, the Administrative Code cannot go beyond what is in the enabling legislation that authorizes the code, which would be RS 40:1379.3, wherein that particular restriction is not present. Morgan?

Texas has a sign law that I think makes it pretty clear.

http://www.texas3006.com/signs.php

This would be SO much clearer than what we have.

 

[honestlou]

Hm, that would be a good question for Morgan Allison to address. Your citation is from the Louisiana Administrative Law Code. IIRC, the Administrative Code cannot go beyond what is in the enabling legislation that authorizes the code, which would be RS 40:1379.3, wherein that particular restriction is not present. Morgan?

I am no expert on Administrative Law, but I would think additional restrictions such as this would be valid, although they would not be able to expand the rights given under the revised statute. These rules and regulations are authorized under the enabling statute:

LRS 40:1379.3
§1379.3. Statewide permits for concealed handguns; application procedures; definitions
A.(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the deputy secretary of public safety services of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall issue a concealed handgun permit to any citizen who qualifies for a permit under the provisions of this Section and may promulgate rules and adopt regulations regarding concealed handgun permits in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
(emphasis mine)

I don't know Morgan Allison, but I welcome any clarification.

 

[XD-GEM]

I am no expert on Administrative Law, but I would think additional restrictions such as this would be valid, although they would not be able to expand the rights given under the revised statute. These rules and regulations are authorized under the enabling statute:

LRS 40:1379.3
§1379.3. Statewide permits for concealed handguns; application procedures; definitions
A.(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the deputy secretary of public safety services of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall issue a concealed handgun permit to any citizen who qualifies for a permit under the provisions of this Section and may promulgate rules and adopt regulations regarding concealed handgun permits in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
(emphasis mine)

I don't know Morgan Allison, but I welcome any clarification.

Morgan Allison is a board sponsor and offers a unique pre-paid legal service for gun owners. He also occasionally answers questions like this on the board.

I am not a lawyer, but years ago I dealt with state bureaocracies on a regular basis. The way I remember Administrative law being explained to me back then was that the Administrative code is supposed to set up the rules and regulations regarding how one deals with the state agencies created by various laws enacted by the Legislature. The Administrative code is not something that allows those agencies to add to the restrictions nor allow any loosening of the laws which the Code is supposed to administer. Otherwise (to use an admittedly ridiculous example) the LSP CHP unit could deny permits to people for owning a pink Cadillac, if that were written into the Administrative code by the Department of Public Safety.

In other words, the Administrative code is not supposed to let unelected people make laws which the Legislature did not intend in the enabling legislation. That's why I'd appreciate someone with actual legal knowledge to weigh in on this.