Do signs have the force of law?

[Gordon]

Wow! I referred to the statute as "illegal carry." That was incorrectly referred. Sorry. Haste makes foolish errors.
It falls under RS 40:1382, Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun:
§1382. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun

A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:

(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.

(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

B. It shall be within the discretion of the law enforcement officer to issue a summons to a person accused of committing this offense in lieu of making a physical arrest. The seizure of the handgun pending resolution of the offense shall only be discretionary in the instance where the law enforcement officer issues a summons to the person accused. If the law enforcement officer makes a physical arrest of the person accused, the handgun and the person's license to carry such handgun shall be seized.

C. Whoever commits the offense of negligent carrying of a concealed handgun shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned without hard labor for not more than six months, or both. The adjudicating judge may also order the forfeiture of the handgun and may suspend or revoke any permit or license authorizing the carrying of the handgun.

That is the statute on negligent carrying.

The original statute on Issuance of a Concealed Permit falls under 55:1309.

(G) No concealed handgun permit issued pursuant hereto shall authorize or entitle a person 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.

Thus a law enforcement officer (if so inclined, instead of giving a warning) would charge under this statute of negligent carry for violating a sign, since the statute stated a person carrying concealed could not enter where restricted.

Now, it would appear that final location has been reworded and combined with the original stipulation against carrying into a private residence to read:
"The provisions of R.S. 40:1379.3 (N) shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access of those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this Section. No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry such concealed handgun into the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person."

I am not sure when this was reworded, or exactly what the penalties would be under this new wording. And if we are cloudy on this, imagine what will happen if a law enforcement officer answers a complaint.

I have asked (through email) for a determination on this from the concealed permit section. As soon as I have an answer, I will post here. Normally they get back to me within a day. If I am incorrect and the intent or application of the law has been changed, my explanations to my classes will be immediately changed. My advice remains the same, however. Why push the issue? Go shop or visit somewhere else--and let them know why you are doing so.

And the name is Gordon Hutchinson. Classes are taught in the EBR region.

 

[thperez1972]

§1382. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun
A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:
(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.
(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.



A handgun in a holster does not create a situation where it is foreseeable the handgun may discharge. Part 2 would be like walking around with the handgun in the low ready position. Neither requirement is relevant with respect to CHP and signs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[thperez1972]

I am not sure when this was reworded, or exactly what the penalties would be under this new wording. And if we are cloudy on this, imagine what will happen if a law enforcement officer answers a complaint.

I have asked (through email) for a determination on this from the concealed permit section. As soon as I have an answer, I will post here. Normally they get back to me within a day. If I am incorrect and the intent or application of the law has been changed, my explanations to my classes will be immediately changed. My advice remains the same, however. Why push the issue? Go shop or visit somewhere else--and let them know why you are doing so.

And the name is Gordon Hutchinson. Classes are taught in the EBR region.

Is there no certification or recertification needed to teach the classes? Or are the relevant laws not important? I would hope the instructors would keep up to date on the laws that pertain to their classes.

Why push the issue? It's important to know your rights. You can't count on the cops to know them all and you certainly can't count on them to make sure you aren't giving yours up. I've had to teach follow officers some gun laws on the spot. If I hadn't been there, they would have erroneously overcharged someone. And that was something as basic as recrocity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[nolaradio]

Is there no certification or recertification needed to teach the classes? Or are the relevant laws not important? I would hope the instructors would keep up to date on the laws that pertain to their classes.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I can't find anything on the state's website that discusses recertification of instructors. The only thing I found was the requirements to become an instructor.

"If you are interested in becoming an instructor, you must submit a completed instructor application, a detailed course syllabus, and certified true copies of your instructor certifications. Only Louisiana P.O.S.T. Firearm Instructor or National Rifle Association Basic Pistol, Personal Protection in the Home or Personal Protection Outside the home will be accepted. Please do not send cover letters, resumes, or any other material that is not required. This information must be submitted together or your application will not be processed."

I don't know if the POST or NRA certifications require the hold to be recertified or not.
I did see that on the list of state approved instructors for Louisiana, there is an expiration date listed. It might be as simple as sending in a form to renew the registration.


http://www.lsp.org/handguns.html#instructors
http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chrulebook.pdf
http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chInstructReq.pdf

 

[Gerberman]

The original statute on Issuance of a Concealed Permit falls under 55:1309.

(G) No concealed handgun permit issued pursuant hereto shall authorize or entitle a person 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.

I suppose one way to look at the above statute by itself is that the statute on concealed carry itself "nullifies" your concealed carry permit where the sign is posted. In other words, when you enter a location with that signage, you would be like anyone concealed carrying WITHOUT a permit. I agree clarification of the law and signage issues would be helpful. I'd like to see standards set for signage prohibiting concealed carry similar to other states. Thoughts?

 

[leadslinger972]

I have asked (through email) for a determination on this from the concealed permit section. As soon as I have an answer, I will post here. Normally they get back to me within a day. If I am incorrect and the intent or application of the law has been changed, my explanations to my classes will be immediately changed. My advice remains the same, however. Why push the issue? Go shop or visit somewhere else--and let them know why you are doing so.

And the name is Gordon Hutchinson. Classes are taught in the EBR region.

Gordon, since you've been in this thread you seem to have changed your position from your original post. Why is that?

At first you were telling us that we are internet lawyers and didn't read anything. Now you are questioning your own statements and seeking the answers of the LSP CHP administration. Perhaps we're not as ignorant as you assumed we are.

 

[nola000]

That is the statute on negligent carrying.

The original statute on Issuance of a Concealed Permit falls under 55:1309.

(G) No concealed handgun permit issued pursuant hereto shall authorize or entitle a person 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.

Thus a law enforcement officer (if so inclined, instead of giving a warning) would charge under this statute of negligent carry for violating a sign, since the statute stated a person carrying concealed could not enter where restricted.

"The provisions of R.S. 40:1379.3 (N) shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access of those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this Section. No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry such concealed handgun into the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person."

Ive been following this thread and I cant hold my tongue any longer.

Im seeing many people that seem to be misreading what is written in LA RS. I dont blame you as judges and lawyers do the same on the regular. This is what happens to a society when you de-emphasize grammar and English in schools.

(G) No concealed handgun permit issued pursuant hereto shall authorize or entitle a person 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.

To me this means that this piece was specifically entered into the CHL laws to protect property owners. They are being explicit in stating that your CHL doesnt trump a property owners right to refuse you entry with your firearm. LA, its legislators and its people hold private property in the highest regard. It doesnt say you shall not enter "premises where access by those possessing a concealed handgun is restricted" under some penalty, it just says that the license to carry that you received from the State doesnt give you carte blanche to supersede a property owners wishes. Its there to tell you what rights the CHL doesnt give you, not to tell you what you cant do. I know this seems like a minor distinction but it matters and Ive seen it in other places in the law but my forgetful brain cant cite any examples right now.

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

1. How should the restriction take place? What are the methods of notification? This hearkens back to the point the OP originally brought up and was discussed throughout. If one were to take the literal meaning and not attempt to expound, then ANY method of notification is "access...is restricted".

2. Second problem. "where access by those possessing a concealed handgun is restricted". No mention of open carry. Again, this supports that this was written(rather poorly) to prevent general overriding liberty and right-of-access with a CHL. All written to constrict, limit and clearly delineate the rights granted by the CHL not the person. Its much harder, if not impossible for the State to write legislation restricting the carrying of firearms in general because of the rights granted by the State Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to the US Const. unless it pertains to concealed carry because concealed carry is a State-licensed activity like operating a motor vehicle on State highways. The fact that they managed to get away with convincing courts that theres a compelling-state-interest in legislating the carrying of concealed weapons is what opens the door to this kind of chitty legislation. This is why everyone should support the 2nd as it was written and get behind "constitutional carry".

"No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry such concealed handgun into the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person."

This ones been done already here.

1. Again, only CHL holders are referenced. This doesnt apply to open carriers. I guess the assumption is that if youre open carrying the property owner will notice and have an opportunity to restrict access. Not so if youre concealing the firearm.

2. "private residence" is pretty self explanatory to me. The State of LA makes gratuitous use of the phrase "place of business" in its laws. If thats what they were trying to imply here they would have included it. As mentioned before, it could get hairy for structures that serve a dual purpose as a both a place of business and a private residence.

 

[JBP55]

P O S T Instructors must qualify and meet a minimum standard on the LA. P O S T Firearms Course yearly.
NRA renewal is basically payment and paperwork every 2 years once qualified as a NRA Instructor.

 

[nolaradio]

P O S T Instructors must qualify and meet a minimum standard on the LA. P O S T Firearms Course yearly.
NRA renewal is basically payment and paperwork every 2 years once qualified as a NRA Instructor.

Thank you for that.

Sent from the Bayou Bunker Command Center, Portable Unit #33, FEMA Region 6.

 

[nola000]

"O. The provisions of Subsection N of this Section shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access of those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this Section. No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry such concealed handgun into the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person."

Thought Id roll this one in too. Its supports my interpretation that these statues are there to explicitly provide exclusions to the rights granted by the State issued license(CHL) not as general restrictions on the right to bear arms.

"shall not limit the right of a property owner...to prohibit or restrict access...of those persons possessing a concealed handgun."

I think the State legislators were concerned that the new CHL laws would permit holders the general right to enter anothers property with their concealed firearm even against the property owners wishes. It doesnt say anything about signage or explicit general restrictions. It merely protects the rights of the property owners to restrict access if they so choose. "shall not limit the right" =/= "permit holders shall not enter".

Theres still the question of what constitutes a prohibition or restriction of access. Oral? Signage? Both? This is what needs clarification and will likely come from case law or already has. The trespassing laws give specifics when it comes to signage. This doesnt.

 

[mpl006]

I guess nobody is going to acknowledge the other glaring mistake in Gordon's interpretation, the 90 day suspension if you are caught carrying in a place with a sign. The actual statute, that I read, in reference to carrying in violation of this section states:

L. Anyone who carries and conceals a handgun in violation of any provision of this Section, unless authorized to do so by another provision of the law, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

The only mention of 90 days, and the one that was quoted earlier to back up that claim states:

R.(1) Each permittee, within fifteen days of a misdemeanor or a felony arrest, other than a minor traffic violation, in this state or any other state, shall notify the deputy secretary of public safety services by certified mail. The deputy secretary may suspend, for up to ninety days, the permit of any permittee who fails to meet the notification requirements of this Section.

This is simply stating that if you are arrested of ANY misdemeanor or felony, with the exception of a "minor traffic violation", you have to notify the deputy secretary of public safety services within 15 days. If you do not notify them, they may, not shall, suspend the permit up to ninety days.

So even if you are arrested for carrying in a place that has a sign, which I personally don't believe you would be, you will face a misdemeanor charge of up to six months in jail, up to a $500 fine, or both. If you don't report that within 15 days, you then may have your permit suspended.

While I don't agree with Gordon's interpretation of the law, I do agree and try to follow the idea of just don't buy from a place that has a sign, I think it would be stupid to be charged with carrying into a business that had a sign that said "pas d'armes autorisées" or one that was in such a place that you had to look hard for it. But if the law does mean that all a business has to do is put up a sign and then does not specify what that sign has to say or where it should be, seeing this, 禁止使用枪支, and going passed it while carrying could cause you to be arrested.

 

[leadslinger972]

Thought Id roll this one in too.

I appreciate your responses, as it gives a different perspective than some of the "experts" are giving here.

So not to confuse anyone, it is a Concealed Handgun Permit, and not a CHL (although license and permit are essentially the same).

I agree with your viewpoint that the statutes define what the CHP does not give you the right to do. It IS poorly worded, and there ARE people who believe the permit gives you the right to do as you please.

I guess nobody is going to acknowledge the other glaring mistake in Gordon's interpretation

We've acknowledged it, and have asked him to back up his claims. So far, he has not been able to.

 

[AustinBR]

Gordan & Company:

Let's say a business has a sign that says I must wear a coat and tie to enter, and I walk in with a swimsuit and where's Waldo shirt. I have blatantly disobeyed their sign. There is no doubt. Have I committed a crime? If so, which CRIMINAL statute have I broken? If there is no statute, is there any case law or judicial precedent to show that I have committed a CRIME?

Change it to a sign that says no concealed weapons (or even no weapons in general). I walk in with a weapon, whether concealed or not. Same question that is bolded above.

Unless there is some law that explicitly states otherwise, a sign at a door is a decoration only. If a sign has a dress restriction, I argue that I can ignore it and walk in anyway. The second I am asked to leave, the whole situation has changed.

 

[Troedoff]

.

 

[AustinBR]

While I do understand the need for laws to be plain, and specific. Why must we as people do everything we can to toe the line? The law says that a property owner has the right to ask you not to bring a firearm onto his or her property, or place of business. It makes exceptions for your vehicle, so as to not step on your constitutional rights. Why would you A. Support a business owner who does not want you on his property? B. Put in the effort to try to toe the legal line so that you can prove them wrong?

Sometimes common sense should prevail. This is a useless battle. As a property owner I say that sign is my voice in letting my patrons know I do not condone the carrying of firearms on my property. If you do you will be asked to leave, and at that point if you do not, then the firearm law is not the only law you would be breaking. You just allowed your ego, and superior attitude to possibly get you into a heap of trouble for what?

The law is written, so that the property owner will be protected. Will you get into a heap of trouble for it? More than likely you will be asked to leave, and from there it depends on how far the situation escelates. Why open yourself up to that negative publicity?

Want to protect your gun rights, obey the law. Keep a low profile, and pick battles worth fighting.

Why should stores be able to restrict law abiding citizens from entering any more than they can prohibit certain races from entering?

Why should law abiding gun owners restrict themselves from going places solely because of some large company's political wishes? Movie theaters for example. They seem like an awful place to go unarmed.

 

[Blue Diamond]

Just a FYI. I'd like the copy of the law by end of day, today, central standard time. Thanks.

This is toward Austin. Why was I attacked by you and threatened with banishment for doing what numerous members and You in particular are continuing to do in this thread? You and others seem to be representing yourself as a law professional which is a direct violation of rule 10 as you stated.

 

[leadslinger972]

While I do understand the need for laws to be plain, and specific. Why must we as people do everything we can to toe the line? The law says that a property owner has the right to ask you not to bring a firearm onto his or her property, or place of business.

I've been in many stores that have signs prohibiting firearms in locations that cannot be seen. Texas requires the sign to be in plain sight, as well as meet specific requirements. Louisiana does not have these requirements, so I would like to know what happens if I were to walk into an establishment where the owner has prohibited firearms, but the sign was not visible upon entrance. Whole Foods of Metairie had a sign on the side glass, which was covered by the automatic doors when they were open. I didn't even see the sign until my third visit there. It's best to know the law.

Ultimately, if an establishment prohibits firearms, I will cease to give them my business.

 

[AustinBR]

This is toward Austin. Why was I attacked by you and threatened with banishment for doing what numerous members and You in particular are continuing to do in this thread? You and others seem to be representing yourself as a law professional which is a direct violation of rule 10 as you stated.

You made false claims that you have still yet to back up. That's why. Everything that I have stated has been backed up. One does not have to be a law professional to copy and paste laws and bold parts of them.

 

[Troedoff]

.

 

[Troedoff]

.