Signs and the weight of law AGAIN!

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • leadslinger972

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 1, 2017
    983
    16
    St Tammany
    If an business does post a sign and you do carry. Whats he penalty? If they ask you to leave , then you leave. If you don't its a trespass , correct. So is there a penalty for you if you leave the premise when asked? Can the business detain you until police arrival?

    Penalty? No idea.

    If they ask you to leave and you don't, you are trespassing.

    Is there a penalty for trespassing? Yes.

    Can the business detain you? No.
     

    JBP55

    La. CHP Instructor #409
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    338   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    16,999
    113
    Walker
    If an business does post a sign and you do carry. Whats he penalty? If they ask you to leave , then you leave. If you don't its a trespass , correct. So is there a penalty for you if you leave the premise when asked? Can the business detain you until police arrival?


    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.
     

    geoney

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jun 1, 2011
    796
    16
    Lake Charles
    After writing the State Police CHP office, and not wanting to revive a 21 page post , and against my better judgement. I received an email back from State Police today. So all of the speculation can end.

    Subsection N, of LRS40:1379.3 clearly states where you cannot carry. Directly following that, Subsection O, Says the provisions of subsection N shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access to those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this section.

    According to the Concealed Handgun Permit section, this means that if a property owner has posted a sign, regardless of size or literature, the exact reply by the State was

    "If a business has a sign prohibiting firearms, it does carry weight, and all carrying is considered illegal."

    So by that language, Subsection O, clearly gives a property owner, lessee, or lawful custodian the right, and weight of the law, to say you cannot carry in his/her place of business/property. It does not define how they must convey this intent, like the Texas law does. If there is a sign, it is a no go legally.

    Anyone wishing to verify the validity of this, and look at the email is welcome to PM me, and we can make arrangements.

    There was a no speculation.


    The signs have no "weight of law", except for a potential chicken **** trespassing sign.

    The larger issue is that you should honor people's private property rights and more importantly, don't spend money at places that do not share your world view on issues you hold dear.

    PS... LSP is not the final arbitrator of the law. What they say holds no weight in a court of law either way... the court of law determines the final outcome.
     

    geoney

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jun 1, 2011
    796
    16
    Lake Charles
    you are not presenting a realistic scenario as I pointed out.
    If you don't know; you are not breaking the law-it's up to the state to prove you knew. It's called mens rea Pretty cut and dry if you ask me. I've had enough fun playing for now. I've put three kids through LSU with fees paid by people who try to see how close they can get to the edge without falling off. If you are a CCP holder one of the abilities you should have is possession of a modicum of situational awareness which includes observing whether or not an establishment is posted. And believe it or not most who post do it conspicuously because they do not want you carrying in their establishment. If they don't and you happen to be the unlucky one who gets popped it will be on you to show that the posting was not adequate for the reasonable man to see. If you are that worried about this, it seems obvious that you should not possess a CCP and carry a concealed weapon until you feel comfortable in assessing current situations. In other words until you can use common sense. Pure and simple.

    But isn't it true not all laws require mens rea? You can still be held accountable even if you do not know you are breaking the law?
     

    SVTFreak

    Huh?
    Rating - 100%
    34   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    2,430
    38
    Galvez
    There was a no speculation.


    The signs have no "weight of law", except for a potential chicken **** trespassing sign.

    The larger issue is that you should honor people's private property rights and more importantly, don't spend money at places that do not share your world view on issues you hold dear.

    PS... LSP is not the final arbitrator of the law. What they say holds no weight in a court of law either way... the court of law determines the final outcome.

    This. Always blows my mind how people who are so picky about their right to be armed look for ways to violate someone’s right to not have weapons on their property. Just find somewhere else to do business.

    I always love these discussions. People looking for a definitive answer when there really wouldn’t be one until tried in court. Want the answer? Go get yourself in trouble and bring it to court and see what the outcome is. Help Cajunlawyer put another one through college.

    The law is pretty cut and dry. Not much to interpret there.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,710
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    This. Always blows my mind how people who are so picky about their right to be armed look for ways to violate someone’s right to not have weapons on their property. Just find somewhere else to do business.

    I always love these discussions. People looking for a definitive answer when there really wouldn’t be one until tried in court. Want the answer? Go get yourself in trouble and bring it to court and see what the outcome is. Help Cajunlawyer put another one through college.

    The law is pretty cut and dry. Not much to interpret there.

    The law is pretty cut and dry. Except when it's not, as evidenced by Cajunlawer's contradictory interpretations. His first interpretation was that the state only needed to prove posting and carrying, which is actus reus, the opposite of mens rea. He then interpreted intention as being an element of the crime, stating the state had to prove mens rea rather than actus reus.

    *Mens rea means guilty mind, or knowing you are committing a crime. Actus reus means guilty actions, or committing a crime with or without knowing it. An example of actus reus would be LA R.S. 14:80 Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile. The law states "lack of knowledge of the juvenile's age shall not be a defense."
     

    Barry J

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 5, 2011
    1,334
    48
    Thibodaux
    The law is pretty cut and dry. Except when it's not, as evidenced by Cajunlawer's contradictory interpretations. His first interpretation was that the state only needed to prove posting and carrying, which is actus reus, the opposite of mens rea. He then interpreted intention as being an element of the crime, stating the state had to prove mens rea rather than actus reus.

    *Mens rea means guilty mind, or knowing you are committing a crime. Actus reus means guilty actions, or committing a crime with or without knowing it. An example of actus reus would be LA R.S. 14:80 Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile. The law states "lack of knowledge of the juvenile's age shall not be a defense."

    I have to admire your persistence.
     

    Barry J

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 5, 2011
    1,334
    48
    Thibodaux
    I take it you disagree with Cajunlawyer and his 35 years of experience.

    Neither agree or disagree. Don't care what he says. I do what I think I need to do. If I need legal advice, I won't take it from someone on the internet. Neither will I argue a point with someone that seems to have a lot more experience in law than me.
     

    leadslinger972

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 1, 2017
    983
    16
    St Tammany
    This. Always blows my mind how people who are so picky about their right to be armed look for ways to violate someone’s right to not have weapons on their property. Just find somewhere else to do business.

    I always love these discussions. People looking for a definitive answer when there really wouldn’t be one until tried in court. Want the answer? Go get yourself in trouble and bring it to court and see what the outcome is. Help Cajunlawyer put another one through college.

    The law is pretty cut and dry. Not much to interpret there.

    It's not cut and dry if the only answer would be understood after a court case...

    Either way, I do agree. I respect a property owners right to dislike guns. I shop elsewhere. The only time I'd be concerned is the first time I walked into a whole foods. I didn't see a sign, because it was obscured behind another sign when I was walking into the store.
     

    herohog

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 28, 2009
    2,370
    36
    Shreveport, LA
    Anyone else notice that the law specifically refers to CONCEALED weapons with/or a CHP? However, from a conversation with New Orleans lawyer, Owen Courreges on the "Parades" issue:

    Speedy: I realize I'm picking nits but law/lawyers, that's what ya do, right? "N. No concealed handgun may be carried into and no concealed handgun permit issuedpursuant to this Section shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry a concealed handgun *IN* any of the following: (9) A parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a governmental entity."


    What constitutes being *IN* a parade Owen?


    Owen Courreges: Hmmm... You have something there. The most natural reading of being "in" a parade is actually participating, not merely attending. That said, I suspect a judge would throw the rule of lenity out the window if the issue actually came in front of them and find the accused guilty.


    Just look at how the courts have handled the new gun rights amendment. I think it pretty clearly guaranteed constitutional carry by omitting language that allowed restrictions on concealment and also adding language subjecting all gun restrictions to strict scrutiny, but thus far the courts have basically ignored those facts and argued that everyone simply intended to preserve all existing gun laws (a preposterous notion not supported by the text). Judges don't like radical outcomes.


    So while you're correct legally, I doubt it would pan out that way in practice. Basically, the one major decision on the issue decided that the people of Louisiana basically superimposed "new" before "restriction," so that all traditional restrictions were basically grandfathered in. They essentially just amended the text arbitrarily. It's a very frustrating decision.
     
    Last edited:

    Fred_G

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 5, 2013
    1,680
    48
    West Monroe
    Well, my legal experience only goes back to 1999, but... Wait, I was the defendant.

    It would be nice to have a standard, like a speed limit sign, so we would know who does not allow and who does not care. I have no desire to carry in a place that does not allow it, and certainly don't want to get into legal problems if I don't see a sign at the door that is blocked. I would love a nice noticeable sign that does not allow guns, then I can shop elsewhere.
     

    dantheman

    I despise ARFCOM
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    65   0   0
    Jan 9, 2008
    7,439
    113
    City of Central
    This has to be one of the most controversial topics ever . Yes , it would be nice if the law was more specific or there was a test case to clarify what is existing . Until then , I'm going to carry wherever I want to and not push the issue . Concealed means concealed to me and unless all hell breaks loose , nobody will have a clue I'm packing . And please don't lecture me on my choices , I'm way too old to put up with that . :fawk:
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,218
    Messages
    1,546,026
    Members
    29,168
    Latest member
    Lyle.lejeune2017
    Top Bottom