Do signs have the force of law?

[Gary Slider]

1996 is when LA became Shall Issue. They were May Issue before that. Their preemption law states that no laws after 7/1985 can cover firearms etc etc so my guess would be 1985 they started issuing permits on a May Issue Basis.

We also now have the trespass law. In most states the trespass law usually covers places not open to the public like land or someone barn or gate to their driveway. But here it is and would like so feedback on this also. The beginning wording is a little different from most Trespass laws as this states Places or Lands.
Link to Statute below http://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78591

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.

 

[Gary Slider]

(Edit : The Reddit post was about 1 year ago.)
Looking everywhere and found this on Reddit. I am not a member and I can't put a name with this attorney or even check to see if he is an attorney. I checked out some of his previous posts and he seems legit but everyone knows how that is. Here his take on the No Gun Signs in Louisiana.

I wish the law was clearer, but unfortunately it is not.

The concealed handgun statute says: "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." (Note, this is a misdemeanor in Louisiana).

It then lists the prohibited locations.

After that, it says: "The provisions of Subsection N of this Section (the list of prohibited locations) 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."

So the question becomes this: does the section allowing property owners, etc. to prohibit carry on their premises mean that those premises are prohibited locations for the purpose of criminal penalty under this statute, and if so, what are the notice requirements?

I wish I knew. I'm an attorney, and I am also about to start teaching the CCW course. I've looked at every case that mentions the concealed handgun statute, and none of them have ever really interpreted what the language means. The main reason for this is that CCW permit holders just don't get in trouble very often. Someone would have to get caught and prosecuted for this, and then that would have to get appealed, before we would have any case law to really clarify anything. Even if people have been caught and prosecuted under this particular provision, there is no way to know the outcome short of an appeal without having firsthand knowledge of it. And even so, short of an appellate decision, the decision of one trial judge wouldn't be binding on another.

So what it comes down to is this: If you carry into a place that is clearly marked as "no guns," it is either a violation of the concealed handgun statute itself, or (most likely) a violation of LA R.S. 14:63.3 (remaining after forbidden). Both crimes have the same penalty, anyway. Further, 63.3 explains that if it is a sign forbidding entry into a place, the sign requirement "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."

If I had to take a guess, I would feel fairly confident that the sign requirement for concealed handguns would be the same as 63.3. The language of the CHP statute talking about the rights of property owners to forbid you from carrying a gun seems like this is what they had in mind, as this would normally be the vehicle for prohibiting people from going a place under other circumstances.

However, I don't know that for sure. That's the argument that I would make in court, though.

I think the website alone would probably not be enough for you to be prosecuted. However, if someone told you "you can't carry a gun here," you'd still have to leave, or if you did see any signs at any point while there, you'd probably still have leave. However, if there was an inconspicuous sign, you'd probably have a pretty good argument if you can honestly say you didn't see the sign.

But don't take my word for it. This is my disclaimer that I'm not sure, and I'm not giving you legal advice, just "stranger on the internet" advice.

I'm going to keep trying to get to the bottom of this. My next step is to read the legislative history of the concealed handgun statute. There could be a clue in there. It would not be the first time. You kind of have to read the revision history to really understand the nuance of the "school zone" restrictions, too.

If there is no answer there, I suppose I could maybe go to the state archives and even try and find transcripts of the debate over the statute itself or something, but I don't think I'm going to do that, and even if I did, that's not really a binding rule of law so much as just somewhat helpful.

 

[GunAddict]

Gary, I have a question about a portion of the language in question. The statement, 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."
Can this be clarified further as to the meaning. A business like a 7-11 is definitely not a private residence. To me that means where some one lives or their home. Just curious.
Also still curious as to how he was caught if his gun was concealed when he had a permit to carry concealed.

 

[leadslinger972]

Gary, I have a question about a portion of the language in question. The statement, 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."
Can this be clarified further as to the meaning. A business like a 7-11 is definitely not a private residence. To me that means where some one lives or their home. Just curious.
Also still curious as to how he was caught if his gun was concealed when he had a permit to carry concealed.

A private residence is an individual's privately owned dwelling.

 

[GunAddict]

Yes, I am fully aware of that. That is not the basis of the question. It is that it is worded in with the rest of the paragraph like it is the intention of the meaning of the fist part.
"The provisions of Subsection N of this Section (the list of prohibited locations) 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."

Why did they word it together. It is two separate locations being talked about isn't it?

 

[leadslinger972]

Yes, I am fully aware of that. That is not the basis of the question. It is that it is worded in with the rest of the paragraph like it is the intention of the meaning of the fist part.
"The provisions of Subsection N of this Section (the list of prohibited locations) 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."

Why did they word it together. It is two separate locations being talked about isn't it?

Yes, two separate locations.

As far as why they are worded together, I have no clue, but Louisiana statutes are often written like that.

 

[GunAddict]

Very poorly written as far as I see. As they have quotation marks at the beginning and at the end after both is stated leading a non lawyer to see it as both tied together. As in like some bars in New Orleans the owner or lease holder, etc live upstairs or downstairs making it their residence, but most 7-11's don't have anyone living in the building. Maybe that explains my thought a little better.
Not trying to drag this out, but it does need to be written more plainly.

 

[LACamper]

Um, getting back to the original post... why do you want to go into a store with a sign anyway????

I do remember the circle K posts. I still avoid circle K! I had contacted the district manager for the NO area about the signs and complained. He said he'd been trying to get permission to remove the signs from the corporate office. He was a pretty cool guy and was a gun owner, if not a shooter from Slidell. Corporate still has their head in their nether regions though...

 

[thperez1972]

I am not really sure. There was a bunch of numbers and it was closer to 30 years and I don't have the minutes of the court to prove to you. So I guess it really didn't happen. Signing off for the day. Let Austin conclude the OP and lets end this thread. Its been interesting. I'm sure it will pop up again sometime soon. It usually does.

Orleans Parish court minutes are public record. Go to http://opcso.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=738 and you will get to the Orleans Parish Criminal Court Docket Master Search page. I do not know how far back the online records go but I did some test searches for common names and found results as far back as 1988. That should refresh your memory.

 

[Gary Slider]

That is the big problem with the laws. One person says they say this and another this and another this. Look at the 2nd Amendment and the arguments over what it actually means. I wish it were simple. Some laws are written in simple language and there is no doubt what they mean. To many are not written that way. That is why we need all those appeals courts all the way up to SCOTUS!

 

[AustinBR]

Orleans Parish court minutes are public record. Go to http://opcso.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=738 and you will get to the Orleans Parish Criminal Court Docket Master Search page. I do not know how far back the online records go but I did some test searches for common names and found results as far back as 1988. That should refresh your memory.

5 dollars says he won't. Anyone wanna take the bet?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[charlie12]

Has anyone looked up when the state started CHP’s. I don’t think it was 30yrs ago. That might explain why he wAs arrested for carrying concealed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's what I was thinking when I read his 30 year deal I was in my first renewal class being taught by Gerald Clesi the night George Bush was elected in 2000

 

[charlie12]

I guess finding the no gun sign words in a La RS is about like finding the RS that says your car is a extension of your home.

 

[leadslinger972]

5 dollars says he won't. Anyone wanna take the bet?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

$5 says he gets butthurt for being called out on his BS.

For anyone now reading the thread, here is a summary:

1. Blue Diamond said we are all wrong and repeated a statute subsection that has been discuss ad nauseam.
2. He then claims he was arrested for carrying a concealed firearm, because of a posted no guns sign.
3. He says he can't remember when he was arrested.
4. He says he can't remember what he was charged with.
5. He should know what the arrest was, because it's required to list on CHP renewals.
6. He now won't respond to any replies.

I guess finding the no gun sign words in a La RS is about like finding the RS that says your car is a extension of your home.

My tricycle is an extension of my submarine.

 

[swampfoxx]

Here's one my instructor brought up:

"R.S. 40:1379.3 (N) states that no concealed handgun may be carried into and no concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this Section shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry a concealed handgun IN any of the following:

A law enforcement office, station, or building;

A detention facility, prison, or jail;

A courthouse or courtroom, provided that a judge may carry such a weapon in his own courtroom;

A polling place;

A meeting place of the governing authority of a political subdivision;

The state capitol building;

Any portion of an airport facility where the carrying of firearms is prohibited under federal law, except that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, if the firearm is encased for shipment, for the purpose of checking such firearm as lawful baggage;

Any church, synagogue, mosque or similar place of worship; See RS 40:1379.3 (U)

A parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a governmental entity;

Any portion of the permitted area of an establishment that has been granted a Class A-General retail permit, as defined in Part II of Chapter 1 or Part II of Chapter 2 of Title 26 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.

Any school "firearm free zone" as defined in R.S. 14:95.6."

He stated that based on the wording, you could likely make a case that carrying AT a parade was not the same as carrying IN a parade. Unfortunately, no one has challenged the wording as of yet.

 

[nolaradio]

I emailed my councilman this morning asking that he request an opinion from the Attorney General's office as to if signs have the force of law.

Now I wait...

 

[AustinBR]

I emailed my councilman this morning asking that he request an opinion from the Attorney General's office as to if signs have the force of law.

Now I wait...

Can't the AG decline to issue an opinion?

Austin

 

[nolaradio]

Can't the AG decline to issue an opinion?

Austin

I suppose he could.

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

 

[Deerslayer440]

Here's one my instructor brought up:

"R.S. 40:1379.3 (N) states that no concealed handgun may be carried into and no concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this Section shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry a concealed handgun IN any of the following:

A law enforcement office, station, or building;

A detention facility, prison, or jail;

A courthouse or courtroom, provided that a judge may carry such a weapon in his own courtroom;

A polling place;

A meeting place of the governing authority of a political subdivision;

The state capitol building;

Any portion of an airport facility where the carrying of firearms is prohibited under federal law, except that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, if the firearm is encased for shipment, for the purpose of checking such firearm as lawful baggage;

Any church, synagogue, mosque or similar place of worship; See RS 40:1379.3 (U)

A parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a governmental entity;

Any portion of the permitted area of an establishment that has been granted a Class A-General retail permit, as defined in Part II of Chapter 1 or Part II of Chapter 2 of Title 26 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.

Any school "firearm free zone" as defined in R.S. 14:95.6."

As stated above.That is what I would concentrate on more than all the rest of any law,book,etc..

If you were not suppose to carry in a biz that had a sign ,marked,no firearms.then it would list
that on that ext of the RS.

It would read as such.: No permit holder is to carry in a biz that hangs a sign or you have to
abide by any signs that are hung in front of any bizs,that are not listed on the above ext.

Thats what my attorney said he would be using in court ,if that happened.

 

[leadslinger972]

What are you typing on that makes your replies so jacked up?