Do signs have the force of law?

[JoeLiberty]

I'll quote that to save people trouble:

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.

Where does that state that it is ILLEGAL to ignore those signs or NOT get consent?

Also, just a heads up: Only laws that are state statutes are laws.

^

^That's not entirely correct. There is the statutory law but there is also case law and precedent. The LA Supreme Court also sets the law and informs how the lower courts will decide cases. Not that I know of any case law about this... just in general. Don't think the letter of the law tells you everything.

I also happen to disagree with your earlier interpretation of the 2nd part of O.
"No individual... may carry into a private residence... without... consent"
It echoes the beginning of N: "No concealed handgun may be carried... in any of the following"

If you don't get consent, you would be in violation of subsection "O". But, that only seems to apply to private residences.
Now for some reason it doesn't say anything like that for businesses, so that part I believe you guys have right.

 

[JoeLiberty]

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...

I kinda wish you had not done that. Didn't you learn anything when people started getting certain opinions from the ATF?
Right now the common interpretation among carriers, trainers and even police is that 'No, they don't'.
If he has a different opinion, that could cause a problem where the police start interpreting it differently well before anyone else.

 

[AustinBR]

^

^That's not entirely correct. There is the statutory law but there is also case law and precedent. The LA Supreme Court also sets the law and informs how the lower courts will decide cases. Not that I know of any case law about this... just in general. Don't think the letter of the law tells you everything.

I also happen to disagree with your earlier interpretation of the 2nd part of O.
"No individual... may carry into a private residence... without... consent"
It echoes the beginning of N: "No concealed handgun may be carried... in any of the following"

If you don't get consent, you would be in violation of subsection "O". But, that only seems to apply to private residences.
Now for some reason, it doesn't say anything like that for businesses, so that part I believe you guys have right.

True, but from my understanding, there is no case law about this specific subject. I sure would love to see some if it exists. There also isn't too much legal precedent to follow either. It's definitely a grey area, so in that case, I am relying solely on the statutory law which is a little less grey. The current wording mentions nothing about a law requiring someone carrying concealed to follow signs on doors.

My point about consent was specifically aimed at businesses. I won't disagree that concent needs to be had when entering a private residence.

 

[AustinBR]

I kinda wish you had not done that. Didn't you learn anything when people started getting certain opinions from the ATF?
Right now the common interpretation among carriers, trainers and even police is that 'No, they don't'.
If he has a different opinion, that could cause a problem where the police start interpreting it differently well before anyone else.

If his opinion is that the signs carry no weight, it would be a good thing though.

Also, if interpreted that the signs carry weight, it could start a chain of events to getting a law passed where they do not hold weight.

Ultimately, concealed should mean concealed and no one should ever know.

 

[nolaradio]

I kinda wish you had not done that. Didn't you learn anything when people started getting certain opinions from the ATF?
Right now the common interpretation among carriers, trainers and even police is that 'No, they don't'.
If he has a different opinion, that could cause a problem where the police start interpreting it differently well before anyone else.

Well I did not see you volunteering to be a test subject in the criminal case against yourself. And honestly I really don't care what you wish I had done or not done.

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

 

[JoeLiberty]

If his opinion is that the signs carry no weight, it would be a good thing though.

Also, if interpreted that the signs carry weight, it could start a chain of events to getting a law passed where they do not hold weight.

Ultimately, concealed should mean concealed and no one should ever know.

True. But...
If everything is fine right now (i'd argue it is, since no one can show me proof it's ever been a problem), and we can either take that and leave it alone or we have the option to flip a coin... after which there's a 50% chance everything is still fine and 50% of a legal SNAFU... it's probably best not to flip the coin.
Game theory. 99% chance we are fine, vs a 50% chance. You pick the 99% chance every time.

Every other carrier here was fine with running the risk of being a test case...
But nolaradio don't care.

 

[AustinBR]

True. But...
If everything is fine right now (i'd argue it is, since no one can show me proof it's ever been a problem), and we can either take that and leave it alone or we have the option to flip a coin... after which there's a 50% chance everything is still fine and 50% of a legal SNAFU... it's probably best not to flip the coin.
Game theory. 99% chance we are fine, vs a 50% chance. You pick the 99% chance every time.

Every other carrier here was fine with running the risk of being a test case...
But nolaradio don't care.

I'm not sure that is the correct application of game theory. In this case, it is much more likely that the AG will issue an opinion agreeing with the majority. The way the law reads would be difficult to interpret differently.

Regardless, I still doubt that nolaradio's person will actually ask the AG for an opinion. I further doubt that the AG will issue an opinion if formally asked.

 

[leadslinger972]

True. But...
If everything is fine right now (i'd argue it is, since no one can show me proof it's ever been a problem), and we can either take that and leave it alone or we have the option to flip a coin... after which there's a 50% chance everything is still fine and 50% of a legal SNAFU... it's probably best not to flip the coin.
Game theory. 99% chance we are fine, vs a 50% chance. You pick the 99% chance every time.

Every other carrier here was fine with running the risk of being a test case...
But nolaradio don't care.

It's best for each individual to do as they please.

For you to say he shouldn't have done it, is mighty liberal of you.

 

[nolaradio]

I'm not sure that is the correct application of game theory. In this case, it is much more likely that the AG will issue an opinion agreeing with the majority. The way the law reads would be difficult to interpret differently.

Regardless, I still doubt that nolaradio's person will actually ask the AG for an opinion. I further doubt that the AG will issue an opinion if formally asked.

Here's the response I received this evening:

“As a councilman I cannot directly ask for an opinion from the AG, it has to be by vote of the 'body'. I've copied one of our legal staff via this email so he can opine.”

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

 

[Deerslayer440]

In other words ,,of all council so called men ,,they passed the buck...

 

[nolaradio]

I don't see it as passing the buck. From what I read on the AG website, he's correct about needing the board to ask the AG for an opinion.

I think the council will have to approve a motion to request the AG's opinion. I'm hoping to convince him to make that motion.

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

 

[JBP55]

I don't see it as passing the buck. From what I read on the AG website, he's correct about needing the board to ask the AG for an opinion.

I think the council will have to approve a motion to request the AG's opinion. I'm hoping to convince him to make that motion.

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

Correct.

 

[charlie12]

And when it comes up to the full council I could see everybody jumping on the band wagon with all the anti crap going on. And pushing for a law saying just stick a sign up and make them all criminals

 

[dantheman]

And when it comes up to the full council I could see everybody jumping on the band wagon with all the anti crap going on. And pushing for a law saying just stick a sign up and make them all criminals

Well , damn . Stranger things have happened .

 

[JoeLiberty]

I'm not sure that is the correct application of game theory. In this case, it is much more likely that the AG will issue an opinion agreeing with the majority. The way the law reads would be difficult to interpret differently.

Regardless, I still doubt that nolaradio's person will actually ask the AG for an opinion. I further doubt that the AG will issue an opinion if formally asked.

Disagree with the odds if you want. What do you think the odds are that he agrees with us? 75%? 90%?
Fact is there is not a single documented case of this being a problem to anyone. (Blue Diamond notwithstanding) So if the odds of a different opinion are even remotely imaginable, it is the wrong call.

I don't think that it is that hard to interpret differently. Especially given what Gary just told us about the trespassing law. You can forbid someone to enter your property with a sign. https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2011/rs/title14/rs14-63-3/. If they go on your property anyway, it's a misdemeanor. Yall didn't read that? The only question is "Can they single out who can and cannot enter?"

Combine that with the fact there's nothing in the law to limit a property owners right to prohibit carriers. Things are politically charged right now. Maybe Jeff is extra sensitive to these high school kids in protest. Nothing is impossible in politics. Just please don't poke the bear.

But hey, I'm just a big dumb dummy. What do I know? Have at it. Nolaradio, make sure you point out that trespassing law to your guy as well. You want to really maximize the chances of "fixing" this for us. Cool stuff.

 

[leadslinger972]

Disagree with the odds if you want. What do you think the odds are that he agrees with us? 75%? 90%?
Fact is there is not a single documented case of this being a problem to anyone. (Blue Diamond notwithstanding) So if the odds of a different opinion are even remotely imaginable, it is the wrong call.

I don't think that it is that hard to interpret differently. Especially given what Gary just told us about the trespassing law. You can forbid someone to enter your property with a sign. https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2011/rs/title14/rs14-63-3/. If they go on your property anyway, it's a misdemeanor. Yall didn't read that? The only question is "Can they single out who can and cannot enter?"

Combine that with the fact there's nothing in the law to limit a property owners right to prohibit carriers. Things are politically charged right now. Maybe Jeff is extra sensitive to these high school kids in protest. Nothing is impossible in politics. Just please don't poke the bear.

But hey, I'm just a big dumb dummy. What do I know? Have at it. Nolaradio, make sure you point out that trespassing law to your guy as well. You want to really maximize the chances of "fixing" this for us. Cool stuff.

What's your favorite brand of aluminum foil?

Don't chastise the guy for seeking education on the law.

 

[Sbougon]

I wear reading glasses and when I'm walking around I don't wear them.

Concealed means concealed. If properly executed, no one in the store would even know you're carrying.

 

[herohog]

Also please note that the law, as written, only refers to LICENSED CHP holders. Technically it wouldn't prevent legal open carry. See this discussion between me and New Orleans lawyer Owen Courreges regarding this same wording on concealed carry "In" a parade:

http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2011/rs/title14/rs14-95-2-1/LA Rev Stat § 14:95.2.1 §95.2.1. "Illegal carrying of a firearm at a parade with any firearm used in the commission of a crime of violence"


Speedy: My personal issue: as a layperson, I would think a good lawyer would have a field day with this seeing as open carry is NOT "illegal carry" and concealed carry with a permit is also legal and also that you are do not possess "any firearm used in the commission of a crime of violence," one should be able to fight this.


Owen Courreges: It's a minor exception. The offense already requires that the person also use the gun during a crime of violence, and how many would-be criminals would open carry to a parade to commit a crime of violence? They'd be seen and stopped very quickly. With respect to concealed carry, there's a separate law saying you can't carry concealed at a parade even with a CHL, I believe.


Speedy: Now, you could also open carry at a parade without committing a crime of violence... The law doesn't seem to cover that, at least not here... But it's just not a great idea and thus I've never heard of anybody doing it (retention issues, difficulty of using a firearm defensively in crowds, you'll probably want to drink because parades are boring without alcohol, etc.).


Owen Courreges: Yeah, it's La. R.S. 40:1379.3(N)(9) that says CHL holders can't legally carry at a parade.


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 issued
pursuant 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.

 

[leadslinger972]

Also please note that the law, as written, only refers to LICENSED CHP holders. Technically it wouldn't prevent legal open carry. See this discussion between me and New Orleans lawyer Owen Courreges regarding this same wording on concealed carry "In" a parade:

Legally, the signs do not do anything other than promote the ideology of the business owner.

If you're open carrying, you will most likely be told you are not allowed to do so, at which point you will be asked to leave.

 

[Bayou Boys]

Speaking of the Jr Food mart in Abita Spring that sign is why they have been robbed half a dozen times or so. A friend of mine's son worked there for 2 weeks and was robbed. Now if I were a robber where would I think my best chance of not being shot during the robbery? Darn I could do it there they have a no gun sign in the window. Smart real Smart