Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/3/2006 5:54:02 AM EDT
I don't know if all are like that, but the one at Sawgrass Mills has a sign that says you can't carry on the premises even with a CC license. Just an FYI, in case anyone needs incentive to shop elsewhere...
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 6:14:30 AM EDT
Are they crazy??? In Miami? Now if you comply, the only one's in Sawgrass Mills with the firearms will be the one's without CCW to begin with. Maybe the signs come down after the first 5 or 6 tour-ons are mugged. Any what company owns them?
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 6:23:03 AM EDT

Now if you comply, the only one's in Sawgrass Mills with the firearms will be the one's without CCW to begin with.


no shit. it's not the CCW-holders they need to worry about...
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 6:45:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By snail50:
I don't know if all are like that, but the one at Sawgrass Mills has a sign that says you can't carry on the premises even with a CC license. Just an FYI, in case anyone needs incentive to shop elsewhere...



Brandsmart and my firearms are on a need-to-know basis.

So far, they don't need to know.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 11:51:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4:

Originally Posted By snail50:
I don't know if all are like that, but the one at Sawgrass Mills has a sign that says you can't carry on the premises even with a CC license. Just an FYI, in case anyone needs incentive to shop elsewhere...



Brandsmart and my firearms are on a need-to-know basis.

So far, they don't need to know.



that's pretty much my policy too. if i'm going somewhere where my guns are not welcome, i carry my little kel tec instead of the big beretta, but i dont go unarmed
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 1:12:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4:

Brandsmart and my firearms are on a need-to-know basis.

So far, they don't need to know.




Gun???....What Gun?
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 1:20:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2006 1:22:55 PM EDT by Aim4MyHead]
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:08:48 PM EDT
AMEN


Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
You guys might want to rethink your " need to know policy" if for whatever reason someone was to spot your firearm even for a second you could be charged with armed trespassing which is a 3rd degree felony ( F.S. 810.09 ). Kiss your firearm rights goodbye. It's better to just avoid those places and why in the hell would you want to support those who do not support you ?

J

Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:44:20 PM EDT
well i'm not fond of waiting in an enormously long line to pay for something, then fight another line to pick up what I paid for......never been fond of that place, but everyone else I know seems to like it.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:32:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 3:31:02 PM EDT by jenn70]

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
You guys might want to rethink your " need to know policy" if for whatever reason someone was to spot your firearm even for a second you could be charged with armed trespassing which is a 3rd degree felony ( F.S. 810.09 ). Kiss your firearm rights goodbye. It's better to just avoid those places and why in the hell would you want to support those who do not support you ?

J



Exactly, why risk losing your rights in the name of supporting people/companies that don't support them. Your money is better spent elsewhere.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 4:17:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
You guys might want to rethink your " need to know policy" if for whatever reason someone was to spot your firearm even for a second you could be charged with armed trespassing which is a 3rd degree felony ( F.S. 810.09 ). Kiss your firearm rights goodbye. It's better to just avoid those places and why in the hell would you want to support those who do not support you ?

J



4 SURE!
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 4:31:27 PM EDT
I saw the same sign at the South Dade FedEx drop off center. No Pistolas.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 5:15:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
You guys might want to rethink your " need to know policy" if for whatever reason someone was to spot your firearm even for a second you could be charged with armed trespassing which is a 3rd degree felony ( F.S. 810.09 ). Kiss your firearm rights goodbye. It's better to just avoid those places and why in the hell would you want to support those who do not support you ?

J



My sentiments exactly. $ is better spent elsewhere. Besides, Brandsmart is a PITA to shop at, with their ridiculous pay here/pick up there policy.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 7:21:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
You guys might want to rethink your " need to know policy" if for whatever reason someone was to spot your firearm even for a second you could be charged with armed trespassing which is a 3rd degree felony ( F.S. 810.09 ). Kiss your firearm rights goodbye. It's better to just avoid those places and why in the hell would you want to support those who do not support you ?

J



OK, you're probably right, my comments were a knee-jerk reaction. After all, I've been called a bigger jerk before. It just burns me that we are some of the most responsible people around. Exactly who you would want to be armed, alert and vigilant in the event that a disgruntled employee, customer, wacko, crazy, sociopath, dirtbag decides to start blasting upstanding citizens because they feel somehow slighted.

I'm no legal scholar, but I don't know if the posting of the sign automatically makes it a criminal tresspass. Perhaps if you refuse to leave after they identify that you are packing and ask you nicely to vacate the prem, but then again, I don't want to be the test case either.

Guess Best Buy will be getting my bucks in the future, that is until they too decide on the same policy.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 8:01:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
You guys might want to rethink your " need to know policy" if for whatever reason someone was to spot your firearm even for a second you could be charged with armed trespassing which is a 3rd degree felony ( F.S. 810.09 ). Kiss your firearm rights goodbye. It's better to just avoid those places and why in the hell would you want to support those who do not support you ?

J



Um, you'll only be charged with armed trespass if you refuse to leave.

In Florida, unless it's against 790.06 you can carry on the premesis. The owner cannot do anything except ask you to leave. If you comply, nothing will happen. If you refuse, THEN you get the arrest.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 6:01:41 AM EDT
As is my usual policy, if that establishment gets held up and, even if the perps start hacking up employees, I'll have my hands in my pockets and ease away. I would not lift a finger for anyone associated with such an establishment. Bother my wife or myself - I'll drop someone in an instant. Anyone else, especially one who clearly believes I have no right of defense, gets none from me.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:26:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 10:27:12 AM EDT by Chimpy]
Well, I look at it like this:

If it isn't a place prohibited by law... fuck em right?

That's the point of carrying concealed right?

Take my thought for what it's worth, I don't have a CCW yet
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 2:15:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 2:16:09 PM EDT by Aim4MyHead]
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 2:38:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
you can argue 810.09 all you want. You have to be " warned" prior to the arrest. The property owner can argue the sign was a warning. It is better to just avoid that entire situation altogether. I teach 20-30 people a week. i'm not just speaking out of my ass. I will tell you this you may beat the rap but you will NOT beat the ride. LEOs do not have to understand the laws completely. That is for the DA's office to sort through. Feel free to disagree.

J



Um, teaching 3 or 30 a week doesn't mean what you say is correct.

Per Gutmacher (attorney):

"My personal opinion is that your going into such a store or shopping mall is not tresspass just because they post a sign saying "no firearms" because you are still an "invitee", and they still want your business -- just without the weapon."

"On the other hand... if asked to leave, and you refused, or started to argue with them -- that would be another story, and you'd be in serious trouble because they've now made it clear they want you off the property, and the law says you have a reasonable time to leave -- not to argue or have a debate with them."

"Since the offense of trespass by an invitee would require a warning and a refusal to depart my opinion is that you can't legally "refuse" until someone asks you to leave."
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 4:48:11 PM EDT
simply refusing to patronize such businesses makes the whole trespass/no trespass issue moot.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 5:00:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By snail50:
simply refusing to patronize such businesses makes the whole trespass/no trespass issue moot.




This is true. However, the sign does not constitute an initial warning. The sign means nothing. It is in no way recognized in the statute.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 6:34:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 3:32:04 PM EDT by jenn70]

Originally Posted By kissfan:

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
you can argue 810.09 all you want. You have to be " warned" prior to the arrest. The property owner can argue the sign was a warning. It is better to just avoid that entire situation altogether. I teach 20-30 people a week. i'm not just speaking out of my ass. I will tell you this you may beat the rap but you will NOT beat the ride. LEOs do not have to understand the laws completely. That is for the DA's office to sort through. Feel free to disagree.

J



Um, teaching 3 or 30 a week doesn't mean what you say is correct.

Per Gutmacher (attorney):

"My personal opinion is that your going into such a store or shopping mall is not tresspass just because they post a sign saying "no firearms" because you are still an "invitee", and they still want your business -- just without the weapon."

"On the other hand... if asked to leave, and you refused, or started to argue with them -- that would be another story, and you'd be in serious trouble because they've now made it clear they want you off the property, and the law says you have a reasonable time to leave -- not to argue or have a debate with them."

"Since the offense of trespass by an invitee would require a warning and a refusal to depart my opinion is that you can't legally "refuse" until someone asks you to leave."



.....I object to your tone, your ability to read a book and regurgitate incomplete quotes does little more than illustrate your need to feel correct. Let's put this into context. You carry into a place whith a "NO WEAPONS" sign. By freak chance your gun prints through your shirt, a vendor who has disallowed you to carry on premisis sees it. Do you realistically think that he will assume you have a CCW and approach you and simply ask you to leave? OR Will he call the police and say "there is a man in my store with a gun"...police get a "man with a gun" call with no other information they converge on the place you get taken down at gun point, handcuffed your weapon is removed from you.......... at what point in that scenerio do you intend to spew an attorney's interpretation of the law? As stated by Aim4myhead...you may beat the rap, you won't avoid the ride. And just think, all you intended to do was patronize the vendor that had you thrown to your face for carrying a firearm. Rhetoric has little place in reality choose wisely.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 6:56:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 6:59:54 PM EDT by kissfan]

Originally Posted By jenn70:
.....I object to your tone, your ability to read a book and regergitate incomplete quotes does little more than illustrate your need to feel correct. Let's put this into context. You carry into a place whith a "NO WEAPONS" sign. By freak chance your gun prints through your shirt, a vendor who has disallowed you to carry on premisis sees it. Do you realistically think that he will assume you have a CCW and approach you and simply ask you to leave? OR Will he call the police and say "there is a man in my store with a gun"...police get a "man with a gun" call with no other information they converge on the place you get taken down at gun point, handcuffed your weapon is removed from you.......... at what point in that scenerio do you intend to spew an attorney's interpretation of the law? As stated by Aim4myhead...you may beat the rap, you won't avoid the ride. And just think, all you intended to do was patronize the vendor that had you thrown to your face for carrying a firearm. Rhetoric has little place in reality choose wisely.



You can object to my tone all you want, but I also have the background to back it up.

Besides instruction for years, I have been carrying in Florida since 1988. I have also attended several legal workshops over the years and I work with many LEOs, legislators and State Attorneys on occasion.

I have asked this question of them and have gotten the response that I quoted.

You can believe what you choose.

As for "taking the ride," that's not an issue for me. Cities have deep pockets. False arrest (an officer knowingly arresting you after being told the valid law) pays very well.

Do what you want, it's no skin off my nose.

ETA: If you print you're going to have the same LEO issue regardless of a "NO WEAPONS" sign. The issue was armed trespass, not whether you will have issue if/when you print. http://www.toefl.org
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 9:00:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 9:01:55 PM EDT by matt7184]
"ETA: If you print you're going to have the same LEO issue regardless of a "NO WEAPONS" sign. "

Exactly. Once things are sorted out and your CWP is valid, they will allow you to go on your way. If the owner requests you leave the property then you must leave in a reasonable amount of time (usually time it takes to walk to front door).

I hate to get in on this as I can see it may get ugly quick, but KISSFAN is right on the money. You may disagree, however from what he has stated falls in line with what I know (that may not be saying much though )

ETA: http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/index.shtml
Good book to have as many LEOs reference it for firearms law as well.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 4:25:30 AM EDT
KissFan is on this like Ike on Tina, I would agree with his statements 100% and I've given a CCW class or two also. Been carrying for 10 years and try and make it my business to stay on top of this stuff.

and thats all I have to say about that.

Link Posted: 4/5/2006 7:56:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By matt7184:
"ETA: If you print you're going to have the same LEO issue regardless of a "NO WEAPONS" sign. "

Exactly. Once things are sorted out and your CWP is valid, they will allow you to go on your way. If the owner requests you leave the property then you must leave in a reasonable amount of time (usually time it takes to walk to front door).

I hate to get in on this as I can see it may get ugly quick, but KISSFAN is right on the money. You may disagree, however from what he has stated falls in line with what I know (that may not be saying much though )

ETA: http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/index.shtml
Good book to have as many LEOs reference it for firearms law as well.



My intention was no to get into the ugly, I have no credentials to back up what is nothing more than my "common sence perception". 1) Why give money to a vendor who disallows law abiding people to carry on their premisis 2) Why risk it. That is the vibe I got from Aim's post, agreed and perhaps was a bit defensive about what I saw as a scolding, sarcastic tone in KissFan's reply. As a realitively recent CCW holder, I tend to still see perspective of those who don't carry, know nothing of the law and our rights and I assume they will act in sheeple fashion with us at the crap end of the stick, even if it amounts to little more than an inconvienece on our part.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 10:04:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jenn70:
My intention was no to get into the ugly, I have no credentials to back up what is nothing more than my "common sence perception". 1) Why give money to a vendor who disallows law abiding people to carry on their premisis 2) Why risk it. That is the vibe I got from Aim's post, agreed and perhaps was a bit defensive about what I saw as a scolding, sarcastic tone in KissFan's reply. As a realitively recent CCW holder, I tend to still see perspective of those who don't carry, know nothing of the law and our rights and I assume they will act in sheeple fashion with us at the crap end of the stick, even if it amounts to little more than an inconvienece on our part.



Understood. And my tone was not to be scolding, but educational.

There are a LOT of people that try and read into the laws of Florida, and are not correct in their interpretation.

I have been carrying and studying CCW laws in Florida for almost 20 years. I'm also a Florida reference on the packing.org site to assist with questions and other Florida matters.

There are way too many "I heards" or "someone told me" out there that WILL get you in trouble.

One example: "There is a 2-move rule to carry in a car."
That comes up all the time and is false. It started with LEOs decades ago and continues today. The law states your firearm (non-concealed) must be "securely encased" when in the car. LEOs used to think it meant: 1) gun in glove box 2) ammo somewhere else. In actuality it means that it must be in a secure environment:

(17) "Securely encased" means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:55:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 11:56:25 AM EDT by matt7184]


One example: "There is a 2-move rule to carry in a car."
That comes up all the time and is false. It started with LEOs decades ago and continues today. The law states your firearm (non-concealed) must be "securely encased" when in the car. LEOs used to think it meant: 1) gun in glove box 2) ammo somewhere else. In actuality it means that it must be in a secure environment:



I've heard this as the two and three step rule. As you and the Attorney General has stated this "rule" does not exist. However it is still taught to LEOs today even though it is incorrect.

I would also like to note that those acting in a "normal" reasonable fashion and end up printing or with their concealed carry weapon exposed, most people will not notice. I've had lunch with friends in LE and even had a fugitive task force eat where we were. Not one person even noticed I was carrying nor did I disclose it (nor was I legally bound to since they did not ask). Even if people notice, from what I've seen the people think you are an undercover cop. As someone that is new to concealed carry it will take time to get comfortable with it and not worry about printing or being "caught". I personally wouldn't even think about calling the police unless I saw someone acting suspiscious witha firearm.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 1:22:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 1:37:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
All of that experience and the best you can do is regurgitate Gutmacher's book and not even in it's entirety. You need to keep in mind that is nothing but, interpretation by a defense attonery who would be arguing this in your defense during your trial.
I can't believe i wasted all that time becoming certified to teach when i could of just spent $26.95 on a book.

J




Do what you wish, teach how you wish. Be sure you have a HUGE disclaimer in your syllabus... you'll need it.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:36:53 PM EDT
Just remember that the law and the responding officers understanding of the law may differ. The officer has substantial discretion in what action to take. At the academy I heard at least 5 different opinions on citizen with guns in the car (ie, what was legal). And some people aren't interested in a wrongful arrest legal fight even if they win. Moral: know the law and be careful and discrete even though you are acting within the law.

In the Brandsmart situation: carry away but leave if asked. Or boycott the store (write or call the manager to let them know why).
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 4:03:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kissfan:

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
All of that experience and the best you can do is regurgitate Gutmacher's book and not even in it's entirety. You need to keep in mind that is nothing but, interpretation by a defense attonery who would be arguing this in your defense during your trial.
I can't believe i wasted all that time becoming certified to teach when i could of just spent $26.95 on a book.

J




Do what you wish, teach how you wish. Be sure you have a HUGE disclaimer in your syllabus... you'll need it.



DISCLAIMER FOR AIM4MYHEAD'S CCW CLASS:

PLEASE BE ADVISED YOU WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 4:24:54 PM EDT
how's 'bout a group hug?
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 5:06:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 5:10:49 PM EDT by AZATHOTH777]
from the{a1} miami-dade fla law enforcement handbook ( of which most l.e.o.'s carry)[law book]
and gould's{b2} fla criminal law and motor vehicle handbook (also what most l.e.o. carry) [law book]

SS810.09 (1) As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as describer in SS810.011 ............................... in both {a1} and {b2}.........................

now that's out of the way.......

SS810.08 (c) if the offender is armed with a firearm or other weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a FELONY of the third degree, punishable as provided in SS775.082, SS775.083, or SS775.084............... in both {a1} and {b2}..............

NOW DO YOU REALLY THINK YOUR NOT GOING TO F*** YOURSELF BY DOING IT.!!!!!.
your ccw will not get you out of trouble (it might actually make it worse for you, you should have known better)

in lieu of quoting a person's interpretation (who ever it is!) just look up the LAW!!!!! ("well this person said i could do it" is NOT an excuse for stupidity, that excuse has been used before [by 5year olds]).......


tyrant over

p.s: i read stuff all the time, it doesn't mean i can fly my X-wing into a death star... be selective..
ALSO Ive worked with rock stars and geniuses doesnt mean i know how to play an instrument or am smart
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 6:25:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 6:42:47 PM EDT by Hawkeye]
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 6:27:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 6:42:29 PM EDT by matt7184]

Originally Posted By AZATHOTH777:

SS810.09 (1) As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as describer in SS810.011 ............................... in both {a1} and {b2}.........................

now that's out of the way.......




Seems to me that the posted land, cultivated land, or fenced land does not apply in this situation as it seems likely to me they are referring to pieces of undeveloped/farm land FWIW.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0810/Sec011.HTM

810.011 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:

(5)(a) "Posted land" is that land upon which signs are placed not more than 500 feet apart along, and at each corner of, the boundaries of the land, upon which signs there appears prominently, in letters of not less than 2 inches in height, the words "no trespassing" and in addition thereto the name of the owner, lessee, or occupant of said land. Said signs shall be placed along the boundary line of posted land in a manner and in such position as to be clearly noticeable from outside the boundary line.

(b) It shall not be necessary to give notice by posting on any enclosed land or place not exceeding 5 acres in area on which there is a dwelling house in order to obtain the benefits of ss. 810.09 and 810.12 pertaining to trespass on enclosed lands.

(6) "Cultivated land" is that land which has been cleared of its natural vegetation and is presently planted with a crop, orchard, grove, pasture, or trees or is fallow land as part of a crop rotation.

(7) "Fenced land" is that land which has been enclosed by a fence of substantial construction, whether with rails, logs, post and railing, iron, steel, barbed wire, other wire, or other material, which stands at least 3 feet in height. For the purpose of this chapter, it shall not be necessary to fence any boundary or part of a boundary of any land which is formed by water.


ETA:

Places off-limits while carrying


790.06 (12) License to Carry Concealed Weapon or Firearm

* Any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05
* any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station;
* any detention facility, prison, or jail;
* any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;
* any polling place;
* any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
* any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
* any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
* any school administration building;
* any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
* any elementary or secondary school facility;
* any area vocational-technical center;
* any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
* inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or
* any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law

In addition, Section 790.11 prohibits firearms in National Forests except during hunting season. This does not apply to a firearm securely stored within a vehicle on a state road.

62-D-2.014 of the State Administrative Code: Allows State Parks to restrict the carrying of firearms in all Florida State Parks. Even those with a Valid License to Carry in Florida can not carry in Florida State Parks.

Florida Statute 823.05 defines a place of nuisance as a "place which tends to annoy the community or injure the health of the community...or any house or place of prostitution, assignation, lewdness or place or building where games of chance are engaged in violation of law or any place where any law of the state is violated."

That was from packing.org which is basically a straight copy of the actual statute from the state page. Restrictions also listed on FL Dept Ag/CS site
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/possession.html

--------------------------------------------
These are places off limit to CCW holders. This is the first time I have heard of instructors ever saying that these signs have any weight. The Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services Website only has the 790.06 under "Possession Restrictions".

I understand telling people to stay on the side of caution, however I disagree that what you say about the signs being prior warning. I personally would like to see the attorney general's opinion on this and have looked and it is not addressed from my search.

How about we curb some of the hostility down a notch also?
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 6:44:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 6:57:35 PM EDT by Hawkeye]
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 6:48:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AZATHOTH777:
p.s: i read stuff all the time, it doesn't mean i can fly my X-wing into a death star... be selective..
hr


You have an X-wing and you haven't shared? No love!

Sorry, just trying to lighten the tone here.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 6:57:57 AM EDT
First 810.09 as cited is for property other than structure or conveyance. 810.08 covers a structure.

So, let's break out a little logic here.

First, let's agree that the difference between trespass and armed trespass is the firearm, OK?

Now, let's determine trespass based on 810.08 - Trespass in structure or conveyance

(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.

Ok, break this up and process.

1) By being open to the public, you are "invited" into the store.
2) Unless you are warned by the owner to depart and refuse, you have not comitted the offense of trespass.
3) The same holds true whether or not you have a firearm.

That's the law. If invited in (open for public entry during business hours) you MUST be asked to leave and you MUST refuse in order to commit the offense. This is one of the few statutes written in simple, comprehensible english.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 2:54:05 PM EDT


you can argue 810.09 all you want. You have to be " warned" prior to the arrest. The property owner can argue the sign was a warning. It is better to just avoid that entire situation altogether. I teach 20-30 people a week. i'm not just speaking out of my ass. I will tell you this you may beat the rap but you will NOT beat the ride. LEOs do not have to understand the laws completely. That is for the DA's office to sort through. Feel free to disagree.




In order to be charged with trespass, you have to be ASKED to leave and refuse to do so. A no gun sign, or no cell phone sign, or no dogs allowed sign all have the same legal authority-none. A "warning" has nothing to do with it.

Frankly, LEOs do have to understand what you can and cannot arrest people for. They cannot arrest people willy-nilly just because they don't know the law. And, frankly, most do know what they can and cannot arrest people for.

I'm not talking out of my ass here either. I have taught the legal ins and outs of concealed carry, represented people on gun violations, practiced law, and carried in Florida since 1989 or 1990.


Link Posted: 4/8/2006 2:56:17 PM EDT




If this is a public shopping center and they simply have a sign up that says "no weapons", the only thing that they can do if its discovered that you have a legally carried concealed weapon (which they shouldnt in the first place), is ask you to leave. If they do ask you to leave, then you must leave. If you refuse to leave, then the police can serve you with a notice of trespassing. It is at that time that you can be (and most likely will be) charged with armed trespassing if you continue to refuse to leave after being served with the trespass notice. I'm sorry that there's not more drama to it than that, but there's not.
If you trespass on private land that has clearly posted signs that read "NO TRESPASSING", then you can be charged with armed trespassing if you are caught and armed. These are two completely different and seperate things though.



Exactly right.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 6:37:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 11:52:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 3:29:07 AM EDT
would all this not be settled if Baxley is effective in getting the new law in place that penilizes buisnesses for banning guns?
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 4:47:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ptannjr:
would all this not be settled if Baxley is effective in getting the new law in place that penilizes buisnesses for banning guns?



No. That bill only covers the parking lot, not inside the structure.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:19:43 AM EDT
i read on gunsnet that the house bill passed. any one know when the senate will vote on it?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:39:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ptannjr:
i read on gunsnet that the house bill passed. any one know when the senate will vote on it?



Nothing has passed yet.

Senate page

House page
Top Top