close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

AZ only: "Hidden" no weapons signs

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Jamesey, Aug 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Seraph

    Seraph

    463
    0
    Feb 21, 2009
    TN, USA
    You're absolutely right, but the point of this thread is that sometimes there's not-so-prominent signage, posted with the presumable intent that you cannot see it, or aren't likely to see it. The OP posited that the motivation for that not-so-prominent signage might be entrapment. I offered that I think it's more likely that they want to ban guns on the premises, without losing the business of gun toters, who might not notice the "hidden" signage. I don't think anyone doubts the point of prominent signage. If one carries correctly, one will never have any trouble with any of this.
     
  2. SGT HATRED

    SGT HATRED

    4,000
    298
    Sep 30, 2010
    PHX AZ
    Watch out for the Buffalo wild wings at university and rural in tempe... They have dark grey letters on black glass. The kicker is it's on the second set of doors after you're already in the building!
     


  3. hikerpaddler

    hikerpaddler

    1,504
    1
    Mar 1, 2001
    USA
    If one carries correctly, one will not be carrying a firearm onto posted property.
     
  4. Seraph

    Seraph

    463
    0
    Feb 21, 2009
    TN, USA
    You're so right. :fred:
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2011
  5. harrygunner

    harrygunner

    578
    28
    Sep 4, 2010
    'Sam Spade' I understand your point and agree that property owners have rights.

    However, we scary gun carriers have been placed into a special class.

    All the other types of sign postings you presented are not supported by law in and of themselves.

    For example, If I walked into the "Employees Only" area, or onto someones property posted "No Trespass" I did not immediately break a state law.

    I am not interested in walking onto posted property. But I truly believe a CCW permit holder is not likely to have malicious intent while eating a burrito on posted property. Whereas someone going into back areas of a business likely may. Yet, some states reverse the appropriate severity of the act.
     
  6. poodleplumber

    poodleplumber

    1,566
    133
    Apr 23, 2009
    Good point that I hadn't thought of. Thanks.
     
  7. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,903
    2,356
    May 4, 2003
    Sorry, you're wrong. Everything I described is Criminal Trespass in the 3rd Degree.

    "A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

    1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry."


    See how "reasonable notice" is given in addition to the request from the owner? A sign telling you that employees are the only people allowed in an area, or any other example I gave you, means that you're disregarding a reasonable notice prohibiting your entry. And while I've only made one arrest on the "no guns" thing, I've lost count of the people I've hooked who didn't bother with the "No Trespassing" sign.

    But if you've got a binding court case that limits or overturns 13-1502, I'm willing to read it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2011
  8. harrygunner

    harrygunner

    578
    28
    Sep 4, 2010
    Interesting. It's how trespassing is defined by each state.

    I read trespassing laws for California, Florida, Texas and Arizona.

    Texas and Arizona statutes include sign posting that is feasible to implement on a building in their laws.

    California and Florida either do not include signs on private buildings or do require mischievous acts, bad intent or refusal to leave in their definition. My Florida and California CCW paperwork clearly state exemption from posted "no firearms" signs.

    I've ignored signs twice, once on each coast. South Beach in Miami Beach posted the sand area even though they are not allowed to preempt state law. The other time was in Newport Beach, CA where a joint camping equipment/gun store was posted on the gunshop door and not the camping store door. I did not see the sign until I left through the gunshop side. In both cases, no law was broken given the trespassing laws of those states.

    So, it looks like Arizona needs to change its trespassing laws. :whistling:

    Just kidding. Thanks for the conversation.
     
  9. ipscshooter

    ipscshooter Mostly IDPA now

    1,135
    0
    Jan 22, 2002
    Near Phoenix, Arizona
    I'm curious as to why this one arrest? If the person was carrying concealed no one should have know.

    I suspect it might have been someone attempting to open carry and tried to challenge the owners right to post, or maybe just an idiot. I'm guessing that "constitutional carry" may have brought out more than the usual number.
     
  10. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,903
    2,356
    May 4, 2003
    It was actually a guy who was being a pain at a hospital triage/waiting area. My eyes were better than his cover, and I used what I had to solve the problem. This pre-dated permitless carry, though it would be equally appropriate today's laws.

    My perception is that since the revamp we've had more people waving guns around in parking lots and in the street as taught by the Hollywood School of Conflict Resolution, but nothing exceptional inside businesses where actual taxpayers congregate. No, I don't have numbers, just what I see/hear transmitted/read on the "blotter".

    ETA: "No one should have known" is inspiring a new thread...
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2011
  11. Teufelhunde

    Teufelhunde

    376
    17
    Sep 25, 2008
    That is where it is required to be to comply with the law, right next to the liquor license.

    YMMV
     
  12. ipscshooter

    ipscshooter Mostly IDPA now

    1,135
    0
    Jan 22, 2002
    Near Phoenix, Arizona
    Thanks. Let me guess. He said "I didn't know it was illegal" or "I didn't see the sign". Not too smart in any case. If he did know, you sure don't draw attention to yourself.

    At least, I sure wouldn't. :supergrin:

    You're perceptions are probably valid. I suspect a certain element, in certain neighborhoods, hears "constitutional carry" and think they have permission to be bigger morons than they already are.

    I haven't seen the other thread, but I'm sure the content is pretty familiar to anyone who's been around GT awhile.
     
  13. ICARRY2

    ICARRY2 NRA Life Member

    3,855
    16
    Dec 22, 2007
    As Sam Spade stated, the notice given has to be reasonable.

    This is why I don't look for signs that are not in a reasonable persons normal field of view.

    If I am told to leave private property for any reason, I leave immediately.

    I also don't cause problems in public.
     
  14. RGbiker

    RGbiker

    1,513
    6
    Oct 12, 2009
    Arizona
    In Arizona I actively look for the "Gun Buster" sign and when I find it I seek out the manager to hand him/her a "NO Gun = No $$$" card. Doesn't matter to me where the sign is posted - by the door or next to liquor license. I will not spend any money there.

    We have an extensive listing of restaurants in Tucson area who will accept CC with AZCCW permit or even OC (No booze).
     
  15. mhunter

    mhunter

    764
    0
    Jul 25, 2011
    Um, you all do realize there is only ONE legal sign in AZ, right? The rest can be ignored in a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" type fashion. If the sign isn't legal, you're just violating a store policy and can be asked to leave.

    In order for the sign to be legal, it must say, "NO FIREARMS" at the top, have the red circle/slash "gun buster" picture and then say "Pursuant to A.R.S. XYZ". I don't remember the exact Arizona Revised Statute number.

    That's IT. This is the only sign and it was implemented under the recent change in laws allowing permitless concealed carry. It must also be posted on every entrance. If an establishment serves alcohol on-site for consumption, they must also have the same sign next to their liquor license.

    Another fairly unknown component of the law is, if the business is properly posted, then they MUST provide for secure storage of firearms. This was a concession for CCW'ers to the complaint of having their guns stolen because they had to be left in the car. However, this is not enforced as business do not seems to be complying with having secure storage. Every single posted business said they do not have (or are even required to have) secure storage, yet they are posted. This needs to change.
     
  16. NAC

    NAC

    285
    0
    Sep 19, 2009
    Gilbert, AZ
    You're mostly correct. There is only one legal sign for establishments that serve alcohol on their premises. If one violates that signage then it is a violation of ARS 4-229. If that exact sign isn't posted then it simply is a trespassing violation 13-1502. Those 4-229 signs only apply to places that serve alcohol. Other businesses can use any signage they see fit.

    No guns, no weapons signs can be considered a reasonable request under 13-1502 but the problem is with the signage not being seen sometimes. Business sometimes place signage at places that a reasonable person couldn't be expected to see them. They are really not enforceable as a "reasonable request" for this specific reason. Of course the instant one is verbally told, then there's no doubt a reasonable request has been made.

    You are very correct about the storage issue, again the problem lies in that a business can still ask you to leave for any reason they want and the instant one doesn't, it becomes a trespassing issue.

    Of course the old adage holds true.. you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride.
     
  17. RGbiker

    RGbiker

    1,513
    6
    Oct 12, 2009
    Arizona
    I don't know what direction you're, but this is the sign I'm talking about...
     
  18. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,903
    2,356
    May 4, 2003
    Please post the case law that supports this. I have already posted the statute that says otherwise.

    No, you're wrong. You've mixed the requirements for public establishments with private ones. See ARS 13-3102.01 for the storage requirements and 13-3102 for the definitions. There is no requirement whatsoever for private businesses to provide secure storage.
     
  19. Cheytac

    Cheytac

    1,836
    0
    Mar 22, 2010
    Tampa Bay, FL

    My wife demands Jared's... :whistling:
     
  20. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,903
    2,356
    May 4, 2003
    13-3102.01. Storage of deadly weapons; definitions

    A. If an operator of a public establishment or a sponsor of a public event requests that a person carrying a deadly weapon remove the weapon, the operator or sponsor shall provide temporary and secure storage. The storage shall be readily accessible on entry into the establishment or event and allow for the immediate retrieval of the weapon on exit from the establishment or event.

    B. This section does not apply to the licensed premises of any public establishment or public event with a license issued pursuant to title 4.

    C. The operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the employee of the operator or sponsor or the agent of the sponsor, including a public entity or public employee, is not liable for acts or omissions pursuant to this section unless the operator, sponsor, employee or agent intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent.

    D. For the purposes of this section, "public establishment" and "public event" have the same meanings prescribed in section 13-3102.

    13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions
    M. For the purposes of this section:
    2. "Public establishment" means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state.

    3. "Public event" means a specifically named or sponsored event of limited duration that is either conducted by a public entity or conducted by a private entity with a permit or license granted by a public entity. Public event does not include an unsponsored gathering of people in a public place.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.