Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
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.
Discussion in 'Grand Canyon Glockers' started by aztnb, Jun 16, 2010.
Ruths Chris in Scottsdale is posted no firearms allowed.
If the laws there work similarly to the ones here in Florida, their "rules" do NOT supercede the law. Accordingly, if you are carrying in accordance with the state laws (even in a posted "gun-free" zone), you can't be held criminally liable.
They can, however, ask you to leave immediately and, if they do, it would be in your best interest to do so without delay, sarcasm or confrontation. Under such circumstances it would also be prudent to carry concealed...even if your state allows open carry.
They are exercising their choice as specified by the law.
Under Arizona law, the sign carries legal weight. You can be prosecuted if you enter a posted business.
I carry personal items, wallet, phone, keys, knife, etc., in a fanny pack( no gun) due to a partially disabled left hand. I've been told upon entering Ruth Chris, Costco, among others: "No firearms allowed." But, I have never been asked to open the pack. Easiest thing is to just not go to those places if you choose to carry.
Easiest thing is never go there again.
Carrying where prohibited, to include carrying where posted, is a loser move. Pretending not to understand the proprietor's wishes is something to be expected of a kid, not an adult with a permit.
...unless you are not an Arizona resident, as I understand it.
Please someone correct me if I am mistaken.
I am not a lawyer. That being said, my understanding is that the sign makes the business premises off limits to firearms. The only exceptions would be to the business owner and other employees.
Carrying where posted or looking for loopholes to support an excuse for doing something you shouldn't is a poor primary pln.
You're mistaken. AZ law applies when you're in AZ, just as VA law applies to me should I visit there. Serious question: How could you think that you have criminal immunity just because you're passing through?
There are two sections of laws in play. One set applies to businesses that have a liquor license. 4-244.29 states that it's illegal to carry into a licensed establishment, unless you have a CCW. 4-229 allows the establishment to opt out of that and prohibit essentially all weapons with signage.
13-1502 is the trespass law, and applies to any person who enters property after reasonable notice prohibiting entry. Yes, this applies to conditional things, too. If the sign says "Employees Only" and you go there, it's trespass. If the sign says "No guns" and you take one there, it's trespass.
At the root of things is respect for property rights. I've read plenty of posts where people say, "Well, those signs carry no legal weight in my state" or "The sign has to conform to this wording or that dimension". That strikes me as childish and disrespectful; the guy who runs the place doesn't want you in it, or doesn't want you in it while armed. Don't go. Don't be looking for a weasle escape, just don't go.
Back to the post. If you come to AZ, we'll treat you like an adult and expect you to act like one. Play nice with others and respect their property.
Quit making sense, Sam.
Because that's what the law says...
4-229. Licenses; handguns; posting of notice
A. A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 or who meets the criteria specified in section 13-3102, subsection D, paragraph 1 or 2 may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises. The sign shall conform to the following requirements:
1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to the liquor license posted on the licensed premises.
2. Contain a pictogram that shows a firearm within a red circle and a diagonal red line across the firearm.
3. Contain the words, "no firearms allowed pursuant to A.R.S. section 4-229".
B. A person shall not carry a firearm on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer if the licensee has posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section.
C. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection B of this section if:
1. The person was not informed of the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section prior to the violation.
2. Any one or more of the following applies:
(a) At the time of the violation the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section had fallen down.
(b) At the time of the violation the person was not a resident of this state.
(c) The licensee had posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section not more than thirty days prior to the violation.
D. The department of liquor licenses and control shall prepare the signs required by this section and make them available at no cost to licensees.
E. The signs required by this section shall be composed of block, capital letters printed in black on white laminated paper at a minimum weight of one hundred ten pound index. The lettering and pictogram shall consume a space at least six inches by nine inches. The letters comprising the words "no firearms allowed" shall be at least three-fourths of a vertical inch and all other letters shall be at least one-half of a vertical inch.
F. This section does not prohibit a person who possesses a handgun from entering the licensed premises for a limited time for the specific purpose of either:
1. Seeking emergency aid.
2. Determining whether a sign has been posted pursuant to subsection A of this section.
Overpriced, uppity steakhouse anyhow...
Ah, yes, that's the part that I was told about.
Thanks for finding that, Doc H.
BTW, aztnb, if you're like me and prefer to spend your money where you're welcomed, a site to find pro-gun restaurants is here: www.gunburger.com
Affirmative defensives are issues raised at trial for the consideration of the judge. They do not provide immunity from arrest.
If there was confusion in talking about two different aspects of the legal system, I apologize for contributing to it.