[mzmtg]

This is an excerpt about GA laws from a Brady Campaign dosument about maintaining a "gun free" business:

Georgia grants business owners the right to exclude customers and thereby keep their business premises gun-free. See Stockwell v. State, 400 S.E.2d 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990) (business owner allowed to exclude defendant from private dental office). A person is guilty of trespass if they “knowingly and without authority . . . enter[] [or remain] upon the land or premises of another . . . after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner . . . that such entry is forbidden.†Ga. Code Ann. ’ 16-7-21. Entry in violation of posted notices that CCW licensees carrying concealed handguns are not permitted is sufficient to trigger the statute. Moreover, the statute does not require any specific method of notification. Rayburn v. State, 300 S.E.2d 499 (Ga. 1983); Wingfield v. State, 383 S.E.2d 180 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989); Williamson v. State, 215 S.E.2d 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

So, are they correct?

 

[ber950]

What sign :?: I didn't see a sign

 

[jrm]

None of those cases involves carrying a firearm (or any kind of weapon). In three of the cases, the defendant was convicted of trespassing after being explicitly, individually told (orally in each case) to "stay away," or some variation on that warning. In the fourth case, the defendant was convicted of burglary, and his conviction was reversed because the court said the jury should have had the option of convicting him of trespass.

So, none of those cases involve a generic sign. It stands to reason that a sign saying "no firearms," or some variation, is a sign stating a preference not to enter with a firearm, as opposed to a sign forbidding entry altogether.

I think it's a stretch to say that the string of cases cited stands for the proposition that entering (while carrying) an otherwise public place (and, by "public" I am including general-invitation businesses such as stores) with a sign saying "no firearms" should result in a successful trespassing prosecution.

Naturally, I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice. But, if you decide to make yourself a test case, I sure would like to hear about it.

 

[Mafuta54]

No guns allowed

Adventure Outdoors in Smyrna has a sign posted stating that NO GUNS are allowed in the store. I find it odd that one of hte area's largest gun stores doesn't want me to bring my gun into the store to do business after I have purchased it and gone out the door!

 

[jrm]

Re: No guns allowed

Adventure Outdoors in Smyrna has a sign posted stating that NO GUNS are allowed in the store.

That can't be! Their inventory of guns is huge (including lots and lots of used ones). Obviously, a lot of people made it into the store with a gun.

And, wait. When you buy one (as I recall they don't actually give it to you until you are at the checkout near the door, but you are still in the store), you are in the store with a gun.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

None of those cases involves carrying a firearm (or any kind of weapon). In three of the cases, the defendant was convicted of trespassing after being explicitly, individually told (orally in each case) to "stay away," or some variation on that warning. In the fourth case, the defendant was convicted of burglary, and his conviction was reversed because the court said the jury should have had the option of convicting him of trespass.

So, none of those cases involve a generic sign.

What? :shock: Are you calling into question the integrity of this fine organization?

And on a public forum, no less?

 

[jrm]

What organization? I didn't mention any organization.

:lol:

 

[Gunstar1]

Well lets look at other possible signs on the door...
No Smoking - if you forget and light up inside you are not trespassing (no smoking law maybe, but not trespassing)
No shirt, no shoes, no service - they still have to ask you to leave.

The only sign that I am aware of that counts as "receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner . . . that such entry is forbidden" are the "Posted No Tresspassing" signs.

 

[curtdiss]

Adventure Outdoors

Their sign says something like "no loaded firearms in the store" and "you must check all firearms at the front"

The one and only time I went there I had to take my G27 out and hand it to the girl, she cleared the gun( I had already unloaded it in the car) and put one of those electronic sensors through the gun. I guess if I left without her removing it an alarm would have gone off :roll:

I was not overly impressed with their selection or level of customer service when I asked a few questions

 

[jrm]

Well lets look at other possible signs on the door...
No Smoking - if you forget and light up inside you are not trespassing (no smoking law maybe, but not trespassing)
No shirt, no shoes, no service - they still have to ask you to leave.

The only sign that I am aware of that counts as "receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner . . . that such entry is forbidden" are the "Posted No Tresspassing" signs.

GS1, excellent examples. One also might think that signs such as "no admittance" and "employees only" might be sufficiently similar to "no trespassing," but I don't know.

What about a (theoretical) sign that says, "No entry with a firearm. Anyone discovered to be carrying a firearm will be prosecuted for trespassing." At least with that type of sign, the reader is on notice that the property owner intended to invoke the power of the trespass statute when posting the sign.

What do the Aquarium signs say? I understand not even LEOs are allowed to carry there. What if somebody made it past the metal detector there with a firearm? Would he be trespassing?

 

[tony218]

in any of these places that do not allow guns, am i still
responsible for my own safety or is that business????????

 

[Gunstar1]

you are

 

[tony218]

then i need my gun

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Well lets look at other possible signs on the door...
No Smoking - if you forget and light up inside you are not trespassing (no smoking law maybe, but not trespassing)
No shirt, no shoes, no service - they still have to ask you to leave.

The only sign that I am aware of that counts as "receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner . . . that such entry is forbidden" are the "Posted No Tresspassing" signs.

GS1, excellent examples. One also might think that signs such as "no admittance" and "employees only" might be sufficiently similar to "no trespassing," but I don't know.

What about a (theoretical) sign that says, "No entry with a firearm. Anyone discovered to be carrying a firearm will be prosecuted for trespassing." At least with that type of sign, the reader is on notice that the property owner intended to invoke the power of the trespass statute when posting the sign.

What do the Aquarium signs say? I understand not even LEOs are allowed to carry there. What if somebody made it past the metal detector there with a firearm? Would he be trespassing?

Wait, GS1 and jrm. Are signs notice under the criminal trespass law so that you can be criminally charged if it says "no admittance" or "employees only" or "posted no trespassing" - absent some person telling you not to enter or to leave? Just a sign? I am not so sure . . .

 

[Gunstar1]

I know if someones personal property (car) is on the land that is posted it can be towed.

I don't know if you yourself have to be told in person or in writing that you are trespassing for it to take effect.

 

[jrm]

Wait, GS1 and jrm. Are signs notice under the criminal trespass law so that you can be criminally charged if it says "no admittance" or "employees only" or "posted no trespassing" - absent some person telling you not to enter or to leave? Just a sign? I am not so sure . . .

MP, that was my point in my first post on this thread (that none of the cases cited involved a sign -- they all involved individual, oral notice). I don't see any GA cases where someone was properly convicted of trespass based on notice from a sign. I did find one case where a convicted burglar claimed the jury should have gotten a trespass instruction because he was found inside a school that was surrounded by a fence posted with "no trespassing" signs. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, not on the grounds that the signs were insufficient notice, but on the grounds that the signs were there to stop pedestrians from using the school property as a short cut, and the defendant had not used the property as a short cut. :shock:

So, no, I'm not at all sure that a sign is sufficient notice. At the very least, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant saw, read, and understood the sign. And, short of a confession by the defendant that those things were true, the state's burden would be very heavy.

I think the statement quoted in the original post, that entry in violation of posted notices is sufficient to trigger the statute, is quite presumptuous.

 

[ls1ssdavid]

Comment on adventure outdoors...

Just a little comment on what was said. Last time I was home, I went to adventure outdoors. I agree with curtdiss the sign posted says something along the lines of "no loaded firearms".

On a side note, I sat at the counter waiting to talk to an salesman for what seemed like 15min. Not a word said to me... Maybe I look young or something :-k I have no idea. Maybe they don't want me buying anything they sell :roll:

I bought a few boxes of rounds and left. I wasn't about to drive out there and not get something. There remanufactured rounds sucked anyways... There was a detective standing at the door (non-uniformed officer displaying badge with weapon. I assume detective). Watching everyones movement, funny thing is the girl at the counter didn't check my ID. The cop was staring at the transaction and didn't say a word. I wasn't impressed by there customer service or having a cop try to stare down every move a customer makes. Maybe the cop wasn't invited there by the store who know's. And if he wasn't why wasn't he asked to leave? I used to be cop friendly, but... I think times are changing.

I'm pretty sure that cop had rounds in his weapon. Now that I think about it I should have called him out on it. He was talking to another gentleman about his new fancy finish that was on his glock. He had some type of shiny silver custom coating on the slide. Why can a LEO have a loaded up weapon and I can't? I've seen plenty of police videos of them shooting themselfs. Actually I get email's regularly on the subject. Is it supposed to be because of there level of traning that they have special perks? Or lack there of... I've seen a few cops shoot. :shakehead: Great guys don't get me wrong. But simply because you have a badge doesn't make you an expert on firearms or make you more capable of making the decison to pull the trigger if the need be. Just my opinion though. I know it was of topic for the most part. :wink:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Re: Comment on adventure outdoors...

There was a detective standing at the door (non-uniformed officer displaying badge with weapon. I assume detective).

Excuse me, sir? Can't you read the sign?

Watching everyones movement, funny thing is the girl at the counter didn't check my ID.

What makes you think she is supposed to check your i.d.?

The cop was staring at the transaction and didn't say a word. I wasn't impressed by there customer service or having a cop try to stare down every move a customer makes.

Excuse me, but what are you staring at? I am straight, ok, so you why don't you stare at guys in a bar with a rainbow flag instead of here? Excuse me, miss, may I speak to your manager?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Why not write the manager now?

Three sentences should get the point across:

(1) I came to buy ammo;

(2) Nobody would help me; and

(3) This weirdo guy with a badge and a gun at your front door was staring at me during my entire visit.

Conclusion: If this is your level of customer service, then I will spend my hard earned money elsewhere.

I might add in the introduction what it is you do for a living.

:wink:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

MP, that was my point in my first post on this thread (that none of the cases cited involved a sign -- they all involved individual, oral notice). I don't see any GA cases where someone was properly convicted of trespass based on notice from a sign.

. . .

So, no, I'm not at all sure that a sign is sufficient notice. At the very least, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant saw, read, and understood the sign. And, short of a confession by the defendant that those things were true, the state's burden would be very heavy.

I think the statement quoted in the original post, that entry in violation of posted notices is sufficient to trigger the statute, is quite presumptuous.

Ok, this was my understanding as well.

mzmtg, he means the Bradies were presumptuous, not you.