No, it doesn't. If you enter, in clear violation of the law as I have quoted and has been linked above, it comes down to being there illegally.

What can happen? Well, please don't use your gun for my sake. I don't want it taken away.

Good luck getting an arrest for carrying a handgun thrown out based upon the 2nd Amendment. If you carry a gun illegally, you will be arrested, and I'm not aware that a felon carrying a gun has been successfully challenged. The law is clear. If you commit certain crimes, whether you currently have a permit to carry or not, your permit to carry will be TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU, meaning you may NOT legally carry a gun. The fact that it can be taken away from you makes it a priviledge. You currently DO have the priviledge to carry a gun because you have taking the training, passed the class and receive the permit. Do you want felons carrying guns, or is that just liberal politicians restricting that?

Yes, actually, I did take the old course. However, I teach the new course, to instructors (32 certified so far) and to individuals.

And as a matter of trivia, I was actually at the Legislature in 2005 when the bill passed the Senate, so its passage didn't escape my notice.



True, but not relevant. You have to read the section very carefully.

A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

The "request" and the "order" are two separate steps. You have to first be ordered to leave before you can refuse to do so, thus committing the crime.

This is a deliberate feature in the law. (Right, Joe?)



We've covered this. Carrying past a sign is not breaking a law. Further, you haven't shown that doing so -- and even getting caought -- and even refusing to leave -- hurts other permit holders in any meaningful way.

There have been over 30,000 permits issued. To my knowledge, not one of those $25 tickets has been issued.



Well, here we're just going to disagree. Since I have the Founding Fathers on my side, I'm not too worried.

A right which can be violated is a right nonetheless. If you ask Jefferson, we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

We have a RIGHT to a speedy trial by a jury of our peers under the Constitution. At some times in our history, people have been denied this right. Is it, then, a privilege? No. A right is a right.

There is a Constitutional right to bear arms, and a broader "inalienable right" to protect our lives. Just because a government would deny that right does not make it a privelege.

Well, true, except that you read the law incorrectly.



A petty misdemeanor with a $25 fine won't get you arrested -- not that anyone has ever gotten one.



If you're gonna write that word over and over, you should note that it's spelled p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e.

And no, rights can be taken away, illegally, or by due process of law. That doesn't lower them to mere "privileges." Why is this so hard to understand?

Thank goodness that even our legislature didn't make it illegal to enter a posted place armed. I'm sure many of us have accidentally gone into a posted place while carrying, it's pretty easy to miss some of those signs.

By "may not" do you mean "might not"? Because even if you've lost the right to carry you still have the right to defend yourself against lethal force.If it comes down to me or them, them loses.I won't shoot you. Are you willing to refrain from any actions that I might think risk my life? You could start by not driving, because the greatest danger I've ever been in has been from cars.voting.

On this same topic..

I'm often asked "What happens if a cop notices that I'm carrying in a posted business or if a business owner calls the police after noticing that I'm carrying?". I normally answer that the LEO can't do a thing until the business owner asks you to leave and you refuse.

I don't know if this has ever come up and a lot would depend on how much the cop knows about the law. Has anyone heard of this happening before?

If my interpretation of the law is correct, we haven't really broken any laws until we refuse to leave after being requested to do so, at which time we can be cited for trespassing- $25 max fine, they can't take our gun.
Of course, that's just how I read it. I'm certainly not a lawyer.
And that's assuming that I remember the penalty correctly.

I have not head of any instances of this happening,
either when a cop is nearby or when the owner phones them.
Probably becase those who choose to enter a posted establishment while armed are discreet enough to avoid detection. And any of us who may be spotted are law abiding enough to leave upon request.

OK, I wasn't aware of some of those points of the law. I was advised in class that they have changed it, and the section was pointed out to me.

I am very aware that a petty mis won't get you arrested, however a felony will. So will domestic assault and any of a wide variety of other crimes. I don't hear you screaming to let felons and wife-beaters have guns. I'm sure you are aware that they can not, and quite frankly I don't want to give them a way to legally own guns. Now, if you commit one of those crimes, your permit may be taken away. Kinda indicates to me that it can be taken away, making it a privilege. In response to another poster, yes, similar to voting. Voting is ALSO a privilege, just as citizenship to this country is a privilege that can be taken away if you commit certain crimes as well.

I agree, you do have the right to defend yourself against lethal force, but your ability to carry a gun to defend yourself against lethal force, which is generally a much better way of defending yourself, can be taken away. I was speaking to the ability to defend against lethal force with a gun.

Yes, the privilege to vote can be taken away, as can your citizenship, your drivers license, and a whole slew of other privilege's.

I've heard, and used, the driving argument before. I'm not speaking to that, I'm speaking to the fact that we seem to want to slack up the carry laws. I see now that it may be legal. I don't see that it's a good idea. We want to slack up the carry laws, and people are on a forum geared toward people interested in the carry law that was such a pain to pass talking about how they don't care about people's requests not to carry on their property. The gun grabbers are going to love that. We want to slack up the carry laws. If we're not careful and manage to gain a negative image we may not be able to slack up those laws, and gun grabbers will have fuel for tightening those laws. Why don't you accept the inconvenience of not going somewhere rather than going there with your gun when they don't want you to, for my sake.

This seems have devolved to a silly semantic discussion.

You think that anything that can be taken away is not a right. That leaves exactly no rights.

Your interpretation is somewhat bizarre and not supported by any school of legal thought I have ever heard of.

You might benefit from taking some time to peruse the following link:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv ... cript.html

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not speaking for the law. On that, though, I believe it does indeed leave certain rights, but there is a lot of things that are privileges. I believe that if it can legally be taken away (as a permit to carry a pistol can) it is not a right. One of the things I've noticed is that a lot of people do stupid things when they think they have "the right." I'm very careful to recognize some of the freedoms that I have as privileges. Even felons maintain a right to be free to practice their own religion, and that may not be taken away without a fundamental change of what is defined as a right. It does leave you with rights.

Perhaps it has degraded to a silly semantic discussion. I'm quite familiar with and fond of the Bill of Rights, thank you for the insinuation that I'm not. We have differing opinions. I'm careful to differentiate between a right and a privilege so I can keep from losing either.

I'm getting the feeling that this may need to go into the Freefire Zone, but let me weigh in.

There are some rights that felons have taken away from them while they are incarcerated, and, for many, afterwards as well. Just wander through the Bill of Rights and see how many of those rights apply to folks in State or Federal Prison.

My point precisely. The BOR calls them rights, that may not be infringed...without due process. They are rights nonetheless.

And it's not likely we'll see one soon, if ever. It's hard to think of a circumstance where both an establishment operator would want to issue the "reasonable request", the "reasonable request" and not been adhered to, and the person who was not adhering to the "reasonable request" wasn't, at the moment, doing something a lot more illegal than a $25 violation.

It's sort of like looking for a situation where somebody's gotten a parking meter ticket while they're parked outside the bank that they're robbing. Quite reasonably, the focus would be on the robbery, threats, etc., and not the overtime on the parking meter.