Posted Businesses

[OStateFlyer]

I would like some clarity on a CCW issue here in OK. When I took my CCW class, 2+ years ago, I was told and it was my understanding that carrying into a posted business was obviously a no-no, but...there is no 'penalty' as such. You may be asked to leave, if you fail to do so then you may be cited for trespass. More recently, I have read that carrying into posted businesses is punishable by CHL revocation at minimum and a possible felony. I'm not talking about schools, courthouses, or other places spelled out in the SDA, but private businesses with the no Beretta 92/Tauras PT92/Vector Z88/Helwan 92 signs. What's the word here? Is it better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6? :scratch:

Brad

[edgargarrett]

The SDA allows for punishment, but, Criminal Intent is required before a crime has been committed. That you observed the sign is hard to prove. It's much esier to convict you of tresspassing once the sign is brough to your attention and you refuse to leave the building. So, it's pretty much a non-issue unless someone or some camera observes you taking notice of the sign before you enter.

[bulbboy]

I understood it to be just trespassing and only that if you didn't leave when they told you too. Would love to know for sure

[straight69jack]

Well if it is good and CONCLEAD then hopefully it will be a mute point..

[OStateFlyer]

I agree, concealed means just that, but I also would like to know what I'm exposing myself to legally.

Brad

[green country shooter]

The statute makes it plain that property owners can control firearms on their property. I believe this means they can have a rule forbidding firearms, and if you break the rule you have committed a civil trespass. If they then ask you to leave and you refuse or cause a scene, you have committed a criminal trespass. I do not think the criminal provisions of the act apply to posted premises, since they are not listed as a prohibited place in the law.

However, I also know that some people think differently, and I'm not offering to bail you out if a police officer thinks he knows the law better than you do.

I think this is an important issue and I would be interested in hearing the points of view of the members. Before expressing your opinion, I would encourage you to reread the law and my point above, namely that the list of prohibited places does not include a place posted by its owner. In Texas and Missouri it is a crime to carry into a properly posted premises, and their law makes that very plain.

[J.P.]

I believe this means they can have a rule forbidding firearms, and if you break the rule you have committed a civil trespass.

Interseting because I thought in Oklahoma,*every* offense is a crime.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

[skyydiver]

What is your basis on that? I notice you mention that in regards to traffic citations. I see your point, but I'm not sure it's correct. Not sure it isn't either, but where are you coming from on that?

[Michael Brown]

What he is referring to is that every offense in Oklahoma is potentially arrestable given the proper set of circumstances.

There are no offenses in Oklahoma which do not allow for arrest when the requirements for citation are not met.

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

"Every offense is a 'crime'".

Just something I learned in Capt. Konkler's Criminal Procedures class. ;)

[green country shooter]

Yes, indeed, every offense is a crime, but a civil trespass is not an offense. I assume you are using the word "offense" to mean a violation of the criminal code. The criminal law is only part of the law. There is also the civil law.

If I break a contract, that is wrong and against the law, but it is not a crime.

If I am a day late paying my rent, that is wrong and against the law, but it is not a crime.

To say every offense is a crime does not answer the question.
Not every action is a crime. (At least not yet.)

If a restaurant has a policy requiring a jacket and tie and I enter not wearing a jacket and tie, I have not committed a crime. If the owner asks me to leave and I refuse, then I have committed a crime. Do you see the difference?

Here's another point:

If a store is not posted, it is not a crime for someone with a CCW to carry there. I guess we can all agree on that.

How can the act of a private property owner (putting up a sign) turn something into a crime? The property owner has the power and right to ask you to leave if he discovers you are breaking his rule. Title 12, section 1290.2 If you refuse, he may summon the police and have you arrested. But his rule is not the criminal code, and nowhere in the Oklahoma CCW law does it say that carrying in a posted premises is a crime. )The crime is refusing to leave.)

In fact, it says just the opposite. It says it is legal to carry except in those places specifically mentioned by statute, and it does not specifically mention private property with a sign. Title 12 sections 1272, 1277, and 1280.1 spell out some of the prohibited places. If you read the business owner's section, 1290.2, it says the business owner has the right to control firearms on his property, not that it is a crime to break his rule.

It's good to hear from some law enforcement folks that they disagree with this, since those of us who are not in law enforcement always need to know what the officers think the law is. Several people have told me that people giving CCW courses are telling people what I'm saying in this post, and several law enforcement people obviously think the opposite, so I think we need some clarification by the Attorney General or the legislature on this point.

12 - 1290.25 - "The Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall be liberally construed to carry out the the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and self-protection."

[green country shooter]

I realize the difference between a civil and criminal trespass is not something folks cover every day. Here is how our Supreme Court has explained it:

In Lansdale v. State, 45 Okla. Cr. 123, 282 Pac. 170, 175, this court said:

"36 C. J. § 105 p. 764, says: 'If one in the property good faith takes of another believing it to be legally his own or that he has the legal right to its possession he is not guilty of larceny although his claim is based on a misconception of the law or his right under it. For although ignorance of law and honest intention cannot shield a man from civil liability for the trespass committed by him, yet they do protect him from criminal liability by divesting the act of the felonious intent, without which it cannot be a crime.' "

In other words, in this context, the man had committed a civil trespass, for which he could be sued, but not a criminal trespass, and so he could not be put in jail or fined.

I believe in practical terms what this means that if a police officer is called to a store on a "man with a gun" call when a CCW has been discovered, he should find out if the person has been asked to leave. If the person has been asked to leave and has not, he should be arrested. If the person is not aware he has been discovered and no one has asked him to leave, the police officer should ask him to leave and arrest him if he refuses or argues.

[skyydiver]

"Every offense is a 'crime'".

Just something I learned in Capt. Konkler's Criminal Procedures class. ;)

That's what i get for having all my CRMJ classes from DOC people. Never heard that one. Interesting.

[SMS]

There's a poster over on GlockTalk's Okie forum claiming that he is an LEO, and that he would arrest someone for carrying in a posted business.

His reading of the SDA is that not only is it civil trespass, but that you violate the "unlawfull carry" provisions in the SDA and therefore are committing a criminal act.

Anyone know what the county D.A.s or state AG have to say about this...any precedent out there or just alot of opinions?

[J.P.]

I'l try to get to the bottom of it but frankly I don't put too much faith in what the DA or AG might say either.

[mons meg]

IMO, we should think about the Texas style of posting, which clearly spells out how and where the sign must be posted, and content of the sign, i.e. the "30.06" notifications.

I was on vacation down in Texas all last week, and I saw quite a few "No Beretta 92" signs, but when you read the fine print, they said no unlicensed firearms. Cute...

[skyydiver]

Exactly. They're liable to "interpret" the way they think will keep LEOs the only ones armed, regardless of how a good judge would interpret.

[mons meg]

Funny thing was, they had to put that "unlicensed" bit on there. I thought about it for .5 seconds on my way into the pizza parlor:

Me: "unlicensed? hmmm, but I *have* a license...yum...pizza".