In Florida, signs prohibiting firearms have no legal weight. However, if you enter such a place and are discovered to be carrying a weapon by the staff, you can be asked to leave and failure to do so constitutes armed trespassing. Your right to carry does not trump the rights of the property owner.

OTOH, those signs do carry legal weight in some states (Texas for example) and you can be arrested if you ignore them, so it is wise to know the laws of the state you're visiting.

BTW, the CEO of Starbucks only requested that people not bring guns into their stores, so it wasn't an outright prohibition. Of course, that's likely to change if the open carry zealots ignore this request.

 

In Florida, signs prohibiting firearms have no legal weight. However, if you enter such a place and are discovered to be carrying a weapon by the staff, you can be asked to leave and failure to do so constitutes armed trespassing. Your right to carry does not trump the rights of the property owner.

Isn't this a contradiction though? If your right to carry does not trump the rights of the owner than would the sign not carry weight in his place of business?

 

From the title I thought there was some update from the CEO on the SB debacle two weeks ago. Do search on starbucks here, you'll learn things.

Starbucks ceo speaks, is it legal?

Yes, under the 1a :grin

 

In Florida, signs prohibiting firearms have no legal weight. However, if you enter such a place and are discovered to be carrying a weapon by the staff, you can be asked to leave and failure to do so constitutes armed trespassing. Your right to carry does not trump the rights of the property owner.

OTOH, those signs do carry legal weight in some states (Texas for example) and you can be arrested if you ignore them, so it is wise to know the laws of the state you're visiting.

BTW, the CEO of Starbucks only requested that people not bring guns into their stores, so it wasn't an outright prohibition. Of course, that's likely to change if the open carry zealots ignore this request.

In Texas the sign has to be 30.06 and meet 30.06 requirements to carry legal weight.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.


​

The simple ghost buster signs hold no weight. If while in a non-posted business a CHLer is made, s/he must leave if asked to do so. If the CHLer refuses to leave then it becomes a matter of trespass.



ETA: As for the statement being effective notice in Texas, it is not.

 

ETA: As for the statement being effective notice in Texas, it is not.

My point was that in some states, signs do carry the weight of law, even if they have to be configured and/or posted in a specific manner. That's why it is important to know the laws of the state one is visiting.

 

You know the Starbucks guy did not say you couldn't carry.

AFS

 

Now, here is the tricky part, are businesses, outside of bars and nightclubs and such, allowed to search you and your belongings for such things as firearms? For example, if I owned a pizza joint and didn't want people with weapons inside, could I have a pat-down at the door? Or is that a privilege exclusively reserved for bars, clubs, and the like?

Reason I ask is because some people take the view of "OK, the sign is bunk as long as I don't mess up and expose in front of an employee that cares enough to report me..." - however, could a search happen just because the business is feeling obnoxious?

 

Now, here is the tricky part, are businesses, outside of bars and nightclubs and such, allowed to search you and your belongings for such things as firearms? For example, if I owned a pizza joint and didn't want people with weapons inside, could I have a pat-down at the door? Or is that a privilege exclusively reserved for bars, clubs, and the like?

Reason I ask is because some people take the view of "OK, the sign is bunk as long as I don't mess up and expose in front of an employee that cares enough to report me..." - however, could a search happen just because the business is feeling obnoxious?

I'd suggest not touching people, wand em if you want, but don't touch em, certainly as a search for weapons.

 

Mac and pod, the condundrum/balance that you guys are hashing out is exactly why Texas went with the specific 30.06 language and signage. It puts the CHLer and business on equal ground as they both must comply with state statute. There was too much ambiguity as to exactly what point and what scenarios constituted a crime. So, they made it simple. If you're a CHLer and go in a building with an enforceable 30.06 sign, that's a crime. If you're a business owner and wish to prohibit CHLers from carrying on your property, you put up an enforceable 30.06 sign. Simple as that.

 

In Florida it's much simpler. A Florida CWFL authorizes one to carry a concealed firearm anywhere (including other's private property) not otherwise restricted by State or Federal law. Property owners must ask you to leave if they do not want you to remain on their property. Which is exactly they way it should be.

Perhaps Texas could also make it illegal to carry a Bible/Torah/Koran/etc. if the property owner posts a 'No Religion' sign?

 

One thing I've noticed though, most places with "No Firearms" signs up, at least here in Florida, don't look like they have the people to enforce it, if needed.

 

Looks can be deceiving. But more importantly perhaps is, they wouldn't try to enforce it, they'd ask you to leave and if you didn't you'd be talking to an leo or two before you knew it.

 

In Florida it's much simpler. A Florida CWFL authorizes one to carry a concealed firearm anywhere (including other's private property) not otherwise restricted by State or Federal law. Property owners must ask you to leave if they do not want you to remain on their property. Which is exactly they way it should be.

Perhaps Texas could also make it illegal to carry a Bible/Torah/Koran/etc. if the property owner posts a 'No Religion' sign?

That is excellent news as I intend to carry anywhere I can. Hopefully I am not asked by a property owner to leave because that means I have been made. That hasn't happened in the 9yrs I've carried.


A business/property owner in Texas has every right to put up any kind of sign s/he wishes and exclude any kind of person they wish. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. The general public ends up voting with their wallet based on what they think of the business policies. For example businesses with 30.06 signs get boycotted on principle by gun owners. Same goes for businesses with other biases deemed socially unacceptable.

If a businesses was wanding folks like brownie suggested, folks who did not like that would stop going. Chances are that practice will achieve the desired affect of keeping firearms out of his place. It may also upset other folks who feel it violates their privacy but may not be carrying firearms. That may cause a decrease in foot traffic. But The ones who agree with him will patronizing his establishment. Essentially what I am saying is, it would be a business move to implement wanding. Only time and quarterly reports would tell if the move pays off for him.

 

That is excellent news as I intend to carry anywhere I can. Hopefully I am not asked by a property owner to leave because that means I have been made. That hasn't happened in the 9yrs I've carried.


A business/property owner in Texas has every right to put up any kind of sign s/he wishes and exclude any kind of person they wish. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. The general public ends up voting with their wallet based on what they think of the business policies. For example businesses with 30.06 signs get boycotted on principle by gun owners. Same goes for businesses with other biases deemed socially unacceptable.

If a businesses was wanding folks like brownie suggested, folks who did not like that would stop going. Chances are that practice will achieve the desired affect of keeping firearms out of his place. It may also upset other folks who feel it violates their privacy but may not be carrying firearms. That may cause a decrease in foot traffic. But The ones who agree with him will patronizing his establishment. Essentially what I am saying is, it would be a business move to implement wanding. Only time and quarterly reports would tell if the move pays off for him.

Are you suggesting anti 2a signs are deemed socially unacceptable as well?

 

Are you suggesting anti 2a signs are deemed socially unacceptable as well?

The signs I had in mind when I typed that were of the racial type.

 

Got it, so you're not saying anti 2a is socially unacceptable IYO. :thumsup

 

Got it, so you're not saying anti 2a is socially unacceptable IYO.

lol Folks around here are pretty keen on nailing me down and labeling me aren't they?

To answer: depends on the social circle

 

Just reading a read on the fng, that's all :2thumsup

 

Just reading a read on the fng, that's all

Roger that

 

Starbucks



Please get it right. CEO did not reverse field, go anti 2nd Amendment, or ask that you not exercise your rights. He just asked that you leave his business out of it. He stood up for us. Get that right. Then a bunch of over zealous 2nd Amenders decided to take it to the next level and hurt his business by open carrying in his shops. He stood up for us, and got screwed by the very folks he tried to support. Let the man go. He tried to do right, got screwed for it, and apparently continues to get screwed for it because folks misinterpret his actions. He's on our side. Stop crucifying him! : censored

 

CEO stated that we can have a weapon within legal limits and guidelines, he did not ban them. If you are in an open carry state and within legal parameters then so be it, just don't come in and be disruptive and showboating. With that, I believe that if you are within your legal rights and not being disruptive but have a anti-2A in your face about it they will likely ask the disruptive anti to leave or be trespassed. In all events you may be subject to a ignorant (literal sense) store manager that may interpret the policy and act asking you to leave even if you are within your legal rights, I would leave and place weapon in vehicle then go back in and get that managers name and report it to corporate and keep it in civil recourse and not turn myself into a criminal case.

 

What if you carry in a location with a sign (in FL) which you may or may not have seen and they don't ask you to leave but just call LE? Of course you would have to be made for that to happen but I would assume/hope that the LEO would just ask you to leave and that would be the end of it if you did.

 

That is what will happen, Mark, unless you get a LEO who is not informed about the issues. Most are.
Problem is, some people are not comfortable approaching a person they perceive to be armed, so they just call the law.

 

Thanks for the quick reply Qman. That is exactly what I figured would be the case.

 

Only been carrying for a very short time and not run into a situation where there was a sign but I don't plan on pushing my luck when I do. Main reason I asked was in case of a situation where I didn't notice the sign.

 

Not pushing your luck, at all. It is VERY clear that 'No Firearms' signs carry absolutely no legal weight, regardless of the language.

If you firearm is discovered, you're doing it wrong.