legal guidance about carrying in/to/from this specific spot?

[brk913]

I was not going to reply to this but changed my mind when I looked back at the sign again, this sign is not properly worded for CT regarding school zones. The sign is not prohibiting you from possessing firearms on the property, it is notifying you that you are in a school zone and that by Federal and State Law you may not possess drugs or guns in a school zone, let's ignore the drugs as that part is right at both the Federal and State level, the problem is the Federal law regarding school zones states the gun possession does not apply to a person holding a valid carry permit issued from the state the school is located in and CT has no law regarding firearms and school zones (only school property and at school sponsored events off property)...As far as stretching that to be notice of a property owner's intent to prohibit firearms from their property my opinion is it's not good enough and if you were charged for violating CGS 29-28(e) you would have a great affirmative defense in court. If the property owner instead posted a sign that simply states No Firearms or No Weapons on the buildings and on signs when entering the complex I think it would be different.

ETA: If this sign is posted due to the daycare it also means nothing as a daycare is not even considered a school per CT or Federal definition. Are there any real schools in that area? 1500 feet as the crow flies is a lot farther than most people think...

 

[motoxmann]

hmm, good point. I guess I have a potentially serious decision to make lol.
what a predicament

edit: just to be clear, there is 1 of these signs posted on each building, NOT on the entrances, but rather on the exterior of the building on the second story (buildings are all 3-stories). each building has 3 entrances per long side. parking lot side is main entrance, opposite side is secondary entrance to the same hallway. the signs are posted between the left and middle entrances, about 20 feet up from the ground. the signs are sized slightly smaller than what a speed limit sign on a public road is sized to.
[in case any of that matters]

 

[Rich B]

I was not going to reply to this but changed my mind when I looked back at the sign again, this sign is not properly worded for CT regarding school zones. The sign is not prohibiting you from possessing firearms on the property, it is notifying you that you are in a school zone and that by Federal and State Law you may not possess drugs or guns in a school zone, let's ignore the drugs as that part is right at both the Federal and State level, the problem is the Federal law regarding school zones states the gun possession does not apply to a person holding a valid carry permit issued from the state the school is located in and CT has no law regarding firearms and school zones (only school property and at school sponsored events off property)...As far as stretching that to be notice of a property owner's intent to prohibit firearms from their property my opinion is it's not good enough and if you were charged for violating CGS 29-28(e) you would have a great affirmative defense in court. If the property owner instead posted a sign that simply states No Firearms or No Weapons on the buildings and on signs when entering the complex I think it would be different.

ETA: If this sign is posted due to the daycare it also means nothing as a daycare is not even considered a school per CT or Federal definition. Are there any real schools in that area? 1500 feet as the crow flies is a lot farther than most people think...

I think this is going to run up against 'intent'. And the 'intent' of the owner is to prohibit drugs and firearms.

While you might be right that you have a reasonable defense, that is going to come at the cost of thousands of dollars and a potential felony hanging overhead. And I can assure you that in this state, the courts are not on your side.

 

[1245A Defender]

Oh,,,

It is illegal in Connecticut. Please don't give bad advice like this if you do not understand our laws.

Please, if you could, provide a cite to Connecticut law to back up this,,, so we can all read and understand.

I took a look at handgunlaw.us, but they had nothing to say about signs in your state.
So very few states give "no gun" signs the weight of law, and only then if they are of certain size,
design, placement, and particularly citing the law that is being invoked!
Most states in handgunlaw.us have some words about the authority of signs, particularly if they have "force of law"!

I can not cite the uselessnes of the sign in question... It is up to you to cite the law you claim is in Connecticut.

We all offer our,Thanks in advance...

 

[motoxmann]

Are there any real schools in that area? 1500 feet as the crow flies is a lot farther than most people think...

I have checked, and no, there are no schools within 1500 feet

 

[Rich B]

Please, if you could, provide a cite to Connecticut law to back up this,,, so we can all read and understand.

I already did. CGS 29-28(e)

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...pecific-spot&p=1857601&viewfull=1#post1857601

If you feel I am wrong, please cite the CGS that allows us to ignore these signs and overrides CGS 29-28(e).

I took a look at handgunlaw.us, but they had nothing to say about signs in your state.

Irrelevant. I don't even know why someone would look there for the laws of a state when that person could just view the statutes online.

So very few states give "no gun" signs the weight of law, and only then if they are of certain size,
design, placement, and particularly citing the law that is being invoked!

But not our state.

Most states in handgunlaw.us have some words about the authority of signs, particularly if they have "force of law"!

This is why it is stupid and careless to trust a third party site when discussing legal matters.




Shouldn't you have researched the laws in Connecticut before making a posting here attempting to give advice?

 

[brk913]

Please, if you could, provide a cite to Connecticut law to back up this,,, so we can all read and understand.

I took a look at handgunlaw.us, but they had nothing to say about signs in your state.
So very few states give "no gun" signs the weight of law, and only then if they are of certain size,
design, placement, and particularly citing the law that is being invoked!
Most states in handgunlaw.us have some words about the authority of signs, particularly if they have "force of law"!

I can not cite the uselessnes of the sign in question... It is up to you to cite the law you claim is in Connecticut.

We all offer our,Thanks in advance...

29-28(e) The issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises.

This the CT statute in question, there is no further notice required by CT law (specific signage or any notice) this is why I say if it is not clearly posted you have a great affirmative defense in court if you are charged. Under CT law knowingly entering a property that is "not authorized" is the equivalent of carrying without a permit as stated in the above statute, your penalty is found here:

Sec. 29-37. Penalties. (a) Any person violating any provision of section 29-28 or 29-31 shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both, and any pistol or revolver found in the possession of any person in violation of any of said provisions shall be forfeited.

ETA: Rich was to fast for me...

 

[motoxmann]

thank you gentlemen, your efforts are highly appreciated as always

I now have a decision to make: whether or not to attempt to contact the owner(s) to request special permission to carry on/in the premises. if they say yes, great, but if they say no, it could mean great hassle for me from here on out. it could also prompt them to redesign their signs to be more specific

 

[Rich B]

I now have a decision to make: whether or not to attempt to contact the owner(s) to request special permission to carry on/in the premises. if they say yes, great, but if they say no, it could mean great hassle for me from here on out. it could also prompt them to redesign their signs to be more specific

This is always the risk with this kind of issue. You might be surprised and find out the owners are not anti-firearm at all and just want to scare away drug dealers but are doing it wrong.

But you may find out they are very anti-gun and want to make it a bigger issue.

 

[motoxmann]

But you may find out they are very anti-gun and want to make it a bigger issue.

yeeeeaaaah. worst case scenario:
"what?? you're pro-gun and have your PP, and are challenging my signs? you don't have a signed lease with us, I don't want you starting any trouble around here, legal or illegal, you are no longer allowed on our property. if you step foot on our property ever again I'll have you arrested for trespassing"

 

[Rich B]

yeeeeaaaah. worst case scenario:
"what?? you're pro-gun and have your PP, and are challenging my signs? you don't have a signed lease with us, I don't want you starting any trouble around here, legal or illegal, you are no longer allowed on our property. if you step foot on our property ever again I'll have you arrested for trespassing"

Well YMMV, but I wouldn't be on their property anyway.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

Well YMMV, but I wouldn't be on their property anyway.

If you dont care about the OPs rights,,, just because YOU dont need to use them,,, your trust and legal guidance is suspect!

Your posts of cites about the license, the lawfulness, to carry a gun where the OWNER of the property,
doesnt want you to,,, does NOT address,,, IF the sign carries the FORCE of LAW...
This is a very specific law that goes beyond the implied wishes of some words posted where some folks would not even see them.
Most states require that a person, violating the wishes of the owner or agent of a business or property,
to "personally inform" the person that they may not be on the property,, BEFORE that person can be charged with tresspassing...

I still believe those signs are a good intentioned hoax,,, that they mean nothing under the law.

 

[Rich B]

If you dont care about the OPs rights,,, just because YOU dont need to use them,,, your trust and legal guidance is suspect!

Your posts of cites about the license, the lawfulness, to carry a gun where the OWNER of the property,
doesnt want you to,,, does NOT address,,, IF the sign carries the FORCE of LAW...
This is a very specific law that goes beyond the implied wishes of some words posted where some folks would not even see them.
Most states require that a person, violating the wishes of the owner or agent of a business or property,
to "personally inform" the person that they may not be on the property,, BEFORE that person can be charged with tresspassing...

I still believe those signs are a good intentioned hoax,,, that they mean nothing under the law.

I see you didn't bother to read any of the statutes cited in this thread and instead resorted to forum diarrhea. Good luck with that.

You are not doing anyone any favors to come to another state's forum and crap all over it with suggestions of illegal behavior while pretending that the laws of other states matter to the laws of ours.



You are also suggesting illegal behavior, which I will remind you is against the rules of this forum:

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

 

[motoxmann]

I'm with rich on this one, and will blatantly say I know that our state's laws can be vague, and they do that intentionally so courts can decide on a case by case basis, and to leave people wondering and in fear of the laws so as to not do anything to risk POSSIBLY breaking them.
while we have no specific law that directly says: "if a sign is posted implying the owner requests no firearms on the property, any person possessing a firearm on said property will have their permit revoked, and charged with felony charges of blah blah charges",; I for one am not willing to test our laws' vagueness and spend thousands of dollars and risking losing my permit and weapons and criminal history all just to see how it would stand up in court.

heck, our laws state permit holders can carry handguns in vehicles, and carry is defined as within arm's reach or whatever, but there are many people who get their permits revoked and guns seized for having their handgun sitting on the passenger seat or anywhere in plain view to outsiders. it's stupid, but it happens, all because of the vagueness of our laws.

and then there's our law about suitability (we are a "may issue" state remember), which is even more vague. even if the signs are not force of law, if I were to carry on these premises while being aware of these signs, the courts and issuing authorities and BFPE and anyone else related could simply state I am ignoring the wishes of the property owner and therefore am not suitable to possess a pistol permit, and can revoke my permit simply based on that.

these are all reasons why I have posted this on here, to ask for other opinions before I do something stupid or ignorant. I like to think of myself as a leader, but a good leader uses common sense and gathers critical information before acting and potentially leading others into wrongful situations.
a bad leader is an ignorant person who simply charges ahead acting solely on their own personal opinions, without considering all possible consequences, no matter if they are wrong or right

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

If you dont care about the OPs rights,,, just because YOU dont need to use them,,, your trust and legal guidance is suspect!

Your posts of cites about the license, the lawfulness, to carry a gun where the OWNER of the property,
doesnt want you to,,, does NOT address,,, IF the sign carries the FORCE of LAW...
This is a very specific law that goes beyond the implied wishes of some words posted where some folks would not even see them.
Most states require that a person, violating the wishes of the owner or agent of a business or property,
to "personally inform" the person that they may not be on the property,, BEFORE that person can be charged with tresspassing...

I still believe those signs are a good intentioned hoax,,, that they mean nothing under the law.

yeeeeaaaah. worst case scenario:
"what?? you're pro-gun and have your PP, and are challenging my signs? you don't have a signed lease with us, I don't want you starting any trouble around here, legal or illegal, you are no longer allowed on our property. if you step foot on our property ever again I'll have you arrested for trespassing"

This ^^^^^^^ is exactly what I am trying to point out!
Most states laws require, that no matter what some signs might say,,,,
That the owner or agent needs to make a big fuss, tell the person to go away, and stay away before the force of law can be applied!

 

[Rich B]

heck, our laws state permit holders can carry handguns in vehicles, and carry is defined as within arm's reach or whatever, but there are many people who get their permits revoked and guns seized for having their handgun sitting on the passenger seat or anywhere in plain view to outsiders. it's stupid, but it happens, all because of the vagueness of our laws.

When has this happened?

and then there's our law about suitability (we are a "may issue" state remember), which is even more vague. even if the signs are not force of law, if I were to carry on these premises while being aware of these signs, the courts and issuing authorities and BFPE and anyone else related could simply state I am ignoring the wishes of the property owner and therefore am not suitable to possess a pistol permit, and can revoke my permit simply based on that.

these are all reasons why I have posted this on here, to ask for other opinions before I do something stupid or ignorant. I like to think of myself as a leader, but a good leader uses common sense and gathers critical information before acting and potentially leading others into wrongful situations.
a bad leader is an ignorant person who simply charges ahead acting solely on their own personal opinions, without considering all possible consequences, no matter if they are wrong or right

You are getting mired in the nonsense. Signs (and possibly less explicit notices) do carry the force of law in Connecticut, and the law really isn't vague on it at all. If you are somewhere where the property owner prohibits firearms, you might as well not have a pistol permit. The law says that pretty clearly.

What exactly constitutes 'notice' is a bit debatable, but with large signs all around the property that say 'No Firearms', there isn't much debate to be had.

 

[Rich B]

Most states laws require, that no matter what some signs might say,,,,
That the owner or agent needs to make a big fuss, tell the person to go away, and stay away before the force of law can be applied!

And our law does not. So why do you keep saying it? Please cite the CGS that says this if you are going to keep talking about it.

 

[motoxmann]

When has this happened?

I forget the attorney's name, but a CT attorney who specialises in handgun stuff has blogs and other info on his site, and he mentioned it a few times out of personal experience with clients of his. I'm sure there's more the the individual stories though. like if the driver/permitholder was driving while having their hand on the gun with it laying on the passenger seat, appearing as if they were intending to use it shortly or something, I don't know, it wasn't stated with full circumstancial data

You are getting mired in the nonsense. Signs (and possibly less explicit notices) do carry the force of law in Connecticut, and the law really isn't vague on it at all. If you are somewhere where the property owner prohibits firearms, you might as well not have a pistol permit. The law says that pretty clearly.

What exactly constitutes 'notice' is a bit debatable, but with large signs all around the property that say 'No Firearms', there isn't much debate to be had.

I'm aware of that, I was simply stating my above stuff as a reinforcement against what Defender was trying to say

 

[Rich B]

I forget the attorney's name, but a CT attorney who specialises in handgun stuff has blogs and other info on his site, and he mentioned it a few times out of personal experience with clients of his

I would be very cautious about spreading information such as this. This is how we got this crap about '8 weeks' and 'CT is a concealed carry state'. There is nothing unlawful about a firearm not being on your person in Connecticut. Without being able to review the individual cases, this is just Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

 

[LESGTINCT]

I apologize for not giving you advice on what to do but I would rather not. I do want to say that Rich B. knows what he is talking about and I would take his advice.