As I mentioned earlier today (well, actually yesterday, since I've worked on
it past midnight), I wanted to see which states have, like MN and OK,
enacted some statutory provision that limits what would otherwise be the
common-law or statutory right of private property owners (usually by
trespass law) to prohibit persons carrying firearms onto their property.
Note that this has to go beyond just saying that a permit is ineffective on
some type of private property; there has to be an affirmative limitation on
a property owner's right to exclude to meet the criteria I'm interested in.
I wouldn't proclaim this to be a complete list, because the state statutes
are such a crazy quilt that I easily could have missed something. Also, I
may have misunderstood the sometimes complex interactions between statutes
in different titles or chapters. Nevertheless, here's my preliminary list of
such state provisions. Naturally, I welcome any additions or corrections.
I'm not listing MN or OK, because I already knew about them in sufficient
detail for my purposes (and I'm doing this for me, not for all of you!).
Basically,parking lots are open to permit holders in both states, regardless
of the
property owner's wishes. MN also requires signs of specific wording and
dimensions to make effective a "private establishment's" prohibition on
carried pistols.
1. Kentucky
KRS 237.110(14) lists the types of property owners that may prohibit
permittees from carrying on their property. But there is a limitation for
those that are open to the public: "Possession of weapons, or ammunition, or
both in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as
the weapons, or ammunition, or both are not removed from the vehicle or
brandished while the vehicle is on the premises." This appears to prevent
such property owners from banning permit holders from having firearms in
their vehicles on the property. Similarly, private employers may not
prohibit an employee or other person with concealed-carry permits from
having concealed handguns in the employee's vehicle on company property.
2. Maine
Title 17-A, § 1057:
1. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm if:
A. ... [T]he person possesses any firearm on the premises of a licensed
[i.e., licensed for on-premises consumption of liquor] establishment posted
to prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms in a manner reasonably
likely to come to the attention of patrons, in violation of the posted
prohibition or restriction....
This appears to mean that a liquor licensee can post a prohibition on
firearms, including those carried by holders of permits, but the posting is
legally ineffective if the person carries his handgun in a manner that is
*not* reasonably likely to come to the attention of patrons. It is not
entirely clear, however, whether this extinguishes ordinary criminal
trespass law with respect to such a posted establishment. That is, it's not
clear that the patron's permit and gun immunize him from being required to
leave, when asked, on any grounds that would not violate general civil
rights laws.
This seems to be the earliest statutory limitation of the kind I'm
interested in, having been passed in 1989.
3. Michigan
List of private properties off-limits to permit holders (sports arenas,
bars, hospitals, child-care centers, churches) exempts parking lots. Also
exempts retired police officers, licensed private detectives. §28.425o,
Subs. (3). Again, however, it's not entirely clear that ordinary criminal
trespass provisions would not be available to such private property owners.
4. Mississippi
Miss. Code §45-9-101(12) specifies the kind of sign necessary to make
effective a property owner's prohibition of firearms carried by a permit
holder.
5. Missouri
§571.107(1).
Many places both public and private are listed in which a permit does not
allow carry, but most locations on this list explicitly exempt having a gun
in
the vehicle, provided that it is not removed from the vehicle or brandished.
For private property, this includes bars, schools, child-care facilities,
riverboat gambling operations, amusement parks, churches, hospitals, sports
arenas, and any other private property posted with a conspicuous sign of
specified design.
§571.107(2) states that carrying a pistol under terms of a permit in any of
the places, public or private, listed in §571.107(1) is not a crime, but
merely subjects the person to being asked to leave, with refusal of such
request subjecting the person to fines and/or loss of the permit, but no
incarceration. Though the law isn't entirely clear, it would appear that
these penalties do not pertain to possession of a firearm inside a vehicle,
even when the premises are properly posted. That is, if I'm reading it
correctly, the property owner has no legal mechanism of prohibiting a
permitted person from possessing a gun inside his car on private property.
6. Texas
Specific statute defining "Trespass by a holder of license to carry" (Penal
Code §30.06). Same penalty (Class A misdemeanor) as ordinary criminal
trespass (Penal Code §30.05) committed by one in possession of a deadly
weapon. However, holding a carry permit is a defense to that charge, so only
30.06 can be used. For the person to have the necessary notice predicate to
a charge under 30.06, must be given written copy of notice, or signs of
specific design must be posted.
7. Utah
Permitted person can carry on any private property without being in
violation of weapons laws. Churches and private residences can notify, in a
wide variety of ways, those on or entering their property that concealed
firearms are not allowed. This notice subjects a violator--permit holder or
not--to charge of "trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private
residence" (76-10-530). Violation is an "infraction" (non-criminal offense),
punishable by fine up to $750, but no incarceration.
Ordinary criminal trespass on private property is also an infraction-level
offense. 76-6-206
However, "It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the:
(a) property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained;
and
(b) actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's
use of the property."
Therefore, businesses open to the public cannot lawfully prevent entry by
permit holders carrying concealed pistols. They can post or in any other way
notify people that firearms are unwelcome, but if a person does not
interfere with the operation of the establishment, he has a defense against
a trespassing charge.
Of course, it may be that refusing to leave after being asked to do so would
be judged to be substantially interfering with the owner's use of his
property, so that the defense becomes nullified in practice. But the
statutory scheme does not compel that outcome.
8. Virginia
Generally, private property owners may prohibit concealed or open carry by
anybody, permitted or not, by any reasonable means:
18.2-308(O) "The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby
authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in
places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited
by the owner of private property."
However, a permit holder may carry a loaded, concealed handgun while in his
vehicle upon public or private school property. 18.2-308.1B(vii). This
appears to be a highly circumscribed exception to what would otherwise be a
private school's near-plenary right to deny entry to the property by a
permit holder carrying a concealed firearm.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
