Lancaster man arrested after child finds his gun

[Mike]

imported post

Back to the tresspassing issue ("Roberts has a concealed weapons permit, but signs at the entrances to Plaza Fiesta said no weapons were allowed, the report stated. Roberts was charged with trespassing after notice because he brought the gun into Plaza Fiesta.").

What is the law of criminal tresspass in Oregon on this question - can a mere "no weapons" sign be held to trigger a criminal tresspass? If so, what facts are relevant?

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Oregon or South Carolina? SC has an explicit sign statute

SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.
(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:
(1) clearly visible from outside the building;
(2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;
(3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;
(5) a diameter of a circle; and
(6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.
(C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained in subsection (A) must be:
(1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;
(2) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black three- inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two inches wide;
(4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground;
(5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.

And a 'playground' isn't likely to have doors

 

[Mike]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Oregon or South Carolina? SC has an explicit sign statute

Sorry - SC I guess as this alleged crime was committed in SC.

I am moving this thread to SC forum where it should have been posted to begin with.

Did the sign at the "plaza" conform to theabove statute?

Anyone know the statuts of this charge?

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

User 2745 is the OP

 

[1swellguy]

imported post

PT111 wrote

In SC the sign is considered proper notification. If you ignore the signs then you are trespassing. The signs carry the same weight as someone asking you to leave.

(IANAL but I am a gun rights lobbyist) In SC the law requires any sign posting a place against CWP to have very specific dimensions (see Doug Huffman's post of 23-31-235).

If that playground area was not PROPERLY posted, then the trespassing charge should never stick. While prosecution could argue that any sign was sufficient notice, defense could argue that any reasonable man would assume it was 'outdated' signage (ie from before 23-31-235 was passed) and was therefore evidence that the property owner no longer cared to keep his property lawfully posted. The property owner should have known what the CWP Sign Posting law says if he truly wanted his property free of CWP holders.

Bill

 

[PT111]

imported post

1swellguy wrote:

PT111 wrote

In SC the sign is considered proper notification. If you ignore the signs then you are trespassing. The signs carry the same weight as someone asking you to leave.

(IANAL but I am a gun rights lobbyist) In SC the law requires any sign posting a place against CWP to have very specific dimensions (see Doug Huffman's post of 23-31-235).

If that playground area was not PROPERLY posted, then the trespassing charge should never stick. While prosecution could argue that any sign was sufficient notice, defense could argue that any reasonable man would assume it was 'outdated' signage (ie from before 23-31-235 was passed) and was therefore evidence that the property owner no longer cared to keep his property lawfully posted. The property owner should have known what the CWP Sign Posting law says if he truly wanted his property free of CWP holders.

Bill

So you are saying that the signs were not properly posted? Have you seen the signs? I have not been there in several years but the last time I was there it was still Carolina Pottery, I think was the name, and was not posted. I assumed, and I know what assumed means, that if he was charged then the signs were proper. If not then he should not have been charged. Can someone from the Rock Hill/Charlotte area check and see if the signs are proper? I have had several discussions with the Sheriff of Lancaster County and he is very aware of CWP laws and a supporter of gun carry.

If the signs were properly posted then I have no sympathy for whatever he is charged with. If not then he can sue or whatever he wants to.

 

[mdgary]

imported post

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

mdgary wrote: One of the more succinct postings I have read today. :lol:

Yata hey

 

[mdgary]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

mdgary wrote: One of the more succinct postings I have read today. :lol:

Yata hey

I almost posted in the wrong thread. there's not an emoticon for dumd ass.:?