Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Gun free zone signs?  (Read 3688 times)

ArmedNerd

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Gun free zone signs?
« on: August 21, 2014, 10:16:44 pm »

Are there a lot of No Gun signs in Manchester or Exeter?  Those are the top two contenders for where I want to move ATM and I would like to know how many places are going to be off limits.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2014, 05:15:38 am »

I don't live or work in Manchester or Exeter; but NH doesn't have a lot of 'No Guns' signs in any particular place.

Logged

ArmedNerd

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2014, 07:08:37 am »

I don't live or work in Manchester or Exeter; but NH doesn't have a lot of 'No Guns' signs in any particular place.



Thanks.  I saw on Handgunlaw.us that they had the force of law, so I was kinda worried.  But I didn't figure y'all would have chosen NH, if it was a huge problem.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2014, 11:52:03 pm »

Are there a lot of No Gun signs in Manchester or Exeter?  Those are the top two contenders for where I want to move ATM and I would like to know how many places are going to be off limits.

They are places were guns are banned in NH. They include prisons, the court room parts of court houses, the back sections of police stations perhaps, the coat room for the NH House... These places are very few and far between. If a private place puts up a sign, it is enforced as a trespassing issues, if you refuse to leave when asked. That's because such signs have no meaning in NH.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2014, 04:56:39 am »

I don't live or work in Manchester or Exeter; but NH doesn't have a lot of 'No Guns' signs in any particular place.



Thanks.  I saw on Handgunlaw.us that they had the force of law, so I was kinda worried.  But I didn't figure y'all would have chosen NH, if it was a huge problem.
They do have the force of law. Just never been much open carry in the more populated areas of NH for private property to be signed in such a manner.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2014, 08:56:40 am »

I don't live or work in Manchester or Exeter; but NH doesn't have a lot of 'No Guns' signs in any particular place.



Thanks.  I saw on Handgunlaw.us that they had the force of law, so I was kinda worried.  But I didn't figure y'all would have chosen NH, if it was a huge problem.
Thankfully, unlike in some states, the anti-weapon signs at private establishments in NH don't have force of law. That might be part of the reason they are so rare in NH compared to some other places.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2014, 12:47:16 pm »

They do have force of law. The second you pass the sign you can be charged with trespassing... no second notice is required.

I've even printed the statute several times for people to read.

The reason that they are so rare is simple... stand in a large retailer and count the number of customers that you see open carrying.


Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2014, 09:53:08 pm »

They do have force of law. The second you pass the sign you can be charged with trespassing... no second notice is required.

I've even printed the statute several times for people to read.

John, we've been over this several times.  Your reading of the law is 100% wrong, and is not supported be even a single shred of caselaw.  I explained in detail precisely how you were mis-reading what is in the statute.  At this point, it seems that you are willfully providing false information to folks.

Trespassing can only be charged if someone violates a "no trespassing" sign.  "No trespassing" signs apply to individuals, not objects.  A gun cannot be charged with trespassing.  There is no procedure within the law by which a conditional "no trespassing" sign can be posted which applies only to those who presently have firearms on them.  So, if someone wants to post their business with a "no trespassing" sign (according to the specific wording and size, as required by statute before a charge of trespassing could be applied), they could do that.  But it would apply to everyone, not just those who have guns on them - hard to run a store or such while prohibiting the entire body of the public from entering.

If someone is carrying a gun and is asked to leave, and does not, only then can they be charged with trespassing.  Same as they could be charged with trespassing if they were asked to leave because of their body odor, and did not.

"No guns" signs do not have the force of law in NH, except in the explicit cases that are part of the statutes (which is pretty much limited to "courts").
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2014, 05:27:55 am »

    635:2 Criminal Trespass. –
    I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.
    II. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a class B felony for any subsequent offense if the person knowingly or recklessly causes damage in excess of $1,500 to the value of the property of another.
    III. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:
       (a) The trespass takes place in an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III; or
       (b) The person knowingly enters or remains:
          (1) In any secured premises;
          (2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person; or
          (3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified of such order.
    IV. All other criminal trespass is a violation.
    V. In this section, "secured premises'' means any place which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
    VI. In this section, "property,'' "property of another,'' and "value'' shall be as defined in RSA 637:2, I, IV, and V, respectively.

See that (b)(2) and (b)(1) are on equal footing. And note that 'V' defines 'secured premise' as being a place posted in a manner described by law. That means that once signed, there is no need for an order to leave. Once you pass the sign you have performed a misdemeanor.  

And the Courts have not required a general 'No Trespass' sign for quite some time. Many properties are posted against specific acts that are accountable under that statute. So the person without the firearm is considered 'privileged' to do so, and the one carrying the firearm is not.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 05:32:20 am by John Edward Mercier »
Logged

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2014, 07:00:40 am »

You seem to be reading a lot into that statute. It's not clear at all to me that it would be interpreted that way. You say that cases have, in fact, interpreted it as you say. Can you reference specific ones that would back that up?

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Gun free zone signs?
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2014, 08:10:13 am »

And, again, as has been discussed before (which is why I have to say this must be intentional), we don't have to wonder what the "prescribed manner" of posting is, because it's defined in that chapter, and you're conveniently ignoring it:

Quote
635:4 Prescribed Manner of Posting. – A person may post his land to prohibit criminal trespass and physical activities by posting signs of durable material with any words describing the physical activity prohibited, such as "No Hunting or Trespassing'', printed with block letters no less than 2 inches in height, and with the name and address of the owner or lessee of such land. Such signs shall be posted not more than 100 yards apart on all sides and shall also be posted at gates, bars and commonly used entrances. This section shall not prevent any owner from adding to the language required by this section.

Mere possession of a firearm is not a "physical activity."  One could post, "no shooting" or "no handling of firearms."  But mere possession is passive, and cannot qualify under that statute.

As Dalebert notes, there is no shred of caselaw to back up your claim.  Nor does it match the plain language of the statute.

Nor does your theory fit in with the way things work in NH, where (for example) a firearm used in a crime must be returned to its owner after his sentence is complete, unless the State has reason to believe he is a prohibited person, and cannot even require that he undergo a background check to determine such - and the fact that he was tried and convicted of a gun crime is not considered sufficient cause to even support the minimal invasion of requiring a background check. (State of New Hampshire v. Pessetto)

This is not a place in which over-broad theoretical re-interpretations of the statutory language is allowed against gun owners.  The statutes will be interpreted consistent with a strong protection for the right to keep and bear arms.  Hence why you're not going to find any caselaw to support your notion.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
Pages: [1]   Go Up