If you are in a state where open carry of firearms is legal, can a merchant or retailer legally refuse to serve you, or ask a civilian to leave the premises, based solely on the fact that they are carrying a weapon?
AFAICT, yes. I.e., a business establishment can have a “no guns” policy, even in states where open carry is legal.
This is because even if openly carrying a gun is legal, it isn’t a legally “protected status”, so businesses can discriminate on the basis of that status if they so choose.
Similarly, it’s not illegal to wear a sport shirt instead of a coat and tie, but a fancy restaurant is allowed to exclude male patrons who aren’t wearing coats and ties, if it’s against the restaurant’s dress code. Tielessness is not a protected status, even though it’s perfectly legal.
I don’t know of any places where a business can’t exclude based on wearing a firearm. I do imagine that if a State law or State constitutional amendment existed making it a right to open carry in “public establishments” I don’t believe it would violate any constitutionally protected rights at the Federal level, so if a stated wanted that they could do it.
However I think most places with strong gun rights communities also believe the property rights of others are sacrosanct, and the belief is generally that if you own a business you have a right to decide who can be on its premises.
Can an establishment require patrons to carry guns?
*Gentlemen must wear a coat and tie, and carry a firearm. *
Several years ago some little town in Arizona passed a law that every male must carry a handgun. I never heard whatever happened.
Any business in my state can forbid firearms. But they must have a sign at the door. Today I was going into a home building supply store and happen to notice their sign. I have a CHL but returned to my vehicle to leave my handgun.
Our bank did have a “No firearms allowed” sign on the door but have removed it after they were robbed.
I hate places that put up those stupid signs for criminals don’t obey any laws or signs!
I welcome signs likethis oneI’ve seen in different places in the great state of Texas!
Business owners can certainly set whatever rules they want for their property.
Some are foolish enough to ban concealed weapon permit holders from packing hidden heat. Since this is a group that has proven to be the least crime-committing collection of people around, this seems rather foolish to me.
I personally never give my money to someone who would deny me a constitutional right or the ability to protect myself as I deem necessary.
Their signs, therefore, are a help to me.
Nitpick and full disclosure: I fully support concealed carry. That being said, a store that forbids concealed carry on its premises is not denying you a constitutional right.
Nothing says that you have a right to carry in their store any more than your 1st amendment right is being denied by them refusing to allow you to vocally advertise for their competitor on the premises.
I think that the OP has been answered, but “yes of course” is correct. What about “No shirt, no shoes, no service”? Businesses can choose not to serve you for any reason at all except for legally protected ones like race, religion, etc.
Arizona is open carry, once while visiting a friend, they took me to a huge C&W bar. I asked about drunk cowboys and open carry. The answer I was given was that if you were to go in packing, they would not serve you alcohol.
As a result, nobody went in packing.
Seemed reasonable to me.
The only places I have noticed with such signs have been bars. Last thing I want to see is a drunk guy with a gun.
Starbucks made news last year when they enacted a no-firearms policy on their premises despite state law…businesses can certainly refuse service to open-carry (or concealed-carry) civilians.
It’s legal here in Michigan but there are restrictions. I don’t believe one can carry in bars, at large sporting events or stadiums, on school grounds or places of worship.
Business owners will sometimes have a no-firearms policy because they can’t tell the difference between someone carrying legally and someone looking to hold them up at gunpoint, and a posted sign gives them a legal out when they throw someone out of the business for carrying. (Yeah, I know all about the Wal-Mart Walk and the need to not make it so obvious, but it’s really not that hard to tell when someone’s carrying if you know what to look for.)
They can refuse service to non-civilians as well. Cops and soldiers aren’t a protected class.
The signs aren’t intended to deter criminals.
Here in Israel there are plenty of places with signs saying “Entry with Weapns Forbidden”. All movie theaters, for instance. Lots of other places (like most malls) require you to show a license or a military ID before they let you in armed.
Most here have interjected concealed carry info into an open carry topic.
In MN open carry is legal and i very rarely open carry but it comes down to respect of the owner before anything else. I would not carry at least openly in any place with a sign prohibiting firearms.
Now if there wasn’t a sign and the owner/management asked me to leave because I was carrying I would just leave regardless. I would only fall back on the statutes in the event someone went bonkers and tried to take some kind of legal action.
Remember, an armed society is a polite society or something to that effect.
What do you mean. Booze + guns. What could possibly go wrong?
Not Arizona. Not carry.
Georgia. At home.
Since 1982 here in Georgia, the town of Kennesaw requires all homeowners to have a gun and ammunition.
They say burglaries have gone down.
Can’t see any direct reason why not, but it might be possible to make the argument that this ends up being indirect discrimination against a protected class, if the protected class is unable to carry firearms. Quakers and other pacifist religions, for example. I don’t know if felons or some other class that’s not permitted to carry firearms might be considered a protected class for public places.
I don’t know how that would come out. It’s a law of general applicability that doesn’t place a special burden on Quakers any more than a law banning the use of peyote places a special burden on the practioners of certain Native American religions.
But expecting rationality in religious jurisprudence is pissing into the wind, and a law affecting Christians will be viewed in a different light to one affecting a minority religion.