Arizona

[fiddletown]

...I’m out right now. I posted the applicable statutes in another thread and will re-post the backup for my comments when I get home later.

To clarify: except for a bar or restaurant there are no special requirements in order for a “no gun” sign to be effective.

I'm back.

Under Arizona law a bar or restaurant serving alcohol that wants to exclude guns must post a sign meeting certain statutory requirements. Any other type of business that wants to exclude guns need only provide reasonable notice that guns aren't allowed. Here's how we reach that conclusion:

The ARS 4-229 sign requirement applies only to premises which sell alcoholic beverages by the drink. Note that Title 4 of the Arizona Revised Statutes relates to the alcoholic beverages.

Note that in Title 4, including ARS 4-244 and ARS 4-229 the term "on-sale retailer" means (ARS 4-101, subparagraph 25):

25. "On-sale retailer" means any person operating an establishment where spirituous liquors are sold in the original container for consumption on or off the premises or in individual portions for consumption on the premises.

And "licensed premises" means ((ARS 4-101, subparagraph 28):

28. "Premises" or "licensed premises" means the area from which the licensee is authorized to sell, dispense or serve spirituous liquors under the provision of the license....

And under ARS 4-244 (emphasis added) --

It is unlawful:
.....

29. For any person other than a peace officer or a member of a sheriff's volunteer posse while on duty who has received firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board, the licensee or an employee of the licensee acting with the permission of the licensee to be in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer. This paragraph shall not be construed to include a situation in which a person is on licensed premises for a limited time in order to seek emergency aid and such person does not buy, receive, consume or possess spirituous liquor. This paragraph shall not apply to:

(a) Hotel or motel guest room accommodations.

(b) The exhibition or display of a firearm in conjunction with a meeting, show, class or similar event.

(c) A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 who carries a concealed handgun on the licensed premises of any on-sale retailer that has not posted a notice pursuant to section 4-229.

30. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit a person in possession of a firearm other than a peace officer or a member of a sheriff's volunteer posse while on duty who has received firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board, the licensee or an employee of the licensee acting with the permission of the licensee to remain on the licensed premises or to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a person in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer. It shall be a defense to action under this paragraph if the licensee or employee requested assistance of a peace officer to remove such person. This paragraph shall not apply to:

(a) Hotel or motel guest room accommodations.

(b) The exhibition or display of a firearm in conjunction with a meeting, show, class or similar event.

(c) A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 who carries a concealed handgun on the licensed premises of any on-sale retailer that has not posted a notice pursuant to section 4-229....

And see ARS 4-229:

4-229. Licenses; handguns; posting of notice

A. A person may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises. The sign shall conform to the following requirements:

1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to the liquor license posted on the licensed premises.

2. Contain a pictogram that shows a firearm within a red circle and a diagonal red line across the firearm.

3. Contain the words, "no firearms allowed pursuant to A.R.S. section 4-229".

B. A person shall not carry a firearm on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer if the licensee has posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section.

C. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection B of this section if:

1. The person was not informed of the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section before the violation.

2. Any one or more of the following apply:

(a) At the time of the violation the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section had fallen down.

(b) At the time of the violation the person was not a resident of this state.

(c) The licensee had posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section not more than thirty days before the violation.

D. The department of liquor licenses and control shall prepare the signs required by this section and make them available at no cost to licensees.

E. The signs required by this section shall be composed of block, capital letters printed in black on white laminated paper at a minimum weight of one hundred ten pound index. The lettering and pictogram shall consume a space at least six inches by nine inches. The letters constituting the words "no firearms allowed" shall be at least three-fourths of a vertical inch and all other letters shall be at least one-half of a vertical inch. Nothing shall prohibit a licensee from posting additional signs at one or more locations on the premises.

F. This section does not prohibit a person who possesses a handgun from entering the licensed premises for a limited time for the specific purpose of either:

1. Seeking emergency aid.

2. Determining whether a sign has been posted pursuant to subsection A of this section.

However, in Arizona if the premises isn't a bar or restaurant serving alcoholic drink, the operative law is the Arizona criminal trespass statute, ARS 13-1502 (emphasis added):

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.

B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.

Notice that it is criminal trespass in Arizona not only when one stays after being asked to leave. It is also criminal trespass to enter if one is on notice that entry is prohibited.

The question therefore becomes whether a "no guns" sign on private property is reasonable notice prohibiting entry by one carrying a gun. That will be up to the court, if you're unlucky.

Certainly on the face of things it looks like a "no gun" sign could well be considered reasonable notice that entry to the premises with a gun is prohibited.

[SVT-40]

Is there anything in Arizona at the moment to work on these sign laws? The only thing keeping it from being the perfect gun state is the signs having force of law. I'd love the law to be you have to be asked to leave, that way you could most likely at least conceal carry.

No... Because most in AZ believe it's up to each person or business owner to decide what happens inside their own property.

We don't want the "state" making those decisions.

You can carry anywhere you like, just don't expect that your "rights" will supersede the rights of another. Especially inside their business.

Their property their rules. Don't like it... Don't go in...

The state should not decide who's rights are more important than another's.

[R Dale]

No... Because most in AZ believe it's up to each person or business owner to decide what happens inside their own property.

We don't want the "state" making those decisions.

You can carry anywhere you like, just don't expect that your "rights" will supersede the rights of another. Especially inside their business.

Their property their rules. Don't like it... Don't go in...

The state should not decide who's rights are more important than another's.

I think the state is wrong to allow signs that display no guns to have the force of law and make it a offense that you can be arrested for. I do think if you are asked to leave a place for a reason that was fairly disclosed before you entered and you refuse then it would be right to have LE remove you.

[I Swan]

No... Because most in AZ believe it's up to each person or business owner to decide what happens inside their own property.

We don't want the "state" making those decisions.

You can carry anywhere you like, just don't expect that your "rights" will supersede the rights of another. Especially inside their business.

Their property their rules. Don't like it... Don't go in...

The state should not decide who's rights are more important than another's.

I agree up to a point. A business open to the public is not the same as someone's private home. A weird comparison but businesses open to general public are forced to serve Black people even if they don't want to so is that 100% different from them being allowed to not allow someone to carry?

[R Dale]

I think anytime the gov allows a business to stop someone from doing something that is legal we are on a slippery slope towards more loss of rights. I can understand the occasional bar against some things such as you can't smoke in a restaurant or parts of the restaurant, but we don't wont people being arrested because they lit up in the no smoking section of a restaurant unless they refused to leave when asked.

[SVT-40]

I think the state is wrong to allow signs that display no guns to have the force of law and make it a offense that you can be arrested for. I do think if you are asked to leave a place for a reason that was fairly disclosed before you entered and you refuse then it would be right to have LE remove you.

I think anytime the gov allows a business to stop someone from doing something that is legal we are on a slippery slope towards more loss of rights. I can understand the occasional bar against some things such as you can't smoke in a restaurant or parts of the restaurant, but we don't wont people being arrested because they lit up in the no smoking section of a restaurant unless they refused to leave when asked.

So your "rights" are supreme to the rights of a property owner to control what happens inside their property?

You want the state to tell a property owner that your "rights" are supreme to his?

You have a choice. Don't go in if you see the signs.

The "state" allows individuals to control what happens inside their property.

A sign should be sufficient enough warning.

No property owner should have to ask you to leave because you choose to ignore the properly posted sign.

It's called responsibility for your actions. If you make the choice to ignore the signs, well you make the choice to accept the responsibility for having the police called and you possibly prosecuted.

It's all about personal responsibility.

You refuse to respect a persons rights to control what happens inside their property, and expect no consequences?

[SVT-40]

I agree up to a point. A business open to the public is not the same as someone's private home. A weird comparison but businesses open to general public are forced to serve Black people even if they don't want to so is that 100% different from them being allowed to not allow someone to carry?

You have a choice as to carrying a gun. You can leave it in your car when you see the signs...

A black person cannot change their skin color.

Not even close.

A business is still not public property. It's private.

It's as simple as this...

See the signs, Don't go in.....

[I Swan]

Yes but if it is private property why should they be forced allow in Blacks or women or Martians if they don't want to? There are places that rightly wouldn't refuse the business and they can just go there. Just like I'm forced to go elsewhere yes I know I can disarm but still something to think about.

[fiddletown]

Yes but if it is private property why should they be forced allow in Blacks or women or Martians if they don't want to? There are places that rightly wouldn't refuse the business and they can just go there. Just like I'm forced to go elsewhere yes I know I can disarm but still something to think about.

And that is ultimately a political question.

Conflicting rights often rub against each other. When they do, it's been customary in our system for a legislative body to decide priorities and enact laws to ameliorate the rubbing.

Businesses open to the public are subject to numerous regulations and requirements limiting the business' freedom to use its property and conduct business as it chooses. These various requirements, regulations and rules to which a business open to the public is subject arose through the political process in which interested parties can participate; and they therefore reflect a considered determination by a legislative body or authorized administrative agency that as a matter of public policy the public interest served by the requirement, regulation or rule was sufficient to justify impairment of the property rights of the business.

Of course there's a conflict between the rights of an honest citizen to lawfully carry a gun and the right of a business to control its property and exclude people carrying a gun, if it so chooses. So far, to the extent that state legislatures have acted on the question, they have usually recognized the business' property rights and at least have provided some mechanism by which business can require that gun carriers leave on request or be charged with criminal trespass.

We live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as you do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while you may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote your vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

[BAJ475]

... And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

Which is both a blessing and a curse at the same time. It is a blessing when I am in the minority and my rights to protest are protected and a curse when those who disagree are in the majority and they ignore my protest and objections and do the wrong thing anyway.