Provo Towne Centre - gun or no gun

imported post

UtahJarhead wrote:

They can ask you as many times as they want. Until they say "Never come back here" it's not trespassing. Even by law, trespassing would be hard to stick because you have to significantly interfere with their day-to-day business. I wish I could find the UC for it. Otherwise, if you want to go back the next week, do it.

Click to expand...

76-6-206. Criminal trespass.
(1) As used in this section, "enter" means intrusion of the entire body.
(2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, under circumstances not amounting to burglary as defined in Section 76-6-202, 76-6-203, or 76-6-204 or a violation of Section 76-10-2402 regarding commercial terrorism:
(a) he enters or remains unlawfully on property and:
(i) intends to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property, including the use of graffiti as defined in Section 76-6-107;
(ii) intends to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony; or
(iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;
(b) knowing his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
(i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(ii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or
(iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
(c) he enters a condominium unit in violation of Subsection 57-8-7(7).
(3) (a) A violation of Subsection (2)(a) or (b) is a class B misdemeanor unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a class A misdemeanor.
(b) A violation of Subsection (2)(c) is an infraction.
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

imported post

You rock, Sgt!

There ya go...
76-10-2402 regarding commercial terrorism:
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

While as far as I know it's not tested, this gives the appearance of a valid defense against the charges. Again, IANAL and I don't want to be the test case.

imported post

UtahJarhead wrote:

You rock, Sgt!

There ya go...
76-10-2402 regarding commercial terrorism:
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

While as far as I know it's not tested, this gives the appearance of a valid defense against the charges. Again, IANAL and I don't want to be the test case.

Click to expand...

Are we being charged with "Commercial Terrorism" when we OC in the mall?

Seems just a bit over the top to me on this one!

imported post

Nope. You're CHARGED with it if the property owner asks you to leave and you don't. Again, CHARGED. Doesn't mean convicted or indicted. Section 4 of the above UC excerpt says it's a defense against the charge (a misdemeanor) if you don't interfere with their business and the place is open to the general public as the mall is.

Again, untested waters legally.

imported post

I see that I was too subtle here....

The discussion was about POTENTIALLY being charged with "CRIMINAL TRESPASS."

The law you cited was "CRIMINAL TERRORISM."

Trespass AIN'T TERRORISM!

Therein is my query!

imported post

Semantics, that's all. It's not called trespassing, but that's the statute that defines the punishment for it.

imported post

after RE-reading the tresspas statute AGAIN, I see the link to the Criminal Terrorism... My apoligies!

Strange that they would consider being open to the public and not substantially interferring with the business to be a defence against the charge of Criminal Terrorism!

Gotta be on the list of things that make you go Hmmmmmm!

:what:

imported post

JoeSparky wrote:

Strange that they would consider being open to the public and not substantially interferring with the business to be a defence against the charge of Criminal Terrorism!

Click to expand...

Well, if you're trying to commit an act of terrorism and you don't even manage to interfere with business operations, I guess you must be a pretty lame terrorist!

imported post

swillden wrote:

Well, if you're trying to commit an act of terrorism and you don't even manage to interfere with business operations, I guess you must be a pretty lame terrorist!

Click to expand...

:lol: "Oh, wait. Nevermind, guys.. just some jihadist failing."

imported post

UtahJarhead wrote:

They can ask you as many times as they want. Until they say "Never come back here" it's not trespassing. Even by law, trespassing would be hard to stick because you have to significantly interfere with their day-to-day business. I wish I could find the UC for it. Otherwise, if you want to go back the next week, do it.

Click to expand...

76-6-206. Criminal trespass.
(1) As used in this section, "enter" means intrusion of the entire body.
(2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, under circumstances not amounting to burglary as defined in Section 76-6-202, 76-6-203, or 76-6-204 or a violation of Section 76-10-2402 regarding commercial terrorism:
(a) he enters or remains unlawfully on property and:
(i) intends to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property, including the use of graffiti as defined in Section 76-6-107;
(ii) intends to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony; or
(iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;
(b) knowing his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
(i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(ii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or
(iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
(c) he enters a condominium unit in violation of Subsection 57-8-7(7).
(3) (a) A violation of Subsection (2)(a) or (b) is a class B misdemeanor unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a class A misdemeanor.
(b) A violation of Subsection (2)(c) is an infraction.
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

UtahJarhead wrote:

They can ask you as many times as they want. Until they say "Never come back here" it's not trespassing. Even by law, trespassing would be hard to stick because you have to significantly interfere with their day-to-day business. I wish I could find the UC for it. Otherwise, if you want to go back the next week, do it.

Click to expand...

76-6-206. Criminal trespass.
(1) As used in this section, "enter" means intrusion of the entire body.
(2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, under circumstances not amounting to burglary as defined in Section 76-6-202, 76-6-203, or 76-6-204 or a violation of Section 76-10-2402 regarding commercial terrorism:
(a) he enters or remains unlawfully on property and:
(i) intends to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property, including the use of graffiti as defined in Section 76-6-107;
(ii) intends to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony; or
(iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;
(b) knowing his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
(i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(ii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or
(iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
(c) he enters a condominium unit in violation of Subsection 57-8-7(7).
(3) (a) A violation of Subsection (2)(a) or (b) is a class B misdemeanor unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a class A misdemeanor.
(b) A violation of Subsection (2)(c) is an infraction.
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

Click to expand...

hehe, Sgt Jensen beat you to it.

imported post

UtahJarhead wrote:

rpyne wrote:

UtahJarhead wrote:

They can ask you as many times as they want. Until they say "Never come back here" it's not trespassing. Even by law, trespassing would be hard to stick because you have to significantly interfere with their day-to-day business. I wish I could find the UC for it. Otherwise, if you want to go back the next week, do it.

Click to expand...

76-6-206. Criminal trespass.
(1) As used in this section, "enter" means intrusion of the entire body.
(2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, under circumstances not amounting to burglary as defined in Section 76-6-202, 76-6-203, or 76-6-204 or a violation of Section 76-10-2402 regarding commercial terrorism:
(a) he enters or remains unlawfully on property and:
(i) intends to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property, including the use of graffiti as defined in Section 76-6-107;
(ii) intends to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony; or
(iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;
(b) knowing his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
(i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(ii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or
(iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
(c) he enters a condominium unit in violation of Subsection 57-8-7(7).
(3) (a) A violation of Subsection (2)(a) or (b) is a class B misdemeanor unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a class A misdemeanor.
(b) A violation of Subsection (2)(c) is an infraction.
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

Click to expand...

hehe, Sgt Jensen beat you to it.

Click to expand...

so does this mean thatif the place is open to the public and your not doing anything illegal and you have not interfered with the owners business thy cant do squat. but what about

(iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;

would no gun signs count. so say thy cant do anything to kick you out, but thy can refuse to serve you. would this count as discrimination?

is there a book or something i can get to carry around that has all these laws for quick reference.

imported post

JTknives wrote:

so does this mean thatif the place is open to the public and your not doing anything illegal and you have not interfered with the owners business thy cant do squat. but what about

(iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;

would no gun signs count. so say thy cant do anything to kick you out, but thy can refuse to serve you. would this count as discrimination?

is there a book or something i can get to carry around that has all these laws for quick reference.

Click to expand...

(b) knowing his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:

When you look at one rule, you need to look at the heading it is under. key word being 'unlawful' in this case. As shoppers in retail stores, we are not there unlawfully.

imported post

JTknives wrote:

UtahJarhead wrote:

rpyne wrote:

UtahJarhead wrote:

They can ask you as many times as they want. Until they say "Never come back here" it's not trespassing. Even by law, trespassing would be hard to stick because you have to significantly interfere with their day-to-day business. I wish I could find the UC for it. Otherwise, if you want to go back the next week, do it.

Click to expand...

76-6-206. Criminal trespass.
(1) As used in this section, "enter" means intrusion of the entire body.
(2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, under circumstances not amounting to burglary as defined in Section 76-6-202, 76-6-203, or 76-6-204 or a violation of Section 76-10-2402 regarding commercial terrorism:
(a) he enters or remains unlawfully on property and:
(i) intends to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property, including the use of graffiti as defined in Section 76-6-107;
(ii) intends to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony; or
(iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;
(b) knowing his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
(i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(ii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or
(iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
(c) he enters a condominium unit in violation of Subsection 57-8-7(7).
(3) (a) A violation of Subsection (2)(a) or (b) is a class B misdemeanor unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a class A misdemeanor.
(b) A violation of Subsection (2)(c) is an infraction.
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

Click to expand...

hehe, Sgt Jensen beat you to it.

Click to expand...

so does this mean thatif the place is open to the public and your not doing anything illegal and you have not interfered with the owners business thy cant do squat. but what about

(iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;

would no gun signs count. so say thy cant do anything to kick you out, but thy can refuse to serve you. would this count as discrimination?

is there a book or something i can get to carry around that has all these laws for quick reference.

Click to expand...

Don't mis-understand...

You WILL be cited! You WILL have to defend yourself in court! This is listed as a DEFENSE against prosecution NOT an EXEMPTION to prosecution. If the judge or jury don't like your "DEFENSE" you may/probably WILL BE convicted and then get to appeal to a higher court!

imported post

I think this comes down to being reasonable. I doubt that the exact wording is needed to communicate that your presence is not wanted and is being restricted.

I wonder if there is a website where these great questions of law could be asked?

Maybe on that site persons withREAL experience in the law would lend opinions.



As for a book regarding the laws, yes one is published every year.

imported post

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-constitutionalist.htm

links to lawyers here.

imported post

JoeSparky wrote:

Don't mis-understand...

You WILL be cited! You WILL have to defend yourself in court! This is listed as a DEFENSE against prosecution NOT an EXEMPTION to prosecution. If the judge or jury don't like your "DEFENSE" you may/probably WILL BE convicted and then get to appeal to a higher court!

Click to expand...

To be clear, sign or no sign, you are extremely unlikely to be cited if you leave when asked to. What Joe says is correct, but applies if you refuse to leave.

I also think it should be pointed out that the judge/jury don't have a choice about liking your defense or not. They don't get to decide that. What the jury does get to decide is whether or not you were interfering with the owner's use of the property. If they decide you were then your defense is invalid.

imported post

If it was Movies 8 in Provo that particular company i believe its cinemark, i've been told they haves a firearm ban on all their theaters. Not exactly sure how that applies to Conceal carry, but interesting to find out. I've CC in their theaters but of course no recourse because they wouldn't know i was. I'll look into that.

imported post

PrimeTime28 wrote:

If it was Movies 8 in Provo that particular company i believe its cinemark, i've been told they haves a firearm ban on all their theaters. Not exactly sure how that applies to Conceal carry, but interesting to find out. I've CC in their theaters but of course no recourse because they wouldn't know i was. I'll look into that.

Click to expand...

If you're concealing they would have no reason to ask you to leave, so the whole thing is a non-issue.

imported post

PrimeTime28 wrote:

If it was Movies 8 in Provo that particular company i believe its cinemark, i've been told they haves a firearm ban on all their theaters.

Click to expand...

At "Movies 8" in Provo, I have seen the "No Firearms" signs at the ticket booth, and I have carried openly in spite of them without incident.