• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Carry at World Arena?

zach

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
228
Location
Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
If you're wearing pink shoes, you have bigger problems...


The question I have, are you committing trespass once you enter or not until asked to vacate and do not oblige?
 

Bebop

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
113
Location
Thornton, Colorado, USA
If you're wearing pink shoes, you have bigger problems...


The question I have, are you committing trespass once you enter or not until asked to vacate and do not oblige?

I would imagine that since it is a business you are not trespassing until you are asked to leave and don't. Having a firearm on your person does not mean you are trespassing... I double checked Websters definition of trespass and after reading it I am not sure sure I am right. Here is one of the definitions.

"an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a wrongful entry on real property"

Keep in mind this is NOT a legal definition of trespass. However if this is how courts would look at it it may be trespassing to carry on the private property of a business when they have signs posted.

Something else to consider, this however doesn't say anything about if the person has a firearm, if signs are posted that say "No firearms" or something to that effect then that may be considered an unlawful entry. If it is or not is up to the courts, however the DA might try to base a case on it.

18-4-504 Third Degree Criminal Trespass

(1) A person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another.
(2) Third degree criminal trespass is a class 1 petty offense, but:
(a) It is a class 3 misdemeanor if the premises have been classified by the county assessor for the county in which the land is situated as agricultural land pursuant to section 39-1-102 (1.6), C.R.S.; and
(b) It is a class 5 felony if the person trespasses on premises so classified as agricultural land with the intent to commit a felony thereon.
 
Last edited:

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
(1) A person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another.
But it is not unlawful to carry a firearm in public at a place open to the public. Again, there is no difference between wearing pink shoes where there is a sign prohibiting it and carrying a firearm with a similar sign.
 

Bebop

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
113
Location
Thornton, Colorado, USA
But it is not unlawful to carry a firearm in public at a place open to the public. Again, there is no difference between wearing pink shoes where there is a sign prohibiting it and carrying a firearm with a similar sign.

A business is not a public place as you assert. A business is a building, area of a building, or land that is privately owned. The owner lets people come onto his property because he wants to sell them a good or service. If the business owner wants to keep people from carrying a firearm they can, it is their right as the owner of that property. It would also be the right of that owner to keep people from doing anything that the owner didn't want them to do, including your example of pink shoes. Most people won't do that, but they can, and some places have rules to that effect. Some places have dress codes that if you don't wear attire that fits with what the owner wants you can be kicked out. Same idea. Don't like it, do business somewhere else, that is your choice.
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
A business is not a public place as you assert.
Please quote the part of my post where I said a business is a "public place". I said it is in public and open to the public. There is a difference.

Some places have dress codes that if you don't wear attire that fits with what the owner wants you can be kicked out.
Right and that is my whole point. It is not unlawful to go into that fancy steakhouse that has a sign that says gentlemen must wear a jacket if I am not wearing one. The business just need ask me to leave. SAME exact thing as carrying a gun somewhere that is posted as "no guns". Show me the law that says otherwise.
 

Bebop

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
113
Location
Thornton, Colorado, USA
Please quote the part of my post where I said a business is a "public place". I said it is in public and open to the public. There is a difference.

It was implied within your post. "...in public at a place open to the public..." The only part of that a business fits is open to the public, the business itself is not in public and people on that property are not in public anymore. It is still private land/building.


Right and that is my whole point. It is not unlawful to go into that fancy steakhouse that has a sign that says gentlemen must wear a jacket if I am not wearing one. The business just need ask me to leave. SAME exact thing as carrying a gun somewhere that is posted as "no guns". Show me the law that says otherwise.

In both cases most owners would just ask the person to leave however I think they are within there rights to charge you with trespassing. After all they posted signs stating that they don't want one thing or another and you disregard that sign then you are entering the property against the wishes of the property owner.

Are you saying that you think anyone can go onto private property and do whatever they want even with signs posted asking people not to do those things, that you can still go onto the property and do them until the point that the owner asks you to leave? That is what your post and your view is implying.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Signs don't talk. Rules are not statutes. Where is the violation? A sign is a notice, but not an owner, tenant, employer or business. I only know the question. I don't know the answer. Yet. Thanks for the info.

RandallFlagg's cite of C.R.S. is dead-on accurate. It is state law, a statute, and it conveys full legal authority to the owners/managers of the property as well as to any signs they may erect.

A sign put up by the owner or management of private property, and the World Arena is indeed private property, most certainly does constitute official, legal, and appropriate notice to all entrants.

If you willfully choose to ignore it, you're guilty of criminal trespass. If you simply missed it, you're not guilty of criminal trespass. Without an admission, it'd be very difficult to prove things one way or the other, though. It therefore behooves owners of private property to ensure such signs are prominently displayed.

Just because a sign is displayed or they have bag checkers at the entrance doesn't necessarily mean you'll be caught if you CC. Depends on how well they check people at the entrance. Having visited it three times with a CamelBack containing water, swimsuit, towel, and a couple of snacks, I know for a fact they check every nook and cranny at Elitch Gardens. First time I went, I had to empty the water. After that, I carried it in empty and filled it once I was in the park.

Put simply, a sign on private property is a rule, but it carries the full legal authority of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
 
Last edited:

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Put simply, a sign on private property is a rule, but it carries the full legal authority of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Since as the law is written in plain english makes no mention of signage, I would like to see a cite that shows CT used for ignoring a sign or other non verbal "rule". Why do other states give signs legal weight if their already existent trespass statute would suffice? Why in GA where we have similar trespass laws is this not an issue?

If I walk into McDonald's without a shirt on or take my shirt off once I am inside (say my 8 year old spills his orange soda all over me). Am I then in violation of the LAW if they have a sign that says "shirt and shoes required"? How about if I am wearing a jacket with no shirt on under it? What happens if I take my shoe off at the table to get a rock out of it? How is any of this different?

ETA: How about you walk into a business and the manager says "we don't allow weapons in here." You ask him if he is asking you to leave and he says "no, have a good day." Have you violated the law if you continue shopping?

Remember laws only make things unlawful. There is no penalty for ignoring a sign in CO, so it MUST be legal.
 
Last edited:

Bebop

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
113
Location
Thornton, Colorado, USA
Since as the law is written in plain english makes no mention of signage, I would like to see a cite that shows CT used for ignoring a sign or other non verbal "rule". Why do other states give signs legal weight if their already existent trespass statute would suffice? Why in GA where we have similar trespass laws is this not an issue?

Definition of Trespass from the Oxford dictionary

2 (trespass against) archaic or literary commit an offense against (a person or a set of rules):
a man who had trespassed against Judaic law

It is a rule set down by the property owner. If a sign is posted saying "no firearms" and you walk by it and ignore it the owner could press trespassing charges without first asking you to leave. The sign is informing you of his rules when you are on his property. If the owner doesn't want to do anything than it is not against the law. The sign only holds the weight of law if the owner decides to call the police.

My personal opinion now. If you are walking into businesses that have signs posted "no firearms" or something similar, legal or not, you are disrespecting the owners wishes and it doesn't put a good face on people who carry, open or concealed. If we have people just walking around ignoring other people's rights it doesn't look good for the rest of us. If you want our rights respected then you need to respect the rights of others, like them or not.


There is no penalty for ignoring a sign in CO, so it MUST be legal.

Not true actually. If you ignore a speed limit sign there is a penalty and that is not just in Colorado. If you ignore "No trespassing" signs, there is a penalty and could actually get you shot. Actually some laws do make things legal. From the Colorado Constitution

"That the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Colorado Constitution; Article II, Sec. 13

If it was left at that Concealed weapons in Colorado would be illegal, because of other laws we can carry concealed weapons within the state.
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Not true actually. If you ignore a speed limit sign there is a penalty and that is not just in Colorado. If you ignore "No trespassing" signs, there is a penalty and could actually get you shot.
Very disingenuous of you. Not even a nice try.


Actually some laws do make things legal. From the Colorado Constitution

"That the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Colorado Constitution; Article II, Sec. 13
WRONG. The constitution is a barrier to what the government can do, not what is allowed for the people. Notice it says the right shall not be called into question? Who is it talking about who shall not call it into question?

If it was left at that Concealed weapons in Colorado would be illegal, because of other laws we can carry concealed weapons within the state.
And?
 

Bebop

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
113
Location
Thornton, Colorado, USA
Very disingenuous of you. Not even a nice try.


WRONG. The constitution is a barrier to what the government can do, not what is allowed for the people. Notice it says the right shall not be called into question? Who is it talking about who shall not call it into question?

And?

Not disingenuous at all, you said "There is no penalty for ignoring a sign in CO, so it MUST be legal." I gave you examples that prove your statement to be false.

You are missing a HUGE statement in the writing "...but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." This statement makes it illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Colorado.
"...The constitution is a barrier to what the government can do, not what is allowed for the people..." This is the idea behind the US constitution as it was originally written, but a constitution can also be written to list things that people are allowed to do. The 18th amendment was written to say that people couldn't do something, buy/sell/make/ or import liquor, while I don't agree with it it was a amendment to the constitution and was therefore constitutional.


It is making a counter to your assertion that laws only make things illegal. If you didn't get that look harder, the point is there. If you are ignoring the point then I would guess you have no counter point to offer.
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
You are missing a HUGE statement in the writing "...but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." This statement makes it illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Colorado.
Sorry sir but wrong again. Nothing in that makes carrying a weapon concealed unlawful. It grants the POWER to the government to make it so if it wishes.

As to the sign issue, you are not comprehending what I am saying so it will be dropped.
 

Bebop

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
113
Location
Thornton, Colorado, USA
Sorry sir but wrong again. Nothing in that makes carrying a weapon concealed unlawful. It grants the POWER to the government to make it so if it wishes.

As to the sign issue, you are not comprehending what I am saying so it will be dropped.

I disagree. It is written out plan as day. If you are not seeing that then you must have learned different definitions for the words that are used in Article II Section 13 such as "construed" and "justify". By the way saying I am wrong does not make it so. You say I am wrong but don't really justify your reasoning as to why you think that. By the way;

Construed; 1: to analyze the arrangement and connection of words in (a sentence or sentence part)
2: to understand or explain the sense or intention of usually in a particular way or with respect to a given set of circumstances <construed my actions as hostile>
intransitive verb

Justify: 1a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property

Use these and re-read Article II section 13. It, without the other laws about Colorado CHP, makes carrying a concealed weapon in Colorado a crime.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Since as the law is written in plain english makes no mention of signage, I would like to see a cite...

Case law. Signs constitute legal notice of a store-owner's intent. Same goes for "No shoes, no service" signs in restaurants.

...that shows CT used for ignoring a sign or other non verbal "rule".

Newsflash: A sign is "verbal." Anything written or spoken using a language is "verbal." When something is only spoken, that puts it into a subcategory of verbal, commonly referred to as "oral."

Why do other states give signs legal weight if their already existent trespass statute would suffice? Why in GA where we have similar trespass laws is this not an issue?

Haven't a clue. This is the Colorado subsection, not the Georgia subsection.

If I walk into McDonald's without a shirt on or take my shirt off once I am inside (say my 8 year old spills his orange soda all over me). Am I then in violation of the LAW if they have a sign that says "shirt and shoes required"?

Yes, you are. At least here in Colorado. However, if you actually spilled something on your shirt, I'm reasonable sure the proprietor would allow you to remain inside, albeit in the bathroom, while you remove your shirt and rinse out the orange soda.

How about if I am wearing a jacket with no shirt on under it?

That would meet the intent of the law, which is to prevent bare-chested people from parading around the restaurant.

What happens if I take my shoe off at the table to get a rock out of it? How is any of this different?

That, too, meets the spirit of the law, for as soon as you remove the rock, you'd undoubtedly put it back on your foot. Even if you didn't, so long as you were seated at your table, I seriously doubt they'd throw you out, as their primary intent is to prevent people from walking in and around their establishment while barefooted.

ETA: How about you walk into a business and the manager says "we don't allow weapons in here." You ask him if he is asking you to leave and he says "no, have a good day." Have you violated the law if you continue shopping?

If you continue shopping with your weapon on your person, then yes, you are most certainly breaking the law. If you store it in your vehicle before continuing your shopping, then no, you are not breaking the law.

Remember laws only make things unlawful

You're 100% correct! And it's those laws, specifically the Colorado Revised Statutes, which make both give proprietors legal authority to establish and post some requirements for entry/presence on their premises. They also make it illegal for patrons to behave in the ways you're suggesting, dis-respective of the proprietor's spoken (oral) or written (signage) intent.

There is no penalty for ignoring a sign in CO, so it MUST be legal.

Keep doing that and let me know how that turns out.

Over the last two years, at least one door-to-door salesman was arrested in our apartment complex for trespassing. They have no legal recourse as there's a small placard which states "No Solicitation on These Premises" on the door to the apartment complex office. From what I understand, however, the management company refused to press charges. Their main intent was to send a clear message to the solicitor's parent company that door-to-door sales won't be tolerated.

Nothing in that makes carrying a weapon concealed unlawful.

Keep pushing that button, as well. I'd like to say "let me know how that turns out, too," but from what I understand, they don't give prisoners access to the Internet.
 
Last edited:

RandallFlagg

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Denver
RandallFlagg's cite of C.R.S. is dead-on accurate. It is state law, a statute, and it conveys full legal authority to the owners/managers of the property as well as to any signs they may erect.

Thank you.
I gave up on this thread because it seemed like someone was wanting to pick a fight here.
I chose not to go there.
 
Top