Does a sign denying firearms in a business carry the weight of "notice of trespass?"

Does a sign denying firearms in a business carry the weight of "notice of trespass?"

wrightme said:

Sigh. For me (at least for me), that isn't what this is about at all.

...

Can YOU point to the case law that mentions that a sign denying firearms in a business carries the weight of "notice of trespass" under CO statute?

Click to expand...

I'm starting this new thread to continue a discussion that was off-topic in its original thread. The discussion involves whether or not "a sign denying firearms in a business carries the weight of 'notice of trespass.'"

wrightme, you are demanding that simple terms in common law be explained to your satisfaction in either statute or case law. Since both the legislators and the courts expect citizens to know and understand common law terms such as "unlawful," "trespass," and "posted," particularly as they're well-covered in your average dictionary, they don't waste their or the public's time explaining them in detail.

I must be a fool, as that's what I'm about to do!

Let's start with definitions, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

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

trespass (v): to commit a trespass

unlawful: not lawful

lawful: a : being in harmony with the law <a lawful judgment>; b : constituted, authorized, or established by law : rightful <lawful institutions>

posted: a : to publish, announce, or advertise by or as if by use of a placard; d: to forbid (property) to trespassers under penalty of legal prosecution by notices placed along the boundaries

Is this sufficient, or do I need to define "penalty," "prosecution," and "boundaries?"

Phase 2: The Law - Statute

C.R.S. 188-4-504. 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.

C.R.S. 18-4-504.5. Definition of premises. As used in sections 18-4-503 and 18-4-504, "premises" means real property, buildings, and other improvements thereon, and the stream banks and beds of any nonnavigable fresh water streams flowing through such real property.

Phase 3: Detailed analysis of trespass in Colorado, on Lawyers.com

Key points:
- trespass requires physical intrusion
- the intrusion must be intentional, but does not need to be wilfull (against a specific property owner)
- the trespassed property must belong to another
- the intrusion must be done without permission

When it comes to trespassing a store with a posted "no firearms" or "no open carry of firearms" sign, the fourth point is applicable. The posted sign specifically forbids entry under the condition of a firearm or open carry. That's a denial of permission. One might have a defense if they could not read, could not read the language in which it was posted, or if the sign was not readily visible. The Chapel Hills Mall, for example, posts most entrances with "No Firearms," but it's entirely defensible, as it's one of roughly a dozen rules on a brass placard, none of which are legible when viewed from point along the entrance path taken by visitors to the mall. In fact, I seriously doubt more than 10% of mall visitors are even aware the placard exists.

In closing, commensurate with the C.R.S. and normative definitions used therein and found in Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries, when a store owner posts a legible sign stating "No Firearms" or "No Open Carry of Firearms" (or similar verbiage), that store owner is prohibiting entry to his property under the conditions specified on the signs. By definition and C.R.S., an entry onto the premises under those conditions is unlawful as it is not only without the permission of the owner, but it is in direct violation of the owner's willful, posted intent to the contrary.

Case in point: Goodwill has recently posted its Colorado Springs stores with a "No Open Display of Firearms." If I walked into the store while OCing, would I be trespassing under Colorado law?

You betcha! Here's why:
1. It's posted right next to the door.
2. It's in English
3. I read English
4. It's posted in a type size and face that's clearly legible to anyone entering the store.
5. It describes the conditions under which entry onto their premises is prohibited.

That and my foot crossing their threshold while OCing is sufficient legal grounds for establishing trespass here in the State of Colorado.

So, you don't have case law, but a lawyer's website to reference? Odd.


I find it very interesting that even the link you refence does not mention "no firearms" signs. Why is that?



It appears that all of the items below the key points is stuff you created. Where is the relevant case law you keep mentioning?

Your attempt to get around this is just as flimsy and rediculous as saying that because there is not a "No Murdering in This Store" sign you could get away with intentionally killing someone.

I do not know about Colorado law and have no desire to look it up. But I'm willing to bet a donut that Colorado law (both case and statute) allows a private property owner to prohibit all but a very small number of things and behaviors on/in his property with or without posting any sign giving notice of his desire to prohibit whatever he wants to prohibit. And I'll bet the donut hole that if the property owner posts a conspicuous sign they are going to have a pretty good case for charging you with trespass if you violate the conditions of that sign. The cops may want, for sake of a good record of the event, the property owner to tell you in their presence to remove the prohibited item and never come back (with it or just never come back) and wait to see if you do not obey the verbal command before arresting you. But then there are cops who are quite comfortable arresting you based on the presence of the sign and evidence you refused to obey it before they arrived.

Even places like Texas, with their 30-06 law that specifies the size, font type, letter, background and border colors to make the sign legal, has a procedure for dealing with you without needing to refer to the sign. It's called the rights of an owner of personal property.

But let's go to the heart of your little tirade here. Why do you want to force the issue with a property owner? What do you think you will accomplish for yourself, let alone for the rest of us? If all you want to do is "prove a point" then go talk with your legislative representatives and see if you can convince them to amend current law or introduce new legislation needed to "fix" the problem you see existing.

Or you could become known as "that guy" who screwed it up for everybody.

Folks who carry (OC or CC) try to cultivate a reputation as being polite and law-abiding, and seek to resolve conflicts through negotiation and education. Someone who wants to go around pushing buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons can quickly find themselves left hanging out to dry all alone. There are a few names I could mention of others who have gone before you and seem to be rather unhappy that nobody even bothers to listen to them any more.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Your attempt to get around this is just as flimsy and rediculous as saying that because there is not a "No Murdering in This Store" sign you could get away with intentionally killing someone.

Click to expand...

Not even close to comparable. It is illegal to murder others. And, as I have mentioned in the other thread, Nevada law allows property owners to trespass customers at their whim. And, Nevada does NOT provide any weight of law to a sign that says "no firearms allowed."

skidmark said:

I do not know about Colorado law and have no desire to look it up. But I'm willing to bet a donut that Colorado law (both case and statute) allows a private property owner to prohibit all but a very small number of things and behaviors on/in his property with or without posting any sign giving notice of his desire to prohibit whatever he wants to prohibit. And I'll bet the donut hole that if the property owner posts a conspicuous sign they are going to have a pretty good case for charging you with trespass if you violate the conditions of that sign. The cops may want, for sake of a good record of the event, the property owner to tell you in their presence to remove the prohibited item and never come back (with it or just never come back) and wait to see if you do not obey the verbal command before arresting you. But then there are cops who are quite comfortable arresting you based on the presence of the sign and evidence you refused to obey it before they arrived.

Click to expand...

In Nevada, the statute specifies "written or verbal," yet a sign isn't valid under that statute.

skidmark said:

Even places like Texas, with their 30-06 law that specifies the size, font type, letter, background and border colors to make the sign legal, has a procedure for dealing with you without needing to refer to the sign. It's called the rights of an owner of personal property.

Click to expand...

So texas defines such a sign? Good. Colorado does not. Neither does Nevada.
In Nevada, if a business owner desires to not have an armed person in their business, they can contact them and tell them to leave. Upon that notice, the person must leave, or be guilty of trespass.

skidmark said:

But let's go to the heart of your little tirade here. Why do you want to force the issue with a property owner? What do you think you will accomplish for yourself, let alone for the rest of us? If all you want to do is "prove a point" then go talk with your legislative representatives and see if you can convince them to amend current law or introduce new legislation needed to "fix" the problem you see existing.

Click to expand...

This isn't about a "problem" that exists. Evidently in colorado, a sign is being treated as "notice of trespass." Yet no statute gives it the weight of law, as seems to be the case for Texas.

skidmark said:

Or you could become known as "that guy" who screwed it up for everybody.

Folks who carry (OC or CC) try to cultivate a reputation as being polite and law-abiding, and seek to resolve conflicts through negotiation and education. Someone who wants to go around pushing buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons can quickly find themselves left hanging out to dry all alone. There are a few names I could mention of others who have gone before you and seem to be rather unhappy that nobody even bothers to listen to them any more.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Notice that I have not advocated passing a sign, being "that guy," at all.

wrightme said:

In Nevada...

Click to expand...

If I had any desire to discuss what goes on in Nevada, I'd visit the Nevada section. This is the Colorado section.

In Nevada, if a business owner...

Click to expand...

I say again, this is the Colorado section.

Evidently in colorado, a sign is being treated as "notice of trespass."

Click to expand...

First, it's Colorado, not colorado.

Second, the sign is not notice of trespass. The sign specifies what's prohibited on the property owner's property. If you your actions on his property run contrary to the sign, you're trespassing. I'm not sure why you're fixated on some sort of "notice." No Trespassing signs aren't notice of trespassing. They're notice of behavior prohibited by the property owner.

Yet no statute gives it the weight of law, as seems to be the case for Texas.

Click to expand...

Third time: This is the Colorado section. The only statute that's required is the one I've cited several times. That, standard definitions of common law, and common sense are all that's required to understand this issue.

Which of those three are you lacking? Why do you keep trolling, er, harping on i.e. being argumentative about an issue that 99.9% of the folks on this forum have no problems "getting?"

since9 said:

If I had any desire to discuss what goes on in Nevada, I'd visit the Nevada section. This is the Colorado section.



I say again, this is the Colorado section.



First, it's Colorado, not colorado.

Second, the sign is not notice of trespass. The sign specifies what's prohibited on the property owner's property. If you your actions on his property run contrary to the sign, you're trespassing. I'm not sure why you're fixated on some sort of "notice." No Trespassing signs aren't notice of trespassing. They're notice of behavior prohibited by the property owner.



Third time: This is the Colorado section. The only statute that's required is the one I've cited several times. That, standard definitions of common law, and common sense are all that's required to understand this issue.

Which of those three are you lacking? Why do you keep trolling, er, harping on i.e. being argumentative about an issue that 99.9% of the folks on this forum have no problems "getting?"

Click to expand...

Do you never compare what happens in one state with what happens in another state when searching for answers?


Legislation isn't 'common sense.' Legislation is legal language that denies actions. Unless an action is denied, it isn't always "common sense" to apply what IS there. The courts do that. You claim that case law gives legal weight to 'no firearms allowed' signs, and that it is "common sense?" Well, as I mentioned, what you feel is simply "common sense" does not operate that way in Nevada. If it was only "common sense" on top of the common law and the statutes, BOTH STATES would operate the same. They don't. The question you have been sidestepping is "WHY" does Colorado operate the way it does? To me, Nevada operates the way it does for the signage because it is "common sense". To you, Colorado operates the way it does because it is "common sense." That doesn't make it "law." It just makes it "common" in each of our states. WHY is Colorado treating the sign as if it is "notice of trespass?" You can either sidestep that specific again, or support it with the alleged case law. Otherwise, all you are doing is saying the same as "well, we have always done it that way...."

You can either sidestep that specific again, or support it with the alleged case law. Otherwise, all you are doing is saying the same as "well, we have always done it that way...."

Click to expand...

You do realize that you have just defined case law, don't you?

And you still have not explained why you want to make a three-ring circus out of whether or not a sign is sufficient for a property owner to trespass you, as opposed to the property owner needing to do something that you have not explained/described.

wrightme

Originally Posted by skidmark
Your attempt to get around this is just as flimsy and rediculous as saying that because there is not a "No Murdering in This Store" sign you could get away with intentionally killing someone.



Not even close to comparable. It is illegal to murder others. And, as I have mentioned in the other thread, Nevada law allows property owners to trespass customers at their whim. And, Nevada does NOT provide any weight of law to a sign that says "no firearms allowed."

​

Click to expand...

Actually, you missed the point entirely. It is illegal to murder others, and it is illegal to trespass on another's property. Nice try, but not even close. Please feel free to play again.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

You do realize that you have just defined case law, don't you?

Click to expand...

No kidding. But, the "we have always done it that way" is a statement with no support. A "we have always done it that way, and case law, as evidenced in the case of xxxx v CO, supports the statement that signage is notice of trespass" would be useful. No one has presented relevant case law to support the "we have always done it that way."

skidmark said:

And you still have not explained why you want to make a three-ring circus out of whether or not a sign is sufficient for a property owner to trespass you, as opposed to the property owner needing to do something that you have not explained/described.

Click to expand...

Correct. Most of that is in the other thread. The CO statutes speak directly to private property, where a person reasonably can tell that entry is not allowed. I am not disputing that a bit. I am also not disputing that business owners CAN tell people to leave and once told, a person MUST leave, or be guilty of trespass.

skidmark said:

Actually, you missed the point entirely. It is illegal to murder others, and it is illegal to trespass on another's property. Nice try, but not even close. Please feel free to play again.

Click to expand...

No, I have not 'missed the point entirely.' If it is illegal to murder others, it is always illegal to murder. It is also illegal to trespass on another's property, yet this is about businesses that are open to the public. It is NOT illegal to enter a business as a customer. The specific question is "what constitutes legal notice of trespass" as it pertains to a business and trespass law. The statute in CO is silent on that specific. And, NO relevant case law has been presented. Barring that, the "common sense" specific falls flat, as "common sense" in other states with similar trespass law does not match the "common sense" in CO. So far, the ONLY TWO spots I have seen a reference for CO are at the RMGO website (without citation to authority for signage), and in the CO CC pamphlet, which also does not site to relevant authority. BOTH of those locations cite to the trespass statute, but that statute does not address whatsoever how a business owner bars a customer.


Remember, this isn't about private property like someone's home or private warehouse. This is specifically about private property that is open to the public for conduct of business. As such, there IS a presumption that having customers enter the premises is desired by the property owner.

Trespass is a crime that requires intent, like any other. "Sorry, didn't see the sign. I'll be happy to leave." No trespass in Colorado. Common Law: you may use reasonable force to evict a trespasser, but must first demand his departure. The cure for trespass is having the would be, but not yet, trespasser leave when notified. There is no crime in that event. If he refuses, then he is a trespasser and you may use reasonable--but never deadly, force. If he complies, he has cured the trespass. States have requirements for posting no trespassing signs of a certain type, at a certain distance along the property, generally with the owner's name, phone number, etc. "No guns allowed" is not 'no trespassing.' In the vast majority of states, including CO, the one does not imply the other. Hence, the no guns sign lacks the force of law which a no trespassing sign would have.

since9 said:

I'm starting this new thread to continue a discussion that was off-topic in its original thread. The discussion involves whether or not "a sign denying firearms in a business carries the weight of 'notice of trespass.'"

wrightme, you are demanding that simple terms in common law be explained to your satisfaction in either statute or case law. Since both the legislators and the courts expect citizens to know and understand common law terms such as "unlawful," "trespass," and "posted," particularly as they're well-covered in your average dictionary, they don't waste their or the public's time explaining them in detail.

I must be a fool, as that's what I'm about to do!

Let's start with definitions, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

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

trespass (v): to commit a trespass

unlawful: not lawful

lawful: a : being in harmony with the law <a lawful judgment>; b : constituted, authorized, or established by law : rightful <lawful institutions>

posted: a : to publish, announce, or advertise by or as if by use of a placard; d: to forbid (property) to trespassers under penalty of legal prosecution by notices placed along the boundaries

Is this sufficient, or do I need to define "penalty," "prosecution," and "boundaries?"

Phase 2: The Law - Statute

C.R.S. 188-4-504. 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.

C.R.S. 18-4-504.5. Definition of premises. As used in sections 18-4-503 and 18-4-504, "premises" means real property, buildings, and other improvements thereon, and the stream banks and beds of any nonnavigable fresh water streams flowing through such real property.

Phase 3: Detailed analysis of trespass in Colorado, on Lawyers.com

Key points:
- trespass requires physical intrusion
- the intrusion must be intentional, but does not need to be wilfull (against a specific property owner)
- the trespassed property must belong to another
- the intrusion must be done without permission

When it comes to trespassing a store with a posted "no firearms" or "no open carry of firearms" sign, the fourth point is applicable. The posted sign specifically forbids entry under the condition of a firearm or open carry. That's a denial of permission. One might have a defense if they could not read, could not read the language in which it was posted, or if the sign was not readily visible. The Chapel Hills Mall, for example, posts most entrances with "No Firearms," but it's entirely defensible, as it's one of roughly a dozen rules on a brass placard, none of which are legible when viewed from point along the entrance path taken by visitors to the mall. In fact, I seriously doubt more than 10% of mall visitors are even aware the placard exists.

In closing, commensurate with the C.R.S. and normative definitions used therein and found in Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries, when a store owner posts a legible sign stating "No Firearms" or "No Open Carry of Firearms" (or similar verbiage), that store owner is prohibiting entry to his property under the conditions specified on the signs. By definition and C.R.S., an entry onto the premises under those conditions is unlawful as it is not only without the permission of the owner, but it is in direct violation of the owner's willful, posted intent to the contrary.

Case in point: Goodwill has recently posted its Colorado Springs stores with a "No Open Display of Firearms." If I walked into the store while OCing, would I be trespassing under Colorado law?

You betcha! Here's why:
1. It's posted right next to the door.
2. It's in English
3. I read English
4. It's posted in a type size and face that's clearly legible to anyone entering the store.
5. It describes the conditions under which entry onto their premises is prohibited.

That and my foot crossing their threshold while OCing is sufficient legal grounds for establishing trespass here in the State of Colorado.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse a tort with a crime. What if I didn't read English? What if the sign was in Spanish? Intent is still the primary consideration in criminal proceedings. The Legal page posting dealt with a tort. Intent is not necessary in a tort action to anywhere near the same degree.

Gunslinger said:

Trespass is a crime that requires intent, like any other. "Sorry, didn't see the sign. I'll be happy to leave." No trespass in Colorado. Common Law: you may use reasonable force to evict a trespasser, but must first demand his departure. The cure for trespass is having the would be, but not yet, trespasser leave when notified. There is no crime in that event. If he refuses, then he is a trespasser and you may use reasonable--but never deadly, force. If he complies, he has cured the trespass. States have requirements for posting no trespassing signs of a certain type, at a certain distance along the property, generally with the owner's name, phone number, etc. "No guns allowed" is not 'no trespassing.' In the vast majority of states, including CO, the one does not imply the other. Hence, the no guns sign lacks the force of law which a no trespassing sign would have.

Click to expand...

That is exactly my position. Yet the RMGO website, the CC pamphlet, and many CO residents in this forum believe otherwise.


It is entirely possible that I am not correct. But the opposite of what you state and what I have been stating has not been proven; it has only been 'declared.'

wrightme said:

That is exactly my position. Yet the RMGO website, the CC pamphlet, and many CO residents in this forum believe otherwise.


It is entirely possible that I am not correct. But the opposite of what you state and what I have been stating has not been proven; it has only been 'declared.'

Click to expand...

If you walk barefoot into a "no shoes, no service" what happens? They ask you to leave. It is exactly the same situation and is not trespass if you leave when asked.

Gunslinger said:

If you walk barefoot into a "no shoes, no service" what happens? They ask you to leave. It is exactly the same situation and is not trespass if you leave when asked.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I am left wondering why some people seem to believe otherwise.

We always charged shoplifters with both theft and trespassing, and got convictions without any signs posted. Property rights are constitutional right, the moment a person disregards property rights by intentionally ignoring the law, or wishes of the property owner they are trespassing, whether asked to leave or not. Most times it is the cordial thing to do to ask them to leave, and no property owner wants to waste time in court, unless the individual is a complete "hole surrounded by ass".

If a felony is committed while on private property in most states the perp can be charged with burglary... No signs needed. Knowing full well how the plea bargain game works most officers tack on every single charge that can be tacked on. I damn well check the entrance very well before entering a business even if I am not carrying a gun. If the business specifies no knifes and you don't see it, you could take a ride if possessing a pocket knife. This also goes for no "colors" or specified clothing, religious symbols, just about anything.

GS beat me to it.

Gunslinger said:

Trespass is a crime that requires intent, like any other. "Sorry, didn't see the sign. I'll be happy to leave." No trespass in Colorado. Common Law: you may use reasonable force to evict a trespasser, but must first demand his departure. The cure for trespass is having the would be, but not yet, trespasser leave when notified. There is no crime in that event. If he refuses, then he is a trespasser and you may use reasonable--but never deadly, force. If he complies, he has cured the trespass. States have requirements for posting no trespassing signs of a certain type, at a certain distance along the property, generally with the owner's name, phone number, etc. "No guns allowed" is not 'no trespassing.' In the vast majority of states, including CO, the one does not imply the other. Hence, the no guns sign lacks the force of law which a no trespassing sign would have.

Click to expand...

A prosecutor will argue and present evidence that a reasonable person would have seen the sign. It will be up to the defense to present evidence to dispute it. The fact is there are arrests and convictions made on trespass without even having signs present or even a verbal notice by the property owner. The sign itself is not a notice of trespass it is a notice of restrictions by the property owner, it is trespass when that is clearly ignored. A case in point is another thread where a Hardee's manager asked the OCer to leave, and the OCer asked to get his money back, and got into a argument. The OCer was trespassing when he did not continue to exit the restaurant, and was lucky the officer did not charge him. He had other options to get his money back, such as contacting corporate. When asked to leave the person must immediately vacate. If committing a crime the person is trespassing, when working as a LEO for a State University we commonly made trespassing arrests, and they stuck, again without any signs. It is your responsibility when entering someone else castle to know what is proper and what is not. Claiming closing ones eyes is not an excuse.

WalkingWolf said:

We always charged shoplifters with both theft and trespassing, and got convictions without any signs posted.

Click to expand...

That is covered by the statute. Entering to commit a crime is evidence of trespass, to paraphrase a bit. Passing a sign that states "no shirt, no shoes, no service" or "no firearms" is not analogous to "entering to commit a crime."

WalkingWolf said:

A prosecutor will argue and present evidence that a reasonable person would have seen the sign. It will be up to the defense to present evidence to dispute it. The fact is there are arrests and convictions made on trespass without even having signs present or even a verbal notice by the property owner. The sign itself is not a notice of trespass it is a notice of restrictions by the property owner, it is trespass when that is clearly ignored.

Click to expand...

The portion I bolded is the bit that has no statutory support.

WalkingWolf said:

A case in point is another thread where a Hardee's manager asked the OCer to leave, and the OCer asked to get his money back, and got into a argument. The OCer was trespassing when he did not continue to exit the restaurant, and was lucky the officer did not charge him.

Click to expand...

That is not in dispute, and is not a "case in point."

WalkingWolf said:

He had other options to get his money back, such as contacting corporate. When asked to leave the person must immediately vacate. If committing a crime the person is trespassing, when working as a LEO for a State University we commonly made trespassing arrests, and they stuck, again without any signs. It is your responsibility when entering someone else castle to know what is proper and what is not. Claiming closing ones eyes is not an excuse.

Click to expand...

The bold portion is relevant. But, simply entering while armed is not evidence of a crime being committed, whether eyes are open or closed, whether or not a sign is posted.

Entering a business that is closed and locked would be trespass, without a sign posted or without any contact with the owner.
Entering a business that is open and unlocked isn't trespass, and if you are armed, isn't evidence of entering to commit a crime. ONCE TOLD TO LEAVE, failure to depart IS evidence of trespass.

WalkingWolf said:

A prosecutor will argue and present evidence that a reasonable person would have seen the sign. It will be up to the defense to present evidence to dispute it. The fact is there are arrests and convictions made on trespass without even having signs present or even a verbal notice by the property owner. The sign itself is not a notice of trespass it is a notice of restrictions by the property owner, it is trespass when that is clearly ignored. A case in point is another thread where a Hardee's manager asked the OCer to leave, and the OCer asked to get his money back, and got into a argument. The OCer was trespassing when he did not continue to exit the restaurant, and was lucky the officer did not charge him. He had other options to get his money back, such as contacting corporate. When asked to leave the person must immediately vacate. If committing a crime the person is trespassing, when working as a LEO for a State University we commonly made trespassing arrests, and they stuck, again without any signs. It is your responsibility when entering someone else castle to know what is proper and what is not. Claiming closing ones eyes is not an excuse.

Click to expand...

I think this post is entirely off topic. The question is does a sign stating the preference of a business have the force of law without any other communication from the owner/agent of owner. We are not talking about entering to commit a crime or refusing to leave after being asked to.

Can I put up a sign that says " No gum chewing" and anyone I see in my business chewing gum goes to jail? I just call 911 and they will send a couple cars to take the perp to jail? And not seeing the sign is no excuse?

Kingfish said:

I think this post is entirely off topic. The question is does a sign stating the preference of a business have the force of law without any other communication from the owner/agent of owner. We are not talking about entering to commit a crime or refusing to leave after being asked to.

Can I put up a sign that says " No gum chewing" and anyone I see in my business chewing gum goes to jail? I just call 911 and they will send a couple cars to take the perp to jail? And not seeing the sign is no excuse?

Click to expand...

That is exactly the question I posed in the other thread that started this subject.