Colorado State Fair weapons ban

x1wildone said:

I would walk past that sign cc no problem, If I felt a bit ornery I would oc but would be prepared for some extra special attention.

Click to expand...

Even cc you'd get extra special attention. I don't know if you've been to the fair or not, but right inside the gates they search bags and wand people upon entrance.

bogidu said:

...and wand people upon entrance.

Click to expand...

I don't remember being wanded. If so, then perhaps it IS legal because of the metal detector wording...

O2

O2HeN2 said:

I don't remember being wanded. If so, then perhaps it IS legal because of the metal detector wording...

O2

Click to expand...

I thought that there had to be 'fixed security measures (i.e. metal detectors)' in place?

bogidu said:

I thought that there had to be 'fixed security measures (i.e. metal detectors)' in place?

Click to expand...

18-12-214 (4) (a) "Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building"

Now I see two problems here. The metal dectors are not permanently in place, and we are not talking about a building, just an area.

Beat me to it, plus it appears to be an AND of three requirements:

18-12-214:

(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:

(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;

(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and

(c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

So it appears that the state can only ban concealed carry from buildings. And I bet they have NO way of storing your firearm if you surrendered it to them "while in the building".

So, the fairgrounds is not a building and they aren't meeting requirements a and [I assume] c.

O2

I'll wait until May, when the legislature adjourns, to write to Suthers. This way they won't have time to "fix" something that isn't broken.

The State fairground policy strikes out on four points:

• The fairgrounds isn't a building.
• There are not weapon screening devices permanently in place
• Not all people who enter the fairgrounds are screened (vendors and exhibitors are not screened)
• They have no facilities to hold your firearm while you're on the Fairgrounds.

Remind me in May if I don't resurrect this thread on my own!

O2

With the wanding, I would have to say it is lawful to deny weapons, even with a CCW, under state law.

Gunslinger said:

With the wanding, I would have to say it is lawful to deny weapons, even with a CCW, under state law.

Click to expand...

How so?

1. It's not a building
2. Screening is not permanently in place.
3. Not everyone is screened (Vendors and exhibitors aren't screened).

Triple fail, at minimum. Add no place to leave your firearms and it's a quadruple.

For example, I could go to a venue there now and [in theory] hide a firearm on the premises to pick up when I arrive at the fair. Because except for the fair, I've never seen them wand at the property perimeter. That's the problem with a "non permanent" screening -- just get something in while it's not in place.

I'd be interested in your reasoning as to why it's permissible in your opinion. See my post with the exact CRS text earlier.

O2

O2HeN2 said:

How so?

1. It's not a building
2. Screening is not permanently in place.
3. Not everyone is screened (Vendors and exhibitors aren't screened).

Triple fail, at minimum. Add no place to leave your firearms and it's a quadruple.

For example, I could go to a venue there now and [in theory] hide a firearm on the premises to pick up when I arrive at the fair. Because except for the fair, I've never seen them wand at the property perimeter. That's the problem with a "non permanent" screening -- just get something in while it's not in place.

I'd be interested in your reasoning as to why it's permissible in your opinion. See my post with the exact CRS text earlier.

O2

Click to expand...

18-12-214 seems to apply, as I don't see it as an "and," excepting b and c where it is so stated and would apply. You could interpret it as the 'entry' to a group of buildings on the premises all of which proscribe carry. I'm not sure on this one, as it is open to much interpretation if in fact it is state owned property. Need to look into it some more, obviously.

Gunslinger said:

18-12-214 seems to apply, as I don't see it as an "and," excepting b and c where it is so stated and would apply. You could interpret it as the 'entry' to a group of buildings on the premises all of which proscribe carry. I'm not sure on this one, as it is open to much interpretation if in fact it is state owned property. Need to look into it some more, obviously.

Click to expand...

Well, standard rules of English grammer dictate that if there are three things listed in series, such as 18-12-214 a, b, and c; and the second and thrid items of the series are conjoined by the word "and," the first two should not be translated by an invisible or unwritten "or."

As in this case; "a, b, and c"... I don't think there is a way to turn that into "a, or b, and c" without actually physically inserting the other new word. As that word is not currently found within the statute, I fail to see the logic behind your translation.

And I think the posted signage of "State Property" pretty well clarifies for me that it is actually owned by the state.

Not to mention the pesky word "building" which the state fair property is not by any definition:

"(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building..."

You know, I was so focused looking for the CRS to be quoted that I completely missed the "State Property" text! If it's state property, that means Pueblo cannot pass a local ordinance banning OC on the property and because there's no state law forbidding it, it means that OC must be allowed at the State Fair, too!

O2

JamesB said:

But are they? Are the fairgrounds State, Local, or Private? I have never been there myself, but I see the "Budweiser Grandstand Arena." The Budweiser Event Center bans carry last I knew. Sports Authority Field bans carry. Dick's Sporting Goods Park does too. The Pepsi Center... The list goes on. All of these places are private property.

They hold public events there, and are even subsidised by the governments, but they are still private.

Click to expand...

But are they private??? Safeco Field in Seattle is not Private, it is owned by the City of Seattle, as is Key Arena (Key bank, the pro basketball arena) it is also owned by the City Of Seattle. A lot of these places have donations made by some large corporation as advertizing gimics. The one that puts up the most money gets the facility named after them...but they are still public property.

Here in WA most counties have online resources so you can look up the actual ownership of any piece of property (if you know the address, the property tax number, or the presumed owner. If you want to see if Budweiser actually "owns" the event center, or Pepsi actually owns the "Pepsi center" you really need to check the property tax records. Does Dick's Sporting Goods actually own that park? Check it out, you may be surprised.

I know this is an old post, but just wanted to point out, things are not always as they seem.

Oh, may I add, in WA the state fairs are specifically mentioned in the RCW's...carry is allowed.

hermannr said:

snip... But are they private??? ...snip.

Click to expand...

see also post #14

JamesB said:

Well, standard rules of English grammer dictate that if there are three things listed in series, such as 18-12-214 a, b, and c; and the second and thrid items of the series are conjoined by the word "and," the first two should not be translated by an invisible or unwritten "or."

As in this case; "a, b, and c"... I don't think there is a way to turn that into "a, or b, and c" without actually physically inserting the other new word. As that word is not currently found within the statute, I fail to see the logic behind your translation.

And I think the posted signage of "State Property" pretty well clarifies for me that it is actually owned by the state.

Click to expand...

Unless the word "and" is specified in a law, no assumption that it applies can be made. As b 'and' c specify it, it applies. a is not linked by and, so the legal assumption is that it is not linked to b/c but stands on its own merits. If 'a' doesn't apply, then you must look as to whether b 'and' c apply. The former stands on its own merits; the latter two are linked and both must apply.

Gunslinger said:

Unless the word "and" is specified in a law, no assumption that it applies can be made. As b 'and' c specify it, it applies. a is not linked by and, so the legal assumption is that it is not linked to b/c but stands on its own merits. If 'a' doesn't apply, then you must look as to whether b 'and' c apply. The former stands on its own merits; the latter two are linked and both must apply.

Click to expand...

That is not logical. From a construction standpoint, it is a list of three requirements that all must be met. I do believe you are incorrect.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

2-4-101. Common and technical usage.
Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.
Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1422, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 135-1-101.

Click to expand...

Annotation:
Especially with reference to the words "or" and "and" has it been frequently necessary to invoke this latter rule. Thomas v. City of Grand Junction, 13 Colo. App. 80, 56 P. 665 (1899).

Click to expand...

The grammatical understanding of a series, which you are arguing against, appears to be clearly defined in the statutes.

Gunslinger said:

Unless the word "and" is specified in a law, no assumption that it applies can be made. As b 'and' c specify it, it applies. a is not linked by and, so the legal assumption is that it is not linked to b/c but stands on its own merits. If 'a' doesn't apply, then you must look as to whether b 'and' c apply. The former stands on its own merits; the latter two are linked and both must apply.

Click to expand...

Um, no.
But for the sake of the arguement, let's try that out.

We now direct your attention to 18-12-214(4)(a). As you have requested, we will only be looking at this singular line of law and not any of the surrounding contextual information to see if it can actually stand on its own.

where not authorized... "Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each enterance to the building;"



Given this line to follow I still fail to understand how you come to the conclusion that,

Gunslinger said:

With the wanding, I would have to say it is lawful to deny weapons, even with a CCW, under state law.

Click to expand...

Gunslinger said:

Unless the word "and" is specified in a law, no assumption that it applies can be made. As b 'and' c specify it, it applies. a is not linked by and, so the legal assumption is that it is not linked to b/c but stands on its own merits. If 'a' doesn't apply, then you must look as to whether b 'and' c apply. The former stands on its own merits; the latter two are linked and both must apply.

Click to expand...

+1, although I wouldn't bat an eye if our lawmakers either made a typo or simply didn't understand boolean.

Perhaps people who are both good programmers and good writers would make better legislators than lawyers? At the very least, I foresee a reduction in code, rather than the inevitable increase.

since9 said:

+1, although I wouldn't bat an eye if our lawmakers either made a typo or simply didn't understand boolean.

Perhaps people who are both good programmers and good writers would make better legislators than lawyers? At the very least, I foresee a reduction in code, rather than the inevitable increase.

Click to expand...

The references that the legislators use to draft legislation for CO do not use boolean logic, they use plain english. Have you checked the references I linked that define how wording is to be used and interpreted?

wrightme said:

That is not logical. From a construction standpoint, it is a list of three requirements that all must be met. I do believe you are incorrect.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=





The grammatical understanding of a series, which you are arguing against, appears to be clearly defined in the statutes.

Click to expand...

The only way to test this is to test it. Laws/bills are very often written in doublespeak; hence, the judge decides facts of law. This is an unique situation, but I believe a judge would rule favorably to my interpretation. Keep in mind, I 'absolutely' oppose the whole process and am merely speaking in an abstract context of a confusing issue.

Gunslinger said:

The only way to test this is to test it. Laws/bills are very often written in doublespeak; hence, the judge decides facts of law. This is an unique situation, but I believe a judge would rule favorably to my interpretation. Keep in mind, I 'absolutely' oppose the whole process and am merely speaking in an abstract context of a confusing issue.

Click to expand...

I do not believe a judge would rule favorably to your interpretation. Have you reviewed the references that CO uses to craft legislation? "Doublespeak" would invalidate a law given the drafting standards required of legislation in CO.


Any 'confusion' in that statute is only in evidence if the drafting standards required of legislation are ignored.


First, can you respond to a specific question? Given 'rules of grammar and common usage,' do you agree that a series of items that are all equal and inclusive would be separated by commas, except for the last item in a series, which would be separated with 'and'? And, that 'and' means that each item in the series is in force?


So: "To drive a car, you are required to have a driver's license, a vehicle registration, AND proof of insurance" would be a list of three total requirements, EACH of which must be met? If any of those three is not available, you would not be legal to drive that vehicle, correct?

Or: "To fly upon commercial airlines, you must present a state-issued driver's license, a non-dl state-issued identification card, OR a federal issued identification such as a passport" would mean ANY ONE of those fits the requirement to board a flight?

To you , in the first example, you would only need either a driver's license OR a vehicle registration , AND a proof of insurance?


The CO statutes specify to use standard 'rules of grammar and common usage,' not some non-standard insertion of 'or' in a series for some odd reason.