Concealed carry in stores and shops with "No Weapons" signs

Logan 5 said:

...It's called common sense. If you go into a Sears-Roebuck or Wal Mart, how safe are you? Well, you can't say how safe the public is, because, well, you're not the store security. So packing a weapon, concealed or not, for that reason doesn't float. But how safe are you, really? If you feel that unsafe going into store, you really should find a different store.

...Just as we expect the anti-gun lobby to respect our Constitutional rights, we MUST respect the rights of others. That is not optional. And it is the idiots that think their rights are paramount to everyone elses that only fuels the anti-gun lobby's fire.

Click to expand...

And if you would like to start paying the rent of those who cannot afford to shop in nice well lit stores out in the burbs that have security guards, please do.
Untill then I think we can stop using phrases like "common sense" in places where they really don't apply.
Thanks.

jdholmes said:

Judges have to use case law to come to a judgements...

Click to expand...

Case law exists only when judges render a judgement. If case law exists, a judge can do one of two things: Side with case law, or render a judgement and thereby create case law.

Going past a sticker on a window just is not trespassing...this has been talked about many times on here.

Click to expand...

If you knowingly enter contrary to the conditions stated by the owner through their sign, it is most certainly trespassing, and all the talk in the wold is so much hot air when the law states otherwise.

Trespassing takes place when you refuse to leave...

Click to expand...

Yes...

...or if you have unlawfully entered - meaning you didn't have any right to enter.

Click to expand...

A "No Firearms" sign is a "condition of entry." When you violate the condition of entry, you enter unlawfully, and are trespassing. It used to be signs like "No Colored People" were lawful conditions of entry, as well, but federal anti-discrimination laws put a stop to race, color, sex, creed, and a few other things, but only those things. "No Firearms" signs remain a lawful condition of entry.

An open business has an invitation to come in, making it a legal entry.

Click to expand...

Nope. All businesses have "conditional entries," whether signs are posted or not: The body of law itself, whether it's posted at the entrance or not, is one condition of entry. If you're entering the process either while doing something unlawful or intending on doing something unlawful, you're also trespassing, not only against the owner, but against all people working at or frequenting the premises.

I think what's going on here is that some folks are so wrapped around the axle about carrying EVERYWHERE they bend over backwards trying to twist the law so it suits those of us who carry firearms. Trust me - I wish it were so!

However, as a property owner myself, I respect the rights of property owners as much as I respect our Second Amendment rights. I'll fight tooth and nail against abuses of the law such as the no firearms ban at the Colorado State Fair in Pueblo (see my treatise on this, here), but that's public property, not private property. I might despite the owner of a local store for posting a "No Firearms" sign, as I think that's disrespectful of our Constitution and the principles on which our nation was founded, but confound it! It's still their property, not mine, and while I disagree with their decision, I will respect it.

I am surprised you still maintain this position on trespass law since9.

since9 said:

Case law exists only when judges render a judgement. If case law exists, a judge can do one of two things: Side with case law, or render a judgement and thereby create case law.

If you knowingly enter contrary to the conditions stated by the owner through their sign, it is most certainly trespassing, and all the talk in the wold is so much hot air when the law states otherwise.

Click to expand...

Please produce relevant code or case law to support this statement. I have not yet been able to find any.

A "No Firearms" sign is a "condition of entry." When you violate the condition of entry, you enter unlawfully, and are trespassing. It used to be signs like "No Colored People" were lawful conditions of entry, as well, but federal anti-discrimination laws put a stop to race, color, sex, creed, and a few other things, but only those things. "No Firearms" signs remain a lawful condition of entry.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no law that I can find which states that ignoring a sign posted on private property which is open to the public constitutes trespassing.

Nope. All businesses have "conditional entries," whether signs are posted or not: The body of law itself, whether it's posted at the entrance or not, is one condition of entry. If you're entering the process either while doing something unlawful or intending on doing something unlawful, you're also trespassing, not only against the owner, but against all people working at or frequenting the premises.

Click to expand...

A "No Firearms" sign is NOT a "condition of entry". Any sign is not a condition of entry. Your entering the property is not based on you having agreed to abide by, or even having read, any sign that may be posted anywhere on the property you are entering.

There is no law that states a person must look for any such signs and agree to abide by the rules or conditions listed on them before entering the property. Therefore a persons entry is lawful even if they are breaking the "rules" of the property.

I think what's going on here is that some folks are so wrapped around the axle about carrying EVERYWHERE they bend over backwards trying to twist the law so it suits those of us who carry firearms. Trust me - I wish it were so!

However, as a property owner myself, I respect the rights of property owners as much as I respect our Second Amendment rights. I'll fight tooth and nail against abuses of the law such as the no firearms ban at the Colorado State Fair in Pueblo (see my treatise on this, here), but that's public property, not private property. I might despite the owner of a local store for posting a "No Firearms" sign, as I think that's disrespectful of our Constitution and the principles on which our nation was founded, but confound it! It's still their property, not mine, and while I disagree with their decision, I will respect it.

Click to expand...

What's going on here is that you seem to have such a high regard for the ability for property owners to post rules that you want to make their rules into law.

Click to expand...

I am surprised as well. He has not really proven anything in all of his bantering.

Is there a law out there that says posted signs hold the weight of the law? Nope...didn't think so.

I think the previous poster hit it on the head with the last line. Beautiful.

Logan 5 said:

If you feel that unsafe going into store, you really should find a different store.

Click to expand...

If I give you my zip code can you give me the list of "safe" stores please? It would be a great help. This gun gets heavy sometimes and if I had a list of places it will never be needed then I can just leave it at home.

I' shall try to buttress the common sense COMMON LAW arguments presented by LOGAN 5, and Since9 once more and keep it relatively "simple".

"My rights end - at the POINT (in this case a fixed, precise map coordinate) where yours begin ."

Within the context of the respective rights being discussed - specifically uninvited entry with a deadly weapon vs private property rights - that "point" is the entrance threshold of any private premises upon which visible public notice has been provided that firearms are not allowed.

rushcreek2 said:

I' shall try to buttress the common sense COMMON LAW arguments presented by LOGAN 5, and Since9 once more and keep it relatively "simple".

"My rights end - at the POINT (in this case a fixed, precise map coordinate) where yours begin ."

Within the context of the respective rights being discussed here- that "point" is the entrance threshold of any private premises.

Click to expand...

What rights?

1) Show me where it states in law that you have to obey the rules posted by a private entity that is open to the general public.

2) No one is saying that a private entity does not have the right to post rules/regulations that they would like for you to abide by while on their property. They can do that. They can also require you to leave if you do not abide by their rules.

3) Your entry or presence on the property only becomes unlawful if you are instructed to leave and refuse to do so.

rushcreek2 said:

I' shall try to buttress the common sense COMMON LAW arguments presented by LOGAN 5, and Since9 once more and keep it relatively "simple".

"My rights end - at the POINT (in this case a fixed, precise map coordinate) where yours begin ."

Within the context of the respective rights being discussed - specifically uninvited entry with a deadly weapon vs private property rights - that "point" is the entrance threshold of any private premises upon which visible public notice has been provided that firearms are not allowed.

Click to expand...

How about if I am chewing bubble gum and walk into a shopping mall that has a large list of prohibited activities and #13 on the list is no gum chewing. A security guard can call the police without asking me to leave and in your world I would be arrested on the spot for criminal trespass. Yes? No?

Beau said:

I am surprised you still maintain this position on trespass law since9.

Click to expand...

Well, Beau, having heard both sides of the argument and while still believing the other side (signs have no force of law), about two weeks ago I decided put out feelers to four pro-2A friends of mine in the legal profession here in Colorado Springs, each of which has more than a decade of experience in criminal law: a judge (30+ years) who sits on criminal cases, two lawyers (12 yrs and 19 yrs), and a paralegal who prepares all the briefs and judgments (17 yrs).

They not only changed my mind, but explained to me in no uncertain legal terms as to the why behind it, which I relayed to everyone here in my post, below.

Their explanations also gibe with my degree, the last third of which says "Business Law," wherein we studied (among other things) Property Law. It's my training in property law that leads me to believe my four friends in the legal profession nailed it.

Beau said:

1) Show me where it states in law that you have to obey the rules posted by a private entity that is open to the general public.

Click to expand...

As Rushcreek hinted, property rights trump individual (visitor) rights every time under common law, except as specifically prohibited by statute. Among other things, statute prohibits murder, mayhem, kidnapping, abuse, and a few limited forms of discrimination. There need not be a specific statute saying "the sign carries the full force of the law" in order for it to actually carry the full force of the law.

2) No one is saying that a private entity does not have the right to post rules/regulations that they would like for you to abide by while on their property. They can do that. They can also require you to leave if you do not abide by their rules.

Click to expand...

Yes, they can.

3) Your entry or presence on the property only becomes unlawful if you are instructed to leave and refuse to do so.

Click to expand...

No, Beau. A sign is the property owner's communication to you of his conditions for entry. If you violate those condition upon entry, you are unlawfully entering his property i.e. trespassing.

since9 said:

...

Click to expand...

Why then do some states feel the need to specify in statute that carrying past a sign is unlawful? Yes, this question has been asked before but not answered. If this were a case of "common sense" and "common law" then why are the statutes needed?

All retail businesses are "open" to the public for the purpose of engaging in commerce.

Upon entering such PRIVATE commercial premises that are "open" to the general public a person automatically waives many rights. A person has VOLUNTARILY entered a domain that is UNDER THE CONTROL of the owner, and his/her assigns - for the legitimate purpose of engaging in commercial activity.
The person so entering may legally, and rightly hold the owner, and his/her assigns liable for any injury sustained while on said premises. Further, the person entering said premises "open" to the public may not remove any property from those premises without meeting the POSTED CONDITIONS for payment in value for the right to leave with such property.

The notion expressed by some on this forum that there exist some inherent "public right" to enter such private commercial premises free of ANY CONDITIONS pertinent to entry is naive, ridiculous, and somewhat anarchistic.

Well I think we are about done here. I still have not read anything that would sway my opinion. since9, the next time you speak to your law friends ask them the same question but leave firearms out of the discussion. Instead substitute firearms with gum and see if you still get the same answer.

• There just is not anything in Colorado statute that states that ignoring a businesses list of rules constitutes trespass.
• Your entry IS NOT conditioned on having read, or even seen, and agreeing to abide by any rule posted. If it was it would be codified into trespass law. Let's take a look at the definition of trespass again.
• From the C.R.S.

• 	18-4-201. Definitions.

  	As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

  	(1) "Premises" means any real estate and all improvements erected thereon.

  	(2) "Separate building" means each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or occupied.

  	(3) A person "enters unlawfully" or "remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her intent, enters or remains in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless the person defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the premises or some other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building that is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building that is not open to the public. Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private land or the forbidden part of the land. In the case of a designated access road not otherwise posted, said notice shall be posted at the entrance to private land and shall be substantially as follows:

• From Dictionary.com
• [h=2]tres·pass[/h]   [tres-puhs, -pas] Show IPA
  noun1.Law .a.an unlawful act causing injury to the person, property,or rights of another, committed with force or violence,actual or implied.
  
  b.a wrongful entry upon the lands of another.
  
  c.the action to recover damages for such an injury.
  
  
  
  2.an encroachment or intrusion.
  
  3.an offense, sin, or wrong.
  
  
  
  I feel it is clear that violating a rule of a business, regardless of what the rule is, does not constitute trespass. It is nothing more than breaking their rules, not law.
  
  
  ​

I am done here as well. As long as we have those who are looking for the State to step in and suspend the common law rights of property owners..........


BUBBLE GUM ???? When was the last reported incident of of homocide by BUBBLE GUM ?????? Please.

rushcreek2 said:

I am done here as well. As long as we have those who are looking for the State to step in and suspend the common law rights of property owners..........


BUBBLE GUM ???? When was the last reported incident of of homocide by BUBBLE GUM ?????? Please.

Click to expand...

!!!!!!!!! I was waiting for this. So you contend that to violate a property owners list of rules only constitutes trespass if the rule being violated is in regards to a firearm or other deadly weapon? Well by golly now that you've admitted that we can pick and choose which rules can be violated to constitute trespass would you please give us the complete list so that we can be sure not to break any other non codified laws, er, rules, er, laws, whatever.

rushcreek2 said:

I am done here as well. As long as we have those who are looking for the State to step in and suspend the common law rights of property owners..........


BUBBLE GUM ???? When was the last reported incident of of homocide by BUBBLE GUM ?????? Please.

Click to expand...

Sounds like something I heard a cop say...

rushcreek2 said:

The person so entering may legally, and rightly hold the owner, and his/her assigns liable for any injury sustained while on said premises.

Click to expand...

ANY injury? Really? I think not.

rushcreek2 said:

Further, the person entering said premises "open" to the public may not remove any property from those premises without meeting the POSTED CONDITIONS for payment in value for the right to leave with such property.

Click to expand...

Right, because if the buisiness does not post "no stealing" then you are free to steal.

rushcreek2 said:

The notion expressed by some on this forum that there exist some inherent "public right" to enter such private commercial premises free of ANY CONDITIONS pertinent to entry is naive, ridiculous, and somewhat anarchistic.

Click to expand...

ANY condition? I don't believe anyone said that. Must we comply with paying the stated admission fee at the amusement park? You bet. THIS is a "condition of entry". If a business wants to have a "condition of entry" be that no firearms are carried then they can install metal detectors or subject folks to searches and can ask those that are carrying to leave. I have absolutely no problem with this at all. I will simply take my business elsewhere.

Kingfish said:

Why then do some states feel the need to specify in statute that carrying past a sign is unlawful?

Click to expand...

Because there are too many people running around who don't understand common law.

If this were a case of "common sense" and "common law" then why are the statutes needed?

Click to expand...

Neither knowledge of common law nor common sense is very common.

Beau said:

Instead substitute firearms with gum and see if you still get the same answer.

Click to expand...

I appears you're intentionally ignoring my previous comments concerning the difference between the class of a crime and the severity of impact. The latter is used primarily in sentencing. No prosecutor or judge in their right mind would allow a "bubblegum" charge of trespassing. However, I'll be if you did so as repeatedly as you seem to be intentionally ignoring what others have previously written, the police might "stick" you with a disturbing the peace or harassment charge...

Rushcreek, hold the door, as I'm right behind you. I attempted to engage in a serious, well-informed discussion, but one too many folks are hell-bent on warping it into silliness, if not ridiculous, unfounded diatribe. For what purpose, I cannot imagine.

since9 said:

However, I'll be if you did so as repeatedly as you seem to be intentionally ignoring what others have previously written, the police might "stick" you with a disturbing the peace or harassment charge...

Click to expand...

So, now ignoring the wishes of a property owner is disturbing the peace or harassment instead of trespass? I don't get it. Which is it? You very specifically stated that carrying a 2 pound piece of metal is trespass and now you say chewing gum is disturbing the peace.

Kingfish said:

So, now ignoring the wishes of a property owner is disturbing the peace or harassment instead of trespass? I don't get it. Which is it? You very specifically stated that carrying a 2 pound piece of metal is trespass and now you say chewing gum is disturbing the peace.

Click to expand...

And when would the people on this board allow carrying a 4 pound piece of metal to be charged as disturbing the peace? If we are going to compare these two...huh?

Wow. Someone thinks they are more informed than they are.

It is beginning to soundalike liberalist jargon.

Now we can be charged with harassment and disturbing the peace...mmmm.

And the judges can just sentence however they please and look at a trespass that includes a gun vs. a trespass that includes no-shirt and assign one a more severe judgment?

Yeeeaaaaahhh...right. Nice try. Look...good for you that you passed a business class and own property.

So do a very large amount of people on here - welcome to the club. It doesn't make your more educated on the law anymore than being a cop does.