I don't believe you're considering everything in their appropriate context. *Let's reexamine the main areas of 18-12-214 and 18-4-504:
18-12-214. Authority Granted By Permit - Carrying Restrictions.
(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.*
...
(5) nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.
18-4-504. Third Degree Criminal Trespass.www.handgunlaw.us 5
(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...
Most states, including Colorado, give property owners, whether private property or a a business, the right to exclude certain things from their property, including firearms (18-12-214(5)). *The key point upon which you seem to be stumbling is that the law makes no distinction with respect to how the property owner communicates their intentions to a potential trespasser. *Rather, it employs the "rational choice theory" from criminology.
Basically put, if you refuse to leave someone's property i.e. "remains in or upon the premises of another" after they've asked you to leave, a judge will ask you why you didn't leave after being asked to do so, in the hopes of finding some compelling reason which he may consider before rendering a verdict (it's not a jury issue). *Barring a reasonable explanation i.e. you were assisting your elderly mother from the premises, etc., the judge will rule against you.
Similarly, if you enter the premise with a firearm after reading a "No Firearms" sign, the judge will ask you several questions, including "Did you notice the sign? *Did you read the sign? *What did the sign say? *Do you understand what that means?" and finally, "Why did you enter the premises carrying a firearm after reading and comprehending a "No Firearms" sign put up by the owner of that property? *Even if you claimed you glanced at the sign but didn't read it, the judge has both the right and the authority to employ rational choice theory, which states "man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice." -
Source **
The judge would then make two determinations:
1. *Was the sign was properly posted and clearly visible? *Barring requirement of law, the judge would review pictures of the entrances to the store or property (if available), then determine if a rational man carrying a firearm would or should have been on the lookout for such a sign (I certainly am) and whether or not he would have seen it. There's one location I frequent which does not have signs at all entrances, and at that, they are tiny, as in 12 pt type, so it's not rational to believe a rational person would be able to spot it.
2. *If the answer is yes, the judge would then ask himself if you're a rational person. *You really need to be careful with this one, particularly if you start arguing that "nothing in law specifically mandates a sign carries the weight of law." *If you attempt this ploy, the judge is likely to rule that such a thought is irrational. *This can be used against you later, as in the denial of a concealed handgun permit.
Regardless, the judge would probably state something along the lines of, "When a property owner posts a clearly visible sign that says "No Firearms," he is communicating his intent with respect to the conduct he expects on his own property. *If you can read, and have read and understood the meaning of the sign, and enter the premises with a firearm contrary to his stated intent, you are "entering unlawfully.""
Yes, it's still third degree criminal trespass, thus a "crime." *Keep in mind it's a class 1 petty offense in this state, which is not worth getting worked up about. *
Not "exactly." *While it falls into the same
class of crime, any penalties imposed by the judge will be swayed by the
severity of the crime. *Thus, trespassing with a bottle of water is far less severe than trespassing with a firearm.
Hope my answer has addressed your concerns.
Not true, for two reasons:
1. Many laws are not written with technical precision. Where confusion abounds, they're sometimes rewritten for more clarity, but sometimes new laws, actually adding to the confusion, are enacted. Sure helps the lawyers stay in business, but it does little to help reduce confusion.
2. Even with well-written laws, courtrooms are not themselves always manned by rational human beings. Law Enforcement rarely knows every nuance of every law. Many prosecutors get wild hairs. Judges often have agendas. When legislators see the intent of even well-written laws subverted by ignorance, bias, or hidden agendas, they'll often rewrite them to make them "crystal" clear, leaving law enforcement, prosecutors and judges zero wiggle room in an attempt to see justice preserved.