-
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.
-
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.
Concealed carry in stores and shops with "No Weapons" signs
- Thread starter FlamingTP
- Start date
Kingfish
Regular Member
The statute says a person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another. Where in CO code does it make it unlawful to carry past a "no guns" sign. The statute says "unlawfully enters". There would HAVE to be something that make the carrying of a firearm past a sign a crime. There are several states that do make it a crime but CO is not one of them.
What if a movie theater has a sign that says "no outside food or drink". I always keep a 12oz bottle of water in my bag (my man purse) for emergencies. I do not remove the bottle from my bag at any time.
Am I committing a CRIME by carrying the unopened bottle of water into the theater?
THIS IS A REAL QUESTION. I see it exactly the same as a LAC carrying a holstered handgun.
Gray Rider
New member
You only smuggle water in? Pfft. Amateur.
Kingfish
Regular Member
Excellent point. Is there a difference between taking in your own drinks and snacks that you intend to consume and taking in a bottle of water that you do not? Is possessing either a "crime" assuming you are not asked to leave?
Last edited:
Like most things it comes down to intent. I think there's a treatise somewhere in the Latin originating beingadicktion foundation of law, but IANAL.
jdholmes
Regular Member
My wife and I always bring our own snacks. We legally own the snacks and can take them anywhere we want. If they have a private rule saying you can't have them and they catch you they can ask you to leave - you haven't broken any law just their rules. They can trespass you if you refuse to leave.
rushcreek2
Regular Member
Common law principles are applicable to the relationship between the authority in charge of any business premises, and any persons who accept the invitation to enter. The "NO GUN" sign serves notice that the invitation is conditional in that it does not not apply to persons armed with firearms.
Since a person carrying a firearm would in effect be entering that business without an invitation, they would be subject to being trespassed. Presumably they could be invited to re-enter the business again without the firearm.
Since a person carrying a firearm would in effect be entering that business without an invitation, they would be subject to being trespassed. Presumably they could be invited to re-enter the business again without the firearm.
Last edited:
Kingfish
Regular Member
Anyone can be trespassed for any (legal) reason. That is not the point.
The questions are:
1) Is it unlawful to carry a bottle of water into a theater which is posted that no outside food or drink is allowed and assuming the actor has not been asked to leave and refused.
If the answer to this question no, then how could legally carrying a firearm be unlawful.
2) Why do some states have specific wording that signs hold the weight of law? There is nothing in the CO statutes that state carrying a bottle of water (or firearm) past a sign is unlawful. No unlawful conduct has been perpetrated thus one has broken no law so the person entering past a sign has not entered unlawfully.
Do you have ANY case law on this? YOU need to cite to authority what makes this a crime.
jdholmes
Regular Member
Indeed, show case law...cite something...
My understanding is that when a building is open to the public the invitation is open for anyone to enter.
My understanding is that when a building is open to the public the invitation is open for anyone to enter.
rushcreek2
Regular Member
No - I really don't need to "cite to authority" when citing common law principles which are the foundation for all of our law in these United States. ( Constitutional Law 101)
Regardless of the specific provisions of laws addressing the subject of trespass on private property throughout the states - they are all based on common law.
This is not a "rule of law" - it is a principle of law. There are plenty of good books available on the subject of common law.
The "case law citation" you hunger for will probably be your own criminal trespass case - if you don't learn to appreciate the simple common law rights of property owners.
Last edited:
Kingfish
Regular Member
Then why is it necessary for so many states to enact statutes that specifically criminalize carry past a no guns sign? If it were a basic principal of law, there would be no need.
I am asking you cite some documentation to support your position (as is a forum rule). There is nothing in CO or US law that makes carrying past a sign unlawful. You are stating that there is.
Let's try this...What statute would an arrest for carrying a bottle of water to the theater in defiance of a "no outside food or drink allowed" sign show? There MUST be a statute violated. It cannot possibly be Colorado's criminal trespass statute as that statute only applies to the UNLAWFUL entry and as carrying a bottle of water is lawful (as is carrying a handgun) there must be another statute.
Remember, common law holds that unless something is specifically unlawful then it is lawful.
since9
Campaign Veteran
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...
(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.
Last edited:
rushcreek2
Regular Member
The system of (English) common law was established in the U.S. Constitution at a time when that document was very briefly the ONLY written federal law governing these United States. Common law principles reside primarily within the context of personal, and property rights. Trespass is a violation of those rights.
I would not be merely "walking past a sign" while carrying a firearm onto another person's real property, because that PERSON resides to some extent on their real property. My offense would be willfully violating both the personal, and property rights of the owner of said private premises. Add a firearm to the equation and the issue of forceful trespass may very well present.
Any commercial invitation to enter onto private business premises is CONDITIONAL - even if every conceivable exclusionary deviant behavior is not enumerated in posted notice at the point of entry. In this hypothetical case - a "Gun Buster" sign serves to EXCLUDE one specific class of persons from the invitation. Is willful, and armed uninvited entry onto YOUR OWN private premises "lawful" ?
Many people believe that they have some inherent "right" , or "consumer pass" to enter a private business open to the public. That is not the case. They have a CONDITIONAL invitation only.
I would not be merely "walking past a sign" while carrying a firearm onto another person's real property, because that PERSON resides to some extent on their real property. My offense would be willfully violating both the personal, and property rights of the owner of said private premises. Add a firearm to the equation and the issue of forceful trespass may very well present.
Any commercial invitation to enter onto private business premises is CONDITIONAL - even if every conceivable exclusionary deviant behavior is not enumerated in posted notice at the point of entry. In this hypothetical case - a "Gun Buster" sign serves to EXCLUDE one specific class of persons from the invitation. Is willful, and armed uninvited entry onto YOUR OWN private premises "lawful" ?
Many people believe that they have some inherent "right" , or "consumer pass" to enter a private business open to the public. That is not the case. They have a CONDITIONAL invitation only.
Last edited:
MKEgal
Regular Member
They are very rare. Compare these 4 incidents against the hundreds of thousands of people who OC every day, across the country with no problems.Beau said:
There was one here in Milwaukee June of 2010.
One in Virginia (I think) Dec. of 2011. These were a pair of "kids" who were already bad, had long criminal records, & did indeed target the citizen, grab for his gun.
In April 2012 near Eastern Michigan U.
And I don't remember where it was, but I read a post from someone who had a big-box door greeter try to sneak up behind him & take his gun (I don't know why he'd do something so stupid, but he ended up in surgery later that day).
:banghead: I'm surprised you'd say that.
They're both objects which can be named or pictured on a sign with a red circle-slash over them.
Neither one is more or less dangerous than the other, as it sits in your bag.
In action, the water is responsible for far more deaths every year than firearms.
And people probably intend to drink water, while we hope never to have to even draw against a human.
jdholmes
Regular Member
There is a LOT of speculation and probably's in this post. Any half decent lawyer would have a case like this dropped. Judges have to use case law to come to a judgements and I have yet to find a law that gives a sign on a building any legal weight.
Going past a sticker on a window just is not trespassing...this has been talked about many times on here. Trespassing takes place when you refuse to leave or if you have unlawfully entered - meaning you didn't have any right to enter. An open business has an invitation to come in, making it a legal entry.
I see. So I can enter your home at 2 am (or whenever it is you and your family sleep) and with a bullhorn puke out every swear word I know, using it to describe your political views, and if you tell me I must leave, you hate the Constitution? Kewl beans, bayyyyBE! What's your address, again? :banana:
Dude, private property is just that- PRIVATE. No matter if the owner is a private individual or a business/commercial enterprise. If you can ignore the wishes of the property owner without suffering legal consequences, then you no longer have the right to defend your property either. If you can enter a business that does not want guns present, ignoring their decision and not getting arrested for it, then if some homeless meth-head busts into your home looking for anything to sell so he can get his next hit, YOU cannot raise a finger against him.
Wait a minute here.... that doesn't sound right. Does it? No it sure don't. And do you know why?
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.
You should have more than just the skill of how to use a firearm in order to carry one. The ability to discern a safe environment from a bad one should also work. Listen, you're not Superman, and you're not above the law just because you carry and/or have a permit to carry concealed. I can understand why a business such as Wal Mart can sell guns but prefer that people don't OC in their store.
-- Get someone uneducated in firearm physics with a .357, he feels threatened because some teenage kid 15' away sights him in using a display rifle in sorting goods (which is pretty tough to load & fire with the stuff they lock the rifle with), so he draws down on the kid and....BANG! Oppps! His finger was a bit tighter on the trigger than it should have been. Now you have a dead kid and a couple others critically wounded that are right behind him.
That's a scenario the corporate world would look at. Is it likely? I dunno. Maybe, as I have seen an awful lot of people OC and just because they OC it seems like they think they're god-like. And I know the corporate world sees that too.
So does that mean you don't have the right to carry in a store? Actually, yes it does. How so? Because the owner says so. And if you or others that THINK they are gold-like because they pack-a-piece and are above the law, your lack of respect for the wishes of the property owners shows that you do not have enough common sense available to you to give you the ability to carry. Open or not.
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.
Breaking into my home at 2AM (or any time) would not be advisable.
And what are you smoking and not sharing? Seriously.
Breaking into my home at 2AM (or any time) would not be advisable.
And what are you smoking and not sharing? Seriously.
It's called common sense. If you cannot respect the lawful wishes of the property owner, then no one has to respect your wishes either.
I think you miss understood my earlier statements. If a business hates the Constitution, why would you want to patronize them?