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

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...

Let's pick something that is more possible that does not relate to firearms or an obvious crime. Many businesses have one or several of these notices, no recording, no solicitation, no photography on premises. And time after time when those signs are ignored the people are arrested, and charged with trespass. It is a crime to ignore a posted notice and trespass onto the property. People do regularly get ejected or arrested for disregarding posted rules. The most common place for this is hospitals, university, and so on. It does not even have to be posted on the door. I have made trespass arrests for yelling in the university library with no signs posted.

Sometimes I agree with you, but this one is clear, but then there is only one way for a person to test this out. BTW I have not checked with OP's state, but in NC it is a misdemeanor to enter a no firearms posted establishment with a firearm, which is the context we are talking about.

WalkingWolf said:

Let's pick something that is more possible that does not relate to firearms or an obvious crime. Many businesses have one or several of these notices, no recording, no solicitation, no photography on premises. And time after time when those signs are ignored the people are arrested, and charged with trespass.

Click to expand...

Convicted? In what state under what statute?
Cite to authority.

WalkingWolf said:

It is a crime to ignore a posted notice and trespass onto the property.

Click to expand...

That is a false blanket statement. For private property, yes. For a business open to the public, only for what is defined in statute.

WalkingWolf said:

People do regularly get ejected or arrested for disregarding posted rules. The most common place for this is hospitals, university, and so on. It does not even have to be posted on the door. I have made trespass arrests for yelling in the university library with no signs posted.

Click to expand...

What was the charge?
Ejected for disregarding posted rules, yes.
Arrested? For what?

WalkingWolf said:

Sometimes I agree with you, but this one is clear, but then there is only one way for a person to test this out. BTW I have not checked with OP's state, but in NC it is a misdemeanor to enter a no firearms posted establishment with a firearm, which is the context we are talking about.

Click to expand...

The NC prohibition is created by statute, isn't it.



By the way, since he doesn't like to read stuff that upsets him, I think he is still ignoring me.

Here is NC Carolina law, I am still trying to find Colorado law.

§ 14-159.13. Second degree trespass.
(a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another:
(1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner, by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized person; or
(2) That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises.
(b) Classification. – Second degree trespass is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 102; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Just to add, I do not know why any reasonable sane person would want to enter a business or private property after clearly reading a sign stating no firearms with a firearm. And then think they have a right to be there, until verbally told by the property owner. Only a person lacking of either intelligence or the basic social skills would do such a thing.

Georgia law

(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;

(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

WalkingWolf said:

Here is NC Carolina law, I am still trying to find Colorado law.

§ 14-159.13. Second degree trespass.
(a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another:
(1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner, by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized person; or
(2) That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises.
(b) Classification. – Second degree trespass is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 102; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Click to expand...

The bold portion does not seem applicable. A customer isn't an intruder.

WalkingWolf said:

Just to add, I do not know why any reasonable sane person would want to enter a business or private property after clearly reading a sign stating no firearms with a firearm. And then think they have a right to be there, until verbally told by the property owner. Only a person lacking of either intelligence or the basic social skills would do such a thing.

Click to expand...

That is kind of a silly way to view it. Basically you are trying to say "WalkingWolf is smarter than the others that dont think like me!"

It isn't valid.

WalkingWolf said:

Georgia law

(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;

(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

Click to expand...

"for an unlawful purpose" and "notice...that such entry is forbidden"
Neither of those fits what you desire to make them fit.

WalkingWolf said:

Here is NC Carolina law, I am still trying to find Colorado law.

Click to expand...

You won't because there isn't one. CO has no such law.

Kingfish said:

You won't because there isn't one. CO has no such law.

Click to expand...

I am sure that they do have laws in CO, just locating the ones in reference to firearms and those that refer to trespass. If they do not then common law applies. You have to remember, or you don't that notice is not just verbal, it can be conveyed in correspondence or it can be conveyed by a sign. One must also remember that almost all of our system of law is based on the word reasonable. If a prosecutor, judge, and jury decide that a sign is enough to convey that access is denied to a person carrying a firearm, you then must argue upon appeal. I personally find that a person who would come on my property after being notified by sign or person to be trespassing, and I will not bother with telling them personally unless it is behind the barrel of a firearm. Until law enforcement arrives and arrests them. I have no tolerance for fools that think a property owners preference is some sort of joke.

Kingfish said:

You won't because there isn't one. CO has no such law.

Click to expand...

Here are the CO trespass statutes:

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

18-4-502. First degree criminal trespass.
A person commits the crime of first degree criminal trespass if such person knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling of another or if such person enters any motor vehicle with intent to commit a crime therein. First degree criminal trespass is a class 5 felony

Click to expand...

18-4-503. Second degree criminal trespass.
(1) A person commits the crime of second degree criminal trespass if such person:
(a) Unlawfully enters or remains in or upon the premises of another which are enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or are fenced; or
(b) Knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in or upon the common areas of a hotel, motel, condominium, or apartment building; or
(c) Knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in a motor vehicle of another.

(2) Second degree criminal trespass is a class 3 misdemeanor, but:
(a) It is a class 2 misdemeanor if the premises have been classified by the county assessor for the county in which the land is situated as agricultural land pursuant to section 39-1-102 (1.6), C.R.S.; and
(b) It is a class 4 felony if the person trespasses on premises so classified as agricultural land with the intent to commit a felony thereon.

(3) Whenever a person is convicted of, pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, receives a deferred judgment or sentence for, or is adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for, a violation of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section, the offender's driver's license shall be revoked as provided in section 42-2-125, C.R.S.

Click to expand...

18-4-504. 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.

(2) Third degree criminal trespass is a class 1 petty offense, but:
(a) It is a class 3 misdemeanor if the premises have been classified by the county assessor for the county in which the land is situated as agricultural land pursuant to section 39-1-102 (1.6), C.R.S.; and
(b) It is a class 5 felony if the person trespasses on premises so classified as agricultural land with the intent to commit a felony thereon.

Click to expand...

Most of that directly references areas where entry is prohibited, not where entry is desired, as in a business open to the public.

WalkingWolf said:

I am sure that they do have laws in CO, just locating the ones in reference to firearms and those that refer to trespass. If they do not then common law applies. You have to remember, or you don't that notice is not just verbal, it can be conveyed in correspondence or it can be conveyed by a sign. One must also remember that almost all of our system of law is based on the word reasonable. If a prosecutor, judge, and jury decide that a sign is enough to convey that access is denied to a person carrying a firearm, you then must argue upon appeal. I personally find that a person who would come on my property after being notified by sign or person to be trespassing, and I will not bother with telling them personally unless it is behind the barrel of a firearm. Until law enforcement arrives and arrests them. I have no tolerance for fools that think a property owners preference is some sort of joke.

Click to expand...

But, each instance of signage in statute refers to signage that denies entry. It does not refer to signage that limits custom by virtue of attire.


When someone comes onto closed property past a "No Trespassing" sign, I agree with you. I do NOT agree with you where the sign is only an attempt to selectively deny a segment of the population.

WalkingWolf said:

I am sure that they do have laws in CO, just locating the ones in reference to firearms and those that refer to trespass. If they do not then common law applies. You have to remember, or you don't that notice is not just verbal, it can be conveyed in correspondence or it can be conveyed by a sign. One must also remember that almost all of our system of law is based on the word reasonable. If a prosecutor, judge, and jury decide that a sign is enough to convey that access is denied to a person carrying a firearm, you then must argue upon appeal. I personally find that a person who would come on my property after being notified by sign or person to be trespassing, and I will not bother with telling them personally unless it is behind the barrel of a firearm. Until law enforcement arrives and arrests them. I have no tolerance for fools that think a property owners preference is some sort of joke.

Click to expand...

Kingfish said:

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...

?????

Kingfish said:

?????

Click to expand...

Remember that word reasonable? No I don't think a sign for gum chewing would get anyone arrested, though a property owner or business owner has the right to deny service or access to anybody for any reason. If we do not honor the right of others how in the hell can we expect others to honor ours?

Now I know from posting with you on another thread you are a reasonable person, just think about it. Would you want people to disregard your wishes in your home when they know about them in advance? It is not just a matter of law or common law it is also common sense.

Speaking of common sense I see posts that keep popping up that the content is hidden due to the the stalker being on my ignore list. Just thought you might want to know you are posting to nothing if posting to me.

WalkingWolf said:

Remember that word reasonable? No I don't think a sign for gum chewing would get anyone arrested, though a property owner or business owner has the right to deny service or access to anybody for any reason. If we do not honor the right of others how in the hell can we expect others to honor ours?

Now I know from posting with you on another thread you are a reasonable person, just think about it. Would you want people to disregard your wishes in your home when they know about them in advance? It is not just a matter of law or common law it is also common sense.

Speaking of common sense I see posts that keep popping up that the content is hidden due to the the stalker being on my ignore list. Just thought you might want to know you are posting to nothing if posting to me.

Click to expand...

A business is not analogous to a home.


Also, I see you are ignoring opinions not in step with your own. I know you choose to not read my posts. That does not mean I will not converse. Maybe someone else will repost or quote me, and then you will need to also ignore them, eh?

WalkingWolf said:

Remember that word reasonable? No I don't think a sign for gum chewing would get anyone arrested, though a property owner or business owner has the right to deny service or access to anybody for any reason. If we do not honor the right of others how in the hell can we expect others to honor ours?

Click to expand...

Of course anyone has the right to deny service. That is not in question. If the possession and carrying of and USE of chewing gun is not grounds to have someone arrested then why is carrying a 2 pound hunk of metal and plastic any different. I HONESTLY don't understand.

WalkingWolf said:

Now I know from posting with you on another thread you are a reasonable person, just think about it. Would you want people to disregard your wishes in your home when they know about them in advance? It is not just a matter of law or common law it is also common sense.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about a private residence or a piece of land. We are talking about a place OPEN to the public.

Kingfish said:

Of course anyone has the right to deny service. That is not in question. If the possession and carrying of and USE of chewing gun is not grounds to have someone arrested then why is carrying a 2 pound hunk of metal and plastic any different. I HONESTLY don't understand.

We are not talking about a private residence or a piece of land. We are talking about a place OPEN to the public.

Click to expand...

We are talking about privately owned property where the property owner has the right to decide who is and is not allowed and for any reason. If a person believes they have been unjustly denied access or service there is a civil court system for that. Chewing gum is just silly. Can you show one business that has such a sign. I can show that numerous business that have no food no drink signs, such as furniture stores, and yes you can get arrested for trespass if you enter anyway. The signs are the same as verbally saying that you do not want a person armed with a gun, or a drink in your business. Reading and ignoring that sign is clearly trespassing and rude. Whether a person actually gets arrested is another story, if they make a habit of it then it is going to happen sooner or later. I don't think imposing ones will on another is productive in any form, whether it is entering a business where we know we are not wanted or imposing our dress codes on others. To be treated with respect we must show others respect even if they are anti gun.

WalkingWolf said:

We are talking about privately owned property where the property owner has the right to decide who is and is not allowed and for any reason. If a person believes they have been unjustly denied access or service there is a civil court system for that. Chewing gum is just silly. Can you show one business that has such a sign. I can show that numerous business that have no food no drink signs, such as furniture stores, and yes you can get arrested for trespass if you enter anyway. The signs are the same as verbally saying that you do not want a person armed with a gun, or a drink in your business. Reading and ignoring that sign is clearly trespassing and rude. Whether a person actually gets arrested is another story, if they make a habit of it then it is going to happen sooner or later. I don't think imposing ones will on another is productive in any form, whether it is entering a business where we know we are not wanted or imposing our dress codes on others. To be treated with respect we must show others respect even if they are anti gun.

Click to expand...

Wow, the FUD is strong in this one!


That is ridiculous, I have NEVER heard of ANYONE ANYWHERE getting arrested for trespass for doing that.

WalkingWolf said:

I can show that numerous business that have no food no drink signs, such as furniture stores, and yes you can get arrested for trespass if you enter anyway.

Click to expand...

I am sorry. I am going to have to ask you for a cite of someone that was arrested for stopping by Starbucks before browsing sofas at Rooms To Go where they were not asked to leave and refused. Hell, looks like there is not even a cite for someone arrested for carrying past a sign in Colorado. Remember, we are talking about Colorado (without a sign LAW) not NC.

I still believe my chewing gum analogy holds.

A RULE of a property owner that is OPEN to the public does not and cannot hold legal weight. Sure, they can ask you to leave and if you refuse then you are violating the LAW...Until then you are not.

WalkingWolf said:

Reading and ignoring that sign is clearly trespassing

Click to expand...

You also stated that not seeing the sign was no excuse. Which is it?

WalkingWolf said:

and rude.

Click to expand...

Being rude is not a crime.

Kingfish said:

You also stated that not seeing the sign was no excuse. Which is it?

Being rude is not a crime.

Click to expand...

Actually it is, the charge can be disorderly conduct, or it can be trespass, or possibly assault. Just depends on the form of rude it is. Not seeing a sign is no excuse such in the case of a university student who is aware of school policy. Also if a person enters private property to commit a crime no notice is necessary to charge trespass such as a shoplifter. There are many crimes that overlap, and god knows nobody can no every law on the books that might be a crime. But entering someplace you are not wanted when it is private and not publicly owned property is a crime. Now when caught and interviewed one can either lie, and possibly face another charge or take their medicine. One could say they did not see the sign but if the owner has video of the person staring at the sign that would be a big mistake. Just because most people are not arrested does not make a act legal, that is clearly wrong. I highly doubt there is one of us that does not commit a violation of law at least once a year. Just because we do not get caught or catch a break does not change what it is.

Is it reasonable to enter another persons property and disregard their rules just because we do not agree with them?

wrightme said:

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...."

Click to expand...

While comparing laws between states is quite common. Comparing laws when trying to determine the correct legal answer to a question in a specific state is both an exercise in futility and stupidity. It is like sticking diamonds up a goat's rectum and calling it beautiful.

BTW, if a law is treated a specific way by long usage, that is precedent. Go ask the Supreme Court or any other court in the land about precedent.

OldCurlyWolf said:

While comparing laws between states is quite common. Comparing laws when trying to determine the correct legal answer to a question in a specific state is both an exercise in futility and stupidity. It is like sticking diamonds up a goat's rectum and calling it beautiful.

BTW, if a law is treated a specific way by long usage, that is precedent. Go ask the Supreme Court or any other court in the land about precedent.

Click to expand...

NO ONE from CO has been able to confirm that this alleged "long usage" is anything except opinion.


Like I said, I could be incorrect, but the statute and what has been cited so far does not show me to be incorrect.

WalkingWolf said:

Is it reasonable to enter another persons property and disregard their rules just because we do not agree with them?

Click to expand...

That is a completely separate question. The question that I posed is the simple "what statute (or case law) shows that the 'no firearms allowed' sign is actually treated as 'legal notice of trespass.'
What each person does with the information is a matter for another discussion. If you didn't have me on ignore due to not agreeing with my opinions, you could see this and respond.