Walmart refused ammo sale.

[wrightme]

Oh, hell, I don't know. I just figure if a store can be sued for the actions of an employee, barring a superior specifically preventing them, they're authorized to act as an agent. Wasn't that a scene in Fast Times when Brad(?) was changing out of his pirate outfit into street clothes?

If it isn't defined by statute, it is arguable. If it IS defined by statute, it is not.

From my brief review of the CRS, I see nothing of legal weight (at the state level) supporting any rational belief that a sign can give notice of trespass, or that anything short of le can do so.

As example, in Nevada, a sign telling customers that they cannot carry in a business isn't worth the paper it is printed upon. But, an agent of the property can see you with a firearm, and give notice of trespass. At that point, you must leave.
Also, there IS statute that defines signage for "no trespass" signs. But that covers a blanket "no trespass," and is not relevant for businesses that are "open to the public." I see that RMGO and others do list "banning businesses," but have not seen a thing that actually supports the legality of a business placing a sign and having it carry the weight of law in CO.

Remember, if it isn't made illegal, it is legal.

 

[Polynikes]

So, what part was some scenario where they can call police on you without even speaking to you first? Specifically, can a business trespass you without notifying you? And, if they DO call law enforcement, can LE act as part of the "business entity" and trespass you?

What would LE be enforcing if the business calls them?

Me:

However, the last thing I want is for that employee to go get their manager and notify them that there's an armed individual in the store who is refusing to leave the store and then have the manager just contact the police before even coming to speak to me.

The above isn't very far-fetched. Perhaps the manager is too afraid to directly confront someone with a gun. Perhaps they don't like you personally. The bottom line would be that you have been asked to leave by an employee, and now the store manager, rather than come exchange pleasantries and witty banter with you is calling 911 and stating, "There's a MWAG in my store, we asked him to leave and he refused." Again, are you going to argue the finer points with the police of exactly WHO asked you to leave when they arrive on scene? I'm sure that'll go over just swell.

At no point was I saying that you'd be cited for trespass without being warned, but rather the warning that you see as insufficient could be seen as perfectly sufficient by the officers who respond to the call. If you want to take the gamble and risk the citation, that's your choice. I'm just telling you the advisable way to play it. We aren't going to win any new followers to our cause by stubbornly ramming our agenda down their throats.

??

Checking the statute, I haven't seen that section. And, that statute speaks of concealed permits.

(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.

Specifically, your rights do not supersede the rights of any other private party when you are on their premises. If any component of the business entity asks you to leave their property, that is their right. That's as detailed as the law is going to get on the subject and like I said, nothing specifies what position the employee must hold within the "entity" in order to exercise their existing rights over you. (There's nothing specifically related to signage that I know of, either.) This is my $.02 from how I read the law. YMMV.

 

[wrightme]

Me:

The above isn't very far-fetched. Perhaps the manager is too afraid to directly confront someone with a gun. Perhaps they don't like you personally. The bottom line would be that you have been asked to leave by an employee, and now the store manager, rather than come exchange pleasantries and witty banter with you is calling 911 and stating, "There's a MWAG in my store, we asked him to leave and he refused." Again, are you going to argue the finer points with the police of exactly WHO asked you to leave when they arrive on scene? I'm sure that'll go over just swell.

It isn't about hypotheticals completely. It is also about what the statutes actually state, AND about how they are applied in courts, and in courts of record.

At no point was I saying that you'd be cited for trespass without being warned, but rather the warning that you see as insufficient could be seen as perfectly sufficient by the officers who respond to the call. If you want to take the gamble and risk the citation, that's your choice. I'm just telling you the advisable way to play it. We aren't going to win any new followers to our cause by stubbornly ramming our agenda down their throats.

Once again, this is about what statute states. If a simple "get the gun out of here" is "seen as perfectly sufficient by the officers," there is a serious problem in the police department. And, I haven't mentioned ONCE what action people should or shouldn't take. I have questioned the validity of statements of law.

Specifically, your rights do not supersede the rights of any other private party when you are on their premises. If any component of the business entity asks you to leave their property, that is their right. That's as detailed as the law is going to get on the subject and like I said, nothing specifies what position the employee must hold within the "entity" in order to exercise their existing rights over you. (There's nothing specifically related to signage that I know of, either.) This is my $.02 from how I read the law. YMMV.

I have not come close to claimining otherwise as to business rights vs personal rights. My questions have been about what constitutes the actual specific that is statutorily covered as to "trespass." Simply saying "please leave" may or may not constitute a legal 'notice of trespass,' and whether it is actual notice or not should be known, no matter what course of action a person chooses for themselves.
I notice that even RMGO does not cite any relevant statute that indicates what the case may be as to "gun-banning businesses."

Can you actually cite the statute that gives "any component of the business entity" the "right to ask you to leave their property?" And, does "asking" you to leave their property serve as a legal notice of trespass under the CRS or not? THAT is the point I am attempting to get someone to actually "cite to authority." So far, no one has.

If that is your "$.02 from how [you] read the law," then cite the relevant statute so we can review it on equal footing. I have not found one CRS that gives me that impression.


And, once again, the section of statute that you DO cite [5) nothing in this section....] is part of the concealed firearm statute. What basis does that point to?

 

[Polynikes]

It isn't about hypotheticals completely. It is also about what the statutes actually state, AND about how they are applied in courts, and in courts of record.

Once again, this is about what statute states. If a simple "get the gun out of here" is "seen as perfectly sufficient by the officers," there is a serious problem in the police department. And, I haven't mentioned ONCE what action people should or shouldn't take. I have questioned the validity of statements of law.
I have not come close to claimining otherwise as to business rights vs personal rights. My questions have been about what constitutes the actual specific that is statutorily covered as to "trespass." Simply saying "please leave" may or may not constitute a legal 'notice of trespass,' and whether it is actual notice or not should be known, no matter what course of action a person chooses for themselves.
I notice that even RMGO does not cite any relevant statute that indicates what the case may be as to "gun-banning businesses."

Can you actually cite the statute that gives "any component of the business entity" the "right to ask you to leave their property?" And, does "asking" you to leave their property serve as a legal notice of trespass under the CRS or not? THAT is the point I am attempting to get someone to actually "cite to authority." So far, no one has.

If that is your "$.02 from how [you] read the law," then cite the relevant statute so we can review it on equal footing. I have not found one CRS that gives me that impression.


And, once again, the section of statute that you DO cite [5) nothing in this section....] is part of the concealed firearm statute. What basis does that point to?

It seems to me you’re just trying to overcomplicate the issue, and frankly, since you’re not a resident of this state, I fail to see how this issue may actually concern you. There is nothing in the Colorado Statutes that specifically states what wording has to be used or what position the person must hold with the “entity” to expel you from private premises. There just isn’t. The statute I’ve been using and the one that you keep insisting only applies to concealed carry is important because it firmly establishes that your right to carry a gun is negated by a property owner who does not want your gun on their premises. Btw, Colorado is an Open Carry State, therefore, you’re not going to find anything specific on OC, but rather everything regarding the carrying of firearms in the state is going to be in the same section as the Concealed Carry Statutes.

As far as what constitutes trespass, CRS 18-4-504 says that all you have to do is “unlawfully enter or remain in or upon premises of another” in order to be cited for Third Degree Criminal Trespass. This isn’t complicated so let’s not make it so. If you’ve been asked to vacate and you don’t, you’re violating a private party’s property rights. It would seem legally that if any private party can provide legitimate evidence that they asked you to leave their property and you remained, or that you’re on their property against their wishes, you likely won’t have law enforcement backing you up when they arrive.

http://abclegaldocs.com/Downloads/CRS_18-4-502_Colorado_Trespassing_Laws.pdf

 

[wrightme]

It seems to me you’re just trying to overcomplicate the issue, and frankly, since you’re not a resident of this state, I fail to see how this issue may actually concern you.

Why? My aim is frankly to uncomplicate the issue, by pointing out that there isn't a statute making entry past a sign banning guns is not a case of trespass.
By presenting it as such, or that "anyone who works there can trespass you," without statutory (or court case) support, it is simply spreading "FUD."

There is nothing in the Colorado Statutes that specifically states what wording has to be used or what position the person must hold with the “entity” to expel you from private premises. There just isn’t. The statute I’ve been using and the one that you keep insisting only applies to concealed carry is important because it firmly establishes that your right to carry a gun is negated by a property owner who does not want your gun on their premises.

It does not state that. It simply states that a permit does not negate property owner rights. It does not show what mechanism a property owner can wield.

Btw, Colorado is an Open Carry State, therefore, you’re not going to find anything specific on OC, but rather everything regarding the carrying of firearms in the state is going to be in the same section as the Concealed Carry Statutes.

Then there is not a statute limiting OC. That is good, so OC is not restricted by some signage that a business may post, which has seemed to be the implied meaning in this thread.

As far as what constitutes trespass, CRS 18-4-504 says that all you have to do is “unlawfully enter or remain in or upon premises of another” in order to be cited for Third Degree Criminal Trespass. This isn’t complicated so let’s not make it so. If you’ve been asked to vacate and you don’t, you’re violating a private party’s property rights. It would seem legally that if any private party can provide legitimate evidence that they asked you to leave their property and you remained, or that you’re on their property against their wishes, you likely won’t have law enforcement backing you up when they arrive.

So, the relevant thing to discuss is what "unlawfully enter or remain in or upon premises of another" actually means.

http://abclegaldocs.com/Downloads/CRS_18-4-502_Colorado_Trespassing_Laws.pdf

So far, nothing in there actually supports some stockboy asking some to "Get it out of the store or I won't sell you any."
That was what started the dissussion. That does not constitute any "trespass" statement of any kind.
And, CRS most assuredly does not state what you tried to present earlier.

I think each one of us has to decide for themselves how to act in such a situation. Unfortunately, the law is silent on how high of position a store employee must hold within the company in order to have the authority to ask you to leave their premises. A person may not carry where a private property owner, private tenant, private employer or private business entity prohibits weapons.* * C.R.S 18-12-214

That ain't in there, is it.
Absent relevant statute defining what a business may deny a customer, I will compare to NV law. A sign does not give notice of trespass, unless it is a notice to all to not enter. A business is "open to the public." It isn't a place where it is "unlawful to enter or remain in or upon premises of another."
First, it must be unlawful for that trespass to apply. What is it that causes the "unlawful" portion of being in a business with a firearm?

 

[Polynikes]

Why? My aim is frankly to uncomplicate the issue, by pointing out that there isn't a statute making entry past a sign banning guns is not a case of trespass.
By presenting it as such, or that "anyone who works there can trespass you," without statutory (or court case) support, it is simply spreading "FUD."


It does not state that. It simply states that a permit does not negate property owner rights. It does not show what mechanism a property owner can wield.

Then there is not a statute limiting OC. That is good, so OC is not restricted by some signage that a business may post, which has seemed to be the implied meaning in this thread.
So, the relevant thing to discuss is what "unlawfully enter or remain in or upon premises of another" actually means.
So far, nothing in there actually supports some stockboy asking some to "Get it out of the store or I won't sell you any."
That was what started the dissussion. That does not constitute any "trespass" statement of any kind.
And, CRS most assuredly does not state what you tried to present earlier.

That ain't in there, is it.
Absent relevant statute defining what a business may deny a customer, I will compare to NV law. A sign does not give notice of trespass, unless it is a notice to all to not enter. A business is "open to the public." It isn't a place where it is "unlawful to enter or remain in or upon premises of another."
First, it must be unlawful for that trespass to apply. What is it that causes the "unlawful" portion of being in a business with a firearm?

Sorry, but the sources cited more than adequately address what was being discussed in this thread prior to your arrival. Private properties reserve the right to set their rules on their own premises and ask you to leave if you don't abide by those rules. Are you seriously going to argue otherwise or are you just being intentionally obtuse? (That was rhetorical, don't bother answering.) I'm not going to go through the effort of explaining to you why your argument that Colorado Statutes should read exactly like you want them to is asinine. THEN, after verbally invalidating anyone's legal interpretation but your own you went off and decided to refer to NV law to interpret CO statutes... Seriously? This isn't worth my time anymore.

 

[wrightme]

Sorry, but the sources cited more than adequately address what was being discussed in this thread prior to your arrival. Private properties reserve the right to set their rules on their own premises and ask you to leave if you don't abide by those rules. Are you seriously going to argue otherwise or are you just being intentionally obtuse? (That was rhetorical, don't bother answering.)

Have I actually argued against that?

I'm not going to go through the effort of explaining to you why your argument that Colorado Statutes should read exactly like you want them to is asinine.

It isn't about whether they read exactly like I want them to read at all. It is about what they DO actually state.

THEN, after verbally invalidating anyone's legal interpretation but your own you went off and decided to refer to NV law to interpret CO statutes... Seriously? This isn't worth my time anymore.

Yes, seriously. I gave a reasonable example of how the actual statutes of NV are written, AND how they operate. Can you do the same for CO, or will you simply repeat the FUD, and then refuse to articulate what you think you see in the statutes.

No, the sources cited do not "more than adequately address what was being discussed." The sources presented share "FUD."
Can you cite the statutes that give a business owner any right to deny entry based upon a sign?
Can you cite the statutes that state what you falsely claim is in the C.R.S 18-12-214?

 

[user]

In Virginia, a refusal to sell a product upon the terms offered or advertised to the public is a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, good for a minimum of five hundred bucks in statutory damages plus costs and attorneys' fees and interest on that until paid.

You don't have to have a statute making entry into a place where firearms are prohibited by the property owner "into" a trespass. If you come onto someone else's land, you're a "licensee" or an "invitee"; that means you have mere permission to be there, and that permission can be subject to whatever conditions the landowner chooses to impose. If you don't comply with his conditions, then you're no longer a "licensee" or an "invitee", you're a trespasser, because you didn't have permission to enter. That simple.

 

[wrightme]

In Virginia, a refusal to sell a product upon the terms offered or advertised to the public is a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, good for a minimum of five hundred bucks in statutory damages plus costs and attorneys' fees and interest on that until paid.

You don't have to have a statute making entry into a place where firearms are prohibited by the property owner "into" a trespass. If you come onto someone else's land, you're a "licensee" or an "invitee"; that means you have mere permission to be there, and that permission can be subject to whatever conditions the landowner chooses to impose. If you don't comply with his conditions, then you're no longer a "licensee" or an "invitee", you're a trespasser, because you didn't have permission to enter. That simple.

You do understand that a sign indicating "no firearms" in Nevada carries no weight of law, correct? It isn't allowed by statute to pass such sign. It simply has no law backing it; until an agent of the property does give notice to a person of the actual trespass. The sign does not convey that.

Sure a property owner can refuse me due to carrying a firearm. But the sign does not make it so.
Now, to clarify, though I should not need to, I am speaking specifically of "business open to the public," as I have been consistently speaking of.

 

[user]

I take your word on all that, I'm only an attorney in Virginia, and don't pretend to have the first clue about the legal systems of other states, whether Nevada or France. Though there is something about that I find confusing: the landowner has to give oral instructions to keep your gun off his property, and written instructions don't count? And you need a statute to say otherwise? I find that concept kind of far-fetched, myself, though as I said, I'm not an attorney in Nevada. But if I read you correctly, you're telling us that Nevada law prohibits landowners from preventing people from carrying guns on private property? And the rules are the same for both the civil action for the tort of trespass as for the crime of trespass?

 

[wrightme]

I take your word on all that, I'm only an attorney in Virginia, and don't pretend to have the first clue about the legal systems of other states, whether Nevada or France. Though there is something about that I find confusing: the landowner has to give oral instructions to keep your gun off his property, and written instructions don't count? And you need a statute to say otherwise? I find that concept kind of far-fetched, myself, though as I said, I'm not an attorney in Nevada. But if I read you correctly, you're telling us that Nevada law prohibits landowners from preventing people from carrying guns on private property? And the rules are the same for both the civil action for the tort of trespass as for the crime of trespass?

No, you flat out have not read me correctly. I have NEVER stated that a landowner cannot prevent people from carrying guns on private property. If you find a post that you feel is me stating that, or even implying that, I will address it.

I specifically stated that I am speaking of businesses that are open to the public, and that a business owner CAN refuse service, and even "trespass" a person simply because. If that business owner does not want firearms inside the open business, they CAN tell a person to leave.

Now as to Nevada specifics, the relevant statute is NRS207Sec200
a specific is:

(d) By the owner or occupant of the land or building making an oral or written demand to any guest to vacate the land or building.

3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.

I do not have a link to relevant case law, but I will provide such if i do find it. AFAIK, the determination is that the "oral or written demand" requirement is not covered by a sign; except in the cases of the signs that disallow entry. (as in "No Trespass," not as in "no shoeless or firearm-toters allowed")

 

[danno 76]

the sales clerk was most assuredly fired for letting his own beliefs and ideals (not Wal-Marts) be the judge and jury, to which he has No opinion...

 

[user]

...

Never mind.

 

[JamesB]

Never mind.

Ahhh.

That's the only thing in the last two pages that has made any sense.

 

[since9]

As I stated on the previous page (post #43, I believe) unfortunately, Colorado Statutes do not specify what position an employee must hold within the company before they have authority to expel you from the premises. One of the phrases specifically used is "business entity." I'm fairly certain that every employee, down to the person mopping the floors is part of that "entity" conducting their business.

Correct. The legal concept is one of agency. See Law of Agency for more. Specifically, employment creates general agency, unless limited by employment contract to special agency. All employees have implied actual authority to represent a store within the express confines of their employment contract. If the contract (or management directive) does not specifically bar them from asking an OC patron to leave, they may do so, and they act as agents of the store in doing so.

Specifically, can a business trespass you without notifying you?

Under Colorado law, no. Notification must require either the store to be posted against either firearms, or any employee asking you to leave. If you enter a posted store, that's trespass. If you ignore a lawful request to leave, that's trespass.

And, if they DO call law enforcement, can LE act as part of the "business entity" and trespass you?

Barring either being posted or being previously asked to leave, then the LE cannot trespass you upon initial contact. If you refuse the LE acting at the request of the business entity, then yes.

What would LE be enforcing if the business calls them?

If the business asks an LEO to convey to a patron that the patron's carrying of a firearm is not welcome, the business owner by asking, and the LE by assisting, have created lawful agency. The LEO would then be enforcing, on behalf of the business, the same statutes which give the store the right to ask you to leave.

 

[since9]

The sources presented share "FUD."

For OC: 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


CC is no defense: 18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(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.


More info from RMGO:
-Prohibiting Private Businesses

Businesses are private property, and except for some very broad categories established by the courts, a business can disallow almost anything from being on their property. This, unfortunately, is sometimes legal firearms, both openly carried and concealed carry (with permit). Please consult our Merchant Awareness Program for more information (and our position and strategy) on this issue.


Did my answer address your concerns with respect to firearms and trespass laws here in Colorado, wrightme?

 

[wrightme]

For OC: 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


CC is no defense: 18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(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.


More info from RMGO:
-Prohibiting Private Businesses

Businesses are private property, and except for some very broad categories established by the courts, a business can disallow almost anything from being on their property. This, unfortunately, is sometimes legal firearms, both openly carried and concealed carry (with permit). Please consult our Merchant Awareness Program for more information (and our position and strategy) on this issue.


Did my answer address your concerns with respect to firearms and trespass laws here in Colorado, wrightme?

Up to the point where the citation became the opinion of RMGO, yes. That is the part where the chain of statute stops, and the chain of opinion begins.
The bolded portion is the bit that does not appear to have statutory support.

 

[wrightme]

Under Colorado law, no. Notification must require either the store to be posted against either firearms, or any employee asking you to leave. If you enter a posted store, that's trespass. If you ignore a lawful request to leave, that's trespass.

That portion about the posting is the bit that isn't in a statute. How is it trespass if there is no statute defining that?

Barring either being posted or being previously asked to leave, then the LE cannot trespass you upon initial contact. If you refuse the LE acting at the request of the business entity, then yes.

Once again, what statute defines a sign prohibiting firearms as "notice of trespass?" Yes, an agent of the entity, if defined by colorado law, CAN tell a person to leave, and if the person does not leave, that person IS guilty of trespass. But, what CO statute allows a sign to carry that weight of notice?

If the business asks an LEO to convey to a patron that the patron's carrying of a firearm is not welcome, the business owner by asking, and the LE by assisting, have created lawful agency. The LEO would then be enforcing, on behalf of the business, the same statutes which give the store the right to ask you to leave.

Please do present that statute then.

Now, if the business owner was requesting an action by the LE that was not an enforcement of law, absent an employment contract, would there be actual lawful agency?

 

[Gunslinger]

I take your word on all that, I'm only an attorney in Virginia, and don't pretend to have the first clue about the legal systems of other states, whether Nevada or France. Though there is something about that I find confusing: the landowner has to give oral instructions to keep your gun off his property, and written instructions don't count? And you need a statute to say otherwise? I find that concept kind of far-fetched, myself, though as I said, I'm not an attorney in Nevada. But if I read you correctly, you're telling us that Nevada law prohibits landowners from preventing people from carrying guns on private property? And the rules are the same for both the civil action for the tort of trespass as for the crime of trespass?

France uses the "Code of Napolean." Very interesting.

 

[since9]

Up to the point where the citation became the opinion of RMGO, yes. That is the part where the chain of statute stops, and the chain of opinion begins.
The bolded portion is the bit that does not appear to have statutory support.

It has the support of case law, which is what courts in America and most other countries use in stare decisis to fill in the gaps left by statutory law:

"In the common law tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedents which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Unlike most civil law systems, common law systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis, by which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases, and all lower courts should make decisions consistent with previous decisions of higher courts." - Source.​