Walmart refused ammo sale.

[wrightme]

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.​

So, you have some relevant case law to present?


I have not denied that business owners can refuse service to people; for instance, those carrying firearms. But, the implications of the statements not supported by statute are that a sign indicating "no firearms allowed" does count as "written notice of trespass." As I mentioned, CO statute does not state such to be the case. And, absent that, I presented that NV statute does not give statutory weight to such signage, and in Nevada, a citizen CAN walk past such sign as if it were not there. The "verbal or written notice of trespass" standard is a personal communication, not a broad blanket communication. In other words, if a business owner contacts you and either verbally or in writing does give you notice, you must leave. If that does not happen, you do not need to leave. The sign on the door is not considered "written notice of trespass."

Signage for trespass is limited in Nevada to those locations that are "posted no trespassing," and does not govern other signage. Is there a CO statute defining signage for trespass?

 

[wrightme]

The main point I am attempting to present in this topic is the same as that whereby cops may present, and enforce, "laws" that carry no weight. For instance, those LE who try and say that "OC is illegal," when it isn't illegal. It may not be common, but unless it has been defined in statute as illegal, it is legal.

In this case, I simply do not find a statutory connection between a "no guns allowed" sign and trespass law, unless a property owner or their agent contact an individual. And no one else has cited a true connection to statute OR case law. The courts in CO may well not agree with this view, but if they do not agree, the case law should be referenced to see what view IS presented. In other words, where is the "weight of law" attributed?


I see that RMGO indicates that business owners CAN choose to not allow firearms in their businesses. That is valid, and can be based entirely upon the property owner's rights of a business. I am not disputing that. HOW they can deny a person with a sign is the question that has not been shown to be in statute.

This is a case where the "cite to authority" rule is quite necessary. That "cite to authority" helps sift FUD from fact.

 

[since9]

But, the implications of the statements not supported by statute are that a sign indicating "no firearms allowed" does count as "written notice of trespass." As I mentioned, CO statute does not state such to be the case. And, absent that, I presented that NV statute does not give statutory weight to such signage, and in Nevada, a citizen CAN walk past such sign as if it were not there.

Terrific. However, this isn't the NV thread. It's the CO thread. In Colorado, when a business posts "No Firearms," the moment you bring a firearm past the sign, you're trespassing.

Is there a CO statute defining signage for trespass?

Not to my knowledge. Case law has determined violation of posted signage is sufficient for meeting the requirements of trespass.

 

[wrightme]

Terrific. However, this isn't the NV thread. It's the CO thread..

I am well aware that this is the CO thread. I referenced NV law as an example.

In Colorado, when a business posts "No Firearms," the moment you bring a firearm past the sign, you're trespassing.

Not to my knowledge. Case law has determined violation of posted signage is sufficient for meeting the requirements of trespass.

Then where is some of that case law?




You and others seem to be taking an adversarial stance to my questions. Why?

 

[since9]

I am well aware that this is the CO thread. I referenced NV law as an example.

I hear you, but your posts are written almost to the tune of saying "this is the way things are" or "this is the way things ought to be" when they're not that way here in Colorado. We understand full well there are differences. Quoting NV state law here in the Colorado thread may confuse people who aren't thoroughly familiar with Colorado state law.

You and others seem to be taking an adversarial stance to my questions. Why?

Not at all. vvv-This-vvv is adversarial:

Then where is some of that case law?

Particularly after I included references to the C.R.S. in my previous posts, some of which you even quoted. If they're still eluding you, look here. Case law for most C.R.S. is found at the bottom of each sub-part, below the header marked "Annotation."

I suggest you look the rest up yourself, here.

Good hunting!

 

[wrightme]

Particularly after I included references to the C.R.S. in my previous posts, some of which you even quoted.
Good hunting!

The crs, AND the cited case quotes do not support the statements being made by RMGO, and by others in this thread. If you do have some case law that supports it, why not simply show which portions you feel support it?


Have I stated that anyone here is wrong about how things DO operate in CO? The simple fact is that the CRS cited so far does not extend support for a view that a sign stating "no firearms allowed" causes notice of trespass. Even the RMGO website doesn't state such. It comes close, but it doesn't state that a sign works to "prevent entry under penalty of trespass." I agree that it MIGHT operate that way, and/or might be enforced that way. That does NOT mean it is actually that way. If it is, I will freely eat my words. But, I am not willing to simply accept it as someone saying "yeah, thats a fact." If it IS a fact, it should be simple enough for one of you that does believe it to support it. In other words, "cite to authority."

I do keep at it, because maybe, just maybe, the law isn't being enforced correctly and maybe there is room for a challenge someday. Or, I could be all mixed up about it. Well, show me where I am goofed up. So far, what has been cited does NOT contradict the views I have presented, and also what has been cited so far does NOT actually support "the sign is notice of trespass."

 

[since9]

The crs, AND the cited case quotes do not support the statements being made by RMGO, and by others in this thread.

Yes, they do. Continuing to claim otherwise without providing any rational reason supporting your claim is simply being argumentative. Frankly, it borders on trolling.

The simple fact is that the CRS cited so far does not extend support for a view that a sign stating "no firearms allowed" causes notice of trespass.

The simple fact is that the case law accompanying the C.R.S. does.

I do keep at it, because maybe, just maybe, the law isn't being enforced correctly and maybe there is room for a challenge someday.

There's room for challenge from someone who can't read. There's room for challenge when the posted notice isn't 20/20 legible by a casual passerby. There's room for challenge when one or more entrances are absent the posting.

 

[wrightme]

Yes, they do. Continuing to claim otherwise without providing any rational reason supporting your claim is simply being argumentative. Frankly, it borders on trolling.



The simple fact is that the case law accompanying the C.R.S. does.


There's room for challenge from someone who can't read. There's room for challenge when the posted notice isn't 20/20 legible by a casual passerby. There's room for challenge when one or more entrances are absent the posting.

Here is the annotation for your link to statute, which I had checked already.

Am. Jur.2d. See 75 Am. Jur.2d, Trespass, §§ 132-134, 151-153.
C.J.S. See 87 C.J.S., Trespass, §§ 174-177, 185.
Law reviews. For comment, "People v. Emmert: A Step Backward for Recreational Water Use in Colorado", see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 247 (1981).
Public has no right to use of water overlying private lands for recreational purposes without the consent of the owner. People v. Emmert, 198 Colo. 137, 597 P.2d 1025 (1979).
"Breaking the close" is trespass. Whoever "breaks the close" -- intrudes upon the space above the surface of the land -- without the permission of the owner, whether it be for fishing or for other recreational purposes, such as floating, commits a trespass. People v. Emmert, 198 Colo. 137, 597 P.2d 1025 (1979).
Proof of dwelling crucial for first degree trespass. The crucial distinction between first degree criminal trespass and second and third degree is that the prosecution must prove the additional element that the property which was unlawfully entered is a dwelling for first degree trespass. People v. Marshall, 196 Colo. 381, 586 P.2d 41 (1978).
But third degree criminal trespass is not a lesser included offense of attempted first degree criminal trespass. People v. Griffith, 58 P.3d 1111 (Colo. App. 2002).

Officers who enter under a warrant and rightfully seize certain property but wrongfully seize other property are liable as trespassers ab initio as to the property wrongfully seized. Walker v. City of Denver, 720 P.2d 619 (Colo. App. 1986).
Applied in People v. Huston, 197 Colo. 125, 589 P.2d 1367 (1979); People v. Hight, 198 Colo. 299, 599 P.2d 885 (1979).

Which of those cited cases references signage?

 

[JamesB]

Can you two just meet up at the bike rack after the bell? Settle it there (as gentelmen).

Warning! Thread Degredation! Warning! Thread Degredation!

 

[wrightme]

Can you two just meet up at the bike rack after the bell? Settle it there (as gentelmen).

Sigh. For me (at least for me), that isn't what this is about at all.

Warning! Thread Degredation! Warning! Thread Degredation!

Can YOU point to the case law that mentions that a sign denying firearms in a business carries the weight of "notice of trespass" under CO statute?


That is the claim, and if case law DOES mention it as claimed, it should be simple enough for someone claiming such to present the case or cases.


If that is the actual case in CO, great. Anyone following that case law should be able to at least verify that it is actually that way, and isn't that way just because the LE CC pamphlet says it that way, or because RMGO says it that way.

 

[since9]

Sigh. For me (at least for me), that isn't what this is about at all.

Sigh. For me (at least for me) we've gotten way off topic, particularly as I OC'd into that very same Walmart store and purchased 9mm ammo from the lady who was the manager for that area of the floor.

Thus, I'm starting a new thread, here, to continue the off-topic discussion involving whether or not "a sign denying firearms in a business carries the weight of "notice of trespass?"

If you'd like to continue on-topic about the Walmart issue (which appears to be a dead issue), carry on. If you'd like to discuss Colorado trespass law in general, please visit this thread.

Thanks.