Here ya go. I helped you.
Lol, Thanks! How does one get off this merry-go-round? Every time I answer one criticism, instead of carrying on an intelligible conversation, they merely jump to the next criticism. When they run out, they cycle back with ones they're already used, like the "personal" ploy! :lol:
Here's a
personal message for them: (withheld by reason of sanity).
Bottom line, they're misconstruing "personal" with "oral." Personal messages can be conveyed face-to-face, by speaking (oral), or by letter (as in a personal letter) or by signage (written) intended not for the masses, but only for those carrying firearms. All "personal" means is "conveyed from one person to another person." It does not require the message to be conveyed "in person." If that's what the legislators had meant to say, C.R.S. 18-4-201 would read, "the person defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, communicated to him or her
in person..."
But that's
not the way it reads. Instead, it reads, "A person who, regardless of his or her intent, enters or remains in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless the person defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the premises or some other authorized person."
As for a precedent constantly demanded by the antis, I visited my neighbor again, and he said one was right there on Michie (now LexisNexis, dammit - they suck): "Theater manager's office in a completely enclosed space within theater not "open to public" for purposes of subsection (3) of this section. Defendant's use of a pretense to gain entrance to manager's office indicates that
he was aware that the office was not open to public and was therefore "unlawfully entering" premises. People v. Ridenour, 878 P.2d 23 (Colo. App. 1994)."
The precedent set by People v. Ridenour is one of
awareness. Put simply, "he was aware that the office was not open to the public and was therefore 'unlawfully entering' premises."
Assume your favorite mom and pop shop put up a "No Firearms" sign. Assuming A) it's clearly visible at the entrance (or all entrances, if there's more than one entrance) and B) you can read, the judge would rationally* conclude you would be aware of the sign and its meaning upon entry. If you willingly ignore the sign, you are, by virtue of C.R.S. 18-4.201 and People v. Ridenour, "'unlawfully entering' [the] premises."
This is the way the law works, folks! If you don't like it, write your legislator.
If if owned and store and posted a "No Firearms" sign**, here's what I'd do:
1. First offense - Ask you to leave the store and next time mind the sign. I'd also set aside the videotape for reference.
2. Second offense - Ask you to leave the store and never come back. I'd take this and the previous videotape to the police and file a complaint.
3. Third offense - Logically and rationally assume you either had no regard for the law, or you were an irrational individual incapable of understanding and following the law. In either case, I would immediately call the police and tell them an armed person is in my store who has been asked to leave twice before and told to never return.
I'd do that because I'm a rational person. Most store-owners are also rational people. Around here, the vast majority of store-owners would never post their premises, and neither would I.
Those who keep arguing that the law says what they want it to say are not only disrespecting the rights of property owners, but they're making irrational choices. I and other rational people are naturally concerned when someone who carries a firearm continually makes irrational choices involving the use of a firearm. We can "logically and rationally assume you either have no regard for the law, or you are an irrational individual incapable of understanding and following the law."
*In criminology, the rational choice theory adopts a utilitarian belief that man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice.
**I would never post my store unless it was involved in a type of business either requiring disarmament, or where doing so would be prudent.
