Kingfish
Regular Member
Thank you Beau, does not get much clearer than that. Though, I am sure it will be disregarded...You know, "common sense" and "common law" and all.
-
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 "As used in this article" is referencing "ARTICLE 4. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY" in which contains 18-4-502, 18-4-503 and [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]18-4-504 (the trespass statutes). Now, I am not sure about the [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]harassment[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] charge for chewing bubble gum or what defense will be used in the murder of a law abiding citizen but if this does not settle the trespass debate concerning ignoring a posted RULE then I don't know what will.[/FONT]
Beau
Regular Member
Thanks Kingfish. I was going to edit my post to include this but you saved me the trouble.
Kingfish
Regular Member
Just sent the following email to handgunlaw.us
Bellum_Intus
Regular Member
I find everything humorous... calm down.. this is supposed to be a discussion.. =)
I have little time for bickering, so I'll check out of this thread..
--Rob
jdholmes
Regular Member
Now "that" I find funny.
Kingfish
Regular Member
I think I get where you were going with it. Folks are the same here in Georgia....Especially during hunting season.
It's just that this thread was not talking about no trespass signs and we have one guy who is threatening to shoot folks that carry past his no guns sign whether they saw it of not.
Beau
Regular Member
More rain on the parade.
So I posted the code on what it means to enter or remain on property unlawfully. Which stated that the only way for being on property open to the public to be unlawful was to remain after being told to leave.
I figured I would search for this so called "common law" that I've heard so much about in this thread. Well I didn't find any of that. I did however find a reference to common law. The relevant section is in bold.
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF CODE - CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES
C.R.S. 18-1-104 (2011)
18-1-104. "Offense" defined - offenses classified - common-law crimes abolished
(1) The terms "offense" and "crime" are synonymous and mean a violation of, or conduct defined by, any state statute for which a fine or imprisonment may be imposed.
(2) Each offense falls into one of eleven classes. There are six classes of felonies as defined in section 18-1.3-401, three classes of misdemeanors as defined insection 18-1.3-501, and two classes of petty offenses as defined in section 18-1.3-503.
(3) Common-law crimes are abolished and no conduct shall constitute an offense unless it is described as an offense in this code or in another statute of this state, but this provision does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt, or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order lawfully entered, or a civil judgment or decree; nor does it affect the use of case law as an interpretive aid in the construction of the provisions of this code.
So I posted the code on what it means to enter or remain on property unlawfully. Which stated that the only way for being on property open to the public to be unlawful was to remain after being told to leave.
I figured I would search for this so called "common law" that I've heard so much about in this thread. Well I didn't find any of that. I did however find a reference to common law. The relevant section is in bold.
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF CODE - CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES
C.R.S. 18-1-104 (2011)
18-1-104. "Offense" defined - offenses classified - common-law crimes abolished
(1) The terms "offense" and "crime" are synonymous and mean a violation of, or conduct defined by, any state statute for which a fine or imprisonment may be imposed.
(2) Each offense falls into one of eleven classes. There are six classes of felonies as defined in section 18-1.3-401, three classes of misdemeanors as defined insection 18-1.3-501, and two classes of petty offenses as defined in section 18-1.3-503.
(3) Common-law crimes are abolished and no conduct shall constitute an offense unless it is described as an offense in this code or in another statute of this state, but this provision does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt, or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order lawfully entered, or a civil judgment or decree; nor does it affect the use of case law as an interpretive aid in the construction of the provisions of this code.
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
I've exhausted multiple resources, including the C.R.S., my own legal education, a textbook by West (they widely regarded as the leader in legal textbooks), three local friends who're lawyers, and a local friend of mine who's a judge (conservative) and who sits on these cases all the time.
They all say the same thing: If a property owner erects a clearly visible "No Firearms" sign and the patron can read it, they've satisfied the requirement of the law that the property owner's intent be clearly communicated. <--- That's the common law part of the trespassing law. At that point, entry with a firearm constitutes "unlawful entry" as per CRS 18-4-504(1). <---That's the statute part of the trespassing law.
In fact, there's a state bill currently in the hopper, HB 12-1088, which expressly gives business owners the right to use deadly force against anyone who commits "unlawful entry" and the owner has a reasonable belief that the individual has committed, is committing, or intends to commit a crime and the owner believes the individual may use physical force, "no matter how slight," against anyone in the store.
I know, right? A House Bill (1094) that would have allowed businesses the same leeway as residences in using any level of force to repel crime and unlawful entry without prosecution or civil liabilities, was defeated in March of 2010. Therefore, the prior rule of justifiable force remains in effect for businesses. They're trying to resurrect that bill through HB 12-1088, and it would give business owners the legal right to blow us open-carriers away on any "reasonable suspicion" of committing a crime.
According to a pro-2A acquaintance of mine in the State Legislature who alerted me to this bill, the main reason they're pushing it is because store owners have seen a resurgence in open carry. He reports most of them are ok with it, but the few who aren't either don't know enough to post a sign, or have posted a sign. Some of those who've posted report OCers looking straight at the sign before walking in anyway. Those are the store-owners who are the most vociferous proponents of HB 12-1088. They have written their representatives, and those representatives are responding, first with HB 1094, defeated in 2010, and now HB 12-1088.
Is it really any wonder this is happening? When OCers refuse to respect the rights of property owners by ignoring posted signs while OCing, they will refuse to respect our right to keep and bear arms. The "in your face!" attitude not only won't work, it'll backfire, big time. If we're stupid and disrespectful, we'll get stupid handed to us on the pointy end of a stick. On the other hand, if we're smart and respectful, we'll succeed.
Respect the signs, and we may yet defeat HB 12-1088. Ignore the signs and you'll be adding fuel to the arguments of its proponents. As you all know, it takes the mere stroke of a pen to render a Constitutional right locally illegal, but it takes years to return that right to it's originally-mandated Constitutional status.
More on your link, Beau, in about an hour. Dinner awaits...
Actually, I'll tackle this one before dinner, as it's a piece of cake.
In reference to 18-1-104(3)'s "...unless it is described as an offense in this code...": Unlawful entry is a trespassing offense in this code. Unlawful entry is not a "common-law" crime. It's a statutory crime. What's common law isn't the crime itself, but the definition of "unlawful entry." It doesn't matter whether you refuse to leave after a property owner tells you, or you enter the premise in violation of and after having been informed of entry restrictions. BOTH constitute trespassing, which is why BOTH are mentioned in 18-4-504(1): "A person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another."
Unlawful entry is a trespass.
Unlawfully remaining in or upon premises is a trespass.
The thing which makes it unlawful is your violation of the stated intent of the property owner. That intent can be conveyed the same ways a contract can be conveyed: Written or spoken. It's spoken when the owner walks up and and asks you to leave. It's written when the owner posts a sign indicating the conditions of entry. Whether you refuse his intent to have you leave or enter in violation of his written conditions of entry, it's precisely the same thing: You are violating the owner's property rights. That's trespassing.
Now - on to dinner!
They all say the same thing: If a property owner erects a clearly visible "No Firearms" sign and the patron can read it, they've satisfied the requirement of the law that the property owner's intent be clearly communicated. <--- That's the common law part of the trespassing law. At that point, entry with a firearm constitutes "unlawful entry" as per CRS 18-4-504(1). <---That's the statute part of the trespassing law.
In fact, there's a state bill currently in the hopper, HB 12-1088, which expressly gives business owners the right to use deadly force against anyone who commits "unlawful entry" and the owner has a reasonable belief that the individual has committed, is committing, or intends to commit a crime and the owner believes the individual may use physical force, "no matter how slight," against anyone in the store.
I know, right? A House Bill (1094) that would have allowed businesses the same leeway as residences in using any level of force to repel crime and unlawful entry without prosecution or civil liabilities, was defeated in March of 2010. Therefore, the prior rule of justifiable force remains in effect for businesses. They're trying to resurrect that bill through HB 12-1088, and it would give business owners the legal right to blow us open-carriers away on any "reasonable suspicion" of committing a crime.
According to a pro-2A acquaintance of mine in the State Legislature who alerted me to this bill, the main reason they're pushing it is because store owners have seen a resurgence in open carry. He reports most of them are ok with it, but the few who aren't either don't know enough to post a sign, or have posted a sign. Some of those who've posted report OCers looking straight at the sign before walking in anyway. Those are the store-owners who are the most vociferous proponents of HB 12-1088. They have written their representatives, and those representatives are responding, first with HB 1094, defeated in 2010, and now HB 12-1088.
Is it really any wonder this is happening? When OCers refuse to respect the rights of property owners by ignoring posted signs while OCing, they will refuse to respect our right to keep and bear arms. The "in your face!" attitude not only won't work, it'll backfire, big time. If we're stupid and disrespectful, we'll get stupid handed to us on the pointy end of a stick. On the other hand, if we're smart and respectful, we'll succeed.
Respect the signs, and we may yet defeat HB 12-1088. Ignore the signs and you'll be adding fuel to the arguments of its proponents. As you all know, it takes the mere stroke of a pen to render a Constitutional right locally illegal, but it takes years to return that right to it's originally-mandated Constitutional status.
More on your link, Beau, in about an hour. Dinner awaits...
Actually, I'll tackle this one before dinner, as it's a piece of cake.
In reference to 18-1-104(3)'s "...unless it is described as an offense in this code...": Unlawful entry is a trespassing offense in this code. Unlawful entry is not a "common-law" crime. It's a statutory crime. What's common law isn't the crime itself, but the definition of "unlawful entry." It doesn't matter whether you refuse to leave after a property owner tells you, or you enter the premise in violation of and after having been informed of entry restrictions. BOTH constitute trespassing, which is why BOTH are mentioned in 18-4-504(1): "A person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another."
Unlawful entry is a trespass.
Unlawfully remaining in or upon premises is a trespass.
The thing which makes it unlawful is your violation of the stated intent of the property owner. That intent can be conveyed the same ways a contract can be conveyed: Written or spoken. It's spoken when the owner walks up and and asks you to leave. It's written when the owner posts a sign indicating the conditions of entry. Whether you refuse his intent to have you leave or enter in violation of his written conditions of entry, it's precisely the same thing: You are violating the owner's property rights. That's trespassing.
Now - on to dinner!
Last edited:
Kingfish
Regular Member
If he sits on these cases "all the time" then you should have no trouble at all citing a relevant case? Well?
Common law crimes have been ABOLISHED in Colorado. What is your point here?
The definition is in 18-4-201 and it very clearly spells out that "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." How can a 2" gun buster sign be a "PERSONAL" communication?
Absolutely correct and by STATUTE you must be PERSONALLY asked to not enter. How can a 2" gun buster sign be a "PERSONAL" communication?
Absolutely correct and by STATUTE you must be PERSONALLY asked to leave. How can a 2" gun buster sign be a "PERSONAL" communication?
Kingfish
Regular Member
Since9, I think you are trying so hard to believe something that is not there, you are not thinking rationally. Every one of your points has been thrashed by the code of Colorado. Not by interpretation but by the plain reading of Colorado statute.
Common law crimes have been abolished.
Notice to leave or not enter in the first place MUST be communicated PERSONALLY. If your definition of "PERSONALLY" is a little sign on the door saying "no guns" then I guess I am done responding to you because a rational discussion cannot be had.
You have been repeatedly asked to cite a case where someone walked past a sign and you cannot/won't...Even with a judge friend who sits on these cases "all the time".
If you want signs to carry weight then I suggest you talk to your friends in the legislature about adding it to the code. You cannot make it so by wishing it.
Common law crimes have been abolished.
Notice to leave or not enter in the first place MUST be communicated PERSONALLY. If your definition of "PERSONALLY" is a little sign on the door saying "no guns" then I guess I am done responding to you because a rational discussion cannot be had.
You have been repeatedly asked to cite a case where someone walked past a sign and you cannot/won't...Even with a judge friend who sits on these cases "all the time".
If you want signs to carry weight then I suggest you talk to your friends in the legislature about adding it to the code. You cannot make it so by wishing it.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Kingfish, in light of your previous behavior, I will not normally respond to your posts, but you did bring up a good point with the "personally" part. Whether or not you accept it yourself is your own affair. It does, however, provide us with a good opportunity to enlighten others who may be reading this.
I asked my lawyer neighbor (criminal defense attorney) about the nature of the term "personally" with respect to a posted sign, at which point he smiled and said, "Have you ever written a personal letter to someone?" He went on: "The term 'personally' isn't referring to face to face communication. It's referring to the nature of the communication i.e. who is communicating with whom. As it's commonly used it law, it simply means the owner himself either crafted or authorized the crafting and posting of the sign, and did so in such a manner that clearly indicates his intent to communicate it's message with each and every person who enters the premises. You cannot, for example, have another customer post a sign as they're not the property owner and cannot legally represent them, as they are not an "authorized person." It can't be someone off the street or even a friend of the property owner. It must be someone in the employ of the owner, as they're under the contractual relationship required for agency. Only a legal agent of the owner (the principle) can legally represent the owner's (principle's) intent. Agency is implied for all employees, but is usually limited by the employment contract.
Is this clearing things up for you?
Bottom line: The rights of property owners on their own property supersede the rights of those invited to visit their property, particularly when that invitation (an open door or "Open" sign) is modified with a condition (a "No Firearms" sign). Anyone who violates the condition of entry is committing unlawful entry, which is third degree criminal trespass under 18-4-504(1).
"18-4-201. Definitions
As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Premises" means any real estate and all improvements erected thereon.
(2) "Separate building" means each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or occupied.
(3) A person "enters unlawfully" or "remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. 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 used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Premises" means any real estate and all improvements erected thereon.
(2) "Separate building" means each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or occupied.
(3) A person "enters unlawfully" or "remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. 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.
I asked my lawyer neighbor (criminal defense attorney) about the nature of the term "personally" with respect to a posted sign, at which point he smiled and said, "Have you ever written a personal letter to someone?" He went on: "The term 'personally' isn't referring to face to face communication. It's referring to the nature of the communication i.e. who is communicating with whom. As it's commonly used it law, it simply means the owner himself either crafted or authorized the crafting and posting of the sign, and did so in such a manner that clearly indicates his intent to communicate it's message with each and every person who enters the premises. You cannot, for example, have another customer post a sign as they're not the property owner and cannot legally represent them, as they are not an "authorized person." It can't be someone off the street or even a friend of the property owner. It must be someone in the employ of the owner, as they're under the contractual relationship required for agency. Only a legal agent of the owner (the principle) can legally represent the owner's (principle's) intent. Agency is implied for all employees, but is usually limited by the employment contract.
Is this clearing things up for you?
Bottom line: The rights of property owners on their own property supersede the rights of those invited to visit their property, particularly when that invitation (an open door or "Open" sign) is modified with a condition (a "No Firearms" sign). Anyone who violates the condition of entry is committing unlawful entry, which is third degree criminal trespass under 18-4-504(1).
Last edited:
Kingfish
Regular Member
Have a good day since9. I simply cannot fathom how you can believe a generic "no guns" sign is a PERSONAL communication. I feel a bit sorry for you bud.
JamesB
Regular Member
If I write a "personal" letter, that means it is from one individual person to another individual person.
An advertisment in the local Tribune, (or a gun buster sticker) has an intended audience of the entire general public.
Am I breaking the law by not knowing what wares a particualar grocer has to offer this week?
I have seen other signage on doors, specifically of convienience stores such as: no backpacks inside or no more than four students allowed in the store at a time...
If I wear a backpack inside am I breaking the law, no.
If I have to enter to count the number of students already inside and that makes me number five, am I breaking the law, no.
If i know that I am number five and walk in anyway, am I breaking the law, no.
If I am a student already in the store am I breaking the law when four more students walk in, no.
If I open a door that says "please use other door" I am not breaking the law.
If I enter through a door that says "Exit Only" I am not breaking the law.
If I go into the mall where they have posted on the wall, three little words "no firearms allowed" and all three words are small enough that they can be covered by just one of my fingers (assuming I see them), I AM NOT BREAKING THE LAW.
Bottom Line: Private property owners are free to make all the rules they want to about thier private property. But other people ignoring a "rule" does not make in a violation of the "law."
Governmental agencies write "laws," private entities do not.
jdholmes
Regular Member
Since9 is taking verbal advise from a lawyer "friend" on how law is "commonly used"...not advisable.
You've shown nothing that actually backs up anything you say...no one cares what your lawyer friend thinks about it. Heck he may not even exist, and if he doesn't he may be a complete flunky.
You've shown nothing that actually backs up anything you say...no one cares what your lawyer friend thinks about it. Heck he may not even exist, and if he doesn't he may be a complete flunky.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Lack of understand of basic legal principles does indeed appear to be in short supply on this thread, Kingfish.
As does good manners and sound decorum.
since9
Campaign Veteran
That's because it's NOT PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED.
As for the rest of your claims, claiming something doesn't make it so, unless you're in a church and performing a faith healing, etc.
Wrong again. Tell you what - Take a course in property law. Come back when you've earned a B grade or better so that you're discussing the issue while possessing a rudimentary understanding of the law instead of merely talking out of your butt like you and some of the others have been doing quite vociferously in this thread. We'll talk then.
Or not.
I'm not trying to save some people the slight chance of some grief, here. I'm trying to help prevent those of you think you can ignore posted signs with impunity while being oblivious to the inevitable legislative backlash that's already in the pipeline from ruining things for the rest of us.
As I've previously mentioned, there's already a bill afoot that arose as a direct result of some mental morons ignoring posted signs and OCing into stores anyway. If you want to screw yourselves, fine, but find another way to do it than screwing the rest of us LAW-ABIDING OCers in the process.
If that bill passes, it'll take TEN FREAKING YEARS to undo the damage "What Sign? Duh-huh, err..." ignoramuses are doing by ignoring signs.
Grow a brain!
Last edited:
Bellum_Intus
Regular Member
Me, I see a sign, I just go somewhere else.. I'm too old and can't afford a legal battle over anything.
I'm polite, friendly and try to educate.. but there are some I don't bother fighting with.. Life is too short to challenge something like this unless you have a ton of money to 'test' the waters.. I prefer taking my business elsewhere.
--Rob
I'm polite, friendly and try to educate.. but there are some I don't bother fighting with.. Life is too short to challenge something like this unless you have a ton of money to 'test' the waters.. I prefer taking my business elsewhere.
--Rob
since9
Campaign Veteran
+1. This is BY FAR the wisest thing any of us can do. If you fight it by ignoring the sign, you might win the battle, but you WILL loose the war. It's better, not to mention far more satisfying, to win the war: Securing, long-term, our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Stay focused...
Last edited:
JamesB
Regular Member
Tell you what - We are discussing here what does or does not constitute criminal actions so - Take a course in CRIMINAL LAW. I got an A in mine a year and half ago. I am now requested to guest lecture every semester for that professor.
I'd even settle for taking the course American Policing that I took last summer from an adjunct professor whose day job was Police Chief of one of the Metro communities. In which I also received an A as a final grade.
since9 said:
No, as has been pointed out, you are trying unsucessfully to convice others that your OPPINION on a given issue of law is correct without providing any rudiment of a reasonable position or arguable assertion of a proper citation of case law on the subject. This even though you claim to have "friend" sources that deal with this issue every day.
since9 said:
Translation: The law that you are trying to convice us of is NOT YET actually law. It is still in the discussion process.
So basically i have to leave you with...
Last edited: