Trespassing

[denverd0n]

Well, this has come up once again, so I thought I'd start a thread specifically for it.

If you enter a business that is posted "no guns allowed" while carrying are you trespassing? My sister is a lawyer and I asked her about this. For the record, she mostly does corporate tax stuff, so this is kind of outside of her area of expertise, but like all attorneys she knows how to research a legal question.

Here is what she told me...

1. The first thing to know is that there have been no test cases as of yet. As such, anyone who claims that they know for sure what the law means and how it will be applied is full of it. Until a case or two has actually worked through the system no one can be certain what the outcome will be.

2. It is likely that a "no guns allowed" sign would be interpreted to be an adequate notice that anyone carrying a gun is not permitted on the premises. In effect, it would be the same as a sign that says "no trespassing if you are carrying a gun." Since plenty of precedent exists that "no trespassing" signs are legal and enforceable, it is likely that a "no guns" sign would be considered legal and enforceable. Hence, her opinion is that someone carrying in a place posted against it would be likely to be charged and convicted of trespassing.

3. On the issue of whether or not the store owner has to ask you to leave, absolutely not. Again, plenty of precedent exists that putting up a "no trespassing" sign is enough. The owner of the property does not, in addition to the sign, have to specifically and personally ask you to leave. You can be charged and convicted of trespassing (and a lot of people have been) just because you ignored the sign.

4. There is very little chance that a test case will ever come up, though, because the most likely scenario, if a store owner or employee notices someone carrying a gun and calls the police, is that the police will check the person's CCW, ask them to leave and it will end there. It will only get to court if the store owner INSISTS on pressing charges (which is not really very likely) or if the person carrying gets belligerent and aggressive (which would be a pretty stupid thing to do). The one situation where it MIGHT get to court is if the prosecutor in some jurisdiction decides that they want to make an issue of it, and asks the police department to press charges anytime it comes up (hasn't happened yet).

Given the above, and especially the uncertainty about how a case might come out, I still think it is pretty foolish to carry into posted businesses. There are enough businesses that are NOT posted that I can always take my business elsewhere. I would RATHER do business with someone who respects my rights anyway. For those who choose to ignore such signs, I can only wish you luck if one day you become the test case.

[jnschwie]

Thank you for asking your sister and posting her insight. :)


Given the above, and especially the uncertainty about how a case might come out, I still think it is pretty foolish to carry into posted businesses. There are enough businesses that are NOT posted that I can always take my business elsewhere. I would RATHER do business with someone who respects my rights anyway. For those who choose to ignore such signs, I can only wish you luck if one day you become the test case.

That is my take as well.

[MonkeyBomb]

:deadhorse:

That is all

[Yota]

Thanks for the post. I agree with your and your sister's opinions on this topic.

The CCW laws specifically say that they can't be construed to infringe upon private property rights.

[Andy]

It's my understanding that you are potentially in much worse than trespassing territory. The CCW permit only allows you to carry a concealed weapon in public and private property where it is not otherwise disallowed.

So in other words; you take your gun to a Bronco game (Mile High is posted no guns), you get in an altercation that brings out that you have a gun...

-The issue isn't that you were trespassing, YOU were allowed in.
-You gun is inanimate and can't trespass.
-You WERE carrying a concealed weapon where you had no right to, I'm pretty sure you could be charged with illegally concealing a firearm (could being the operative here).

I'm with Yota, I think Private Property rights trump your Concealed Carry right. And I think that's probably fair, If King Soopers is gun-shy enough to post "No Guns" in their stores and you aren't willing to buy milk without a .45 on your hip you don't have to do business with one another.

[denverd0n]

Actually, I asked my sister about that. That is, would you in essence invalidate your CCW, and therefore be carrying illegally, by ignoring a "no guns" sign? Again, she emphasized that no such cases have been heard yet, so pretty much anything is possible, but she thought that was unlikely.

The analogy is, if you trespass on someone else's property you don't lose you rights as a result. Your driver's license doesn't, for instance, become invalid because you drove on someone's private, marked lane. All you can get charged for in a case like that is the trespassing (unless you commit other crimes in the process, of course). She thought it likely the same would be the case here.

I should also mention that I asked her, isn't a "no guns" sign sort of the same as a "no blacks allowed" sign, and therefore not enforceable? No, not at all. We have laws that specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. We do not, however, have laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of carrying a gun, the gun laws specifically say that they don't take away any rights of private property owners, and in today's society--no matter what the law says--her opinion (and I agree) is that no judge or jury would ever buy the argument that prohibiting people from carrying guns on your property is illegal discrimination. (She's kind of a gun buff herself, so it pisses her off that this is the society we live in, but there you have it.)

[DanaT]

It's my understanding that you are potentially in much worse than trespassing territory. The CCW permit only allows you to carry a concealed weapon in public and private property where it is not otherwise disallowed.

So in other words; you take your gun to a Bronco game (Mile High is posted no guns), you get in an altercation that brings out that you have a gun...


Ok. I am not a legal expert, however, I don't believe that Mile High stadium can forbid CCW. Mile High is a public (i.e not private as the Pepsi is) and is therefore a public building. The only way that a non-federal, courthouse, school or a few obscure public buildings (i.e City Hall) can enforce a no CCW is as follows.

CRS 18-12-214
(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:
(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;
(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and
(c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.
(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.

It seems to me since Mile is public, i.e owned and operated by the City of Denver, that unless there is electronic screening and they will store your weapon, they must allow it.

But again, I am not a legal expert.

-Dana

[Yota]

Colorado's list of prohibited places is amazingly short compared to other states - even shorter than "conservative" states like Texas, Oklahoma and Utah.

[jtw2]

Ask your sister what happens if I said "I didn't see any sign".

[jtw2]

I am so done with this stupid topic. You guys do what you want but I'd rather be convicted by 12 than carried by 6.

I've spoken with NRA lawyers on this particular subject and their opinion is that a simple no carry sign is not sufficient for any kind of charge what so ever given Colorado statute. True you can run into a David Nifong but is it likely? No.

[Gunter]

if you are truly concealed,only you will ever know.
:deadhorse:

[Yota]

I'm not sure this horse is really dead.

Let's shoot it to be sure.

[Frebius]

They will not store your weapon. I have a friend who works with CSC and they wont do it. They will just call over an officer.

[jnschwie]

Yeat, the ignorance plea usually works well.

[denverd0n]

True you can run into a David Nifong but is it likely? No.
No, it's not likely. But there is some small risk. The point is that 99% of the time there is no reason to take the risk. You can just go to the next store down the street that doesn't have a "no guns" sign. Avoid the risk and do business with someone who isn't anti-gun. That is a win-win all around.

As for "I didnt' see the sign," well it depends. If the sign is big and prominent and anyone who isn't blind would be likely to see it then you're going to be SOL. If it's a small sign in an out of the way place then you could very likely get away with that defense. It's the basic "reasonable man" standard. If the judge or jury believes that an average, reasonable person (and because you're carrying a gun they will probably assume that you SHOULD be looking for such a sign) would see the sign then "I didn't see it" won't keep you from a conviction.

As I said before, you are free to do what you want and I will just hope for your sake that you don't become the test case.

[Steve]

Yeat, the ignorance plea usually works well.

"Officer, I didn't see that stupid speed limit sign." Think it'll work? :silly:

The question I have for those of you who choose to ignore a business owner's stated wishes is why don't you respect his property rights? In my experience responsible gun owners are some of the more rabid defenders of individual property rights, but in this instance it appears that's not the case.

Why??? :confused:

[jnschwie]

"Officer, I didn't see that stupid speed limit sign." Think it'll work? :silly:


I need to dial up my sarcasm tone. (Edit: but that's exactly the case I was thinking of having been nailed on it in HS)

The question I have for those of you who choose to ignore a business owner's stated wishes is why don't you respect his property rights? In my experience responsible gun owners are some of the more rabid defenders of individual property rights, but in this instance it appears that's not the case.

Why??? :confused:

Slam dunk, Steve.

[Yota]

The question I have for those of you who choose to ignore a business owner's stated wishes is why don't you respect his property rights? In my experience responsible gun owners are some of the more rabid defenders of individual property rights, but in this instance it appears that's not the case.

Why??? :confused:

Totally agree.

I don't carry where it's posted that I not. I know damn well they don't want me to carry there so I don't. And I do believe that private property rights trump CCW rights.

Hypothetical: What if a homeowner tells me explicitly not to carry inside his or her private residence and I do it anyway? If I get caught, does anyone here think the homeowner could not have the cops come haul me away? Even worse, they could have me charged with felony menacing or trespassing or both. After all, I did not have to enter their house.

If the homeowner told me I had to take off my pants before entering, guess what? I'd have to make the choice between remaining outside their house, going in with my junk out, or risk going in with pants on and technically committing trespass. This is an absurd example, but it's the same principle.

On a similar note, I am actually hesitant to carry inside someone's private residence. This has nothing to do with laws, but it does have to do with respect for another person's home and for their attitude about guns. I will usually only carry in someone's house if they already know I carry or I know they are 'OK with guns' or if they've explicitly given me permission in the past. I'm sure there will be exceptions to this rule, but in general I try to adhere to it.

[denverd0n]

...why don't you respect his property rights?
Have to agree. How many of us think the ACLU is on the right track with their "my free speech rights are more important than your gun rights" attitude? Probably not too darned many.

Well, personally, I don't see any difference between that and the attitude that "my gun rights are more important than your property rights."

Nope. My free speech rights are just as important as my gun rights are just as important as my property rights. And all of everyone else's rights are just as important as all of mine. Anything else is just rationalization.

[Budman]

Totally agree.

On a similar note, I am actually hesitant to carry inside someone's private residence. This has nothing to do with laws, but it does have to do with respect for another person's home and for their attitude about guns. I will usually only carry in someone's house if they already know I carry or I know they are 'OK with guns' or if they've explicitly given me permission in the past. I'm sure there will be exceptions to this rule, but in general I try to adhere to it.

I still don't carry at my father in law's house, and he knows I carry, and he carrys too. The other day He wanted to see my XD, and I took him to the truck. He asked me why I left it there? I said I just didn't feel right packing in his house. Besides, there are plenty of guns to defend the house if something comes up.


Now on the Dont go there if they have a sign. My wife and I went to the Monster trucks at the World Arena here in CS this weekend. Like always I was packing. I got to the door, and there was a "No weapons" sign. Like a good little gun owner, I trecked back across the parking lot and put the handgun and my pocket knife back in the truck. I will; however, probably never go to the world arena again. an environment like that is the FIRST place I want my gun. I wanted to talk to the security guy there, and ask exactly what they meant by the sign, but the guy I stopped did not want to answer my questions. There were no metal detecors, or screening, but I respected thier wishes. But boy did I feel naked all the entire show. To top that off, the wife knows she will have a hell of a time getting me to spend my hard earned money to go back there for anything.

[Gunter]

"Officer, I didn't see that stupid speed limit sign." Think it'll work? :silly:

The question I have for those of you who choose to ignore a business owner's stated wishes is why don't you respect his property rights? In my experience responsible gun owners are some of the more rabid defenders of individual property rights, but in this instance it appears that's not the case.

Why??? :confused:
the old male double standard--what else???:shrug:

[Gunter]

I'm not sure this horse is really dead.

Let's shoot it to be sure.
then it would be sick with a gunshot wound.not sure how that helps the horse get better????:D
i stole that from larry the cable guy.
i dont care who you are,that right there is funny.:P

[DanaT]

He is a scenario for you. An off duty police officer. Now some agencys manadate that you are on 24-7. Some also mandate that you carry 24-7 what then? Is the officer trespassing? Is the officer violateing the property owners rights?

I would think this is a different situation. Sworn police officers are treated differently under the law (look and see, they don't have to have a CCW to CCW). Also, most anti-gun places will shut up really quick if they officer showed them a badge. Many place want to be anti-gun, but they don't want to anti police.

I agree with the people who say that property rights trump CCW. Basically, if someone doesn't want you on their property for WHATEVER reason, you need to leave. It is their property.

I do disagree with not being allowed to carry in PUBLIC buildings. Since PUBLIC buidlings are as much yours as mine, we both have equal "property rights" to be there and the laws are written to say in that case, unless they provide securoty screening, my CCW rights previal.

What is CSC? Someone mentioned that CSC won't store a weapon, just call police? Is CSC a public building? If so are they electronically screening all that enter? Please excuse my ignornace, but I honestly don't see the point. Could you please clarify.

-Dana

[jnschwie]

Exactly. Police = VERY different situation.

[denverd0n]

Right. Totally different situation.

[jnschwie]

Actually they have a sort of CCW it is usually marked on their ID card and they must carry a badge plus any additonal equipment required by their particular agency. (backgrounds and training has already been done) While Law enforcements authority to carry is somewhat broader. I see no difference between going to shop at store XYZ to get milk for the kid and it posting a sign no concealed weapons and someone with a CCW going to the same store for the same reason. And Store XYZ is a place the general public can be as long as the business is open. IE Target, Walmart, Cabela's etc. Just something to think about.

You honestly see no difference between an LEO off-duty carrying and a regular "Joe CCW?" :confused:

[denverd0n]

While Law enforcements authority to carry is somewhat broader.
That's a pretty big understatement. An off-duty (or retired) LEO's authority to carry is based on federal law. That law puts virtually no limitations on carrying. Contrast that with the Colorado law, where a huge percentage of it is about what the CCW does NOT allow you to do!

Nope. Off-duty LEO carrying = TOTALLY different situation than civilian CCW!

[jnschwie]

Do you see my point.


Sorry. No.

I concur that an off-duty LEO will probably be held to a much higher standard.

You say a CCW is a CCW, but then you say you've never had a civilian CCW, thus negating the first part.



Edit: You may be correct on this, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I didn't think that was the case. An LEO acquaintence of mine led me to believe he is held to higher standards, but has a lot more leeway in carrying now than before.

[newracer]

Several Larimer County officers were at my sons cub scout pack meeting tonight. They stated that they can carry anywhere in the USA except for secure areas at airports.

[jnschwie]

This has been a good thread as opposed to what I expected it to turn into.:thumbsup:

Concur. I enjoy all the info and opinions. :)

[denverd0n]

Well I see a CCW as a CCW.
You are entitled to see it however you want. The law most definitely does NOT see it that way, though. The laws that cover civilian CCW are completely different than the laws that cover off-duty LEOs. We can argue about whether or not that is the way it SHOULD be, but it is absolutely undeniable that right now that is the way it IS!

[Steve]

This has been a good thread as opposed to what I expected it to turn into.:thumbsup:

I suspect if it was in Chit Chat it would have gotten ugly. One of the reasons the "special" forums like this were added.

[denverd0n]

Show me the difference aside from HR-218 and how they are obtained.
Show you the difference aside from a completely different law and a completely different process!!??!!

I give up.

[Whitey]

.........I don't like to see bad information passed of as fact even if it is well intentioned............
That is very well said. :thumbsup:

Bad info is bad info, no matter the source. Be it firearms, vehicle repairs or off road travel in the NF. It is always good to question someones opinion over fact.

Just my take on getting information.