Way to go Denver Museum of Nature and science. Allowing conceal carry

[Gunner]

Go to their Facebook page and show support. Lots of anti gunners giving them bad reviews.

http://kdvr.com/2015/12/30/denver-museum-of-nature-and-science-now-allowing-concealed-carry/

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

[Irving]

Heard about this today. I'll be sure to continue to carry there. ;)

[gnihcraes]

I'll have to make a trip out there now.

What a bunch of cry baby folks making comments. ugh.

[Big E3]

Now that I can feel safe there. I will reconsider my decision to not become a contributing annual member. I used to enjoy most of the traveling exhibits they have. With a membership you get members only early access to exhibits.

I'm betting that most of the anti-gun libs will cancel their membership thereby improving quality of patrons. I doubt anybody will miss the snobs that don't come back. Would be a good time to join.

[Ah Pook]

Let's hope the idiot factor (from both sides) doesn't fawk it up.

[hurley842002]

Just watched the story on Fox, the two people they interviewed opposing it both had accents not of this land, how about you go back to where you came from.

[Jimmy]

I'll be sure to continue to carry there. ;)

Exactly. Concealed carry was already happening.

[Big E3]

This isn't about if you could get away with concealed carry anytime at the museum. This about a major public venue making an announcement that this museum is no longer a soft target gun spree zone.

[Ah Pook]

Dropped off my $0.02 on their FB page. Let's hope reality wins out over, well, ignorance.

[TheGrey]

Same here. I know a LOT of people that will be wanting to add their support.

[rtr]

I'm confused a bit by the news story. It indicates posting no carry signs somehow violates CO law. My understanding is private institutions can post no carry signs all they want, but that CCWers who ignore the signs aren't violating the law. Am I missing something?

From 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.

(6) The provisions of this section apply to temporary emergency permits issued pursuant to section 18-12-209."

[KS63]

I left a glowing review on their Facebook page. I did have a membership there, but let it expire because we rarely went. I'll sign up again just to support them.

[rfizzle]

It's hilarious to see all the people saying "I'll never go there again" yet I've been carrying there for years.... Idiots

[Jimmy]

I'm confused a bit by the news story. It indicates posting no carry signs somehow violates CO law. My understanding is private institutions can post no carry signs all they want, but that CCWers who ignore the signs aren't violating the law. Am I missing something?

From 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.

(6) The provisions of this section apply to temporary emergency permits issued pursuant to section 18-12-209."

No, you're not missing anything. The story was misleading. Poor choice of words, or worse, poor understanding demonstrated by both Fox31 and the DMNS patrons. It was legal to conceal carry there all along.

Posting of the signs wasn't illegal. DMNS acknowledged that the signs meant nothing without the law-required guards and detectors; legally the signs have no teeth. Since they're not going to the expense of adding those, then they're openly acknowledging their decision to remove the signs and welcome concealed carry.

[Bailey Guns]

The DMNS is a private, non-profit facility. It isn't owned by the City and County of Denver. At least that's my understanding. If that's the case they wouldn't be required to post security personnel and screening devices at each entrance. That is for public buildings (ie: owned by local or state gov't) only.

That means that carrying in violation of posted signs is technically illegal...it's just that it would be very difficult to prove you: a) saw the signs, b) read the signs, c) understood the signs, etc...

Most people (myself included) often say such signs in Colorado have no force of law. I don't think that's quite accurate. I'm pretty certain if one were detained by the police for carrying in a location with posted signs and told the officer, "Yeah, I saw the signs and I ignored them," they could be charged with trespassing. Convicted? Who knows?

At any rate, good for the DMNS BoD.

[Jimmy]

The DMNS is a private, non-profit facility. It isn't owned by the City and County of Denver. At least that's my understanding. If that's the case they wouldn't be required to post security personnel and screening devices at each entrance. That is for public buildings (ie: owned by local or state gov't) only.

Maybe I took away the wrong message, but I thought the DMNS spokesman was saying that after talking with Denver Police, they/DMNS understood they would need the guards and detectors in order to legally enforce their no concealed carry policy. Since they weren't going to do that, they got rid of the policy.

Either way, great outcome.

[n2877]

I was happy to see this

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk