Legality of carry in venues with screening?

[.455_Hunter]

This discussion came up at work today...

In CO, it is fairly well established that the typical "no weapons/no guns" sign at your typical mall or movie theater has no legal standing by itself, and can only be enforced via trespassing law if you refuse to leave once asked, just like "no bare feet' or "no outside food". Few people I know with carry permits actually follow such signs.

If one enters a venue, lets say Coors Field or the Fillmore Auditorium, where the security screening can best described as ''half assed" and definitely not permanent, are you actually breaking the law if you are able to bring, or attempt to bring, your CCW piece inside, or are you just violating the same policy request similar to the above?

I did not really have an answer.

[ColoradoTJ]

I Could be wrong, but if the venue has metal detectors and security it is unlawful to enter.

[davsel]

Section 4 covers this question

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.

(b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene.

(2) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:

(a) A permittee may have a handgun on the real property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in his or her vehicle and, if the permittee is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked;

(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district or charter school as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty;

(c) A permittee may carry a concealed handgun on undeveloped real property owned by a school district that is used for hunting or other shooting sports.

(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 (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=fd1418544d103e426fd354aa2991d09f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-214%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2018-12-209&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzk-zSkAz&_md5=d4ab34439bb11f76321ffc784e8aba49).

HISTORY: Source: L. 2003: Entire part added, p. 647, § 1, effective May 17.L. 2014: (3)(b) amended, (HB 14-1291), ch. 165, p. 579, § 1 (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonLink?_m=fd1418544d103e426fd354aa2991d09f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-214%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=1&_butStat=0&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=LXE_2014_CO_ALS_165&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzk-zSkAz&_md5=a451b6ac70d9582652145a83e137e9a3), effective May 9.


ANNOTATION

Institutions of higher education not exempt from the express authorization of permittees to carry concealed handguns "in all areas of the state". The concealed carry act, § § 18-12-201 to 18-12-216, satisfies the "unless otherwise [provided] by law" provision of article VIII, section 5(2), of the state constitution by manifesting a clear and unmistakable intent to subject the entire state to a single statutory scheme regulating concealed handgun carry, subject to specified exceptions. Students for Con. Carry on Camp. v. Regents, 280 P.3d 18 (Colo. App. 2010), aff'd, 2012 CO 17, 271 P.3d 496.

[funkymonkey1111]

This discussion came up at work today...

In CO, it is fairly well established that the typical "no weapons/no guns" sign at your typical mall or movie theater has no legal standing by itself, and can only be enforced via trespassing law if you refuse to leave once asked, just like "no bare feet' or "no outside food". Few people I know with carry permits actually follow such signs.

If one enters a venue, lets say Coors Field or the Fillmore Auditorium, where the security screening can best described as ''half assed" and definitely not permanent, are you actually breaking the law if you are able to bring, or attempt to bring, your CCW piece inside, or are you just violating the same policy request similar to the above?

I did not really have an answer.


When's the last time you were at Coors Field?

[.455_Hunter]

This is were it gets confusing...


(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


Let's take the Fillmore up for discussion:

Is it a public building?- NO [Privately owned]

Are weapons screening devices and security personnel permanently present at each entrance to the building, and do they screen each person?- NO [Just depends on the event for the general admission crowd, and if folks coming in the "back door" get screened every time. Does every box a roadie brings into the venue get searched?]

Do security personnel provide weapons storage? [Ha!- NO]

To me, the best example of a "public building" security similar security to the above would be a controlled access courthouse, NOT a venue that only screens certain people some of the time.

No one is saying that the private venue could not kick you out if found to be carrying (just like the mall), but are you actually breaking the law, like you would be if carrying on a K-12 public school campus?

There just seems to be too many loopholes, especially with "company policy" not having force of law in this state beyond a theoretical trespassing charge if you don't leave when directly asked to do so. In some states, like OH and NC, signs do have force of law, and the entire discussion is moot.


When's the last time you were at Coors Field?


Last week, and the "new" security procedures are still way too lax to prevent someone from actually bringing in a weapon if you really think about it.

All of this is just food for thought, as I am not a legal expert nor LEO- Please chime in!

[ColoradoTJ]

Section 4 covers this question

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/


Thank you

[newracer]

Public means the public has access not the public owns it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[davsel]

Public means the public has access not the public owns it.

Though "public building" is not defined within the above statute (because idiots wrote this law), a common legal definition is:

(13) "Public building" means any building owned or operated by:

(a) The state, including the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of state government;

(b) Any county, city and county, city, or town, or instrumentality thereof, or any other political subdivision of the state, a special district, an authority, a commission, or an agency; or

(c) Any other separate corporate instrumentality or unit of state or local government.

As found in CRS 25-14-203

It has also been defined as:

(7) The term "public building", as used in this section, includes any premises being temporarily used by a public officer or employee in the discharge of his official duties.
As found in CRS 18-9-110. Public buildings - trespass, interference - penalty

"Public Building" almost always means "State owned/operated," NOT "publicly accessed."

[Monky]

When's the last time you were at Coors Field?

I was there last season..which is the first time I saw the metal detectors, the time I was there before that was random searching. Thankfully I had seen the news stories and didn't have to make the 2 mile trek back to the car..

[Irving]

If I were a private property owner and my establishment had "no firearms," or "no weapons," signs displayed I'd immediately press charges for trespassing if someone were found to be in possession of a "weapon," or "firearm."

I think that people mislead themselves and others when they suggest that one must refuse to leave before an issue arises. That's just food for thought and just my opinion. We're all adults and can make the decision to carry or not carry.

The above comment is not directed to the OP, or an attempt to answer his question. Just something I've been thinking about while reading the thread.

[.455_Hunter]

If I were a private property owner and my establishment had "no firearms," or "no weapons," signs displayed I'd immediately press charges for trespassing if someone were found to be in possession of a "weapon," or "firearm."

I think that people mislead themselves and others when they suggest that one must refuse to leave before an issue arises. That's just food for thought and just my opinion. We're all adults and can make the decision to carry or not carry.

The above comment is not directed to the OP, or an attempt to answer his question. Just something I've been thinking about while reading the thread.

That is a fair opinion.

Just curious- Does anybody know of any cases here in CO where permit holders have been arrested and/or charged with trespassing for violating property owner policy?

[newracer]

If I were a private property owner and my establishment had "no firearms," or "no weapons," signs displayed I'd immediately press charges for trespassing if someone were found to be in possession of a "weapon," or "firearm."

I think that people mislead themselves and others when they suggest that one must refuse to leave before an issue arises. That's just food for thought and just my opinion. We're all adults and can make the decision to carry or not carry.

The above comment is not directed to the OP, or an attempt to answer his question. Just something I've been thinking about while reading the thread.

Under what statute? It's actually not specified anywhere.



That is a fair opinion.

Just curious- Does anybody know of any cases here in CO where permit holders have been arrested and/or charged with trespassing for violating property owner policy?

Again it's not specified anywhere that I know of and I don't think it has ever happened. It's just speculation on what could happen.

[Great-Kazoo]

If I were a private property owner and my establishment had "no firearms," or "no weapons," signs displayed I'd immediately press charges for trespassing if someone were found to be in possession of a "weapon," or "firearm."






Unless you (business owner) post a sign that covers at least 1/3 your front door. It's almost impossible to "see" NO FIREARMS PERMITTED sign. The average sign is 3 x 5 or 4 x 6 . If that.
I'd be curious what the reaction would be (general public) to your pressing charges. Of course every media outlet would have been notified . Interesting how that might effect your business.

[ray1970]

It really just becomes a nonissue if you don't carry a handgun with you. I bet it's been three months or more since I left the house armed.

[Irving]

Unless you (business owner) post a sign that covers at least 1/3 your front door. It's almost impossible to "see" NO FIREARMS PERMITTED sign. The average sign is 3 x 5 or 4 x 6 . If that.
I'd be curious what the reaction would be (general public) to your pressing charges. Of course every media outlet would have been notified . Interesting how that might effect your business.

You think if you drive your motorized vehicle (dirt bike) around in the the public park, it will only become an issue after you refuse to leave? Same thing as carrying past any other sign. Whether you saw it or not becomes your problem.

Same issue with drinking alcohol, having glass bottles, dog off leash, etc.

[hurley842002]

You think if you drive your motorized vehicle (dirt bike) around in the the public park, it will only become an issue after you refuse to leave? Same thing as carrying past any other sign. Whether you saw it or not becomes your problem.

Same issue with drinking alcohol, having glass bottles, dog off leash, etc.

I would think it may be a fine line, and not exactly black and white. I wouldn't think a simple "no guns" sign would constitute charges, as the sign and "violation" don't carry any weight of the law. Seems a business owner would need to have the message made very clear "no guns on these premises, violators will be considered to be trespassing, and will be charged". These signs would have to be very visible, and the message would have to be very clear. You can't use ignorance as an excuse for riding your dirt bike in the park, if there is a municipal code prohibiting it. There is no law or code prohibiting you from entering a business with a no guns sign, while carrying.

[davsel]

You think if you drive your motorized vehicle (dirt bike) around in the the public park, it will only become an issue after you refuse to leave? Same thing as carrying past any other sign. Whether you saw it or not becomes your problem.

Same issue with drinking alcohol, having glass bottles, dog off leash, etc.

Just please refrain from calling the ATF for clarification.

[Great-Kazoo]

You think if you drive your motorized vehicle (dirt bike) around in the the public park, it will only become an issue after you refuse to leave? Same thing as carrying past any other sign. Whether you saw it or not becomes your problem.

Same issue with drinking alcohol, having glass bottles, dog off leash, etc.

Motorized vehicle in the park where Extremely Large NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES, DOGS OFF LEASH ETC? Yeah write them a ticket.

Slapping a 4x6 NO FIREARMS sign, anywhere but the front door (eye height) then having someone arrested without asking them politely, to leave. That's a fuckin dick move.

If i didn't know you better. I'd think you were that Neil Armstrong snowflake in the DP comments section.

[Irving]

I didn't say anything about an arrest. Can you not be charged with something minor and not arrested? I like the park analogy because regardless of sign size, parks don't have firm entrances. Last year I took my dog to run around a pond near my house maybe ten times before I finally read the sign that says "NO PETS, i.e. dogs, horses, ferrets, etc" (That's really what it says). I can't imagine there is a municipal code restricting ferrets from parks. I also don't think I would have been charged with anything serious, ticket at most. That doesn't change the fact that it was my responsibility to read the sign, and it doesn't matter that all those signs look alike, and that I've been ignoring them at parks since I could read.

It seems to me that if a business is allowed to disallow patronage based on certain circumstances, posts a sign about it, then anyone who enters said business that meets the description of those that are disallowed, then they are trespassing.

I'm very obviously not a lawyer, or a LEO, or a judge, or in the position to make judgement on those situations. I'm simply explaining that is what seems logical to me, so I conduct myself accordingly. I'm just suggesting that those who carry may not wish to assume that being found to be carrying in a place that doesn't want people to carry will be a smooth and calm experience where someone politely asks you to leave. People freak out, and property owners have the right to freak out in their own businesses.

All that said, most interactions would likely go just fine. This doesn't change the way, or the where, that I carry. I just like to mentally prepare for the worst. I hope no one interprets my post as me saying that's how I think people SHOULD act, as that's not the case. Just realize that if you lay out rules, then act all soft and kindly request people to leave when they break your rules, what's the point in the first place?

[Big E3]

If I walk across the corner of your property and you have posted a sign that says no trespassing, while I'm technically breaking a law, you would have to press charges of trespassing. I suspect if the cops show up I would simply be asked to leave if I'm doing nothing more than just being there.

If you have a restaurant and post a sign saying no blue underwear and someone shows up wearing blue underwear, just because you have a sign doesn't make blue underwear illegal. You would still need to ask the person to leave. If the cops show up and see blue underwear they would have no standing to arrest anyone. I firmly believe you do have the right to reject blue underwear at your restaurant but that does not make blue underwear illegal. Also just like concealed carry it would be hard to know who actually has blue underwear on.

I would think if you are legally permitted to carry concealed when on the premises it would not be "illegal" even with a no guns sign unless trespassing charges are pressed. And if I'm doing nothing other than just being there, I'm thinking it would be hard to win a court case and what would be awarded as damages. I believe you could go to all the trouble of taking the trespass charge to court and the judge would say you're right you win and then award you actual damages of nothing.

Until a law is specifically written that makes just being on private property with a legally owned and concealed gun, in violation of a no guns sign, is in and of it's self breaking this law, I don't see an issue.

I'm not an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last year.

[Irving]

Oh, I still ignore signs, I just think the advice of, "it's only an issue if you refuse to leave" is on the rosie side of reality. Anyway, I've derailed the thread for no apparent reason. Carry on.

[hurley842002]

Anyway, I've derailed the thread for no apparent reason. Carry on.

Nah, your comments were quite relevant.

[ClangClang]

If I were a private property owner and my establishment had "no firearms," or "no weapons," signs displayed I'd immediately press charges for trespassing if someone were found to be in possession of a "weapon," or "firearm."

I think that people mislead themselves and others when they suggest that one must refuse to leave before an issue arises. That's just food for thought and just my opinion. We're all adults and can make the decision to carry or not carry.

The above comment is not directed to the OP, or an attempt to answer his question. Just something I've been thinking about while reading the thread.


While we're on the topic - this simply can't happen in Colorado. There is no legal avenue for a business owner or private citizen to "press charges." All you can do is notify the police who will investigate and then decide whether or not to make an arrest. The case is then picked up by the DA who must make a further determination whether or not they intend to prosecute.

Similarly, once the police have been notified and arrest has been made, the complainant can not "drop the charges" - that can only be done by the DA. Not even the police can reverse their decision once the arrest is performed.

[Irving]

Well there you have it. No one has to worry about how I'd run my shop, if I had one, and if I didn't want guns around. Haha. Just remember that if soccer mom spots your pistol, she may just flip out and call the police and make a scene, rather than politely ask you to leave.

[Irving]

It really just becomes a nonissue if you don't carry a handgun with you. I bet it's been three months or more since I left the house armed.

What happened to all the holster testing and daily carrying you were doing all last year? Was it the six months we went without shooting?

[68Charger]

Big E3 nailed it, and I'll add that this form of trespassing is not an arrestable offense (but I'm no lawyer nor LEO)... It's a citation.

[Irving]

I had assumed it wouldn't be arrestable, which is why I'd feel comfortable declaring trespassing right off the bat.

[Jefe's AR]

Regardless of signage, trespassing is not trespassing until you have been informed of the trespass by an authorized agent of the property. Proving you walked by, read, and understood the No Trespass sign would be impossible. So, the first contact would be advising you that you are in fact trespassing. You then have the option to leave. If you refuse, you are technically in violation of a trespass and the property owner can then file a complaint. If you still refuse to leave, you can be forcefully removed and subject to arrest.

[Martinjmpr]

We actually had a big debate about this a couple of years ago on CO4x4.org. The upshot was that it most likely is a prosecutable offense to have a concealed weapon in any private venue where weapons are prohibited.
CRS 18-12-105 states that:


(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if such person knowingly and unlawfully:

(a) Carries a knife concealed on or about his or her person; or

(b) Carries a firearm concealed on or about his or her person; or

(c) Without legal authority, carries, brings, or has in such person's possession a firearm or any explosive, incendiary, or other dangerous device on the property of or within any building in which the chambers, galleries, or offices of the general assembly, or either house thereof, are located, or in which a legislative hearing or meeting is being or is to be conducted, or in which the official office of any member, officer, or employee of the general assembly is located.

(d) (Deleted by amendment, L. 93, p. 964, § 1, effective July 1, 1993.)

(2) It shall not be an offense if the defendant was:

(a) A person in his or her own dwelling or place of business or on property owned or under his or her control at the time of the act of carrying; or

(b) A person in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance who carries a weapon for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property while traveling; or

(c) A person who, at the time of carrying a concealed weapon, held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or, if the weapon involved was a handgun, held a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214;



Regarding the "authority granted" by the CCW permit (18-12-214) the law says


Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.

(b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene.

(2) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:

(a) A permittee may have a handgun on the real property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in his or her vehicle and, if the permittee is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked;

(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district or charter school as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty;

(c) A permittee may carry a concealed handgun on undeveloped real property owned by a school district that is used for hunting or other shooting sports.

(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.


No. 5 is bolded for emphasis. To simplify the legal-ese, think of it like this: There is a general rule, and then there are certain specific exceptions to that rule.

The General rule is that carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited (CRS 18-12-105). The exception is that if you have a CCW permit, then you are allowed to carry but only under the specific terms defined by the CCW law. (CRS 18-12-214).

To put it a different way, the "protection" offered by the CCW permit disappears if you violate the terms of the permit, and the terms of the permit specifically state that private property owners' rights regarding the carrying of weapons are not limited by the statute.

So to sum up, yes, you can be charged under CRS 18-12-105 if you are carrying a concealed weapon on private property if the property owner does not permit you to do so, whether you have a permit or not.

Now, whether anyone has actually been charged with such a crime, I don't know.

[spqrzilla]

I disagree, (5) does not create a chargeable offense. Rather it states that the statute does not remove the private property owner of the ability to prohibit. As discussed above, that private property owner's prohibition creates a trespassing charge.

[Martinjmpr]

I disagree, (5) does not create a chargeable offense. Rather it states that the statute does not remove the private property owner of the ability to prohibit. As discussed above, that private property owner's prohibition creates a trespassing charge.

I know that's a popular opinion, in fact I used to hold that opinion myself, but after thinking about it and discussing it I can't see why a prosecutor COULDN'T charge a person under 18-12-105 if they were carrying concealed in violation of a property owners wishes. As a matter of fact, I think the person could be charged even if there were no signs advising that weapons weren't allowed.

It's the same with trespassing. There are states where a person can only be charged with trespassing on private property if the property is marked but Colorado isn't one of those states.

[spqrzilla]

I know that's a popular opinion, in fact I used to hold that opinion myself, but after thinking about it and discussing it I can't see why a prosecutor COULDN'T charge a person under 18-12-105 if they were carrying concealed in violation of a property owners wishes. As a matter of fact, I think the person could be charged even if there were no signs advising that weapons weren't allowed.

(5) does not create an offense. It alters nothing about the actual elements of the crime. And carrying a concealed handgun, with a permit, on private property is not a violation in that it does not meet the actual elements of the offense.


It's the same with trespassing. There are states where a person can only be charged with trespassing on private property if the property is marked but Colorado isn't one of those states.

You are confusing issues. When we say that you can only be charged with trespass after being told to leave, we are talking about private property that is open to the public in the first place. Which is the topic of the thread.

If you tried walking into a McDonalds without shoes, you are not going to be prosecuted for trespassing at the door.