CCW and Posted No Firearms Rules

[Hardcase]

In Colorado, the Revised Statutes say this:

Nothing in this section...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.

My interpretation of this statute is that your CCW permit does not trump a "No Firearms" sign on private property.

The Colorado Revised Statutes are online at http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

 

[Gary Slider]

I thought about adding information about No Gun Signs to each state page at Handgunlaw.us for 2 years before I did it. It is a mine field and most laws are not black and white on this as they are in most sates on Applying for a Permit/License to Carry or how to obtain a Drivers License etc etc. These are all spelled out. Some states like Texas make it easy when it comes to No Gun Signs. Then other states make it very difficult.

The Laws pertaining to Signs are usually found in the Trespass Laws and not the firearm laws. Colorado is one of those ?????? mark states when it is not really spelled out but is a gray area. Handgunlaw.us will err on the side of caution when it is not perfectly clear. I have found out when I put something on a state page that may not be correct I usually hear about it very quickly. I have not heard from one person about the CO page saying they have the force of law.

In Michigan I have two State RKBA's groups who have opposite views. One says they do have the force of law and the other says they don't have the force of law. Then Case Law would come into play in most states.

Laws are written gray so the facts of any case can be plugged into it. If it is to black and white then things can't be plugged into it. They try to write laws as broad as they can.

Then we have to look at things not mentioned in the laws. Almost all laws are written saying you have to do it this way or you can't do that. So if there is no law against something then you can do it. Then Case Law has a huge impact. Then you have AG Opinions that could have a part in any charge. Just because an AG states in an opinion it is or is not legal is not the law. It is an Opinion but most local PA's will go with what the AG Opinion states but they don't have to.

Hard part is saying something is legal because you can't find anything that says it is illegal. There are so many questions about this or that when it comes to firearms there is no way for anyone to have all the CORRECT answers. What I like is people are trying to find the right answers and trying to stay within the law. I think that shows just how law abiding those who carry firearms are.

 

[graysmoke]

A store, business or restaurant that post no firearms allowed signs.....I do not enter. Nor do I spend my money there.

 

[oneounceload]

All that said™, I don't do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots.

What makes you think they are second A bigots? Because MAYBE their insurance carrier would drop them otherwise?

Unless you have proof they are adamant against the 2A, don't go all holier-than-thou on them, many have very valid business reasons for doing what they are doing - whether or not you agree with them

 

[pax]

oneounceload,

Self defense is a basic human right. There is no such thing as a valid reason -- let alone a valid business reason -- to deny basic human rights to those who have done no wrong.

To prohibit people from carrying the tools of effective self defense is as morally indefensible as to deny entrance to people who use wheelchairs for mobility.

pax

 

[Double Naught Spy]

DNS,

I don't think those are "opposing" claims. They both say that the signs carry no force of law, just one poster claims that there are specific ordinances that would make the sign legally binding.

In general, they are in agreement. It's only the "specific ordinance" citing that might be different.

Actually Peetz, the 2nd opinion said that no signs carry the force of law and the first one said that specific signs do carry the force of law. Those are definitely different. The former, however, is in error and the latter appears correct. Signs, in and of themselves, do not appear to carry any force of law, at least not that is stated anywhere in 18-12-214.

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. Page 18-senate bill 03-024
(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 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.

 

[youngunz4life]

Gary

I have found out when I put something on a state page that may not be correct I usually hear about it very quickly. I have not heard from one person about the CO page saying they have the force of law.

This is your quote. Did you mis-type and/or mean to say: I have not heard from one person about the CO page saying they do not have the force of law?

DNS has shown the best evidence, and your site seems to back up his evidence. I also do appreciate how your site errs with caution and many times even states this throughout the states' policies and laws. Your sight says that Colorado has the force of law.

 

[Gary Slider]

Boy I did blow that sentence didn't I. Sorry about that. But you wrote it how I meant to say it. Thank you.

 

[Standing Wolf]

What makes you think they are second A bigots? Because MAYBE their insurance carrier would drop them otherwise?

Two points:

1. Pax, you've said it very well, for which I thank you.
2. I've been asking this question at least five years and longer without a single response: what's the name of this hypothetic insurance carrier that prohibits concealed carry? I think it's a myth, a lie, or a misconception. I can see store owners claiming, "My insurance doesn't allow guns in the store," but I won't believe a single word of that until someone tells me who the insurance carrier or issuer is and I can verify it.

 

[Gary Slider]

Standing Wolf, I will call my Insurance agent tomorrow and talk to him/her. I will ask him/her that question. I will post here what he/she states. I will also ask him/her if I can use the name of the company he/she works for. If he/she says yes I will but if not I won't. I usually ask permission before posting something someone tells me using their name or their company name. My agent works for one of the major Insurance Companies. But I will get an answer tomorrow.

 

[BarryLee]

One thing to remember about a business that post signs prohibiting the carry of weapons is that these folks are exercising their freedom to not allow carry on their private property. It is hard for us to talk about personal freedoms and then ignore someone else’s rights. Remember if you do not like the policies of a particular business than go somewhere else, but respect their freedoms just as you want others to respect your rights.

 

[hermannr]

I believe the OP specifically stated the "Denver Zoo". I this case, is not the Zoo a PUBLIC entity (owned by a governmental agency?)

If it is, state preemption over-rules the Zoo. Posting invalid and unenforcable, they would not even be able to ask you to leave,

If the Zoo is a private entity, their rule is valid.

The rule is, if it is owned by the government, the law is what counts, not the sign, or lack of sign.

If is private property, the property owner can do what he pleases, and so can I. Posted, I just don't go there. Here in WA by law signs mean nothing, they have to personally ask you to leave, however, that is not how I operate. They post no guns, I will respect their posting, and send them a no-guns, no money card.

 

[Tom Servo]

It is hard for us to talk about personal freedoms and then ignore someone else’s rights.

Thank you. I happen to believe that property rights are the cornerstone of liberty, and that property owners have a right (misguided or not) to determine what happens there. Glenn will be along to post a very eloquent rebuttal, but I'm sticking to my guns.

I have seen one insurance policy that prohibits customers from having guns, and that's a gun shop. I'll see if I can get a copy of the relevant part.

While we're at it, I'll throw another thing into the mix. A couple of years ago, we had a major discount housewares chain move into town. As soon as you walk into the atrium, there's a big sign prohibiting carry, even from "those with a license." As it turns out, the owner's son was shot to death at one point. A polite call to the corporate office revealed two things:

1. That policy isn't changing, and
2. a LOT of 2nd Amendment fanatics could learn a little sensitivity before they go calling and ranting.

Not everybody has our zeal for the 2nd Amendment. Many don't know that it's a right. Many others are under social or cultural pressure (some of it subliminal) to distrust guns and those who carry them. That's not going to change overnight, or with one law change. Awareness begins on the ground.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've made the eloquent elephant before. Search for if you like my prose.

It's basically the conflicting rights argument. I'm reading a legal scholarly book: Killing in Self-Defense by an Oxford professor.

She asks why can we ever justify killing in self-defense? Isn't any form of killing bad in the abstract. All life has value. But she goes on to exam the issue. Two main reasons:

Deterrence:

Deterrence of future crimes doesn't cut it (big discussion). Her view is that of competing rights.

The Rights Argument - you have the right to life through self-defense, that trumps the right to life of the attacker.

My extension - if the right to your life trumps the power right to life of the attacker, certainly my right to life through self-defense trumps the right to control one's property if my exercise of my right doesn't threaten you on some technical grounds.

The sensitivity argument has surface appeal but doesn't cut it either. For instance, a loved one was killed by a gun - thus you ban guns and diminish my right of SD. Or - you loved one was killed by a member of a certain group (religious, ethnic, racial, gender, geographic) - thus you ban them from your business (that's not acceptable as it diminshes their rights and their rights trumps your sensitivity and property rights).

 

[Tom Servo]

Or - you loved one was killed by a member of a certain group (religious, ethnic, racial, gender, geographic) - thus you ban them from your business (that's not acceptable as it diminshes their rights and their rights trumps your sensitivity and property rights).

True, banning people based on status is illegal. Our discrimination laws establish the idea of protected classes, such as the elderly, the handicapped, or racial or religious minorities.

However, gun owners have never been established to be a protected class. While the owner cannot ban classes of people, he can choose to disallow certain behaviors, which at the moment, includes carrying guns.

In the case I mentioned, the guy was in his rights to ban guns. I disagree with the policy, and with the idea that banning guns will stem violence. However, by the time I contacted the company, I had no chance of convincing them to reconsider, as they'd already dealt with a steady slew of folks who'd been calling and screaming Ted Nugent slogans at them.

 

[Gary Slider]

Insurance Compay Policies and No Gun Signs

I talked to my agent this morning. They only write policies for Auto, Home, Life etc and very few Commercial or Businesses. But was told by the owner of this agency that she has never heard of any surcharge for not posting or a business being told they had to post their property. She did send me to another Agency that does business/commercial Policies.

This Agency represents about 120 different Insurance Companies. Over 20 of the Insurance companies she represents do a lot of Business/Commercial Properties. This Agency only does policies in WV and OH. She stated that she couldn't speak about policies in other states.

She stated that she has never seen on any policy or list of items needing attention that the establishment had to post their property. She has never seen that they would be charged more in premiums if they didn't post their property. That this issue has never been mentioned to obtain insurance or an add on if they didn't post.

She also stated that if the Owner or the business being insured kept a Weapon on the business property that they would have to pay about $100 more a year for insurance. She stated that there were some businesses that did keep a weapon at the business. A weapon does not have to be a firearm. A baseball bat, Club etc. She even mentioned that one place had a big sword.

When they insured events etc that had Security and security carried firearms that there was no extra charge if the event was an outdoor type even or they were off duty police officers.
Now if a bouncer in a bar carried a weapon they would pay extra like mentioned above to have their business insured as they would then keep a weapon on site but that it didn't matter if they had no guns signs to keep customers from carrying did not save them a penny and did not help them any when it came to liability.

She went on to say that she has seen policies from different places around the world and has never seen were posting a No Gun Sign was required to get or keep insurance. That it never made a difference in costs of the insurance if they posted their business or not.

This agency only sells insurance in Ohio and West Virginia. Other states could have laws that make insurance companies do this but she had never heard of this. Had never seen it but she did state that it could be possible.

Insurance companies have a lot of regulations put on them by the states. So there could be a state or states that require this. But again she has never heard it or seen it in writing.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

But the problem here is 'behavior'. We forbid banning on the basis of religion.

Religion is a behavior - it is not an immutable aspect of your biology. You can change your religion (yeah, you can change your 'gender' - but not your chromosomes).

Folks change religion all the time.

Thus, protected classes based on behavior are possible and thus SD should be one. Why discriminate against folks who want to protect themselves as compared to believers in X, Y or Z?

Some countries do ban behaviors based on religion or have debated it. In the USA - drug usage by some religions has been controversial. In France, the religious garb of some has been used to deny entrance to public schools.

I propose that the behavior of carrying is directly related to the biological imperative of preserving yourself and thus has a more sensible and direct basis not to be banned as compared to a nonbiological based belief system - which you can easily change so as to go to that merchant.

I do agree about sensitivity and proguns having sheeple tantrums get us nowhere. I recall after some school shooting, the principal being highly offended when some 'well-known" gun school started to bray about free gun lessons. While such might be nice, it was an offensive PR stunt and didn't take into account the emotional impact of such at that moment in time.

 

[Stressfire]

But the problem here is 'behavior'.

Correct, it is not discrimmination because carrying is a choice. Yes, so is religion. But it is assumed that one would not want to change their religion.

pax earlier stated:

To prohibit people from carrying the tools of effective self defense is as morally indefensible as to deny entrance to people who use wheelchairs for mobility.

Yes, and yet imagine the storm of fecal matter that would fly were a business to hang up a no wheelchairs sign. And that storm would come from all directions, not just one specially interested group.

 

[WVsig]

I happen to believe that property rights are the cornerstone of liberty, and that property owners have a right (misguided or not) to determine what happens there. Glenn will be along to post a very eloquent rebuttal, but I'm sticking to my guns.

+1 I agree entirely.

Self defense is a basic human right. There is no such thing as a valid reason -- let alone a valid business reason -- to deny basic human rights to those who have done no wrong.

To prohibit people from carrying the tools of effective self defense is as morally indefensible as to deny entrance to people who use wheelchairs for mobility.

So is freedom of speech and so is freedom of and from religion and both of these can be restricted by a property owner. It is done here on TFL every single day. You as a moderator are part of that enforcement. If you believe that their is no valid reason to curtail self defense why do you and the TFL deem it valid to curtail other basic human freedoms?

Morals are subjective so claiming them as the foundation for your arguement is poor logic. As others have pointed out those who are handicapped are considered a protected class. People who carry a gun are not considered by the law to be a "protected class" and therefore the comparision is invalid.

 

[oneounceload]

Self defense is a basic human right. There is no such thing as a valid reason -- let alone a valid business reason -- to deny basic human rights to those who have done no wrong.

I'll disagree - you do NOT have to patronize any business. Private property rights trump - sorry - it is one of the main reasons this country was founded

You are not denied your rights - you have the freedom to go elsewhere

As for mobility/folks in wheelchairs - the Feds are the biggest offenders of ADA.

If there was EVER places that should be open to public CCW, it is every tax-payer funded building and location.

When it is your house, you get to make the rules. When it is your business and your property, you get to make the rules

BTW, I am not against CCW in business, but I AM pro-business rights