CCW and Posted No Firearms Rules

[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]

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]

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

[WVsig]

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.

That is a strong argument but one that you would have a hard time establishing in court IMHO. I personally disagree with it. I think you analogy does not apply. The two examples you have offered up are fundamentally different and as a result are treated differently by the law. IMHO I believe that property rights are right there step for step with my right to life. I know that many others do not share this belief but that is where I am coming from.

First I will agree that in some cases the use of deadly force to preserve your right to life trumps the right to life of an attacker. I arrive at this conclusion because IMHO the attacker has forfeited their right to life by creating an imminent threat to your right to life. In these types of justifiable killings there is a immediate threat to your life and you are passive in the threat. It is being done to you and you do not have a choice to opt out. This is often the burden of proof required to justify deadly force. Shooting someone shooting at you is justified. Shooting an attacker who is fleeing with your wallet 15 yards away is not. Both have put your right to life in jeopardy but the law treats them differently.

Your argument attempts to extend this to someone "posting" their property. In my analysis this analogy falls short. No one is forcing you to enter someone else's property. No one is forcing you to give up your right to life. At all times you have a choice. They are allowing you to choose by establishing the rules and conditions required for entry. The choice is still yours. Enter my property on my terms or do not enter my property. So in this scenario you are not the same as person being attacked. They are an unwilling victim when you enter someone else's property you are a participant.

There is also no imminent direct threat to your right to life. Unless you are entering a building with an active shooter or you have knowledge of an imminent attack, which would change the scernio back to one of self defense. When you ignore that sign there is no imminent threat to your right to life and you have a choice not to enter the other persons property. There is a subjective perceived threat everywhere which is why one carries a gun but that does not equal a actually imminent threat which is the foundation of your self defense example. Since you are not entering property under an imminent threat to your right to life your justification for violating the rights of the property owner does not carry the same weight as in a defensive shooting.

This is the point your attempt to equate these two scenarios has failed. The two scenarios of competing rights are not the same. IMHO they are not even remotely the same. One involves an immediate threat where the threatened party is a non-participating victim and the other is a matter of choice which does not involve an immediate threat to your right to life.

You may still choose to ignore those signs. You might still believe you are in the right but so far you have not given a logical argument which adequately supports that choice IMHO.

[Hardcase]

Remember, also, that those classes of people that have been used as analogies (disabled, religious, etc.) are particularly special because they are protected classes. Although the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the constitution, that right does not create a protected class.

As an example, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute. If I stand up in the middle of a theater and start yapping about the topic of the day, the management is well within its rights to demand that I leave the property.

I happen to think that businesses that ban firearms, particularly concealed firearms, are making a poor decision because the person who has gone through the rigmarole to get the permit has demonstrated a level of commitment and responsibility that makes him a "safe" person. The guy who carries a concealed weapon without a permit isn't going to let that sign bother him. But just as I reserve the right to eject an individual from my property who isn't follow the "house rules", I respect those of others as a condition of enjoying their hospitality - regardless of whether I'm a visitor or a customer (although I have to say that, as a customer, I might very well take my business elsewhere).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

TFL is not a business, so when you pay us for posting - then ...

However, businesses and services are necessary to live your life. The idea of businesses discriminating was to restrict the fundamentals of life to classes of people. No services for people of color, no jobs for Jews and the like.

Restricting your use of services could be quite detrimental to your life and welfare. Yes, you could go to another store but such laws and employment practiced denied you a life in entire geographical areas of the country and denied you the right to support yourself and family. Such practices were explicitly denied to do such.

You have plenty of options to express positions without posting on TFL and not posting here isn't detrimental to your life. The free speech options exist across the country.

Thus, the restriction of topics here do not meet the same standard of restriction as the restriction on potential usage of reasonable methods of self-defense.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Hm...

You're welcome to use TFL but we will restrict your speech and that's ok because there are other places for you to speak.

Ok, I agree. No problem. But, how is that different from:

You are welcome to buy my pizza but I will restrict your right to be armed and it's ok because you have other sources of food.

Same, same.

[WVsig]

However, businesses and services are necessary to live your life. The idea of businesses discriminating was to restrict the fundamentals of life to classes of people. No services for people of color, no jobs for Jews and the like.

Restricting your use of services could be quite detrimental to your life and welfare. Yes, you could go to another store but such laws and employment practiced denied you a life in entire geographical areas of the country and denied you the right to support yourself and family. Such practices were explicitly denied to do such.

You have plenty of options to express positions without posting on TFL and not posting here isn't detrimental to your life. The free speech options exist across the country.

Thus, the restriction of topics here do not meet the same standard of restriction as the restriction on potential usage of reasonable methods of self-defense.

Sorry but the choice is the same. You want people to respect your right to control your private property in the way you deem fit but you do not afford others the same. Life is full of choices. TFL is a service business just because you do not charge a membership fee or charge people to post does not change its fundamental nature. Also as has been demonstrated to you those who carry a gun do not = a "class". You can continue to call them one but it is not supported by your arguments or the law.

You cannot logically prove your point so now you are resorting to strawman arguments which really are nothing red herrings. Again you have drawn a comparison between two things which are not equal yet you feel as if you can draw the same conclusions from them. Your arguments are not logically sound.

I could do the same using your flawed logic I could argue that I need info about guns and their role in self defense and that it is essential for me to live my life. I should not have to curtail my political, religious or moral views to get access to this vital information. Yes I could go somewhere else but this is where I want to get it. Its the only one I know. How can you justify oppressing me? Its kind of absurd isn't it.

You clearly feel your right to self defense trumps all other rights. You feel you have the right to do as you choose. Why not simply state that instead of trying to produce flawed illogical arguments which simply do not hold up.

[Tom Servo]

The idea of businesses discriminating was to restrict the fundamentals of life to classes of people. No services for people of color, no jobs for Jews and the like.

True, but is being told I have to leave my gun in the car to buy a slice of Peet's pizza the same as being told I can't because of the color of my skin? In the first case, he's deciding what I can do on his property. In the second, he's denying service because of what I am.

That's where I have some trouble seeing the equivalence.

(I only use Peet as a facetious example. I don't think he'd actually ban guns or Lutherans)

[Brian Pfleuger]

Its also odd that carrying firearms would be uniquely protected apart from, free speech for example. I can tell people they can't use nasty words on my property. I can tell them they can't wear certain clothes. I can tell them they can't do explicit physical contact. They can't play certain music. They can't be there at certain times. They can't record audio or video. The can't drink beer. I can restrict religious speech. I can tell the press to leave.

Religion can be censored on my property.
Speech can be censored on my property.
The press can be censored on my property.

I can't forbid firearms?

It's nonsensical.