TexasCHLforum.com

So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... is#p696882" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have not been able to find anything in Colorado law that would allow any local law to override State laws on concealed carry. Colorado law DOES allow local law to ban OPEN carry.

Colorado CC Laws (note: if you try to search the Lexis/Nexis database you need to use IE. FF doesn't work)
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CD ... 1622199820" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Specifically:

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.

[note: "Part 2" refers to the CO CC Permit law which is CO 18 Article 12 Part 2

and...

29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration
......
(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:
(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;
(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.

and ....

29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

And finally.....

18-4-201. Definitions

(3) A person "enters unlawfully" or "remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her intent, enters or remains in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless the person defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the premises or some other authorized person. <snipped>

The one exception that I'm aware of is Denver's ban on the sale of certain types of weapons. This was upheld by the State Supreme Court in 2006.
http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?So ... 200606051s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I was in that theater I would have been carrying. I still assume, based on my reading of Colorado law, that CC in that theater would have been perfectly legal for me to do, unless and until I am asked to leave by management.

Again.... I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

tomtexan wrote:I am certainly surprised of this news article by Fox news. It seems that they are leaning our direction in a way somewhat.

ClarkLZeuss wrote:RoyGBiv - it's not that Aurora illegally forbid concealed carry in that theater. Rather, Cinemark posted signs prohibiting it. And in Colorado, all a business needs is a gunbuster sign. They don't have 30.06 equivalent.

Keith B wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Knowing Aurora, it is quite possible there were CHL holders in the crowd, but they couldn't carry in the theater. Aurora and Denver aren't exactly gun friendly, when we lived in Colorado Springs a few years back, Denver had managed to ban CHL's as a city, and everything in Aurora was posted.

Just to clarify, are you saying that I cannot carry within the Denver city limits? Not at all?

Perhaps Colorado does not have state preemption. Las Vegas is like that. In Vegas, they kill you if you have a CHL. And then they make excuses and blame it on the victim. Vegas keeps reelecting Harry Reid. 2+2= etc. Apparently then, parts of Colorado also teach "the new math."

You can concealed carry in Denver, but they do ban open carry.

As for 'No Guns' signs being enforcable to prevent concealed carry, this is from http://handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“No Firearm” signs in Colorado have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

Heartland Patriot wrote:As has been pointed out on this forum before (including to me, IIRC) most people aren't like us members, not even all those who hold CHLs. WE research the law, we come on here and discuss (argue) about it, and we craft scenarios to help us understand the laws better (hopefully). MOST people DON'T...they listen in the class about as much as people listen in any class, or maybe just a bit more...and how much is retained? I firmly believe, if most people see a "gunbuster" sign they aren't going to carry past it, permit or not. There is a difference between a de jure ban and a de facto ban.

ClarkLZeuss wrote:RoyGBiv - it's not that Aurora illegally forbid concealed carry in that theater. Rather, Cinemark posted signs prohibiting it. And in Colorado, all a business needs is a gunbuster sign. They don't have 30.06 equivalent.

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

RoyGBiv wrote:

ClarkLZeuss wrote:RoyGBiv - it's not that Aurora illegally forbid concealed carry in that theater. Rather, Cinemark posted signs prohibiting it. And in Colorado, all a business needs is a gunbuster sign. They don't have 30.06 equivalent.

Hopefully you now understand why this is not correct Clark.?

My post above contains the actual language and references from Colorado statute. No Guns signs do not have force of law in Colorado. Guns can only be excluded from public places if the manager (or someone with the managers authority) personally asks you and your gun to leave the premises.

C-Dub adds the plain-English reference from handgunlaw.us that corroborates my interpretation of CO law.

I am not a lawyer, This is not legal advice, just my personal opinion.

ETA: The language of concern in CO statute is 18-12-214..

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

If you believe that posting sign is a "personal communication" from the owner to the license holder, then you should not carry in posted locations. I do not believe this is the case. However, I am not a lawyer and I find no test cases to prove my opinion. So, caveat emptor.