• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Need clarification on some signage in Portsmouth

Kevin108

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
353
Location
Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
Need some clarification on what is likely illegal signage. New signs at Portsmouth's Operations Center on Frederick Blvd. https://maps.google.com/?ll=36.824492,-76.332466&spn=0.004749,0.005906&t=h&z=18

illegalsignage.jpg


This is where auctions are held, the police impounds cars, the public can come to notify officials of problems with the waste disposal, issues with public buildings, etc. I can only imagine it's public property in the same sense as a library or city hall. I don't believe there's any justification for random searches nor do I believe they have the ability to ban weapons here.

It's also being said the employees are being told they can no longer carry weapons in their vehicles. I doubt that's the case either.

Parking Lot Storage Laws (Local Public Employees)

§ 15.2-915. Control of Firearms; Applicability to Authorities and Local Governmental Agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. However, no locality shall adopt any workplace rule, other than for the purposes of a community services board or behavioral health authority as defined in § 37.2-100, that prevents an employee of that locality from storing at that locality's workplace a lawfully possessed firearm and ammunition in a locked personal, private motor vehicle. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, from acting within the scope of his duties.

The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail, juvenile detention facility, or state-governed entity, department, or agency.

B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.

C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.

D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."

Can any of you offer any additional clarification or arguments to support the signs?
 
Last edited:

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
if the public is allowed there, they can carry guns there - notify Portsmouth about preemption statute and employee storage rights statute and demand that they remove the sign - and of course, nobody is subject to search just because they want to search you.

After you do this, update this thread, thanks.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
You should also explain to them that an occasional period at the end of the sentence would be nice too.

Jim's right. Had the periods been properly placed, we would all feel a bit less threatened should some employee or authorized visitor, while having been admitted to no trespassing, approach us in a premises vehicle, as they are not allowed to have a weapon on it. (But having disallowed, for example, pintle-mounted machine guns, are the employees or authorized visitors allowed to have weapons that are not mounted on the vehicle? I'd hate to think I was "home free" and suddenly be confronted by an RPG wielded by an authorized visitor.)

stay safe.
 

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
Today they were replaced with standard No Trespassing signs.

6a8y6yny.jpg

I note the continued lack of punctuation.

Does that sign say "No Trespassing" and "Violators will be prosecuted" or does it simply say "No trespassing violators will be prosecuted"?

If the latter, then why bother with a sign at all if you aren't going to prosecute?
 

Defrock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
98
Location
Nokesville, VA
That was quick. Good Job!

I think the punctuation issue is based on some Federal regulation about all signage being similar and mandates the all caps and no periods/commas.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
That was quick. Good Job!

I think the punctuation issue is based on some Federal regulation about all signage being similar and mandates the all caps and no periods/commas.
I don't know if that is true or not, but it would certainly seem to make sense that the government would require communication to be as confusing and ambiguous as possible... :(

TFred
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
It is.

It comes from the FHA's "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices"

FHA? As in Federal Housing Authority?

If anything I would have expected DOT. (You know, the guys who can't tell the difference between FLAMABLE and INFLAMABLE.)

stay safe.
 
Top