Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Weight of law

  1. #1
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422

    Weight of law

    A few weeks ago I visited Chesterfield Towne Center, as posted in the Richmond carry experiences thread, by entering and exiting through an anchor and visiting multiple stores through, including the food court. The mall-cop passed by a number of times, oblivious. It was a "non" event (No One Noticed) with the exception of the ice cream girl (pro 2A).

    I've since then heard that CTC is posted and was admonished for carrying there. My understanding is that rule signs like at restaurants and retail shopping centers (not "No Trespassing" signs) do NOT carry the weight of law, meaning violating their rule will not incur a criminal charge in and if itself. So here are the questions:

    In what circumstance, if ever, does such a sign posted at an private sector retail establishment, which is open to the public, carry weight?

    Would complete CC be recommended to avoid the question altogether?

    Would someone care to iterate all the possible outcome scenarios, pros, cons, et cetera as related to my CTC scenario?

    EDITED: public sector excluded.
    Last edited by Liberty-or-Death; 05-21-2014 at 05:11 PM.
    Be active.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty-or-Death View Post
    A few weeks ago I visited Chesterfield Towne Center, as posted in the Richmond carry experiences thread, by entering and exiting through an anchor and visiting multiple stores through, including the food court. The mall-cop passed by a number of times, oblivious. It was a "non" event (No One Noticed) with the exception of the ice cream girl (pro 2A).

    I've since then heard that CTC is posted and was admonished for carrying there. My understanding is that rule signs like at restaurants and retail shopping centers (not "No Trespassing" signs) do NOT carry the weight of law, meaning violating their rule will not incur a criminal charge in and if itself. So here are the questions:

    In what circumstance, if ever, does such a sign posted at an establishment, which is open to the public, carry weight?

    Would complete CC be recommended to avoid the question altogether?

    Would someone care to iterate all the possible outcome scenarios, pros, cons, etc?

    μολών λαβέ
    At federal facilities, including the post office.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty-or-Death View Post
    A few weeks ago I visited Chesterfield Towne Center, as posted in the Richmond carry experiences thread, by entering and exiting through an anchor and visiting multiple stores through, including the food court. The mall-cop passed by a number of times, oblivious. It was a "non" event (No One Noticed) with the exception of the ice cream girl (pro 2A).

    I've since then heard that CTC is posted and was admonished for carrying there. My understanding is that rule signs like at restaurants and retail shopping centers (not "No Trespassing" signs) do NOT carry the weight of law, meaning violating their rule will not incur a criminal charge in and if itself. So here are the questions:

    In what circumstance, if ever, does such a sign posted at an establishment, which is open to the public, carry weight?

    Would complete CC be recommended to avoid the question altogether?

    Would someone care to iterate all the possible outcome scenarios, pros, cons, etc?

    μολών λαβέ
    As mentioned/replied in the Richmond experiences thread, there are attorneys who say that the signs are enough to move to an arrest for trespassing. There are those with a divergent opinion. Bottom line: only a judge in his court will be able to answer that for you. One would then have the possibility of appealing that verdict to a court of record. Just takes time, money, and emotional toll........major helpings of all.

    Then there is being "caught in the act" of OCing, but just being told to put it in your vehicle or leave. Major inconvenience and potentially embarrassing to others (family?) - gains nothing for our cause and shows some will violate the wishes of private property owners as long as they can "get away with it."

    If you were to "get away with it" (OCing) or chose to CC, you have done what? Put money in the coffers of an anti establishment/business and broken ranks with the "no guns - no funds" proponents, who make up the vast majority of people here.

    I haven't been in the mall proper for many years. Used to go to the theater when the mall first opened - there were no signs.

    I do make one exception - I will go in the tenants like Sears who have separate entrances and are not unfriendly, but even that makes me feel slightly dirty. If it were not for the exceptionally good responses from employees and customers that I have experienced, I would have ceased that long ago = a bright ray of sunshine in the lion's den ........BUT I will not venture into the mall proper.

    And that is what I have to say.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    Sorry Grape, but that rubs me the wrong way. IMO, boycotts only work when they are well publicized and turn off the flow of cash instantly like a spigot.

    Pharisees, et al, complained about Jesus hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He broke ranks to spread the good news about freedom from the old law and from sin, regardless of what his followers thought of it. I'm not above doing that, even to the point of paying for their goods and services, if I thought I could convert a wayward soul and save them from erring. How else can I evangelize the lost antis unless I am in relationship with them, showing them I am normal, that wanting to defend oneself is very normal, that they can carry also and it be normal?

    My goal is to transform others, and of course hopefully not lose my freedom, money, or time in the process.

    I've recently spoken to the manager of a local movie theater chain which shall remain nameless. I asked what action he would take in response to someone carrying. His response was interesting. He said that if they noticed, or if someone else reported it to them, they would not call the police, but simply ask you to put it in the vehicle. I showed him my empty holster and assured him that I would of course would comply with his requests if ever asked. He also stated that a manager at another location CC's on the job even though it is contrary to company policy. He stated he personally wasn't comfortable with guns but completely understands the need for self defense. He essentially gave me permission to CC so long as no one knows about it, and even if someone did, there would be no "weight of law" to worry about provided I complied.

    μολών λαβέ
    Last edited by Liberty-or-Death; 05-21-2014 at 06:08 PM.
    Be active.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty-or-Death View Post
    Sorry Grape, but that rubs me the wrong way. IMO, boycotts only work when they are well publicized and turn off the flow of cash instantly like a spigot.

    Pharisees, et al, complained about Jesus hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He broke ranks to spread the good news about freedom from the old law and from sin, regardless of what his followers thought of it. I'm not above doing that, even to the point of paying for their goods and services, if I thought I could convert a wayward soul and save them from erring. How else can I evangelize the lost antis unless I am in relationship with them, showing them I am normal, that wanting to defend oneself is very normal, that they can carry also and it be normal?

    My goal is to transform others, and of course hopefully not lose my freedom, money, or time in the process.

    I've recently spoken to the manager of a local movie theater chain which shall remain nameless. I asked what action he would take in response to someone carrying. His response was interesting. He said that if they noticed, or if someone else reported it to them, they would not call the police, but simply ask you to put it in the vehicle. I showed him my empty holster and assured him that I would of course would comply with his requests if ever asked. He also stated that a manager at another location CC's on the job even though it is contrary to company policy. He stated he personally wasn't comfortable with guns but completely understands the need for self defense. He essentially gave me permission to CC so long as no one knows about it, and even if someone did, there would be no "weight of law" to worry about provided I complied.

    μολών λαβέ
    In a perfect world, these problems/conflicts would not exist. We have not established that state of grace yet.

    Imagine yourself a Roman soldier intent on converting a legion on the battlefield - step into their ranks and show your intent via actions, word and deed.

    Interesting that you apparently secured unofficial permission for yourself but no such authorization for others - that leaves the theater still "unfriendly." Further, how will you handle it when that manager is not there......or denies authorizing you?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I'll let User chime in (if he reads this and wants to bother) but there are at least three answers to your question:

    1 - under the Code of Virginia of 1950 as Amended there is
    a - http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...00+cod+18.2-23
    b - http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-119
    c - http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-120

    as welll as
    d - http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...00+cod+19.2-19
    e - http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...d+55-248.31C01

    2 - OCDO says http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    That might be seen to include "pushing the envelope" regarding the black letter of the law(s) regarding trespass.

    3 - The phrase "Stop helping us already!" seems to be making its way around the gun boards with regard to the open-carry-of-long-arms activities of certain persons that Open Carry Texas has gone to great lengths to say are not affiliated with that group. The same can be said to you and others who are essentially daring property owners/managers to step up their game and start rigidly enforcing the no-firearms policies.

    In some instances conversations with those property owners/managers has worked to get the prohibition lifted. In other cases it has solidified their no-firearms position. It's always hard to tell which way things will go.

    But in the long run it helps to recall the goal of the open carry "movement" as we describe it here on OCDO:
    OpenCarry.org was founded in 2004 by Virginia residents John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk to be a pro-gun Internet community focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life.
    To that I would add the word "lawfully" before the word "openly".

    Please remember that "rights" are a two-way street - as the classic libertarian saying goes, "your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose". While I agree that self defense is a right that no government can restrict, I am constrained to also agree that many people disagree with me and you about how we can go about asserting that inherent right. Handguns are not the only means to defend oneself, merely the most efficient and effective way to do so in relative comfort. When my desire to exercise my right of self defense comes up against someone else's right to control their property I need to decide a few things -
    - how much risk I am willing to take in employing other means of self defense instead
    - how much risk I am willing to take that the property owner/manager will attempt to enforce his rights to restrict my behavior on his property
    - how much inconvenience it will cause to seek out and use alternatives to the services/goods that property owner/manager provides
    - and certainly how available those alternatives are and my willingness to do without if no viable alternatives exist.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    In regards to those code cites and the OP scenario, I'm not seeing how a.) a retailer's sign is equivalent to a "POSTED: No trespassing" sign, nor b.) how I'm a tenant and they are a landlord.

    As far as I can see, any retailer's posted sign (absent terminology stating those who disobey are considered trespassers) is merely a request for those invited in to temporarily modify their behavior. In such a scenario, if I were to fail to comply with an agent's request to leave (due to NOT having modified my behavior) could end in a trespass charge for me. I of course would comply, but wouldn't give them reason to confront me in the first place. And if I WERE to advocate carrying at such an establishment, one posted but with no weight of law, I wouldn't be breaking any forum rules, though there is always a judge with more power than I have.

    Either that, or no gun signs (and no chewing gum signs and no photography signs, et cetera ...) DO INDEED carry the weight of law. Which is it? I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of others, including User's take.

    μολών λαβέ
    Be active.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty-or-Death View Post
    ....
    Either that, or no gun signs (and no chewing gum signs and no photography signs, et cetera ...) DO INDEED carry the weight of law. Which is it? I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of others, including User's take.
    So for you it must absolutely have the weight of law to be meaningful - regardles of how your behavior might impact the rest of us?

    Good to know.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty-or-Death View Post
    In regards to those code cites and the OP scenario, I'm not seeing how a.) a retailer's sign is equivalent to a "POSTED: No trespassing" sign, nor b.) how I'm a tenant and they are a landlord.

    As far as I can see, any retailer's posted sign (absent terminology stating those who disobey are considered trespassers) is merely a request for those invited in to temporarily modify their behavior. In such a scenario, if I were to fail to comply with an agent's request to leave (due to NOT having modified my behavior) could end in a trespass charge for me. I of course would comply, but wouldn't give them reason to confront me in the first place. And if I WERE to advocate carrying at such an establishment, one posted but with no weight of law, I wouldn't be breaking any forum rules, though there is always a judge with more power than I have.

    Either that, or no gun signs (and no chewing gum signs and no photography signs, et cetera ...) DO INDEED carry the weight of law. Which is it? I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of others, including User's take.

    μολών λαβέ
    You are stating how you see it - how you want it to be.

    You asked others for their insight and input, then take issue with it when it is given.

    Many here have been there, done that before - we know the drill. Ask and we'll answer. What you do with the information is your choice, but few will buy your reasoning.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    I like most naturally would take issue with what seems contrary to my own opinion. I don't hold to an opinion that I don't think is true. I am therefore trying to disagree without being disagreeable, as in a civil discourse, yet seeking many opinions to compare with and to test against my own.

    I'm just not sure which is better: 1) acting like a sign carries no weight of law when it does, or 2) acting like a sign carries the weight of law when it doesn't. I know how I'd like things to be in this issue. I don't see it yet as being that way.

    For instance, if I openly carry where posted, I will potentially offend the antis and the pros both simultaneously. If I don't carry at all, I offend myself. Should I always think of others before myself? What a quandary ...

    μολών λαβέ
    Be active.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Strange that you will not consider alternatives to going where you have to wonder about who to piss off.

    Yes, there are times & places where I intentionally go and/or do something to piss off someone. (Strange, I know, but true.) But when I do that I know what the consequences are for both myself and for the rest of those whose cause I am championing by doing so.

    Maybe I'm just a bit slow, but just what cause are you championing, and what consequences have you considered before you go out and champion that cause? The best I can see is that you are going to do what you want to do until someone in charge gets irritated to tell you to either stop or straight-off trespasses you. (There is no legal requirement for the cop to tell you to leave and you refuse before they arrest you - it's just their last attempt to avoid having to do all the paperwork that follows from arresting you.) Then all I see is that you have hardened that owner/manager's stance, eliminating the chance to try to ge them to change their policy.

    Stop helping us already!

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Strange that you will not consider alternatives to going where you have to wonder about who to piss off.

    Yes, there are times & places where I intentionally go and/or do something to piss off someone. (Strange, I know, but true.) But when I do that I know what the consequences are for both myself and for the rest of those whose cause I am championing by doing so.

    Maybe I'm just a bit slow, but just what cause are you championing, and what consequences have you considered before you go out and champion that cause? The best I can see is that you are going to do what you want to do until someone in charge gets irritated to tell you to either stop or straight-off trespasses you. (There is no legal requirement for the cop to tell you to leave and you refuse before they arrest you - it's just their last attempt to avoid having to do all the paperwork that follows from arresting you.) Then all I see is that you have hardened that owner/manager's stance, eliminating the chance to try to ge them to change their policy.

    Stop helping us already!

    stay safe.
    That is the very point that is being made, but not taken seriously by some.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    I haven't ever intentionally OC'd where posted. What I'd consider doing, even desire to do, is often entirely different than what I end up doing, mostly because I use the wisdom God gave me. To assume otherwise of me may say more about the assumer than about me. I'm admittedly stubborn, but cautiously so.

    The point of the OP was to explore what the consequences might be given the law as written. I thought that wise to understand. What I'm hearing so far is, since a cop might be a jerk and send me on "the ride", it will hurt "the cause". Maybe no one else thinks like I do on this question of weight of law, maybe they do. Whatever the opinion, I'm interested in hearing it.

    μολών λαβέ
    Last edited by Liberty-or-Death; 05-22-2014 at 08:32 AM.
    Be active.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    To answer this, I'm going to take a bit of an in-depth look at 18.2-119, because it is the most applicable to what you would likely be charged with. However, because of the similar wording, most of the analysis would seem to apply to the other sections skidmark posted.

    18.2-119 states:
    § 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.

    If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian, or the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.
    Let's break it down.

    1) The phrase "without authority of law" means that it doesn't apply to law enforcement or other government officials (health/code inspectors, etc) on official business.
    2) The phrase "goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof" means that either entering the property or remaining on the property are covered. This is important later.
    3) The phrase "after having been forbidden to do so" makes it clear that you need to be notified in some way that you are forbidden.

    Those are the key elements of the law. The rest of the law provides information on how you have to be notified, and essentially lists four different ways:
    A) Orally (as in you are told not to enter or leave)
    B) In writing (as in you have previously been asked by means such as a letter, handbill, etc)
    C) By a sign that is posted where it may be "reasonably seen"
    D) By a court order, under certain circumstances

    A lot of the text is spent on who has the authority to issue the prohibitions in A-C, but in general we can summarize it as someone who either has the right to control the property, or is acting on behalf of someone with that right.

    The code ends by stating that it is a Class 1 misdemeanor, which then provides the basis for what the penalties could be.

    Now, in order to be found guilty of the crime of Trespass, the prosecutor has to establish all of the elements of the crime, as well as show that any exceptions do not apply to you. In other words, all he has to show is that you entered or remained on the property and that you were forbidden to do so by one of the methods listed above. If methods A, B, or D were used, it is usually fairly easy to prove it (such as by calling the person who issued the oral or written request to testify, or by presenting the record of the court order). Method C has a little more wiggle room. (For example, a 12-inch sign saying "No Guns" on every door can almost definitely be "reasonably seen", but a single line in fine print on a wall off to one side of one entrance is far less "reasonably seen".)

    Because of this, most places (and even most police responding to a trespassing call) will issue a verbal or written warning to someone before they will have the person arrested. However, that simply makes the job of convicting easier. It doesn't mean that you can simply ignore a sign that you have seen. If you've seen the sign, then you have been forbidden to enter in writing by one having authority to do so. You might not be caught doing it, but that doesn't mean that you aren't violating the law.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  15. #15
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    Its trespassing, plain and simple. If they don't want you there with a gun, don't go.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688
    I think the real crux of the matter is how is the sign posted. These "terms" to enter the building are usually in micro print off to the corner of the entrance. You must actively look for them to find them.

    So the question is more, if you must actively seek out the "terms" to enter a building to find notice if you are allowed to enter with a firearm, are you trespassing? To boot, the signs "terms" include the entire property. So, if you must drive in, park your car, get out, walk up to the mall, look for the sign, and the sign says you are trespassing, you have been the entire time. Sort of like buying a piece of software, unwrapping it, disagreeing with the EULA and trying to return it.

    I think that is a pretty preposterous bar to set, in my own personal opinion.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by hsmith View Post
    I think the real crux of the matter is how is the sign posted. These "terms" to enter the building are usually in micro print off to the corner of the entrance. You must actively look for them to find them.

    So the question is more, if you must actively seek out the "terms" to enter a building to find notice if you are allowed to enter with a firearm, are you trespassing? To boot, the signs "terms" include the entire property. So, if you must drive in, park your car, get out, walk up to the mall, look for the sign, and the sign says you are trespassing, you have been the entire time. Sort of like buying a piece of software, unwrapping it, disagreeing with the EULA and trying to return it.

    I think that is a pretty preposterous bar to set, in my own personal opinion.
    And yet all those terms that we agree to in order to use a website or some downloaded piece of software are even more difficult to find - and the courts still say that they are enforcable because they were there and it's our responsibility to find and understand them.

    It may not be fair, but it seems to be the way things are.

    And as for someone asking, essentially, if they could get away with OCing at a place where it has repeatedly been discussed that the place does in fact prohibit not only OC but CC is - well, I've been told that I should find other words to use to describe how I feel about that so nobody gets their feelings hurt.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And yet all those terms that we agree to in order to use a website or some downloaded piece of software are even more difficult to find - and the courts still say that they are enforcable because they were there and it's our responsibility to find and understand them.

    It may not be fair, but it seems to be the way things are.

    And as for someone asking, essentially, if they could get away with OCing at a place where it has repeatedly been discussed that the place does in fact prohibit not only OC but CC is - well, I've been told that I should find other words to use to describe how I feel about that so nobody gets their feelings hurt.

    stay safe.
    I think the requirement that you must trespass to determine you are trespassing is a bit of a stretch, especially when the signs aren't easy to find. I've seen them hidden behind soda machines before, to boot they aren't always posted at all entrances (I always look out of curiosity sake to see if they are posted everywhere).

    In reality, if you know they prohibit carry before hand I doubt anyone could make the case you "didn't know" - simply don't carry or don't support the establishment.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    Thanks Grylnsmn, so that's one vote for "signs DO carry weight of law in VA". I appreciate your insight.

    μολών λαβέ
    Be active.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty-or-Death View Post
    Thanks Grylnsmn, so that's one vote for "signs DO carry weight of law in VA". I appreciate your insight.

    μολών λαβέ
    One vote?

    Think you best recount the beans.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    Sorry Grape, if you voted, it wasn't clear to me. I took your and Skid's comments to mean somewhere in between. More like, when in doubt, don't. Taking that into account, all tallied so far, we have 4 Yes and 2 No (or at least not convinced).

    μολών λαβέ
    Be active.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty-or-Death View Post
    Thanks Grylnsmn, so that's one vote for "signs DO carry weight of law in VA". I appreciate your insight.

    μολών λαβέ
    It would be more accurate to say "signs carry the weight of law when posted to be reasonably seen" is the technical answer, but the effective answer is "unless the sign is so big and noticeable that you can't miss it, they'll ask you to leave first."
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  23. #23
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Let's get real simple here. If the General Assembly wanted a private owner's POLICY sign to carry the weight of law for TRESPASS, then the General Assembly would write a LAW that said so explicitly, as countless other states have already done. It's not a mystery here, I am quite sure that the General Assembly is aware that other states have done this, yet they have specifically chosen NOT to do it here in Virginia. That speaks with more authority than all the speculation any of us can muster.

    And as previously suggested, replace the act of carrying a firearm with actions that others regularly do, such as bringing in food or drink, not wearing shoes or shirt, bringing in pets. As is too often the case, we are our own worst enemy on this topic. No sane person would advocate immediate criminal trespass arrest (without first simply asking to correct the policy violation) for someone bringing in a bag of popcorn to a movie theater. Or a teenage lawn worker, who dashes into a 7-11 for a quick can of soda without his shirt on. That is the exact same nature of policy violation as carrying a gun, and to even suggest that this should, on it's own, merit criminal trespass arrest, is ludicrous.

    Imagine the consumer outrage over a theater having someone arrested for eating their own popcorn. That same outrage is what we as advocates for the normalization of defensive firearm carry should be prepared to bring to the table, but no, instead we worship the further discrimination of our own rights at the alter of private property ownership. It's not about private property ownership, or the right for the owner to make that decision. It's about making the owner UNDERSTAND that that decision is the WRONG decision.

    TFred

  24. #24
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    Thanks TFred for your clear "vote".

    μολών λαβέ
    Be active.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Liberty-or-Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    23235
    Posts
    422
    Found this interesting quote on a social networking site regarding one of the signs posted at Spotsylvania Towne Centre.

    Here's the sign:

    Here's the quote.
    Criminal trespass requires clear notice - this sign does not provide it; moreover, the sign appears to relate to rules of conduct, not entry - trespass is a 1 or 0 sort of thing - either you are barred entry or you are not; can you imagine a swimming pool authority prosecuting kids for trespass cause they chewed gun under a sign that said no gum at the pool?
    Mike Stollenwerk - May 17


    μολών λαβέ
    Be active.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •