Trespassing

notalawyer · Nov 16, 2014

Grapeshot said:
One must look beyond the statutes and in Common Law, where signage has proven to be sufficient warning/notice.
http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-law-of-trespass.html

That cite refers to trespassing, not violating a purported 'conditional entry' requirement. Two completely different animals.

ETA: I'm in Florida, therefore the laws in VA are not really of concern to me. However, I am 100% positive in my interpretation of the law where I reside. :lol:

Grapeshot · Nov 16, 2014

notalawyer said:
That cite refers to trespassing, not violating a purported 'conditional entry' requirement. Two completely different animals.

ETA: I'm in Florida, therefore the laws in VA are not really of concern to me. However, I am 100% positive in my interpretation of the law where I reside. :lol:

Not necessarily so in Virginia and this thread is in the Virginia sub-forum.

davidmcbeth · Nov 16, 2014

2a4all said:
How can you invite someone to trespass?

Just follow the stickers !

The Truth · Nov 16, 2014

2a4all said:
How can you invite someone to trespass?

My guess is this is a tongue in cheek comment meant to confuse someone such as mcbeth, or you hahah

peter nap · Nov 16, 2014

2a4all said:
How can you invite someone to trespass?

Lie about it when you catch him. Then we can see him manhandle the Judge.:lol:

2a4all · Nov 16, 2014

2a4all said:
How can you invite someone to trespass?

peter nap said:
Lie about it when you catch him. Then we can see him manhandle the Judge.:lol:

Why didn't I think of that!:idea:

paramedic70002 · Nov 17, 2014

What amuses me is businesses that are open, yet post a generic "No Trespassing" sign.

As far as "gun trespassing" I think there is a big difference between a huge gunbuster sign, and a 1" gunbuster sign.

A couple weeks ago I honestly did NOT see one of those micro signs, and was called out on it by an employee. The business had previously not been posted, and I was busy pushing a wheelchair while holding the door open with my foot. I posted about this incident on another forum (happened in NC). I'll see if I can find it and copy here... (time passes)

I've been visiting several medical professionals lately (mostly in VA), as my wife has had problems with infection of a surgical wound. Weekly rounds to the surgeon, infectious disease, and pain management. I OC everywhere I go. My permit is expired and I'm not really liking paying the fee to get it renewed.

So I push (wheelchair) my wife into the pain management office (in NC) and sit down. After a couple minutes, I notice a sign on the wall (right above the American Rifleman in the magazine rack): "No firearms are allowed on these premises." I KNOW this sign has NOT been there on previous visits. I start to get a little uncomfortable, thinking I may be the intended recipient of this sign. I tell my wife that I am going to wait outside. As I am getting up to leave, a nurse comes out and tells me to push my wife to a room. OK. I push her to the room, loudly say, "I'm going to wait for you outside," then start to make my way to the door.

Nurse: "Sir, sir!"

Me: "Yes?"

Nurse: "You can't have a gun in here. Please leave it outside."

Me: "I'm leaving..."

Me: "Can you tell me why you have this policy?"

Nurse: (Nervous) "Well, the Doctor made the decision. Some of our patients..."

Me: "You have dangerous patients?"

Nurse: "Well, we've had some incidents..."

Me: "Wow, now I REALLY don't feel safe here without a weapon."

I go outside, retrieve my dog from the car, and take him to the empty lot across the street to relieve himself, then walk back to the office to sit on the outdoor bench. I then see the (very small) gunbuster sign on the front door.

My wife is going to fire this Doctor, and tell her that her anti-gun policy is the reason.

skidmark · Nov 17, 2014

paramedic70002 said:
What amuses me is businesses that are open, yet post a generic "No Trespassing" sign.
....

At least some places limit it to "No Trespassing After Business Hours". But my favorite one was (sadly the business and the sign are gone) "No Trespassing Without Authorization".

Until gun carriers become one of the statutorily protected classes our options are going to be to not do business with those that post against us or to compromise (in the political meaning of "you give something and I give nothing") our values with their policies. And that, my friends, is the way to tell Us from Them - we are more likely to accede to their restrictive policies while mumbling about it than to purposefully - and often violently - disregard and disobey those policies just because we find them inconvenient, let alone onerous.

stay safe.

Grapeshot · Nov 17, 2014

No Trespassing when solid line is on your side.

sidestreet · Nov 18, 2014

That's it in a nutshell, conhntr…,

conhntr said:
Or you culd stay off others people's property where your not wanted.

for those who can't be bothered to read, or can't understand the code section after they do read it, or you can do basically what Peter said, try it, but don't blubber about it when it doesn't work out for you. Be honest with yourself, because you'll only have yourself to blame. If you see a sign, or if you already know they don't want your gun in there, then it's your butt brothers and sisters. Again, be honest with yourself, because when you get to court, you may be the only one listening to what you're saying. From where I've been standing lately, honesty isn't getting much mileage in court these days, and the road to justice is a very long, dirty, and bumpy one with no guarantee that you'll get there. If you don't believe that, just ask scouser. So if you're' going to test it, the question is, "Got enough gas, buddy?"

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29 vs. 11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

davidmcbeth · Nov 18, 2014

The Truth said:
My guess is this is a tongue in cheek comment meant to confuse someone such as mcbeth, or you hahah

My cat is not amused ....

wrightme · Nov 18, 2014

Bikenut said:
I agree with ProShooter...

If the property owner has a condition attached to his permission to enter, such as a business open to the public but not open to those who carry guns because those who carry guns do not have permission to enter, evidenced by a no guns sign and a person carrying a gun enters anyway then that person has engaged in the activity of being on/in private property without the owner's permission.... an activity commonly referred to as "trespassing".

Being asked to leave (really just politely being required to leave) actually means the person has been caught already in the act of being on/in the property without permission. But... different States have different laws concerning when any legal penalties begin for the act of trespass.

For example... one State might require signs of a certain size and wording before a sign serves as legal notice. If that is so then a person is guilty of trespass if the sign is ignored and maybe even if the sign wasn't seen but a reasonable person should have seen it. Yet another State might consider a hand written sign as valid notification. While a different State's laws might require verbal notice by being asked to leave.

Thing is... just because a no guns sign has no force of firearm law behind it doesn't mean it might not have the force of trespass law behind it. And it is up to us to not only know the firearm laws but also any other laws that aren't firearm law but still might affect carrying a firearm of the State we happen to be in whether by residence or by visiting.

However, let us not confuse when the act begins with when the legal penalties for the act begin. The act of trespass begins when a person is in/on private property (that includes businesses) without permission. That is the definition of trespass.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/trespass/
Trespass Law & Legal Definition

Trespass is entering another person's property without permission of the owner or legal authority.
-snip-
-----------

After all ... a person who steals money from the cash register is still guilty of engaging in theft whether he is notified or asked not to steal/gets caught or not. And so it is with a person who trespasses... whether they get caught (being asked to leave) or not they are still engaging in trespassing because they don't have the owner's permission. When the legal penalties kick in, including what serves as legal notice, differs with the different laws of different States.

For the portion in bold, do you have ANY example of any state or municipality where such sign would have the force of trespass law notification?

Bikenut · Nov 18, 2014

wrightme said:
For the portion in bold, do you have ANY example of any state or municipality where such sign would have the force of trespass law notification?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(em...eg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-552

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; exception; violation; penalty; "process server" defined.Sec. 552.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.-snip-

The part I put in bold and underline for emphasis covers entering and "notification" of when a person has been "forbidden" to enter and because the actual method of being notified is not codified it becomes up to the prosecutor if he wants to consider a sign as sufficient "notification" and press charges.

Edited to add: Please note there are two different portions of the law... one deals with "entering" and the other deals with "remaining".

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?285362-quot-no-firearms-quot-signs

Please note a Michigan attorney's postings #6, #16, and #40, for a much better explanation than I can give.

Not to mention... I personally do not understand why folks who decry any and all governmental restrictions (infringements) on the right to keep and bear arms would run to the government begging for restrictions (infringements) on the private property right to deny entry to the property.

A general observation not directed at any one individual(s)

Seems a bit hypocritical for a believer in the right to bear arms to be against infringements on that right yet but be all for infringes on someones elses private property rights just because such infringements are beneficial to to the one who bears arms...

marshaul · Nov 18, 2014

Grapeshot said:
One must look beyond the statutes and in Common Law, where signage has proven to be sufficient warning/notice.
http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-law-of-trespass.html

notalawyer said:
That cite refers to trespassing, not violating a purported 'conditional entry' requirement. Two completely different animals.

ETA: I'm in Florida, therefore the laws in VA are not really of concern to me. However, I am 100% positive in my interpretation of the law where I reside. :lol:

Grapeshot said:
Not necessarily so in Virginia and this thread is in the Virginia sub-forum.

I disagree, Grape. The Virginia statute refers only a person who "goes upon the lands, buildings, or premises of another... after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs".

The signs in question are signs which forbid the "going upon" of others' property, i.e. no trespassing signs. It doesn't say a word about signs which purportedly regulate other behaviors. For instance, if a movie theater put up "no cell phone use!" signs they would feel quite entitled to ask a cell phone user to leave, but nobody would argue that a cell phone user's behavior is statutorily trespass.

davidmcbeth · Nov 18, 2014

Generally "no trespassing signs" only apply to areas of the property that you do not invite people to go upon .. like your walk-way to your front door, etc.

Putting up a no trespassing sign on the entrance to your drive that leads to your front door have not resulted in many arrests I imagine.

Who else besides gun carriers have been subjected to the outrageous "no trespassing" signs specific towards gun carriers or other specific behaviors? No one that I can think of. And they place them at doors that go into their businesses (not talking about private, non-corporate persons or natural persons) where they invite members of the public in.

wrightme · Nov 19, 2014

Bikenut said:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(em...eg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-552

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; exception; violation; penalty; "process server" defined.Sec. 552.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.-snip-

The part I put in bold and underline for emphasis covers entering and "notification" of when a person has been "forbidden" to enter and because the actual method of being notified is not codified it becomes up to the prosecutor if he wants to consider a sign as sufficient "notification" and press charges.

Edited to add: Please note there are two different portions of the law... one deals with "entering" and the other deals with "remaining".

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?285362-quot-no-firearms-quot-signs

Please note a Michigan attorney's postings #6, #16, and #40, for a much better explanation than I can give.

Not to mention... I personally do not understand why folks who decry any and all governmental restrictions (infringements) on the right to keep and bear arms would run to the government begging for restrictions (infringements) on the private property right to deny entry to the property.

A general observation not directed at any one individual(s)

Seems a bit hypocritical for a believer in the right to bear arms to be against infringements on that right yet but be all for infringes on someones elses private property rights just because such infringements are beneficial to to the one who bears arms...

That does not define what you claimed.

The link does not allow me to read the posts you refer to.

Where is anyone claiming to be 'for' infringements upon someone else's private property rights? A business is defacto, 'open to the public.'

I challenge you to present any case law that supports a claim that a 'no guns allowed' sign constitutes actual legal notice of trespass if a person were to carry a firearm past such signage. Heck, even a 'no [insert thing a business owner does not like here] allowed' sign.

Now, to address any claims that I do not respect property rights, lets clear this one up right now. A discussion about legality does not conflate to any intent to actually enter a business with such sign. First, discuss actual legality. How each person decides after that discussion, is up to them.

Bikenut · Nov 19, 2014

wrightme said:
That does not define what you claimed.

The link does not allow me to read the posts you refer to.

Where is anyone claiming to be 'for' infringements upon someone else's private property rights? A business is defacto, 'open to the public.'

I challenge you to present any case law that supports a claim that a 'no guns allowed' sign constitutes actual legal notice of trespass if a person were to carry a firearm past such signage. Heck, even a 'no [insert thing a business owner does not like here] allowed' sign.

Now, to address any claims that I do not respect property rights, lets clear this one up right now. A discussion about legality does not conflate to any intent to actually enter a business with such sign. First, discuss actual legality. How each person decides after that discussion, is up to them.

You posted:

Originally Posted by wrightme

For the portion in bold, do you have ANY example of any state or municipality where such sign would have the force of trespass law notification?

You asked for "any state" and I gave you a cite and links to substantiate that cite to a trespass law in Michigan that allows the prosecutor to accept a sign as notice of trespass thereby giving such signs the force of trespass law notification. Whether you wish to accept that in Michigan the law allows the prosecutor to accept a sign as legal "notice" for no trespassing or not is immaterial. And please note that the law doesn't differentiate between a ... no guns.... or a ... no shoes, no shirt, no service... sign. A prosecutor IN MICHIGAN could accept either or both as "notice" for trespass.

As for "open to the public" ..... "open to the public" does not mean each and every individual member of the public has been given permission to enter the property. Only those individuals who abide by any rules/policies the property owner has actually have permission. Those individual members of the public who do not abide by the rules/policies do not have permission to enter/remain and can be booted out.

And it is those who want the government to pass laws that restrict the property owner's right to deny entry/boot out those people he considers undesirable that are wanting to have the government infringe upon private property rights just because it would benefit them by having laws that allow them to carry their guns anywhere.

wrightme · Nov 19, 2014

Bikenut said:
You posted:

You asked for "any state" and I gave you a cite and links to substantiate that cite to a trespass law in Michigan that allows the prosecutor to accept a sign as notice of trespass thereby giving such signs the force of trespass law notification. Whether you wish to accept that in Michigan the law allows the prosecutor to accept a sign as legal "notice" for no trespassing or not is immaterial. And please note that the law doesn't differentiate between a ... no guns.... or a ... no shoes, no shirt, no service... sign. A prosecutor IN MICHIGAN could accept either or both as "notice" for trespass.

If, as you state, it is that way in Mich, you should easily be able to present case law which indicates that a 'no shirt' etc sign, does constitute 'notice of trespass.'
Please note, it isn't relevant whether the law differentiates between some signs, it is whether the law recognizes ANY such sign as the legal notice mentioned in statute of 'after having been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.'

IOW, for that law to actually apply, such 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' signage would need to be actually recognized by courts as a notice to such person that they legally have 'been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.' Once a person has been notified directly by a business owner or agent thereof, there is no question. The question remains as to whether the sign legally qualifies as such notice. Your claim does require case law to support, not opinions of persons (whoever they are) posting on web forums.

Bikenut said:
As for "open to the public" ..... "open to the public" does not mean each and every individual member of the public has been given permission to enter the property. Only those individuals who abide by any rules/policies the property owner has actually have permission. Those individual members of the public who do not abide by the rules/policies do not have permission to enter/remain and can be booted out.

Cite?

Bikenut said:
And it is those who want the government to pass laws that restrict the property owner's right to deny entry/boot out those people he considers undesirable that are wanting to have the government infringe upon private property rights just because it would benefit them by having laws that allow them to carry their guns anywhere.

It used to be lawful for property owners to do exactly that. Are you advocating a return to segregation?

lockman · Nov 19, 2014

Firearms aside, if I disregard a sign barring sunglasses, no shirts, cellphones or strollers, am I committing trespass?

Marco · Nov 19, 2014

Not VA but TX law addresses

What do Jay Walking and Trespass have in common? (other than being minor crimes)

Trespassing

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Banned

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member