-
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.
-
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.
Watch out in Tyson's Corner Mall!
- Thread starter hsmith
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
We covered this subject beyond deeply in-depth in the thread about an incident at Lynnhaven Mall fairly recently.
We covered this subject beyond deeply in-depth in the thread about an incident at Lynnhaven Mall fairly recently.
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
OK, I missed that. Read the "Lynnhaven Mall posted" thread and found the information.
On the bright side, it is only a Class I misdemeanor so it is sign the agreement to appear and be on your way.
But, would anyone not leave when asked? I cannot think of any reason not to leave.
Also, I have never been asked to leave and not come back, just asked to take my gun to the car. hsmithdidn't say if they asked him to leave and not comeback, or just take the gun to the car. They could be getting smart and know that if they ask us to leave the gun in the car, we are not coming back after going to the car.
Citizen wrote:
OK, I missed that. Read the "Lynnhaven Mall posted" thread and found the information.
On the bright side, it is only a Class I misdemeanor so it is sign the agreement to appear and be on your way.
But, would anyone not leave when asked? I cannot think of any reason not to leave.
Also, I have never been asked to leave and not come back, just asked to take my gun to the car. hsmithdidn't say if they asked him to leave and not comeback, or just take the gun to the car. They could be getting smart and know that if they ask us to leave the gun in the car, we are not coming back after going to the car.
imported post
I have to admit I have OCd in Tysons Corner. I recall looking carefully at the doors as I entered, but I didn't see any "mall rules" signs. I'll be on the lookout IF I have to go back, but let's see, I've lived in VA for 4 years and been there twice. Doesn't seem to me I ever have to go there.
I have to admit I have OCd in Tysons Corner. I recall looking carefully at the doors as I entered, but I didn't see any "mall rules" signs. I'll be on the lookout IF I have to go back, but let's see, I've lived in VA for 4 years and been there twice. Doesn't seem to me I ever have to go there.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
metg wrote:
What is "it."
Try not to use pronouns on OCDO - leaves the reader hangin'.
metg wrote:
What is "it."
Try not to use pronouns on OCDO - leaves the reader hangin'.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
Not to argue, but since the title of the thread is about being asked to leave (trespassing) that gave most of us a small clue.
imported post
The "it" to which I referred is the charge of tresspassing. Also, to clarify, being asked to leave and not complying was previously referred to in this thread as "criminal tresspassing." That term implies that there is such a thing as "civil tresspassing." That is not true. Trespassing is a criminal offense, plain and simple. I apologize for not being more clear with my terminology in my previous responses but will endeavor to do so in the future
.
The "it" to which I referred is the charge of tresspassing. Also, to clarify, being asked to leave and not complying was previously referred to in this thread as "criminal tresspassing." That term implies that there is such a thing as "civil tresspassing." That is not true. Trespassing is a criminal offense, plain and simple. I apologize for not being more clear with my terminology in my previous responses but will endeavor to do so in the future
.swatpro911
Regular Member
imported post
did the DC removed its ban yet or its in the process? I heard only dc residents could carry it nad no others.
did the DC removed its ban yet or its in the process? I heard only dc residents could carry it nad no others.
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
Short answer NO.
DC is appealing it to the full circuit court.
Even if the ban was lifted, the court case only argued for having an assembled ready-to-fire handgun in ones house, not out in public.
Short answer NO.
DC is appealing it to the full circuit court.
Even if the ban was lifted, the court case only argued for having an assembled ready-to-fire handgun in ones house, not out in public.
Smurfologist
Regular Member
imported post
nakedshoplifter wrote:
I have to add that there is also the issue of people, currentlywithout guns, that want to protect themselves in their home, purchasing guns and bringing them to D.C. They will not be able to do so if the ban was lifted. I would think that D.C. Lawmakers would have to consider this as well.
2nd Amendment.................Use it................Or, lose it!!:X
nakedshoplifter wrote:
I have to add that there is also the issue of people, currentlywithout guns, that want to protect themselves in their home, purchasing guns and bringing them to D.C. They will not be able to do so if the ban was lifted. I would think that D.C. Lawmakers would have to consider this as well.
2nd Amendment.................Use it................Or, lose it!!:X
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
Toad wrote:
I need no sympathy from anyone, I was asked to leave and complied with the request, I simply wished to inform other's that OC of this.
They have every right to disallow who they desire from their property, I make no qualms about that.
Toad wrote:
Why would I need to lie about this event? What purpose would that serve?
I need no sympathy from anyone, I was asked to leave and complied with the request, I simply wished to inform other's that OC of this.
They have every right to disallow who they desire from their property, I make no qualms about that.
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
possumboy wrote:
possumboy wrote:
I would be interested to know the legal implications of how the sign is posted, as in if it is something you need to search out, implicit consent to the "terms" of entering the building, ect.
imported post
possumboy wrote:
Posting the sign is a rule only and gives the mall a reason to ask you to leave. Just like a restaurant posting "No Outside Food".... Your not trespassing unless they ask you to leave and you refuse.
Normally... The police are called and you are told again in front of LEO. If you refuse... You get a ticket and escorted out. The owner could bypass LEO and go get a warrant on his own but he would need to have your info.
I have been to many calls where the person refused to leave till I arrived. Then they knew it was time to go. The LEO cannot charge you unless he observed you being told to leave or a letter was already on file that you signed for.
possumboy wrote:
Posting the sign is a rule only and gives the mall a reason to ask you to leave. Just like a restaurant posting "No Outside Food".... Your not trespassing unless they ask you to leave and you refuse.
Normally... The police are called and you are told again in front of LEO. If you refuse... You get a ticket and escorted out. The owner could bypass LEO and go get a warrant on his own but he would need to have your info.
I have been to many calls where the person refused to leave till I arrived. Then they knew it was time to go. The LEO cannot charge you unless he observed you being told to leave or a letter was already on file that you signed for.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
How does this work? Is this some kind of formalletter from the mall advising that an individual is not allowed on the property--that he would be trespassing if he returned?
And that individual has to sign for receipt of it? Or for the individual's agreement to its provisions?
LEO 229 wrote:
How does this work? Is this some kind of formalletter from the mall advising that an individual is not allowed on the property--that he would be trespassing if he returned?
And that individual has to sign for receipt of it? Or for the individual's agreement to its provisions?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I don't recall seeing it in VA statutory law. My guess is that it might arise from case law intended to give the trespasser the benefit of the doubtas to whether or not he saw the sign. I imagine trespass case lawgoes back quite a ways.
Its not saying much to say the police officer can't arrest the guy if he leaves. Lets not forget that the policein VA may only arrest a misdemeanant if herefuses to stop the offense, and for afew other circumstances.I'm not so surehe can'twrite a summons, though. I wouldn't want to have my checking balance (misdemeanor fine) depend on whether its a slow day for the police.Especially when I don't know the finer pointsofhow themechanismsof justice operate on this sort of thing. Can the mall manager show prior evidence (registered letter receipt) toan opinionatedpolice officer and have it be enough to trigger a summons? Canan anti-gun managergo to anopinionatedmagistrate with evidence of prior knowledge and getthemagistrate to issuea summons?
I don't recall seeing it in VA statutory law. My guess is that it might arise from case law intended to give the trespasser the benefit of the doubtas to whether or not he saw the sign. I imagine trespass case lawgoes back quite a ways.
Its not saying much to say the police officer can't arrest the guy if he leaves. Lets not forget that the policein VA may only arrest a misdemeanant if herefuses to stop the offense, and for afew other circumstances.I'm not so surehe can'twrite a summons, though. I wouldn't want to have my checking balance (misdemeanor fine) depend on whether its a slow day for the police.Especially when I don't know the finer pointsofhow themechanismsof justice operate on this sort of thing. Can the mall manager show prior evidence (registered letter receipt) toan opinionatedpolice officer and have it be enough to trigger a summons? Canan anti-gun managergo to anopinionatedmagistrate with evidence of prior knowledge and getthemagistrate to issuea summons?
imported post
Anyone with authority over the property can send a letter "registered with return receipt" to a person they want to ban from their properly... private or commercial. They keep a copy of the letter along with the signed receipt card showing the person received it.
Once the officer arrives and sees the person on the property and a notice had been given.... theperson gets a summons. There are other circumstances were the officer may arrest and remove the person if necessary.
In absence of the letter... if you are told not to return in front of the officer and you do so....when the officer sees you on the property he can issue you a summons having first hand knowledge.
If you leave before he police get there and you received the ban letter...the mall manager will need torequest a warrant of arrest from the magistrate. The officer then visits you at your home to issue a summons to appear in court.
Anyone with authority over the property can send a letter "registered with return receipt" to a person they want to ban from their properly... private or commercial. They keep a copy of the letter along with the signed receipt card showing the person received it.
Once the officer arrives and sees the person on the property and a notice had been given.... theperson gets a summons. There are other circumstances were the officer may arrest and remove the person if necessary.
In absence of the letter... if you are told not to return in front of the officer and you do so....when the officer sees you on the property he can issue you a summons having first hand knowledge.
If you leave before he police get there and you received the ban letter...the mall manager will need torequest a warrant of arrest from the magistrate. The officer then visits you at your home to issue a summons to appear in court.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I suspected the possibility.
Metg? Can you confirm this with your magistrate contact?
Can you also confirm the letter or other proof requirement?I'm wondering if an oath or affirmation is maybe all that's really required.Does areceipted letterjust move it out of the realm of "his word against the other guy's word?" It might increase the likelyhood of conviction; but, that's different than whether its literally necessary to get the summons.
Personally, I don't plan on violating any signs.Knowing the risks might help others who aren't quite convinced.
LEO 229 wrote:
I suspected the possibility.
Metg? Can you confirm this with your magistrate contact?
Can you also confirm the letter or other proof requirement?I'm wondering if an oath or affirmation is maybe all that's really required.Does areceipted letterjust move it out of the realm of "his word against the other guy's word?" It might increase the likelyhood of conviction; but, that's different than whether its literally necessary to get the summons.
Personally, I don't plan on violating any signs.Knowing the risks might help others who aren't quite convinced.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen, LEO 229 is completely correct.
I checked with my magistrate contact and learned this: A letter or other proof requirement is not mandatory. The person with authority over the property must first notifysomeone that they are forbidded (banned)from entering the property. This can be done in person, via phone call, letter, etc. If that person then comes onto the property, the person with authority may visit the magistrate, complete a criminal complaint, and swearthe circumstances under oathto the magistrate. This would apply to commercial and/or private property.
Citizen wrote:
Citizen, LEO 229 is completely correct.
I checked with my magistrate contact and learned this: A letter or other proof requirement is not mandatory. The person with authority over the property must first notifysomeone that they are forbidded (banned)from entering the property. This can be done in person, via phone call, letter, etc. If that person then comes onto the property, the person with authority may visit the magistrate, complete a criminal complaint, and swearthe circumstances under oathto the magistrate. This would apply to commercial and/or private property.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
metg wrote:
So, it appears that once a person is "banned" from a property and he is given a documentable notice of the banning, then he is subject to arrest if he ever returns to the property and is observed by the property owner or his personnel. Additionally, a banned person just showingup (trespassing) for a little while but then slinking away before the cops come is no bar to hisbeing issued a summons--if the property owner wants to swear to the trespass.
That should keep all but the most knuckle-headed banned goofs away from a given property. I wonder how often the malls excercise this procedure? I also wonder what is the purpose of a mall deciding to "ban" a person for a specific time period, i.e., 5 years. Someone here reported being banned from a mall for that duration a while back, but why 5 years? Why not 2? Or 10? Is that banning period the sole discretion of the property owner? And can the owner be totally discriminatory about how it selects the period?
metg wrote:
So, it appears that once a person is "banned" from a property and he is given a documentable notice of the banning, then he is subject to arrest if he ever returns to the property and is observed by the property owner or his personnel. Additionally, a banned person just showingup (trespassing) for a little while but then slinking away before the cops come is no bar to hisbeing issued a summons--if the property owner wants to swear to the trespass.
That should keep all but the most knuckle-headed banned goofs away from a given property. I wonder how often the malls excercise this procedure? I also wonder what is the purpose of a mall deciding to "ban" a person for a specific time period, i.e., 5 years. Someone here reported being banned from a mall for that duration a while back, but why 5 years? Why not 2? Or 10? Is that banning period the sole discretion of the property owner? And can the owner be totally discriminatory about how it selects the period?