• 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.

Carrying At Places With "No Carry" Signs

SFDoc

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
221
Location
Hopewell, Virginia, USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
<snip> LEOs and renta cops generally have no clue.

At least their not drawing unemployment or welfare.

If the truth be told, blame the state. In VA it is the Dept. of Criminal Justice that sets the minimal level of standards for training for both LE and security. There is NO INCENTIVE for either to learn more that what they are taught in their respective classes or by their employers. Those that do strive to learn, do so because they want to. Sometimes, they are even ridiculed for trying to improve their knowledge especially those in the security field.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Freeflight wrote:
Private property HOME is different from Private Property/Public Access IMO.

All my friends know I am armed,yet I do "Ask" permission for entry into the home. Every time... I just don't assume. (All my Friends know it’s a package deal…Love me, Love my gun)

Entry into a "Private Property" that is open to the public is not a Home, I never ask, I never tell, (except here on Opencarry.org) They can put all the signs up they want I will still ignore them.
You have either "Public Property" and "Private Property" you could be on at any given time. Here are the definitions for each.



Public Property
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/public-property.htmhttp://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/public-property.htm

It refers to any property that is owned by government.The government owned property is offered for use of public at large like that of parks, libraries, lakes, pathways etc.



Private Property
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/private-property.htm

It is a system to allocate the ownership of pieces of land to particular people,who exercise full control on it without the society or the government having any ownership or legal right unlike common property.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

ChinChin wrote:
HMDGLOCK wrote:
I asked a security guard todayfor rules on firearms like the sign on the door says to at my local mall (Westfield Mall).
You put way more stock into the opinion of a paid security guard then I would. They're good for asking local street toughs to move along, and to dial a phone in the event of an emergency, but for case law. . . .I'd not trust them, especialy since what this one told you was just flat out incorrect!

Mall Policy is just that. . .policy. Unless the operator's of your localmall introduce and vote on legislation at the county/state court house. . .they are "friendly requests" and not law.
So if I post signs on my property that say no trespassing... that is just a request?

Having a sign up dealing with firearms is NOT a request. It is a big step above "Shirt and Shoes required." The property owner does not desire to have dangerous items on the property.

The state has already clarified this fact in the cite that Tess provided.

18.2-308.

"The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property."

This clearly addresses that just because you have a CC permit... you cannot take a gun on property that has identified guns are not allowed.

Therefore.... your ARE trespassing if you enter private property that has a sign clearly displayed.

THIS IS NOT A "FRIENDLY" REQUEST!!! :cool:
 

ballester

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
127
Location
MILLERS CREEK N.C.
imported post

yeah those little stickers are just all out fear inducing items arnt they? love it when the most robbed bank in the usa has them, i trust my self to them completly hide behind one of those little stickers before i hide behind bulletproof glass....:cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::celebratesorry had a moment there dont ask and dont advertise. find it if you can
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

If a 'no traipsing' sign is so powerful then how come a cop always gets involved in traipsing cases?

A sign is moot lest the proprietor restrain the violator from curing his violation.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
If a 'no traipsing' sign is so powerful then how come a cop always gets involved in traipsing cases?

A sign is moot lest the proprietor restrain the violator from curing his violation.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
The police get involved when the trespassing party refuses to leave. The property owner does need to go hands on and correctly gets the authorities involved.

Otherwise... a citizen can go get a warrant on his own after the violation has taken place.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

vtme_grad98 wrote:
My personal opinion has always been that, if the state won't respect the property rights of churches and private schools (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.1) with respect to firearms, I don't feel terribly compelled to respect "No guns" signs at the mall.
That is the same thing as me saying... If the state will not stop taxing me I am going to go rob the citizens at gun point.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

You cannot violate the rights of a third party when you do not like what the State is doing.
 

ne1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
460
Location
, , USA
imported post

The Supreme Court doesn't consider "private property" so cut and dried.

Here's an interesting case regarding property rights versus civil liberties:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=326&page=501

In Marsh v Alabama Justice Black declares that "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

The Court further states "Title to property as defined by State law controls property relations; it cannot control issues of civil liberties which arise precisely because a company town is a town as well as a co geries of property relations. And similarly the technical distinctions on which a finding of 'trespass' so often depends are too tenuous to control decision regarding the scope of the vital liberties guaranteed by the Constitution."

Wikipedia's analysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
 

Freeflight

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
306
Location
Yorktown VA, ,
imported post

ne1 wrote:
The Supreme Court doesn't consider "private property" so cut and dried.

Here's an interesting case regarding property rights versus civil liberties:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=326&page=501

In Marsh v Alabama Justice Black declares that "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

The Court further states "Title to property as defined by State law controls property relations; it cannot control issues of civil liberties which arise precisely because a company town is a town as well as a co geries of property relations. And similarly the technical distinctions on which a finding of 'trespass' so often depends are too tenuous to control decision regarding the scope of the vital liberties guaranteed by the Constitution."

Wikipedia's analysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Good Job ne1!!!! THATS WHAT I'm Talkin bout:celebrateright there!!!! The mall is just a STREET with shops....
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
So if I post signs on my property that say no trespassing... that is just a request?
No, that is law. No Trespassing sign means you have "posted" and thus only those you allow on your land are considered lawfully to be there. It also assumes you have the signs posted every 30 feet to insure all possible points of entry onto your land have a sign visable.
Having a sign up dealing with firearms is NOT a request. It is a big step above "Shirt and Shoes required." The property owner does not desire to have dangerous items on the property.

The state has already clarified this fact in the cite that Tess provided.

18.2-308.

"The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property."

This clearly addresses that just because you have a CC permit... you cannot take a gun on property that has identified guns are not allowed.
I find it curious that the one section you didn't bold in your cite, was the words "by law." Laws are created by the legislature as you are well aware. If I place a piece of poster board on my front door which reads "No red shoes allowed" that doesn't automaticly make such a "Law", nor does a new code get automaticaly written in the VA LIC. Now, "being prohibited by the owner" means they must have some way to communicate that fact to any potential visitors. . .I'll comment upon that below.
Therefore.... your ARE trespassing if you enter private property that has a sign clearly displayed.
Clearly displayed being the opertive phrase. You'll get no arguement from me that property rights are just as important as the right of self defense, or the freedom of speech, etc. , etc. Having a gun "ghostbuster" sticker on one door, of a mall with 32 doors allowing enterence is not clearly displayed. Having 8 pt type etched in sun-faded white lettering on a glass door in the far corner of the payne is also not clearly displayed. However, I cannot not dispute that if a owner or representivite/agent tells you to scoot for any reason firearm related or otherwise. . .you scoot or you're in violation of "duh law".

THIS IS NOT A "FRIENDLY" REQUEST!!! :cool:
Upon that we can agree. It is by no means "Friendly!" :)
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

ne1 wrote:
The Supreme Court doesn't consider "private property" so cut and dried.

Here's an interesting case regarding property rights versus civil liberties:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=326&page=501

In Marsh v Alabama Justice Black declares that "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

The Court further states "Title to property as defined by State law controls property relations; it cannot control issues of civil liberties which arise precisely because a company town is a town as well as a co geries of property relations. And similarly the technical distinctions on which a finding of 'trespass' so often depends are too tenuous to control decision regarding the scope of the vital liberties guaranteed by the Constitution."

Wikipedia's analysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Damn striaght Skippy, I do not check my right to life at the mall door.
 

ne1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
460
Location
, , USA
imported post

I do not check my right to life at the mall door.
Exactly. Perhaps the SCOTUS will follow-through and declare our rights do not end at D.C's (or any other city's) boundaries, either:

"Had the title to Chickasaw belonged not to a private but to a municipal corporation and had appellant been arrested for violating a municipal ordinance rather than a ruling by those appointed by the corporation to manage a company-town it would have been clear that appellant's conviction must be reversed."
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Ooh, what a butch euphemism
The property owner does need to go hands on and correctly gets the authorities involved.
So, RAS is required for a cop but a battery/un-wanted/un-warranted touching by a proprietor/agent is excused? And restraining the violator from curing his violation too - excused?

No trespassing signs are toothless.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
 

ne1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
460
Location
, , USA
imported post


Tiwei verot ytinu tropp onaev ahdlu owelp oeper omosp udaer htsih tpmub d'Ith guoht tsujI.

Emoce bevah emost nelis ylned duswo hgnis irpru ssiti.
 

muzz3256

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
118
Location
Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
imported post

I must say that I agree with the carry everywhere, ask no questions philosophy here. The events of the last month have proven that a mall or other establishment cannot protect you, I have even convinced some of my anti-gun co-workers of this now. I hate to throw in another saying, but I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. Here in Albemarle County, there have been 5 armed robberies and a few home invasions in the last 72 hours, all of a sudden, people at work are asking me about guns and gun laws instead of poking fun at me for it. If anything, this makes me want to carry more.


-Muzz
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
imported post

SNIP:
Otherwise... a citizen can go get a warrant on his own after the violation has taken place.
that require the owner/mgr to be able to ID the suspect/trespasser

or is the trespass warrantissued to John/Jane Doe and a description
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Otherwise... a citizen can go get a warrant on his own after the violation has taken place.
And then it is 'he said, she said' and dismissed for lack of evidence of CCW!

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
Not always the case....
 
Top