67GT390FB
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Cite the relevant VA code section please.
-
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.
Am I the only one that doesn't like the new laws forcing employers
- Thread starter hsmith
- Start date
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
DreQo wrote:
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 other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons 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.
DreQo wrote:
Virginia Code § 18.2-119 defines the crime of trespassing as follows:
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 other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons 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.
imported post
LEOs think that just because they can selectively choose to enforce any number of laws that they are always right. Ms. Marsh was arrested but she eventually prevailed, demonstrating that right cantriumph over might.
LEOs think that just because they can selectively choose to enforce any number of laws that they are always right. Ms. Marsh was arrested but she eventually prevailed, demonstrating that right cantriumph over might.
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
67GT390FB wrote:
They're not infringing on your property right to your vehicle. You don't have to park it there. They absolutely do have the right to tell you can't defend yourself outside of work as a condition of employement. As long as you weren't coerced to agree to it, any agreement between people infringes on no rights.
Rights are NOT infringed through agreements. They are infringed when coercion and force are involved. In order to claim an infringement, you have to point to an initiation of force by someone that took away your ability to make your own choice.
67GT390FB wrote:
They're not infringing on your property right to your vehicle. You don't have to park it there. They absolutely do have the right to tell you can't defend yourself outside of work as a condition of employement. As long as you weren't coerced to agree to it, any agreement between people infringes on no rights.
Rights are NOT infringed through agreements. They are infringed when coercion and force are involved. In order to claim an infringement, you have to point to an initiation of force by someone that took away your ability to make your own choice.
Nelson_Muntz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
All a moot point anyway.
You can keep your firearm in your vehicle on company property regardless of what the company's policy is.
Just keep your mouth shut.
No (known) harm, no foul. You've broken NO LAW. I've never been asked for my vehicle to be searched by my employer, must less my desk which is my employer's property.
All a moot point anyway.
You can keep your firearm in your vehicle on company property regardless of what the company's policy is.
Just keep your mouth shut.
No (known) harm, no foul. You've broken NO LAW. I've never been asked for my vehicle to be searched by my employer, must less my desk which is my employer's property.
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
Again, I think if you want to understand rights, this video helps: http://youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Again, I think if you want to understand rights, this video helps: http://youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
imported post
possumboy wrote:
I was under the impression that this was in reference to trespassing in and of itself, as the wording implies that sign would forbid entrance to the property all together. On the other hand, if a property is open to the public (i.e. a mall), a sign banning a certain object or activity would not hold legal weight.
I'm not as familiar with VA law as I am NC. Anyone know what am I talking about? Or am I completely off base?
possumboy wrote:
I was under the impression that this was in reference to trespassing in and of itself, as the wording implies that sign would forbid entrance to the property all together. On the other hand, if a property is open to the public (i.e. a mall), a sign banning a certain object or activity would not hold legal weight.
I'm not as familiar with VA law as I am NC. Anyone know what am I talking about? Or am I completely off base?
67GT390FB
Regular Member
imported post
ama-gi wrote:
did you not read my entire statement, some corps are requiring that their employees park only on their property.
ama-gi wrote:
did you not read my entire statement, some corps are requiring that their employees park only on their property.
mkl
Regular Member
imported post
67GT390FB wrote:
did you not read my entire statement, some corps are requiring that their employees park only on their property.
[/quote]
I have no problem with that either. As an employee you and an employer are getting together for a voluntary exchange. You get paid for your labor, your employer gets to benefit from your labor. If one of the conditions of that voluntary agreement is that you must park your car on their lot, so be it. If you are not forced to work there, why would you do it? If no one worked there, the place wouldn't exist. These problems solve themselves without making new laws.
67GT390FB wrote:
did you not read my entire statement, some corps are requiring that their employees park only on their property.
[/quote]
I have no problem with that either. As an employee you and an employer are getting together for a voluntary exchange. You get paid for your labor, your employer gets to benefit from your labor. If one of the conditions of that voluntary agreement is that you must park your car on their lot, so be it. If you are not forced to work there, why would you do it? If no one worked there, the place wouldn't exist. These problems solve themselves without making new laws.
imported post
compmanio365 wrote:
Since I am from Virginia and the topic deals with something at state level... I am speaking about Virginia laws and not the laws of the other state. Many states are likely about the same but there can always be one that is not.
compmanio365 wrote:
I apologise. You are correct..
Since I am from Virginia and the topic deals with something at state level... I am speaking about Virginia laws and not the laws of the other state. Many states are likely about the same but there can always be one that is not.
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
Many of thye Companies that prohibit vehicle carry also have termination clauses if you refuse a search of your vehicle.
Many of thye Companies that prohibit vehicle carry also have termination clauses if you refuse a search of your vehicle.
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
67GT390FB wrote:
So what? Are they coercing the employees to work there? Where's the right being infringed? The employee AGREED without coercion to work there.
Many rights are limited by employment contracts. You can't say certain things, you can't travel while you're on the clock, you can have your clothing, car or locker searched, etc.
67GT390FB wrote:
So what? Are they coercing the employees to work there? Where's the right being infringed? The employee AGREED without coercion to work there.
Many rights are limited by employment contracts. You can't say certain things, you can't travel while you're on the clock, you can have your clothing, car or locker searched, etc.
mkl
Regular Member
imported post
lockman wrote:
Great! Why would you want to work for that company anyway? Sounds like a win -win for gun owners.
lockman wrote:
Great! Why would you want to work for that company anyway? Sounds like a win -win for gun owners.
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
Once you incorporate a business you give up a lot of rights. You become a tax collector for the state if you sell retail, you are subject to various regulations. The state micro manages everything fronm the size of your parking lot to the green space. If you are lucky enought to live in an unincorporated area of a county that still has a live let live attitude you can concider yourself lucky.
Once you incorporate a business you give up a lot of rights. You become a tax collector for the state if you sell retail, you are subject to various regulations. The state micro manages everything fronm the size of your parking lot to the green space. If you are lucky enought to live in an unincorporated area of a county that still has a live let live attitude you can concider yourself lucky.
expvideo
Regular Member
imported post
ama-gi wrote:
ama-gi wrote:
Legally, no. Pants are not property. Not in the sense that a car or house is property. If that was true you could argue that you are always on your own property and therefore able to do whatever you want, because your shoes are property. That is not the case. A car, however, is legally considered your "property".
imported post
67GT390FB wrote:
Please take note that when the statecode talks about a sign but doesNOT say what the sign must contain. So there is nolegal requirement for it to actually say the words "No Trespassing" for it to be valid.
In layman's terms.... "a sign that says your forbidden to do something"
§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
If any personwithout 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 other person lawfully in charge thereof,
or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted
by such persons 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 ... Snipped
67GT390FB wrote:
HERE YOU GO!!!
Please take note that when the statecode talks about a sign but doesNOT say what the sign must contain. So there is nolegal requirement for it to actually say the words "No Trespassing" for it to be valid.
In layman's terms.... "a sign that says your forbidden to do something"
§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
If any personwithout 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 other person lawfully in charge thereof,
or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted
by such persons 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 ... Snipped
ChinChin
Regular Member
imported post
mkl wrote:
You mean like ADA guidlines such as ramps, automatic door openers, shorter height drinking fountains, specific slope graded concrete, and disabled parking?
If one has these items for accessability and safety, why should their accesability and safety be more premissable then my accesibility and safety?
mkl wrote:
You mean like ADA guidlines such as ramps, automatic door openers, shorter height drinking fountains, specific slope graded concrete, and disabled parking?
If one has these items for accessability and safety, why should their accesability and safety be more premissable then my accesibility and safety?
jack
Banned
imported post
mkl wrote:
mkl wrote:
Virginia law specificallydisallows a landlord from attempting to prohibit a tenant from having firearms. What you think you should be able to do with respect to landlord /tenet relations is irrelevant, it's all very well defined in Virginia.