3) Private Property and Laws/regulations
18.2-308(O) "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."
Private business owners must prominently and visibly post that they prohibit firearms at the entrance of the store or verbally tell you of any restrictions.The posting must be displayed so that an average person would be able to see it. Under current case law concerning trespass in general, the Virginia Court of Appeals has stated in Jerry Andrew Lipscomb v. Commonwealth, Va. App. (2001 Unpublished):
"Code 18.2-119 provides that "[i]f any person without authority 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 by a sign or signs posted by [the owner] . . . , he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor." This statute "has been uniformly construed to require a willful trespass." Reed v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 65, 70, 366 S.E.2d 274, 278 (1988). "'Willful' generally means an act done with a bad purpose, without justifiable excuse, or without ground for believing it is lawful. The term denotes '"an act which is intentional, or knowing, or voluntary, as distinguished from accidental."'" Ellis v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 548, 554, 513 S.E.2d 453, 456 (1999) (quoting Snead v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 643, 646, 400 S.E.2d 806, 807 (1991) (quoting United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 394, 54 S. Ct. 223, 225, 78 L. Ed. 2d 381 (1933), overruled on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 84 S. Ct. 1594, 12 L. Ed. 2d 678 (1964))). "'Criminal intent is an essential element of the statutory offense of trespass, even though the statute is silent as to intent . . . .'" Reed, 6 Va. App. at 71, 366 S.E.2d at 278 (quoting 75 Am.Jur.2d Trespass 87 (1974)).
....This evidence also fails to establish that appellant saw the no trespassing signs or intended to trespass by remaining in the car. Because the Commonwealth failed to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence flowing from the evidence, we reverse and dismiss appellant's conviction."