Property Rights Supposedly Trumping Other Rights

peter nap said:

That's why I don't go somewhere I can't defend myself. If one Mall says no guns, I just go to another.

Click to expand...

^^^THIS^^^

If property owner says no guns, he's not restricting your rights. He's telling you not to come there.

Click to expand...

Thundar said:

With Constitutional Carry, the problem evaporates.

Breaking the rule of a private enterprise is not a violation of the law.

If you CC where a shopowner posts gunbuster signs, all you have done is breal his rule, not the law.

Constitutional Carry allows for open or concealed as the firearms owner chooses.

I usually go elsewhere when I see gunbuster signs, but this is not always the case.:lol:

Click to expand...

True BUT, as the owner, I could simply order you to leave and if you refuse, have you arrested for trespass. Again, if you don't like the rightful owner's rules, don't go there. Protest and organize a boycott if you like, THAT is perfectly fine.

Understand I am all about 2A rights and CC/OC BUT there ARE reasonable/legal and moral limits on rights. You don't lose ANY rights at all in the above case. You can still carry, where it is public or private property that allows such. You still have your right to your life, no one has taken it and they have not disarmed you. You still have and can use your guns... just not on THEIR property. You are still free. No one is MAKING you stay on their property much less holding you there defenseless. Understand?

HeroHog said:

True BUT, as the owner, I could simply order you to leave and if you refuse, have you arrested for trespass. Again, if you don't like the rightful owner's rules, don't go there. Protest and organize a boycott if you like, THAT is perfectly fine.

Click to expand...

Concealed means concealed. If they know you are concealing, then you aren't really concealing.

230therapy said:

What grapeshot and skidmark are actually arguing is that property is more important than life.

Click to expand...

No, I think what they are advocating is that they (and the vast majority of the rest of us) follow the law. We respect the property owner's wishes because A) for concealed carry, the law requires it, and B) its the right thing to do. Wouldn't you want someone to follow your rules on your private property? We respect the property owner's wishes so much that we'll spend our money elsewhere. When they go out of business, a la Richbrau Brewery for example, we'll sit back and say "told ya so".

Its like the people who preach that they hate guns. I disagree with the statement, but I'll respect your right to say it.

ProShooter said:

No, I think what they are advocating is that they (and the vast majority of the rest of us) follow the law. We respect the property owner's wishes because A) for concealed carry, the law requires it, and B) its the right thing to do. Wouldn't you want someone to follow your rules on your private property? We respect the property owner's wishes so much that we'll spend our money elsewhere. When they go out of business, a la Richbrau Brewery for example, we'll sit back and say "told ya so".

Its like the people who preach that they hate guns. I disagree with the statement, but I'll respect your right to say it.

Click to expand...

The temper and tone of OCDO and the majority of posters here is to obey the law, and to work to change those laws (or the application thereof) with which we do not agree. The more radical/extreme approaches have not been accepted favorably.

Personally, I have long been a proponent of "quasi-public" defined properties - that is private property that openly invites the public to enter i.e. These properties so classified would be subject to the limitations/restrictions of public property and would include most retail establishments. I understand the problems with this and the arguments/reasoning of those not in favor so flames are not necessary. Nevertheless, I am not that far off from the goals espoused by the OP, but shouting only to hear the echo of one's own voice has little merit.

The primary difference in us is that I see no need to approach insulting others, to rant and bray at the lack of perfection in our laws. If one really wants to be effective, there are venues/organizations such as VCDL that will gladly accept the volunteer services of anyone willing to work within their framework.

If the OP has not accepted the cloak of an agent provocateur, he will recognize that he is but one voice (at least a minority) and that to insist that he is the unqualified authority on the thoughts and deeds of others here is an attempt at the application of tyranny itself.

This is hardly a new subject on OCDO nor has there anything new been added to the intellectual discourse on the matter. Therefore it is likely I will have little else to contribute to this thread - it's all been said before. There is a huge difference between real world solutions and those of our day dreams, no matter how noble.

Thundar said:

Breaking the rule of a private enterprise is not a violation of the law.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

Thundar said:

If you CC where a shopowner posts gunbuster signs, all you have done is breal his rule, not the law.

Click to expand...

IANAL, but lawyers have pointed out to me that CCing where it's posted "no guns" can get you charged with carrying a concealed weapon per VA Code § 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."

Thundar said:

With Constitutional Carry, the problem evaporates.

Constitutional Carry allows for open or concealed as the firearms owner chooses.

Click to expand...

Amen!

The 2A protects your right to bear arms from Gov infringement. No mention of anything else.No mention of property owners either. The 1A protects your right to free speech from Govt interference. Nothing more and nothing different. The VA constitution protects your rights from GOVT infringement. No mention of any right to bear anywhere you please.If you think you have a right to carry, go into the courthouse and tell them it's your right. Please come back and tell us how it went after you post bond.

Again your right to carry carries no more weight than a property owners right to determine what happens on his property. Using your logic, trespassing would be a forgotten concept.

If you go into a restaurant that has a sign that says no shoes no shirt NO SERVICE. Do you then take off your shirt and shoes and tell them it's your right? Most assuredly NOT. Unless you want to get locked up.

You are not immune from private property rights by wrapping yourself in the mantle of the 2A. That dog just won't hunt.

DrMark said:

Agreed!

IANAL, but lawyers have pointed out to me that CCing where it's posted "no guns" can get you charged with carrying a concealed weapon per VA Code § 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."

Amen!

Click to expand...

OK, section O does not make it a crime to carry where carry is prohibited by an owner. It says that the CHP does not authorize you to carry where an owner prohibits it.

So, for example, if you had a CHP and carried a firearm into a courthouse and were caught, you would not be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. You would be charged with carrying a weapon into a courthouse. The CHP does not exempt you from other laws, only the concealed weapons law.

And getting caught carrying concealed where you are not authorized to carry concealed is one of the reasons that may be used to revoke your CHP.

Per the OCDO Forum rules http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Click to expand...

I have not specifically asked John or Mike, but am willing to suppose they would say that goes as well for respecting the rights of private property owners.

stay safe.

Thundar said:

OK, section O does not make it a crime to carry where carry is prohibited by an owner. It says that the CHP does not authorize you to carry where an owner prohibits it.

So, for example, if you had a CHP and carried a firearm into a courthouse and were caught, you would not be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. You would be charged with carrying a weapon into a courthouse. The CHP does not exempt you from other laws, only the concealed weapons law.

Click to expand...

Carry of a concealed weapon into a courthouse IS against the law and is grounds for revocation.

cite here from VSP web site

§18.2-283.1: Courthouse. weapon

I tend to agree with Skidmark's post on this one. I don't think he was trying to convey that one side (pro gun rights) was dominant over the other (pro property rights). I think he was merely suggesting that if you are pro gun rights, that you should be respectful of others' rights who may not agree with your own.

Thundar said:

OK, section O does not make it a crime to carry where carry is prohibited by an owner. It says that the CHP does not authorize you to carry where an owner prohibits it.

So, for example, if you had a CHP and carried a firearm into a courthouse and were caught, you would not be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. You would be charged with carrying a weapon into a courthouse. The CHP does not exempt you from other laws, only the concealed weapons law.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

My legal advisor explained to me (in addition to me coming to the same conclusion by myself) that if you are carrying in a place not authorized by the property owner, then it is as if you were carrying without a valid permit. IOW, your CHP is valid in any place not expressly prohibited by law (like courthouses, jails, private property where prohibited). If you carry there, you are carrying without the permission of the property only, who would be the one to "authorize your permit to be valid" in that private property/place. If you are carrying without a valid permit, you are carrying illegally.

ProShooter said:

I disagree.

My legal advisor explained to me (in addition to me coming to the same conclusion by myself) that if you are carrying in a place not authorized by the property owner, then it is as if you were carrying without a valid permit. IOW, your CHP is valid in any place not expressly prohibited by law (like courthouses, jails, private property where prohibited). If you carry there, you are carrying without the permission of the property only, who would be the one to "authorize your permit to be valid" in that private property/place. If you are carrying without a valid permit, you are carrying illegally.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make much sense to me. OCing does not require a permit, so I'm guessing you are focusing on conceal carry? I think we all know that OCing/CCing against a private property owner's wish is not a firearm violation, but can be trespassing (Misdemeanor 1st) if you refuse to leave. Carrying a weapon OC or concealed in other areas are prohibited by law like you mentioned (court house, school, etc.). I don't fully understand what you, and your legal advisor, are trying to depict when you say that if you carry into a public place then it's like carrying w/out a permit? Example please?

NovaCop10 said:

That doesn't make much sense to me. OCing does not require a permit, so I'm guessing you are focusing on conceal carry? I think we all know that OCing/CCing against a private property owner's wish is not a firearm violation, but can be trespassing (Misdemeanor 1st) if you refuse to leave. Carrying a weapon OC or concealed in other areas are prohibited by law like you mentioned (court house, school, etc.). I don't fully understand what you, and your legal advisor, are trying to depict when you say that if you carry into a public place then it's like carrying w/out a permit? Example please?

Click to expand...

The way that she explained it to me is that since carrying concealed on private property where prohibited it in violation of 18.2-308 O, its equal to carrying concealed without a permit (or permission). Since your permit doesn't override the wishes of the property owner, it becomes invalid for concealed carry while on that property. That translates to, if you are carrying concealed with an invalid permit, then it refers back to 18.2-308 for the violation/punishment.

Like so many other things, we'll have to wait for someone to take the fall and be charged for a true caselaw decision.

Thundar said:

OK, section O does not make it a crime to carry where carry is prohibited by an owner. It says that the CHP does not authorize you to carry where an owner prohibits it.

So, for example, if you had a CHP and carried a firearm into a courthouse and were caught, you would not be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. You would be charged with carrying a weapon into a courthouse. The CHP does not exempt you from other laws, only the concealed weapons law.

Click to expand...

Carrying in a courthouse is already illegal.

As a lawyer explained it to me, CCing in (for example) Tony's Pizza, where Tony has posted "no guns" signs, is illegal, because one is not authorized via your CHP to CC there since Tony has prohibited it. One would be thus be illegal concealing a weapon.

ProShooter said:

The way that she explained it to me is that since carrying concealed on private property where prohibited it in violation of 18.2-308 O, its equal to carrying concealed without a permit (or permission). Since your permit doesn't override the wishes of the property owner, it becomes invalid for concealed carry while on that property. That translates to, if you are carrying concealed with an invalid permit, then it refers back to 18.2-308 for the violation/punishment.

Click to expand...

Oops - missed your post before I posted mine.

It was explained to me the same way it was explained to you.

But ....

DrMark said:

Carrying in a courthouse is already illegal.

As a lawyer explained it to me, CCing in (for example) Tony's Pizza, where Tony has posted "no guns" signs, is illegal, because one is not authorized via your CHP to CC there since Tony has prohibited it. One would be thus be illegal concealing a weapon.

Click to expand...

IANAL, but this issue seems to be confusing several concepts:

Our CHP 'permits' us to CC anywhere the *law* does not specifically prohibit CC.

The *law* stipulates that this 'permission' to CC does not *authorize* a CHP holder to override the law or the rights of a property owner to prohibit people who are CCing or OCing from their premises.

The property owner's decision to prohibit CC or OC does not have the force of law behind it, other than the right to file a complaint of trespass if a carrying patron refuses to leave the premises.

IMHO, it is NOT a violation of the CHP provisions -- the operative law -- to CC in a property where the owner has decided to disallow guns. The CHP law simply clarifies that the 'rights' given under CHP do not over-ride other applicable law nor does it abrogate a property owner's right to determine his/her clientele.

Bottom line: If the legislature wanted to criminalize the act of carrying into a property where the owner had banned guns, they would have written a penalty (misdemeanor or felony) into the law for doing so.

To me, it makes the most sense that if one 'disobeys' the owner's preferences and does not leave the premises when asked/ordered to do so, one can be charged with trespass .... but that it is not a chargeable violation of the CHP law.

JamesCanby said:

IANAL, but this issue seems to be confusing several concepts:

SNIP

.... but that it is not a chargeable violation of the CHP law.

Click to expand...

The point at this juncture is not that carrying outside the CHP law is or is not a chargable offense in and of itself.

Carrying outside the CHP laws and being charged with trespass or any other criminal act related to your conduct while being told to leave/leaving/being escorted off the property (assault, verbal assault, uttering profanities are just a few of the possibilities that come to mind) can all be reported to the issuing judge with a request to revoke your CHP. Making that report/request is not limited to LEOs - the property owner can get your CHP issuing info from the incident report or by using info in the incident report. So could Joe Schmo innocent and uninvolved bystander.

Now to move a step further in discussing CC, since we have veered over there. Since your CHP does not authorize you to carry concealed if private property is posted or the owner/agent tells you to leave [Can we please just forget about trespass for a few seconds till I make my point? Thanks.] then on top of everything else the cop can do when he arrives is charge you with unlawful concealed carry as if you did not have a CHP.

So, my point is - that those who are saying they will just CC if the property is posted are violating the law (at least technically) by carrying concealed without a valid CHP.

And again, all this discussion of how to "get around/get over" the law, the posting by the property owner, etc. - just how does this advance our goal of getting the population at large to accept us as lawful and law-abiding persons exercising our rights in a peaceful and peacable manner?

stay safe.

JamesCanby said:

IANAL, but this issue seems to be confusing several concepts:

Our CHP 'permits' us to CC anywhere the *law* does not specifically prohibit CC.

The *law* stipulates that this 'permission' to CC does not *authorize* a CHP holder to override the law or the rights of a property owner to prohibit people who are CCing or OCing from their premises.

The property owner's decision to prohibit CC or OC does not have the force of law behind it, other than the right to file a complaint of trespass if a carrying patron refuses to leave the premises.

IMHO, it is NOT a violation of the CHP provisions -- the operative law -- to CC in a property where the owner has decided to disallow guns. The CHP law simply clarifies that the 'rights' given under CHP do not over-ride other applicable law nor does it abrogate a property owner's right to determine his/her clientele.

Bottom line: If the legislature wanted to criminalize the act of carrying into a property where the owner had banned guns, they would have written a penalty (misdemeanor or felony) into the law for doing so.

To me, it makes the most sense that if one 'disobeys' the owner's preferences and does not leave the premises when asked/ordered to do so, one can be charged with trespass .... but that it is not a chargeable violation of the CHP law.

Click to expand...

Well James, the problem with that argument is that you're listening to flawed reasoning. If you see a sign that says no trespass or no guns or know of it, and go there anyway, you are already guilty of trespass. They don't have to ask you to leave.

Let the bashing begin.:banghead:

ProShooter said:

The way that she explained it to me is that since carrying concealed on private property where prohibited it in violation of 18.2-308 O, its equal to carrying concealed without a permit (or permission). Since your permit doesn't override the wishes of the property owner, it becomes invalid for concealed carry while on that property. That translates to, if you are carrying concealed with an invalid permit, then it refers back to 18.2-308 for the violation/punishment.

Like so many other things, we'll have to wait for someone to take the fall and be charged for a true caselaw decision.

Click to expand...

Well I guess that is why lawyers make so much money, they have differing opinions as yours and mine do.

It was pointed out to me that if section O were interpreted to allow legal sanction to carry where prohibited by a property owner, then open or concealed carry would be subject to concealed carry conviction because section O does not distinguish between open and concealed carry!