Can a "no guns" sign be illegal?

Here's an interesting question for our lawyerly types.

Yesterday I noticed a sign on the entry door to a large building that is private property.

The sign read:

No Weapons!
It is unlawful to carry a Handgun in this facility or on the property of [name withheld for now.]
​

To the best of my knowledge, the facility and property are not among the list of prohibited places to carry in the state of Virginia.

So my question is this: is it illegal to claim something is illegal, when it is not illegal?

One would have to really stretch to claim that a person carrying a handgun is automatically trespassing, and thus breaking the law, if for no other reason than the sign does not say handguns are prohibited from the property, but simply gives the false assertion that carrying one would be unlawful. This strategy would seem to be especially troublesome since this facility exists to provide services to the general public.

My point is, I don't think you can (or should be able to) just arbitrarily say that an action is illegal, just because you don't want someone to do it on your property.

Thoughts?

I plan to follow this up with the property management by asking them to cite the specific law they had in mind when posting this sign.

TFred

Once the property owner posts the property, it becomes illegal to carry a firearm onto the property. This does not come from the firearms laws, but the laws rgarding trespass.

The property owner has made entry onto the property conditional. Violating that condition constitutes trespass - the illegal entry onto or remaining on private property when not authorized/invited to do so.

§ 18.2-23. Conspiring to trespass or commit larceny.

A. If any person shall conspire, confederate or combine with another or others in the Commonwealth to go upon or remain upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any part, portion or area thereof, having knowledge that any of them have been forbidden, either orally or in writing, to do so by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or having knowledge that any of them have been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted on such lands, buildings, premises or part, portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may reasonably be seen, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

B. If any person shall conspire, confederate or combine with another or others in the Commonwealth to commit larceny or counsel, assist, aid or abet another in the performance of a larceny, where the aggregate value of the goods or merchandise involved is more than $200, he is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than one year nor more than 20 years. The willful concealment of goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment, while still on the premises thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to convert and defraud the owner thereof out of the value of the goods or merchandise. A violation of this subsection constitutes a separate and distinct felony.

C. Jurisdiction for the trial of any person charged under this section shall be in the county or city wherein any part of such conspiracy is planned, or in the county or city wherein any act is done toward the consummation of such plan or conspiracy.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-15.1; 1960, cc. 99, 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 2003, c. 831.)

Click to expand...

§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.

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.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-173; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1982, c. 169; 1987, cc. 625, 705; 1991, c. 534; 1998, cc. 569, 684.)

Click to expand...

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Once the property owner posts the property, it becomes illegal to carry a firearm onto the property. This does not come from the firearms laws, but the laws rgarding trespass.

The property owner has made entry onto the property conditional. Violating that condition constitutes trespass - the illegal entry onto or remaining on private property when not authorized/invited to do so.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I might be able to buy that... except the sign doesn't say guns are prohibited.

ETA: I would submit that it is not unlawful to carry the handgun onto the property, but to be on the property while carrying a handgun. A small distinction, but one that is very significant, since there is no code that I am aware of making the act of carrying on that property unlawful.

ETA(2): Especially since the facility is quite large, and you must drive quite a ways on to the property and park and walk before you have the chance to read the sign...

TFred

TFred said:

I might be able to buy that... except the sign doesn't say guns are prohibited.

ETA: I would submit that it is not unlawful to carry the handgun onto the property, but to be on the property while carrying a handgun. A small distinction, but one that is very significant, since there is no code that I am aware of making the act of carrying on that property unlawful.

ETA(2): Especially since the facility is quite large, and you must drive quite a ways on to the property and park and walk before you have the chance to read the sign...

TFred

Click to expand...

Remember that the sign doesn't have to say that guns are prohibited. The only thing needed is that the owner of private property has prohibited the possession of guns there (18.2-308 O).

Based on TFred's statement that one must go "quite a ways onto the property and park and walk" before encountering the sign, I'd say that by a sign or signs ... on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen might be difficult to sustain in a criminal trespass proceeding.

However, there exists a great possibility that the local law enforcement agency staff summoned to the scene might not want to engage in a discussion of the finer points of the law at that moment, and much prefer to allow one to make their point to the judge at some later date.

This brings me to the conclusion that it might be better for all concerned to not discuss the matter with the property owner, lest they decide to consult with an attorney who would advise them to move the signs to the perimiter of the property and be done with it. This might preserve a defense that because the signs were not "where it or they may be reasonably seen" and thus are not valid or enforcable. This is said with the caveat that once you encounter the signs you are under an obligation to honor them.

As for the attempt to distinguish between "not being unlawful to carry a handgun onto the property" and "being unlawful to be on the property while carrying a handgun" -- lawyers, attorneys and judges call the lack of distinction between the two a "phrase of art," meaning a style or jargon of the language of the law. Seriously, how would you do the one without then also committing the latter? That line of reasoning usually is discovered to be fallacious before one gets into kindergarten, which is why one so rarely sees it in appeals.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

This brings me to the conclusion that it might be better for all concerned to not discuss the matter with the property owner, lest they decide to consult with an attorney who would advise them to move the signs to the perimiter of the property and be done with it. .

Click to expand...

That would seem to be the wisest way to handle it.

skidmark said:

As for the attempt to distinguish between "not being unlawful to carry a handgun onto the property" and "being unlawful to be on the property while carrying a handgun" -- lawyers, attorneys and judges call the lack of distinction between the two a "phrase of art," meaning a style or jargon of the language of the law. Seriously, how would you do the one without then also committing the latter? That line of reasoning usually is discovered to be fallacious before one gets into kindergarten, which is why one so rarely sees it in appeals.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

The distinction to me is extremely important. The wording of the sign implies a "gun crime". When in fact, it is nothing more than a simple trespass.

It absolutely steams me that the property owner is making up laws and passing them off as if they are fully enforceable, when there is no such law that makes it illegal to carry a gun on the property. It can be illegal (in the form of trespass) for a person to be on the property while carrying a gun, but it is not illegal to carry a gun on the property. One carries the force of the State enforcing the will of the people, the other only allows the state to enforce the will of the property owner.

(By the way, I didn't mention this until now, when I first discussed the sign with the desk-jockey security person, they insisted that it was indeed a state law that one could not carry there... a false-hood that in itself needs to be corrected.)

I'll have to think on your suggestion to not contact the property owner about this. If they are bent on keeping people off their property, I don't think it'll matter that much, and I'm happy to cause them to incur additional expense to do so. I guess we'll see how I feel tomorrow when it comes time for the mail to go out.

I'm not hoping to change their policy here, I just really hate the fact that they are lying about it and presenting false information. This is the sort of thing we normally try to correct ASAP.

I would still like to hear additional opinions.

TFred

Tfred,

I'm just not sure anybody else is wanting to engage in trying to slice and dice the distinction between "not being unlawful to carry a handgun onto the property" and "being unlawful to be on the property while carrying a handgun". Not too many folks besides you and me get off on casustry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casuistry .

As for your distress over

the property owner is making up laws and passing them off as if they are fully enforceable, when there is no such law that makes it illegal to carry a gun on the property

Click to expand...

I agree that it ought to make anyone's head and heart hurt. But is it worth the tantrum?

As for

when I first discussed the sign with the desk-jockey security person, they insisted that it was indeed a state law that one could not carry there... a false-hood that in itself needs to be corrected

Click to expand...

- are you familiar with the saying about trying to teach a pig to sing? Yes, the dsk jockey and the person who hired him are both ignorant and unaware of the distinctions between violation of trespass and some supposed separate criminal statute, but ...Again, is it worth the trauma?

stay safe.

TFred said:

Here's an interesting question for our lawyerly types.
...My point is, I don't think you can (or should be able to) just arbitrarily say that an action is illegal, just because you don't want someone to do it on your property.
...

Click to expand...

The technical, legal term for that technique is, "dust in the eyes". It's not illegal, though anyone relying on bad legal advice from any source has a cause of action against the advisor for legal malpractice.

But as to the main point: the main question I'd have as an attorney defending someone charged with trespassing for violating the restriction announced by the sign is whether the sign was "conspicuous". If it was, it's plea bargain / damage control time; if not, there's a good defense. I've been through an analysis several times on different websites as to why it's trespassing; so I'm hoping that people who are curious about that will use the search function to look up old posts on the subject here and on DefensiveCarryConcealed.com, VaGunTrader.com and VaGunForum.net. Could also be something on the subject in GlockTalk.com or TheFirearmsForum.com, but they're less likely. I tend to talk more about technical gun stuff, religion, and dogs on the last two.

Uh, "no guns", does not equal "No trespassing".

There no provisions for what could be termed "Conditional Trespass"

Think of it like "No Shirt, no Shoes, No Service" signs; "No Firearms" signs carry no legal weight.

brboyer said:

Uh, "no guns", does not equal "No trespassing".

There no provisions for what could be termed "Conditional Trespass"

Think of it like "No Shirt, no Shoes, No Service" signs; "No Firearms" signs carry no legal weight.

Click to expand...

Maybe not in the technical sense but as I point out often, things ain't what they should be.

When I see these discussions, it brings back memories of the first year the motorcycle helmet law went in.

Of course we were all smarter than the cops, the Commonwealths Attorney and a hell of a lot smarter than the Judge.

The law said we had to wear a helmet. It didn't say where so we invented the "Knee Helmet".

We also all paid the fine or lost our license!

Even when we do everything by the book we sometimes have to defend ourselves in court because the local authorities think they can make the laws.
Justice is very expensive though and defending our legal theories can cost thousands.
I can point to a number of instances where just that has happened this year.

Even when the victims are exonerated and I hear the hearty cry of
"SUE THE BASTARDS",

I don't see a lot of people prepared to chip in on the legal fees necessary to litigate.

The more I think about this, the more "wrong" it is.

Tell me how the sign that is posted is any different than a sign which might say this:


As a private property owner, I am within my rights to ban blue-shirted people from my building and property. But that doesn't make it true that the act of wearing a blue shirt on my property is against the law, merely that I don't want you to, and I am telling you that I reserve the right to ask you to change shirts, or leave if you do.

What concrete difference is there between carrying a handgun and wearing a blue shirt? Do you believe you could have someone arrested for ignoring a no-blue-shirts sign?

TFred

TFred said:

The more I think about this, the more "wrong" it is.

Tell me how the sign that is posted is any different than a sign which might say this:

No Blue Shirts!
It is unlawful to wear a blue shirt in this facility
or on the property of [name withheld for now.]​

As a private property owner, I am within my rights to ban blue-shirted people from my building and property. But that doesn't make it true that the act of wearing a blue shirt on my property is against the law, merely that I don't want you to, and I am telling you that I reserve the right to ask you to change shirts, or leave if you do.

What concrete difference is there between carrying a handgun and wearing a blue shirt? Do you believe you could have someone arrested for ignoring a no-blue-shirts sign?

TFred

Click to expand...

I do, yes. I could also file a civil suit against him, and "nominal damages" in civil suits where there is no dollar amount for "actual damages" is typically ten thousand dollars, these days.

Unless that guy from Florida is right and I'm wrong - probably he's been practicing law in Virginia a good bit longer than I have. But I think that "no guns" equals "no trespassing". But don't let my saying so stop anyone ... I can use the money from more business. And when people are actually guilty of the crime as charged, it's a lot less work (for the same amount of money) for me.

Here in Texas, such signage would be meaningless to a CHL holder. If it doesn't comply with Penal Code 30.06 it legally doesn't exist. The act of trespass only occurs if one refuses to leave when asked.

mark-in-texas said:

Here in Texas, such signage would be meaningless to a CHL holder. If it doesn't comply with Penal Code 30.06 it legally doesn't exist. The act of trespass only occurs if one refuses to leave when asked.

Click to expand...

I've heard a little about that, and we have no corresponding code or requirement here. The only place it's clearly mentioned in the code is in our CHP statute which states that a CHP does not trump private property rights.

All the rest (and the subject at hand for this thread) turns on the ins and outs of the trespass code.

And that's the main part of my point for the thread, this is a trespass issue, not a gun issue, but the sign here clearly implies that it is a gun issue.

TFred

user said:

But I think that "no guns" equals "no trespassing".

Click to expand...

Wow... I'm no lawyer; maybe that's why I'm having a hard time comprehending that.

I'll search and see if you've explained your take on that here.

I think the best use for a sign like that is...

target practice.

but PLEASE..at an approved range while exercizing all proper and necessary safety practices.

Then give it back to them when you're done.

vt800c said:

target practice.

but PLEASE..at an approved range while exercizing all proper and necessary safety practices.

Then give it back to them when you're done.

Click to expand...

Please tell me that you were implying that Tfred first obtain permission from the owner of the sign to remove it from its current location, take it to the range, alter its present appearance/condition, and then return it to its rightful owner.

That's what you meant to say, wasn't it?

stay safe.

TFred said:

...And that's the main part of my point for the thread, this is a trespass issue, not a gun issue, but the sign here clearly implies that it is a gun issue. ...

Click to expand...

Ah, so, desu-ka!

It didn't occur to me that anyone would take that as a gun issue. I thought the question was trespass / no trespass. It certainly does not, and cannot regulate ownership, possession, or use of firearms in any general way. I see what you mean, now. But I'm so used to people using imprecise or downright dumb language to say things, I kind of look past it and do an automatic "what's really going on, here" analysis and ignore the crap. And, yes, that sign is crap. If it was done intentionally, then it's merely "dust in the eyes", intended to make people think something's true when it isn't. With respect to a "supplier" in a consumer transaction, "any deception" is good for five hundred bucks plus attorneys' fees (minimum statutory damages) under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, 59.1-200 and 59.1-204. Any person who has "suffered loss" thereby has standing to sue. Implication: I intend to shop at that store, and use up gasoline, time, and energy to get there, only to find that I can't go in because I believed that sign, then go home and use up more gasoline, time, and energy; then waste electricity and cpu cycles and my internet time (for which I pay dearly) to look up the code and find there is no such provision and discover that they lied. I suffered loss because of what it cost me in gas, electricity, and internet connection, as well as my time and trouble ("loss" includes all loss, not just financial loss), which gives me standing to go into the local GDC and fill out a warrant in debt form for violation of the VCPA to collect my five hundred bucks or actual damages whichever is greater. And, if you do read 59.1-204, you'll see that the damages are trebled for "willful violations" - which simply means that they intended to put up the sign in order to lie to people. Fifteen hundred bucks for a morning in the GDC? Well, it's not guaranteed, judges being what they are (buncha dam' humans).

skidmark said:

Once the property owner posts the property, it becomes illegal to carry a firearm onto the property. This does not come from the firearms laws, but the laws rgarding trespass.

The property owner has made entry onto the property conditional. Violating that condition constitutes trespass - the illegal entry onto or remaining on private property when not authorized/invited to do so.



stay safe.

Click to expand...

How do you make the translation that a sign saying firearms are illegal into a tresspass?

Skid, you make no sense here.