State code question on carrying where private owner does not allow

Based on § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry. section O states:

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.

This section doesn't specifically DISALLOW carrying a firearm on property where posession is prohibited by the owner. Is it simply saying that the CCW permit does not expmpt you from the standard Tresspassing Laws? It has been an interpretation I have been unsure of for some time.

Is that the reason that you can only be charged with tresspassing? Can someone tell me if I am interpreting this law correctly?

From what I understand, say your in a mall you see a sign says no weapons allowed. You are trespassing if you have your gun on you. You should leave. Weapons signs hold weight in this state I believe. CHP does not exempt you from this. I know a few states that "no weapon signs" hold no weight.

If you are asked to leave a place because you are carrying a firearm, and refuse to leave you can be charged with trespassing.

Does anyone have any information on laws that give those signs any legal weight? I have heard they do and they don't. I've been told repeatedly you aren't actually tresspassing until you are asked to leave.

Regardless that doesn't answer if it is only tresspassing or can you be charged with illegal possession based on section O sited above?

Saint1911 said:

Does anyone have any information on laws that give those signs any legal weight? I have heard they do and they don't.

Click to expand...

They don't. There is no cite because there is no law.

ed said:

They don't. There is no cite because there is no law.

Click to expand...

Oh so "no firearms signs" hold no weight?

I always thought they did! I have been misinformed.

So you can conceal carry(with permit) into a mall that says NO GUNS ALLOWED, and not get charged with trespassing unless you are asked to leave( your gun prints)

?

:banana:

ocholsteroc said:

Oh so "no firearms signs" hold no weight?

I always thought they did! I have been misinformed.

So you can conceal carry(with permit) into a mall that says NO GUNS ALLOWED, and not get charged with trespassing unless you are asked to leave( your gun prints)

?

:banana:

Click to expand...

as I understand it.

What the law says

Saint1911 said:

Does anyone have any information on laws that give those signs any legal weight? I have heard they do and they don't. I've been told repeatedly you aren't actually tresspassing until you are asked to leave.

Regardless that doesn't answer if it is only tresspassing or can you be charged with illegal possession based on section O sited above?

Click to expand...

ed said:

They don't. There is no cite because there is no law.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-119


The parts in red make the signs legally enforceable. However, the part in blue can serve as a defense in cases like shopping malls, where they post the prohibition in 0.1 font off in a corner. However, if the sign is reasonably visible, it has legal force.

However, because it can be a real hassle to have someone charged with trespassing, they will usually at least give you a verbal warning before involving the police.

ah.... :banghead:

and some of us (me) believe that under 18.2-308 O, if you are carrying with a CHP on property where it is not allowed by the owner, its as if you are carrying concealed with no permit at all (since your permit is not valid for concealed carry on that property). That IMO leads to an 18.2-308 violation.

ocholsteroc said:

ah.... :banghead:

Click to expand...

Just remember, if the sign can't be reasonably seen, it's not valid. Signs that are practically microscopic, or aren't clearly posted next to the entrance aren't reasonably placed, and so you are clear until informed either verbally or in writing.

ProShooter said:

and some of us (me) believe that under 18.2-308 O, if you are carrying with a CHP on property where it is not allowed by the owner, its as if you are carrying concealed with no permit at all (since your permit is not valid for concealed carry on that property). That IMO leads to an 18.2-308 violation.

Click to expand...

On what basis? The law (18.2-308 (O)) simply says that it doesn't authorize possession. It doesn't say that it no longer authorizes concealment. Since mere possession of a firearm on private property where the owner prohibits it is not illegal, that means that it defaults back to trespass.

A CHP provides an affirmative defense against the charge of concealing a handgun from common observation. Nothing in (O) revokes that affirmative defense. It simply states that it does not exempt you from being charged under 18.2-119 (Trespass).

grylnsmn said:

Just remember, if the sign can't be reasonably seen, it's not valid. Signs that are practically microscopic, or aren't clearly posted next to the entrance aren't reasonably placed, and so you are clear until informed either verbally or in writing.



On what basis? The law (18.2-308 (O)) simply says that it doesn't authorize possession. It doesn't say that it no longer authorizes concealment. Since mere possession of a firearm on private property where the owner prohibits it is not illegal, that means that it defaults back to trespass.

A CHP provides an affirmative defense against the charge of concealing a handgun from common observation. Nothing in (O) revokes that affirmative defense. It simply states that it does not exempt you from being charged under 18.2-119 (Trespass).

Click to expand...

That is also my interpretation of the law. The verbage of sign posting in the tresspassing law is also a good point. Lynnhaven mall for example has it posted at some but not all doors.

Some malls dont even have it posted at all on doors, its just on a sign some where in the store on their "rules board"

grylnsmn said:

On what basis? The law (18.2-308 (O)) simply says that it doesn't authorize possession. It doesn't say that it no longer authorizes concealment. Since mere possession of a firearm on private property where the owner prohibits it is not illegal, that means that it defaults back to trespass.

A CHP provides an affirmative defense against the charge of concealing a handgun from common observation. Nothing in (O) revokes that affirmative defense. It simply states that it does not exempt you from being charged under 18.2-119 (Trespass).

Click to expand...

On the basis of that's what I believe, that's my interpretation, and I don't want to be the test case.

Also, some of my lawyer type prosecutor friends have said that it could go either way. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

grylnsmn said:

On what basis? The law (18.2-308 (O)) simply says that it doesn't authorize possession. It doesn't say that it no longer authorizes concealment. Since mere possession of a firearm on private property where the owner prohibits it is not illegal, that means that it defaults back to trespass.

A CHP provides an affirmative defense against the charge of concealing a handgun from common observation. Nothing in (O) revokes that affirmative defense. It simply states that it does not exempt you from being charged under 18.2-119 (Trespass).

Click to expand...

Yeah I don't buy that either. It just looks like a reminder that private property owners have control of their private property; just because a CHP holder has special permission to break the law and carry a firearm concealed does not mean he also has special permission to disregard a command to leave property / signs / any other law...

Saint1911 said:

Can someone tell me if I am interpreting this law correctly?

Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but I've read 3 different/competing positions on this topic from lawyers.

First...
It's not illegal to break a store rule, whether it's "No Guns" or "No more than 10 items in the Express lane." If they don't like it, and choose to ask you to leave, and if you do not, you are guilty of the crime of tresspassing per 18.2-119 (referenced previously). Leave if they ask (and who wouldn't?) and you're fine.

Second...
18.2-308(O) (referenced previously) indicates that carrying concealed where there's a "No Guns" sign means mean that you are carrying concealed where you are not authorized to do so. You are then guilty of of the crime of carrying a concealed weapon.

Third...
Somehow (haven't heard a good explanation of this) a store rules sign, whether it's "No Guns" or "No more than 10 items in the Express lane," is equivalent to you being forbidden from being on that property if you're breaking that rule, regardless of the property owner's choice of infraction (if any) for breaking the rule. Per this interpretation, this invokes 18.2-119 and you are guilty of the crime of tresspassing whether the owner tells you to leave or not.


People tend to believe the lawyer they're paying, so pay your money and pick your poison.

There is no legal weight for "Mall rules". Private citizens can't make code sections. If there are no Trespassing signs, you can charge someone for trespassing(18.2-119) if you can prove it was reasonable they disregarded the sign. Carrying past signs that say no carry is disrespectful IMO. Just as you want others to respect your right to carry a gun, you should respect their right to make the rules for their own property. Don't give them your money and/or contact them to change their opinion.

DrMark said:

I am not a lawyer, but I've read 3 different/competing positions on this topic from lawyers.

First...
It's not illegal to break a store rule, whether it's "No Guns" or "No more than 10 items in the Express lane." If they don't like it, and choose to ask you to leave, and if you do not, you are guilty of the crime of tresspassing per 18.2-119 (referenced previously). Leave if they ask (and who wouldn't?) and you're fine.

Second...
18.2-308(O) (referenced previously) indicates that carrying concealed where there's a "No Guns" sign means mean that you are carrying concealed where you are not authorized to do so. You are then guilty of of the crime of carrying a concealed weapon.

Third...
Somehow (haven't heard a good explanation of this) a store rules sign, whether it's "No Guns" or "No more than 10 items in the Express lane," is equivalent to you being forbidden from being on that property if you're breaking that rule, regardless of the property owner's choice of infraction (if any) for breaking the rule. Per this interpretation, this invokes 18.2-119 and you are guilty of the crime of tresspassing whether the owner tells you to leave or not.


People tend to believe the lawyer they're paying, so pay your money and pick your poison.

Click to expand...

The way I read the actual text of the law, the third position is the closest to the law as written. However, because of the ambiguities in the law (requiring that signs be reasonably seen or that you be informed verbally or in writing of the prohibition), in practice it functions like the first position.

After all, if they simply call the police to have you arrested for trespassing, and it is then determined that your signs were not able to be reasonably seen, you could theoretically face some sort of liability. However, if you verbally inform someone of a prohibition, regardless of any signs that are posted, there remains no ambiguity about whether the person has been informed, and it reduces your liability. It also potentially eliminates the hassle of having to call the police in the first place (if the individual voluntarily complies).

I honestly see no basis in the text for the second position. 18.2-308 doesn't apply to the possession of a handgun at all. Offenses under that statute only involve carrying a handgun "hidden from common observation", not the mere act of carrying a handgun. As there is no law that specifically criminalizes carrying a handgun on private property without permission of the owner, the matter falls back to general property law, including trespass.

The way that 18.2-308 A is structured, all acts of carrying concealed are illegal. 18.2-308 B then carves out a series of exemptions to 18.2-308 A that act as an affirmative defense to the charge of carrying a handgun hidden from common observation. 18.2-308 O states that a CHP does not authorize you to possess it on private property without permission of the owner, but no other section of law specifically criminalizes that behavior. 18.2-308 O does not create a separate charge related to possession of a handgun on private property without permission of the owner, and it says nothing about invalidating the exemptions outlined in 18.2-308 B. Therefore, I see no basis in the text to claim that carrying concealed on private property without permission of the owner is a violation of 18.2-308 in addition to being a violation of 18.2-119.

Of course, I'm no lawyer. I'm just a Linux admin who likes to read too much.

grylnsmn said:

Of course, I'm no lawyer. I'm just a Linux admin who likes to read too much.

Click to expand...

OCDO makes for better reading than man pages.

NovaCop10 said:

There is no legal weight for "Mall rules". Private citizens can't make code sections. If there are no Trespassing signs, you can charge someone for trespassing(18.2-119) if you can prove it was reasonable they disregarded the sign. Carrying past signs that say no carry is disrespectful IMO. Just as you want others to respect your right to carry a gun, you should respect their right to make the rules for their own property. Don't give them your money and/or contact them to change their opinion.

Click to expand...

Yup!

I'm old, retired and don't see "too good". I don't walk "so good" either. If I don't clearly see a sign somewhere I'm going, I don't worry about it. If I'm CCing correctly, no one will ever know I'm even carrying. I don't OC somewhere unless I'm pretty darn sure they allow it. Its just 'rude' to try OCing somewhere you are pretty sure doesn't allow it. I think by now, we all know that malls don't allow OCing. Bridget and I found out personally, but it took a few visits to do so.

Anyone remember my past last year from Patrick Henry mall when we were OCing in the food court and a small child was rather verbal about seeing Bridget's .45? It only took the mall cops about 30 minutes to find us (and we weren't even hiding from them) and then "escort" us out of the mall, all the way to our vehicle. Coincidently, there was a mall-cop vehicle with amber lights flashing to ensure our safe passage to our car. I wonder if they kept info about my car 'for future reference' after that? I hope so. I hope they're STILL looking for that car that is now scrap metal...