State code question on carrying where private owner does not allow

Saint1911 · Mar 24, 2011

Exactly my concern

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.

I have heard the same arguements and I am curious if there is an AG opinions or Case Laws that address this specific situation. I get if it is posted don't do it and if you are ask to leave comply but there still seems to be room to get into hot water when you are trying to comply with the law "as you understand" "interpret it" "have been told" etc.

Grapeshot · Mar 24, 2011

NovaCop10 said:
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. .

How do you "prove" that if there are no signs?

Is there a training block on how to charge someone for disregarding a non-existent sign?

OK, I'll cut you some slack as I know you meant "No Trespassing" signs :lol:

NovaCop · Mar 24, 2011

Grapeshot said:
How do you "prove" that if there are no signs?

Is there a training block on how to charge someone for disregarding a non-existent sign?

OK, I'll cut you some slack as I know you meant "No Trespassing" signs :lol:

HAHA thank you, yeah I think I should stay off the board when I first wake up.

All American Nightmare · Mar 24, 2011

NovaCop10 said:
HAHA thank you, yeah I think I should stay off the board when I first wake up.

......--Moderator Deleted Reply--
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

NovaCop · Mar 24, 2011

xdm guy said:
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

Saying that I shouldn't post when I am tired is a personal attack? On who? Myself? Such an ignorant viewpoint you portray.

.............--Moderator Correction--
The response was Moderator error in not showing proper credit for a deletion/edit - my bad.

curtiswr · Mar 24, 2011

NovaCop10 said:
Saying that I shouldn't post when I am tired is a personal attack? On who? Myself? Such an ignorant viewpoint you portray.

He may have insulted you and his post was then edited by a moderator and replaced with the rule he violated as a reminder to him.

Way to think outside the box, champ.

PT111 · Mar 24, 2011

Saint1911 said:
I have heard the same arguements and I am curious if there is an AG opinions or Case Laws that address this specific situation. I get if it is posted don't do it and if you are ask to leave comply but there still seems to be room to get into hot water when you are trying to comply with the law "as you understand" "interpret it" "have been told" etc.

That is one thing about the laws in SC on signs. They are very specific on lettering, size and where they have to be posted. Case laws would be a good source if there are any but the problem with an AG opinion is that it is just an opinion and holds no meaning in court so you can't depend on it at all. One thing that I have to say about this thread is that I saw the work respect several times and I like that. It is one thing to let management know about your position and make it known with your business going elsewhere but another to be asked to leave one week and the next week show back up complaining that you didn't know because you didn't see the small sign. One way this can be settled is for someone to be a test case so who wants to volunteer?

All American Nightmare · Mar 24, 2011

NovaCop10 said:
Saying that I shouldn't post when I am tired is a personal attack? On who? Myself? Such an ignorant viewpoint you portray.

Curtis said:
He may have insulted you and his post was then edited by a moderator and replaced with the rule he violated as a reminder to him.

Way to think outside the box, champ.

What I posted was my personal opinion not a personal attack.

thaJack · Apr 19, 2012

grylnsmn said:
Actually, there is.

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

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

...
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.

Not sure about malls in other places, but Valley View Mall in Roanoke posts it as one of the very small rules on the very small list of rules, but they don't even post it at every entrance.

I'd say that "I entered through Sears" (or Macy's, or JC Penny, or Buffalo Wild Wings, or essentially any entrance that goes directly to a store) would be a viable defense.

ryan7068 · Apr 19, 2012

What constitutes Private Property???

thaJack said:
I'd say that "I entered through Sears" (or Macy's, or JC Penny, or Buffalo Wild Wings, or essentially any entrance that goes directly to a store) would be a viable defense.

I know the above was just an example but BWW's has a no guns on premisis sign........moving on....

Ive watch "the constitution videos" on youtube regarding land ownership.....He states that tecnically most people own real estate and area above land.....while the government still technically owns the land below(thats why builing permits and such are required and they are allowed to run stuff under your property)

Also, I have have heard that if you were naked in your house but people could see you through your windows, you can get arrested because you're not in private....same with back yards and privacy fences........

Example case: Mall parking lot.....while technically their property.........is it private property?.....can they regulate it since it isn't inside? Could you go onto someones property with a sign posted so long as you don't go inside? What would constitute **private** property?

I know it seems kinda like splitting hairs, just curious for some insight?!

TFred · Apr 19, 2012

ryan7068 said:
Ive watch "the constitution videos" on youtube regarding land ownership.....He states that tecnically most people own real estate and area above land.....while the government still technically owns the land below(thats why builing permits and such are required and they are allowed to run stuff under your property)

I'm not the best to explain the legal terms for this, but yes, you are correct. Virtually no land in the United States is actually fully owned privately. What we own is the right to use it, but even then, conditionally.

If it was fully owned, then there would be no liability to pay taxes or to accede to any zoning or usage restrictions.

See this article on Wikipedia.

This is a difficult pill to swallow for someone who is paying on a fairly large mortgage.... or more accurately, to someone who has just finished paying off a mortgage!

TFred

peter nap · Apr 19, 2012

TFred said:
I'm not the best to explain the legal terms for this, but yes, you are correct. Virtually no land in the United States is actually fully owned privately. What we own is the right to use it, but even then, conditionally.

If it was fully owned, then there would be no liability to pay taxes or to accede to any zoning or usage restrictions.

See this article on Wikipedia.

This is a difficult pill to swallow for someone who is paying on a fairly large mortgage.... or more accurately, to someone who has just finished paying off a mortgage!

TFred

Geese....what brought this old thread back up?

Tfred....ownership is not in a piece of paper. I'm pretty sure someone in England is still claiming to own America.
I own my land and will until I die. Then it's some elses responsibility/problem. They may knuckle under, I won't.

Bad subject to get into here.

TFred · Apr 19, 2012

peter nap said:
Geese....what brought this old thread back up?

Tfred....ownership is not in a piece of paper. I'm pretty sure someone in England is still claiming to own America.
I own my land and will until I die. Then it's some elses responsibility/problem. They may knuckle under, I won't.

Bad subject to get into here.

thaJack has been resurrecting a whole bunch of very old threads. I don't know why. I wish they would turn on the vBulletin feature that requires you to answer about 3 "Yes" checkboxes before it allows you to post a new message on a thread that is over a year old...

And of all the people here... yeah, it doesn't surprise me that you'd take exception to the land ownership thing...

It was quite a surprise to me the first time I read it (it was here, by the way) myself!

TFred

peter nap · Apr 19, 2012

TFred said:
thaJack has been resurrecting a whole bunch of very old threads. I don't know why. I wish they would turn on the vBulletin feature that requires you to answer about 3 "Yes" checkboxes before it allows you to post a new message on a thread that is over a year old...

And of all the people here... yeah, it doesn't surprise me that you'd take exception to the land ownership thing... It was quite a surprise to me the first time I read it (it was here, by the way) myself!

TFred

i've read it. It's like a lot of things, it all boils down to who wins the fight.

Years ago I'd have reluctantly agreed with you but in essence, my kids are on their own, my responsibilities are over, and my chances of longevity ran out a couple of years ago. I don't have a single thing to lose and that frees up a lot of possibilities.

thaJack · Apr 19, 2012

I'm sorry if I have caused a problem. I was just reading through threads for stuff I am interested in. Would it have been less evil to start new ones on the same topic?

peter nap · Apr 19, 2012

thaJack said:
I'm sorry if I have caused a problem. I was just reading through threads for stuff I am interested in. Would it have been less evil to start new ones on the same topic?

Not necessarily a problem Jack and it's great you're reading the old threads.
They do tend to drift in and out of topic and sometimes it is better to start a new topic.

Some boards are kind of anal about that. Cast Boolits for instance, will often get you a "Use the search engine" answer...so you're really damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I wasn't fussing about the old threads, just wondering who was opening them (It does make my skin crawl to see Novacops name though)

Red Dawg · Apr 20, 2012

Kind of funny. I didn't notice the date as 2011, I was reading as if it was mar 12...Was surprised to see NOVACOPS posting too..

TFred · Apr 20, 2012

thaJack said:
I'm sorry if I have caused a problem. I was just reading through threads for stuff I am interested in. Would it have been less evil to start new ones on the same topic?

Like Peter Nap said... not a "problem" so much, but just why drag up an old thread unless there is something particularly substantial to add to it? There are a few skeletons on those old threads, and seeing them pop up again is cause for at least a short startle... until one notices the dates... or a longer startle if they don't notice them.

TFred

State code question on carrying where private owner does not allow

Saint1911

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

NovaCop

New member

All American Nightmare

Regular Member

NovaCop

New member

curtiswr

Regular Member

PT111

Regular Member

All American Nightmare

Regular Member

thaJack

Regular Member

ryan7068

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

TFred

Regular Member

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

thaJack

Regular Member

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

Red Dawg

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member