Private Property -> Constitutional Carry

VA allows any private property owner or authorized rep to prohibit firearms on their property. This seems to me to be a one-way (wrong-way) freedom of choice glitch on private property, where the owner can only prohibit rights, and not extend them.

It seems to me that VA should butt out and allow any private property owner the right to allow any form of carrying/possession they want to allow, by anyone they want to while being on their property, as if those welcomed were on their own properties.

As I can open or conceal on my property, regardless of CHP, I should be able to extend that right to whomever I want, for them to open or conceal on my property, to the extent as if they were on their own property. (This would exclude those prohibited by law to possess at all, since even if on their own property, they would still be prohibited).

Churches, private schools, restaurants, retailers, family get togethers on private property, all could extend their personal property rights to Constitutionally carry to their guests, sans CHP's.

Why has VA recognized only the property owner's individual rights, and not those whom he wishes to allow while on his property?

If someone's allowed to open/cc on their own property, why shouldn't they be able tp open/cc on someone else's private property with that owner's permission?

I have given this some thought over the years, and my opinion is that the concealed carry law is in place to protect the general public from the perceived threat of someone carrying a weapon without you knowing it. Theoretically, this gives them an upper hand should they be plotting some nefarious action against you.

If you carry that out to its logical conclusion, property owners may carry concealed in their business and directly in and around their house because "the public" is not there, other than by their own choice. You should know who the owner(s) is(are) and you can decide to be there based on your trust of them to behave properly.

If the law allowed the owner to grant this permission to others. the protection afforded the general public against this perceived threat from strangers is gone, since you may not know and trust everyone else in attendance.

There is limited validity to even attempting to make sense out of laws that are based on hundreds of years of past tradition and perception, but for what its worth. It's almost like doing title research, trying to trace back old laws and discern attitudes from long ago that are linked to our laws today.

Is there a branch of history dedicated to this?

TFred

ChristCrusader said:

VA allows any private property owner or authorized rep to prohibit firearms on their property. This seems to me to be a one-way (wrong-way) freedom of choice glitch on private property, where the owner can only prohibit rights, and not extend them.

It seems to me that VA should butt out and allow any private property owner the right to allow any form of carrying/possession they want to allow, by anyone they want to while being on their property, as if those welcomed were on their own properties.

As I can open or conceal on my property, regardless of CHP, I should be able to extend that right to whomever I want, for them to open or conceal on my property, to the extent as if they were on their own property. (This would exclude those prohibited by law to possess at all, since even if on their own property, they would still be prohibited).

Churches, private schools, restaurants, retailers, family get togethers on private property, all could extend their personal property rights to Constitutionally carry to their guests, sans CHP's.

Why has VA recognized only the property owner's individual rights, and not those whom he wishes to allow while on his property?

If someone's allowed to open/cc on their own property, why shouldn't they be able tp open/cc on someone else's private property with that owner's permission?

Click to expand...

Property owner can issue a name tag that states "I'm in charge here too!"

Anyone with a name tag gets to OC/CC.

I submit that if there is no distinction between private property and public, then anyone can do anything not specifically forbidden......from wearing a red shirt to fornicating in your bedroom.

Constiutional Carry allows the individual the freedom to choose how to carry, not the unfettered right to carry any and everywhere.

Chaos ≠ freedom, nor does it promote equallity.

If I recall

There is a distinction of business property where one may carry concealed and may grant that privilage to employees at one' place of business. It is an interesting difference worthy of investigation. Could the distinction of an employee being under the supervision of the owner be the difference?

The Wolfhound said:

There is a distinction of business property where one may carry concealed and may grant that privilage to employees at one' place of business. It is an interesting difference worthy of investigation. Could the distinction of an employee being under the supervision of the owner be the difference?

Click to expand...

There is no such distinction. I do not know of any provision for a business owner to "grant" an employee the right to carry concealed. The only exception in the code is:

"C1. Any person while in his own place of business;"

Just for completeness, remember that even at home, the exemption only applies "while in his own place of abode or the curtilage thereof." (Paragraph B.) That means if you're standing on the side of the road in front of your house, or if you're mowing grass in a large back yard, you probably aren't covered without a permit. Curtilage is a fairly specific concept, even though it may be hard to pin down an exact definition.

TFred

TFred said:

I have given this some thought over the years, and my opinion is that the concealed carry law is in place to protect the general public from the perceived threat of someone carrying a weapon without you knowing it. Theoretically, this gives them an upper hand should they be plotting some nefarious action against you.

If you carry that out to its logical conclusion, property owners may carry concealed in their business and directly in and around their house because "the public" is not there, other than by their own choice. You should know who the owner(s) is(are) and you can decide to be there based on your trust of them to behave properly.

If the law allowed the owner to grant this permission to others. the protection afforded the general public against this perceived threat from strangers is gone, since you may not know and trust everyone else in attendance.
TFred

Click to expand...

There's some recognizable logic in there, and I congratulate you on being able to overlay logic upon gun-grabbing... not always possible :banghead:
But I think the fair solution would just be to have the owner post a notice that his property is a Constitutional-Carry Safe Zone :banana: and let people decide to enter or not ;-)

OC for ME said:

Property owner can issue a name tag that states "I'm in charge here too!"

Anyone with a name tag gets to OC/CC.

Click to expand...

That's a great, hilarious solution, 'til I looked back and it says, "1. Any person while in his own place of business", no mention of authorized agent or the like for having exception-cc rights, only for restricting others of their carrying rights.

TFred said:

There is no such distinction. I do not know of any provision for a business owner to "grant" an employee the right to carry concealed. The only exception in the code is:

"C1. Any person while in his own place of business;"

Just for completeness, remember that even at home, the exemption only applies "while in his own place of abode or the curtilage thereof." (Paragraph B.) That means if you're standing on the side of the road in front of your house, or if you're mowing grass in a large back yard, you probably aren't covered without a permit. Curtilage is a fairly specific concept, even though it may be hard to pin down an exact definition.

TFred

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Does "own" equate to ownership/proprietorship or is it where one works. If the latter, then an employee could legally carry where they work - might be fired for not following employer's rules though.

In some states an employee of an establishment may carry with the permission of the owner - Washington & North Carolina are among these I believe, though it might only apply to businesses selling alcohol by the drink.

ChristCrusader said:

--snipped--
But I think the fair solution would just be to have the owner post a notice that his property is a Constitutional-Carry Safe Zone :banana: and let people decide to enter or not ;-)

Click to expand...

Please no signs!

GRZ signs embolden the antis and irritate the pro gunnies. Nothing good comes of them...and they carry no legal authority in and of themselves.

I daily carry anticipating that I will have no problems - doesn't mean I am not prepared. I have never asked if I was welcome with my little friend.

No guns = no me = no money spent there.

All in all very, very few businesses refuse service to those that carry.

Grapeshot said:

Hmmm. Does "own" equate to ownership/proprietorship or is it where one works. If the latter, then an employee could legally carry where they work - might be fired for not following employer's rules though.

In some states an employee of an establishment may carry with the permission of the owner - Washington & North Carolina are among these I believe, though it might only apply to businesses selling alcohol by the drink.

Click to expand...

If that's what they meant, then I suspect that they would have written:

"C1. Any person while in his own place of employment;"

But they didn't.

TFred

Back to the quandary posted by the OP -

I've had a solution (for the retail NO Guns and the desired goal of allowing same ) stored on the top shelf in my closet for some time - it's not very popular with some.

Create a 3rd type/degree of property owner.
We now have public & private only - you are either one or the other.

The 3rd property owner distinction would be quasi-public - those commercial/retail establishments that invite the public to do business (via offer to sell) with them. These would be limited to the same statutes/rules that are in effect for public properties (i.e. parks, streets, etc.) therewith guns would be legal for honest people to carry in those establishments. There are already special laws effecting these business - zoning, health & safety, and building codes, so the idea is not w/o precedent of other special conditions.

Private property would then be limited by definition to residences and membership clubs.

There is notable resistance to this idea from the staunch private property adherents. Behind that stonewall will stand the large shopping mall owners who are huge tax payers. The pot could be sweetened by protecting them from liability for acts of 3rd parties not directly associated with the mall owners.

If this could be made to happen along with Constitutional Carry, my smile would exceed that of the Cheshire Cat on its best day and I'd make a fortune selling duct tape to the antis to keep their head from exploding. Question: How do you keep a head from imploding?

Hmmm - new product = Anti-Duct Tape........it only sticks to ultra liberals. :lol:

TFred said:

If that's what they meant, then I suspect that they would have written:

"C1. Any person while in his own place of employment;"
But they didn't.

Click to expand...

But any place I'm at, I'm doing my business, and my business is my own business, lol

§ 18.2-308, C. Except as provided in subsection A of § 18.2-308.012, this section shall not apply to:
1. Any person while in his own place of business;

Grapeshot said:

Create a 3rd type/degree of property owner.
We now have public & private only - you are either one or the other.

The 3rd property owner distinction would be quasi-public - those commercial/retail establishments that invite the public to do business (via offer to sell) with them. These would be limited to the same statutes/rules that are in effect for public properties (i.e. parks, streets, etc.) therewith guns would be legal for honest people to carry in those establishments. There are already special laws effecting these business - zoning, health & safety, and building codes, so the idea is not w/o precedent of other special conditions.

Private property would then be limited by definition to residences and membership clubs.

Click to expand...

That's is an intriguing, excellent fix at first glance, grapeshot...

It touches on an aspect I was mentally toying with, that private property owners who necessarily secure a license from the gov't to be authorized to do a degree of business with the public, do therefore enter into a category where the government can deliberately attach a prohibition against restricting firearms in order to protect the public's rights.

It's gotten cloudy, though, because I think there needs to be a religious or conscientious objection exemption, now that we have the likes of bakeries being forced to provide services contrary to their religion. We can't have government imposing actions against religious beliefs.


"*...In a recent column, radio talk show host Tammy Bruce wrote: "As a gay conservative woman, I supported Arizona's religious freedom bill, which was just vetoed this week by Gov. Jan Brewer...Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of 'equality and fairness.' Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well...If we are able to coerce someone, via the threat of lawsuit and personal destruction, to provide a service, how is that not slavery? If we insist that you must violate your faith specifically in that slavish action how is that not abject tyranny?...Of all the people in the world who should understand the scourge of living under constant threat of losing life, liberty or the ability to make a living because of who you are, it's gays.

"Horribly, the gay civil rights movement has morphed into a Gay Gestapo. Its ranks will now do the punishing of those who dare to be different or dissent from the approved leftist dogma. To all the young gays who tweet and email me that this is about 'equality,' how exactly? Forcing someone to do something against their faith has nothing to do with equality for you, has nothing to do with bigotry and has everything to do with a personal, spiritual understanding of right and wrong. In other words, I tell them, not everything is about you..."

This does beg the question about freedom of religion, freedom of association and what the government can compel its citizens to do. Should the government punish the Jewish photographer because he refuses to take pictures for a gathering of Skinheads? Should the government levy fines against an African-American printer who refuses to print posters for a Ku Klux Klan rally? Should a homosexual painter be forced to paint signs for the infamous Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka that reads "God Hates ****!"

The answer is no to all of these.

The government should not compel an individual to engage in a business transaction that violates their conscience. The "Gay Gestapo" (of which not all gays and lesbians are a part) is now pushing well beyond "live and let live" territory into using the law to punitively enforce their political and social agenda.

Sincerely,
Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association"

*snipped from an AFA action alert email

Grapeshot said:

Back to the quandary posted by the OP -

I've had a solution (for the retail NO Guns and the desired goal of allowing same ) stored on the top shelf in my closet for some time - it's not very popular with some.

Create a 3rd type/degree of property owner.
We now have public & private only - you are either one or the other.

The 3rd property owner distinction would be quasi-public - those commercial/retail establishments that invite the public to do business (via offer to sell) with them. These would be limited to the same statutes/rules that are in effect for public properties (i.e. parks, streets, etc.) therewith guns would be legal for honest people to carry in those establishments. There are already special laws effecting these business - zoning, health & safety, and building codes, so the idea is not w/o precedent of other special conditions.

Private property would then be limited by definition to residences and membership clubs.

There is notable resistance to this idea from the staunch private property adherents. Behind that stonewall will stand the large shopping mall owners who are huge tax payers. The pot could be sweetened by protecting them from liability for acts of 3rd parties not directly associated with the mall owners.

If this could be made to happen along with Constitutional Carry, my smile would exceed that of the Cheshire Cat on its best day and I'd make a fortune selling duct tape to the antis to keep their head from exploding. Question: How do you keep a head from imploding?

Hmmm - new product = Anti-Duct Tape........it only sticks to ultra liberals. :lol:

Click to expand...

Underline added by me for emphasis only...

If we apply the logic that the government's ability to inflict special laws upon businesses would empower the government to have even further control of the private property owner's right to control his/her own property with gun bans because we would like to be able to exercise our right to bear arms while on/in private property....

Please consider... we essentially would be asking the government to force someone else to give up his private property right so we could exercise our right to bear arms. Hmmmm... do we really want the give the government even more power to infringe upon rights just because the infringement happens upon a different right?

Oh.. also... there are already special laws affecting home owners - zoning, building codes, health hazards, etc.. Would that mean the government should be able to have even further control and decree that the homeowner cannot restrict the rights of others... such as... ban guns on/in his property?

Please let us not allow *our own selfish desire to carry everywhere and anywhere to step on the private property rights of others because when we pit one right against the other and even ask the government to referee the issue... the only thing we would accomplish is giving the government even more power to trample all rights.

*I used the word "our" on purpose because I too would like to be able to carry anywhere and everywhere yet I understand that for me to expect my favorite right be respected while disrespecting the favorite right of a property owner would not only be hypocritical of me... but when I look to Daddy Government to help me force the property owner to give up more of his property rights all I'm doing is giving Daddy Government even more power over all of us.

^ ^ ^ I know the problem(s) ^ ^ ^

Bikenut said:

If we apply the logic that the government's ability to inflict special laws upon businesses would empower the government to have even further control of the private property owner's right to control his/her own property with gun bans because we would like to be able to exercise our right to bear arms while on/in private property....

Please consider... we essentially would be asking the government to force someone else to give up his private property right so we could exercise our right to bear arms. Hmmmm... do we really want the give the government even more power to infringe upon rights just because the infringement happens upon a different right?

Oh.. also... there are already special laws affecting home owners - zoning, building codes, health hazards, etc.. Would that mean the government should be able to have even further control and decree that the homeowner cannot restrict the rights of others... such as... ban guns on/in his property?

Please let us not allow *our own selfish desire to carry everywhere and anywhere to step on the private property rights of others because when we pit one right against the other and even ask the government to referee the issue... the only thing we would accomplish is giving the government even more power to trample all rights.

*I used the word "our" on purpose because I too would like to be able to carry anywhere and everywhere yet I understand that for me to expect my favorite right be respected while disrespecting the favorite right of a property owner would not only be hypocritical of me... but when I look to Daddy Government to help me force the property owner to give up more of his property rights all I'm doing is giving Daddy Government even more power over all of us.

Click to expand...

The reasonable, acceptable, limited purpose of government is to protect people's rights.
Our rights to keep and bear arms is specifically, itemized, protected both by the US Constitution's 2A, and by VA's Constitutional Article 13.
I think that we've been hoodwinked into misunderstanding that our rights to keep and bear arms are only protected from infringement from the government.
US Constitution's 1A starts off, "Congress shall make no law" regarding free speach, religion, etc.
Notably differently, neither the 2A nor Art 13 specify an entity that's not allowed to infringe against us. Our right to not be infringed is universal against any entity.
Private Property owner's rights are subservient. They cannot invite us in contingent upon our surrendering our rights. This cannot be the determinant factor to prohibit our access.

I understand I'm speaking as it should be; not as is currently, aberrantly reflected in law.

I have no fears of repurcussions for expecting my uninfringable right to be superior to others, because, dammit, that's what it says, and any cross logic or cross application to another alleged right that's not supported by its own similar Constitutional amendment would be debatable as not having the same legs to stand on.

Grapeshot said:

Please no signs!

GRZ signs embolden the antis and irritate the pro gunnies. Nothing good comes of them...and they carry no legal authority in and of themselves.

Click to expand...

I'd wouldn't mind seeing these

we have discussed the so called "private property rights". there are none. but the law does allow for people to carry on their own property

i think this is one thing that is allowed in NC. a property owner can grant someone to carry on their property.
be it a home owner or a business where they sell alcohol

ChristCrusader said:

<snip> Notably differently, neither the 2A nor Art 13 specify an entity that's not allowed to infringe against us. Our right to not be infringed is universal against any entity.
Private Property owner's rights are subservient. They cannot invite us in contingent upon our surrendering our rights. This cannot be the determinant factor to prohibit our access.

I understand I'm speaking as it should be; not as is currently, aberrantly reflected in law.

I have no fears of repurcussions for expecting my uninfringable right to be superior to others, because, dammit, that's what it says, and any cross logic or cross application to another alleged right that's not supported by its own similar Constitutional amendment would be debatable as not having the same legs to stand on.

Click to expand...

A property owner does not infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms. He exercise his right to exclude you from entering, or remaining, on his property because you are armed. His property right is not subordinate to your 2A.

OC for ME said:

A property owner does not infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms. He exercise his right to exclude you from entering, or remaining, on his property because you are armed. His property right is not subordinate to your 2A.

Click to expand...

I have the US2A and the VA Art1, Sect13 guaranteeing my right. Where's his right stipulated to be superior to mine? And not some inferior law or ruling that contraddicts the law of the land. And not just because that's the way we've let it be for so long. It would need to be stipulated as an Amendment at least to the US Constitution. How does the exercise of my right infringe on any right of his, other than his proposed superior right to prevent me from bearing? What is he prevented from doing if my right to bear were superior? Nothing, yet him demanding I disarm stops a very real right of mine. It makes no sense, barring hoplophobia, and prog-lib instigated, generational brainwashed lunacy.

That's the aberrant way the law is structured as of today (and prob. at least tomorrow as well )

But our right to bear is not to be infringed by anyone. So if a property owner is admitting others of the public (especially as a licensed, quasi-public entity as grapeshot insightfully ponders), but prohibits me from carrying in exchange for entering, then he is seeking to infringe on my right to carry while in the course of my (quasi-) public life, withholding -- holding hostage, potentially necessary goods or services for my well being.

While we still have our US2A and VA Art.1, Sect13 protected rights, I think they should be re-activated and practiced. Otherwise, they're being overwriting in effect. Maybe people have thought the compromises to date have been acceptable. I find them offensive as is, and they're ramping up in their misuse and seek to expand and further encroach.
A property owner can restrict access to all, to invitiation only, or open to the public. He cannot require me to disarm, in exchange for access, as that would be an infringement upon my uninfringable right to bear, as protected by US and VA constitutions (to date).

I would excuse someone in deference to their religious beliefs or legally tested and acknowledged conscientious objection.

I understand it's not that way, but it should be; because the way it is, is not justifiable by Supreme law, nor logic.

Can't come in with brown shoes. Wha?! That makes no sense, but I have no protected right.
Can't come in with a firearm. Wha? Not! You cannot infringe on my Contitutionally protected right to bear.

Please demonstrate at the Constitutional level where a property owner's rights supercede my right to bear? That's where my right's protection comes from, and if properly protected by the courts, it would be among the top of the heirarchy, where it was originally placed and intended to stay.

Of course, I'm not demanding the right to carry onto someone's property and to subsequently shoot them; but to carry on, and carry off, having done nothing to interpose any disruption into the owner's life or business.

ChristCrusader said:

I have the US2A and the VA Art1, Sect13 guaranteeing my right. Where's his right stipulated to be superior to mine?

Click to expand...

It's not.

But, where is your right to be on his property stipulated?

Your right to self defense (including the right to bear arms) is absolute, but so is his right to control his property. There is no conflict between the two rights because you don't have the right to be on his property. You are there by his permission only. At least, that is how it works in a 100% rights-oriented society.

Anything less than that is an infringement of someone's rights. Now, you might consider it to be a justifiable infringement, but remember that that is the same sort of argument that the antis make with regards to our right to bear arms.

Nightmare said:

The Constitution and Bill of Rights grant none, but merely enumerate natural rights from our Creator. Ownership, as of oneself, may be the ultimate natural right.

Click to expand...

While both the US' and VA's constitution acknowledge, not confer, peoples' right to keep and bear arms, they go further to confer immunity from infringement upon those existing rights... not from a particular source or threat, but from any source that might seek to infringe. No qualifiers... only bottom line that no infringement be allowed. Until the 2A or Art1, Sect13 amended or otherwise undone, by democracy at the hands of prog-libs; an Art. V convention granted to the prog libs via misled, or libs-disguised-as-, conservatives; or an out of control, 3-branches-unified federal government content with national destruction as as acceptable outcome.

grylnsmn said:

But, where is your right to be on his property stipulated?.

Click to expand...

When he invites/allows the public onto his property, I am no longer eligible to be excluded based solely on me bearing, as per the Constitutions.

grylnsmn said:

Your right to self defense (including the right to bear arms) is absolute, but so is his right to control his property... Now, you might consider it to be a justifiable infringement, but remember that that is the same sort of argument that the antis make with regards to our right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

1. He has the right to not invite the public
2. He doesn't have a Constitutional stipulation barring infringement, thus if there's infringing to be done, it won't be with the uninfringable right.
3. My exercised higher right does not restrict or prohibit any action of his; whereas in contrast, should his right be supreme, it would leave me disadvantaged, vulnerable, unarmed, exposed to threat, my valuable property left outside unattented, or left with the choice of going without the desired or needed goods or services that are otherwise available to the public.