cracker barrel on gaskins

[peter nap]

I'm well familiar with that law. It's cited in any thread about trespassing, and appropriately so.

Its basis is that going on or remaining on property after having been told not to (i.e. told to keep out or to leave) is trespassing. I'm wondering how you drew the conclusion that one can be trespassing without having been told to keep out or to leave.

It's in black and white and easy to understand Mark....but it has been argued over and over. There's no sense in that because everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My advice to anyone that feels what is written is different than what is...is to follow their own instincts, carry User's card and don't call me for bail!:lol:

The idea is to give people good examples of the law, not suppositions or jailhouse interpretations. We have enough problems when we obey the law such as Scouser or Skidmark. Giving members here the idea that they can not be arrested for bringing a gun into an establishment after being forbidden to, is irresponsible at best.

Saying that a no guns sign is only a suggestion is the same as the joke I make about Dog Hunters thinking No Trespassing is French for welcome.

 

[Glockster]

I'm well familiar with that law. It's cited in any thread about trespassing, and appropriately so.

Its basis is that going on or remaining on property after having been told not to (i.e. told to keep out or to leave) is trespassing. I'm wondering how you drew the conclusion that one can be trespassing without having been told to keep out or to leave.

I believe that he drew the conclusion from his above from these exact words in the law cited above:

...or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted....

Those words seem to clearly indicate that a sign is the basis of having already told someone to keep out or to leave.

 

[Mongoose72]

No Firearms Signs "Force of Law"

No, it's not a conclusion Mark and I cited the law a couple of pages ago.



§ 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 the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person 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,

Apples and oranges…
Posting a sign about no trespassing and a sign about rules of conduct are 2 separate things. The “no trespassing” sign means no one allowed; period. Gun owners and defenseless citizens alike!!! Regardless this all seems to be an endless hypothetical debate about the law in theory as no one here has ever cited a case where someone has been trespassed in VA for simply carrying a gun into a posted establishment. There are however other states where such signs do carry "the force of law". Thus in practice the officer must witness you refusing to leave after being told to leave. Furthermore most officers do not want to waste their time arresting trespassers and will usually ask the trespasser to leave 2-3 times before arresting them, although they certainly do have the right to arrest after the 1st request is refused.


The critical part on handgun law’s website summation reads:
“No Firearm” signs in Virginia have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/virginia.pdf

Again the law on paper and in practice are 2 separate things.
“It is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel”-Thoreau

 

[scouser]

It's in black and white and easy to understand Mark....but it has been argued over and over. There's no sense in that because everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My advice to anyone that feels what is written is different than what is...is to follow their own instincts, carry User's card and don't call me for bail!:lol:

The idea is to give people good examples of the law, not suppositions or jailhouse interpretations. We have enough problems when we obey the law such as Scouser or Skidmark. Giving members here the idea that they can not be arrested for bringing a gun into an establishment after being forbidden to, is irresponsible at best.

Saying that a no guns sign is only a suggestion is the same as the joke I make about Dog Hunters thinking No Trespassing is French for welcome.

I'll add just a few words to what peter nap said, and my words are specifically about the Cracker Barrel location being talked about.

It's in Henrico County

 

[Glockster]

Apples and oranges…
Posting a sign about no trespassing and a sign about rules of conduct are 2 separate things. The “no trespassing” sign means no one allowed; period. Gun owners and defenseless citizens alike!!! Regardless this all seems to be an endless hypothetical debate about the law in theory as no one here has ever cited a case where someone has been trespassed in VA for simply carrying a gun into a posted establishment. There are however other states where such signs do carry "the force of law". Thus in practice the officer must witness you refusing to leave after being told to leave. Furthermore most officers do not want to waste their time arresting trespassers and will usually ask the trespasser 2-3 times before arresting them, although they certainly do have the right to arrest after the 1st request is refused.


The critical part on handgun law’s website summation reads:
“No Firearm” signs in Virginia have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/virginia.pdf

Again the law on paper and in practice are 2 separate things.
“It is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel”-Thoreau

If you have any citation which legally describes what either a trespass or rules of conduct sign are, please share. Or any citation which codifies within the Virginia Code that which is contained on that handgunlaw.us website, please share (that may be "critical" but that would be critical to that discussion on that website, which has no weight or force of law).

I can find nothing within Virginia Code which specifies what a "no trespass" sign must contain. I find nothing that indicates that the words "no trespass" are even required nor anything which would specify that if you have a no weapons sign that it would not or cannot be construed as a no trespass sign. On the other hand, a sign which states no trespass is unambiguous , and it seems to me that so is a no firearm sign (clearly unambiguous because everyone here seems to recognize that it means that the property owner has indicated that a firearm cannot be carried onto the property and instead are trying to argue whether a sign is "notice" of trespass).

 

[Mongoose72]

If you have any citation which legally describes what either a trespass or rules of conduct sign are, please share. Or any citation which codifies within the Virginia Code that which is contained on that handgunlaw.us website, please share (that may be "critical" but that would be critical to that discussion on that website, which has no weight or force of law).

I can find nothing within Virginia Code which specifies what a "no trespass" sign must contain. I find nothing that indicates that the words "no trespass" are even required nor anything which would specify that if you have a no weapons sign that it would not or cannot be construed as a no trespass sign. On the other hand, a sign which states no trespass is unambiguous , and it seems to me that so is a no firearm sign (clearly unambiguous because everyone here seems to recognize that it means that the property owner has indicated that a firearm cannot be carried onto the property and instead are trying to argue whether a sign is "notice" of trespass).

I think that the problem here is that people are trying to get the law to say more than it actually says. No trespassing means all must stay out (obviously doesn't apply to invitees, employees, etc). A code of conduct sign put up by a business will not be covered by VA law quite simply because it is not law, it is simply the wishes of the property owner. Obviously in the states where such signs do carry the force of law this must be encoded in a statute somewhere, VA simply does not have such a statute.


For curther clarity in Tennessee no gun signs do have the force of law and thus it has been put into statute:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/tennessee.pdf

(a) (1) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

(2) The prohibition in subdivision (a)(1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351
(b) (1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (b)(3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

(c) (1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.
(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).

§ 39-17-1359 Tennessee Annotated Code.

 

[Glockster]

I think that the problem here is that people are trying to get the law to say more than it actually says. No trespassing means all must stay out (obviously doesn't apply to invitees, employees, etc). A code of conduct sign put up by a business will not be covered by VA law quite simply because it is not law, it is simply the wishes of the property owner. Obviously in the states where such signs do carry the force of law this must be encoded in a statute somewhere, VA simply does not have such a statute.

I can't agree with the conclusion that you reach.

While I agree that a no trespass sign means that without permission you may not enter the property, I do not agree with the notion that it means that "all must stay out." The very fact that there are exceptions ("invitees, employees, etc.") is ergo ipso facto that not all must stay out. Therefore it clearly indicates that all without permission must remain out of the property as there is no obligation upon the property owner to post who **may** be allowed on the property, therefore the sign applies to those who do not have permission to be there (so if you do not have explicit permission, the no trespass applies to you; and a "no trespass unless authorized" sign implicitly infers that some may have rights by predetermined conditions).

And the same must certainly apply to a firearm sign. I do not agree that it is a so-called "conduct sign" as there is nothing in Virginia Code that I know of which provides for a conduct sign. That is simply your own term.

However, if a sign that indicates "no trespass" must be construed as meaning that unless you have permission to be there you don't, then a no firearms sign must be construed that you have permission to be there (for conducting business - seeing how we're almost certainly applying this conversation to businesses) unless you have a firearms, and if you do then you explicitly do not have permission. It is a sign which is placed upon the entryway of a business, and the meaning is clear (i.e., nobody here is claiming that it suggests painting a red circle/line on your weapon as a condition of entry).

As for anything else other than what PeterNap has said, skidmark's point should also be well taken. And scouser is clearly making an additional significant point that I'd hope wouldn't be lost on anyone.

 

[Mongoose72]

Reply to Dan

I think that your confusion is between public and private places. Businesses such as malls and restaurants are open to the public while private clubs are not. A public business must list places where they do not want the general public to go, they usually do this by listing “employees only” etc. this btw is also the difference between being “licensee” and an “invitee”. If Virginia meant for its property owners to be able to have gun owners arrested for not following their wishes then they would enact a statute similar to the one Tennessee has (it goes into effect on 7/1/2013).

Again this is all hypothetical as no one can cite a case in VA where one is arrested solely for failure to follow a no gun sign.

 

[peter nap]

This is not the first (or 2nd or 3rd or 4th) time this has been argued Mongoose. It always ends the same way. Those of us that are right go on to other things.:lol:

Perhaps Southpark can resolve it one day. They did with "He's coming right at me".

Arrested or not though, people who insist on patronizing places that forbid guns and sneaking one in will result in signs that say "People with guns are forbidden to enter".

Now back to more important things.

 

[Glockster]

I think that your confusion is between public and private places. Businesses such as malls and restaurants are open to the public while private clubs are not. A public business must list places where they do not want the general public to go, they usually do this by listing “employees only” etc. this btw is also the difference between being “licensee” and an “invitee”. If Virginia meant for its property owners to be able to have gun owners arrested for not following their wishes then they would enact a statute similar to the one Tennessee has (it goes into effect on 7/1/2013).

Again this is all hypothetical as no one can cite a case in VA where one is arrested solely for failure to follow a no gun sign.

Sorry, but I don't think that I'm confused at all.

Where does it state that a "business must list places where they do not want the general public to go"? What is the legal requirement for that?

The difference between, since you brought that one up, the TN law and VA not having that codified is that the TN law makes it a separate offense to breach the rule created by placing that sign. It creates a breach that is separate and independent from a trespass. Nowhere in that TN code does it use the word trespass. It is therefore a separate offense.

You assume that simply because VA does not have a similar law that then trespass does not apply. Trespass is separate, a different classification and with different penalties. I don't see how you can state that VA didn't mean to have property owners to be able to have gun owners arrested for trespass (bringing a firearm onto the property when notified in advance by signage) simply because they haven't (yet at least) enacted a separate law regarding firearms signs? Perhaps VA doesn't believe that it **needs** a separate law because the trespass portion of the existing VA Code applies.

 

[Glockster]

Arrested or not though, people who insist on patronizing places that forbid guns and sneaking one in will result in signs that say "People with guns are forbidden to enter".

Now back to more important things.

+1

Followed by a VA Code which says that since you didn't listen to the trespass code, "here's your code" for gun signs (referring to Bill Engval's "Here's your sign" comedy bit).

 

[Grapeshot]

I think that I have read this book before. Even the chapter titles look all too familiar and the pages are dog-eared.

OMG - my intials are written on the inside of the back cover.

BTW - I don't carry where the private property owner doesn't want my money - that is the last chapter and verse. That is all I have to say on this.

You all play nice now, ya hear.

 

[OC for ME]

§ 18.2-120. Instigating, etc.....

It's only instigating if you are dumb enough to own up to instigating.

Get plenty of gun toting patrons to show up and have management tell each individual, in turn, to leave. Takes time and a huge crowd dissuades others from stopping.

Manager: No guns.
Patron 1: OK, no money.
Manager: No guns.
Patron 2: OK no money.
Manager: No guns.
Patron 3: OK, no money.

.....Touristos from Michigan, on their way to Williamsburg....."Look at the wait, we're not stopping here."

Manager: No guns.
Patron 4: OK, no money.
Manager: No guns.
Patron 5: OK, no money.

...ect...

 

[optiksguy]

No, it's not a conclusion Mark and I cited the law a couple of pages ago.



§ 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 the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person 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,

My question is in the case of a 'gun-buster' sign, is it actually forbidding me from going up the property of another, or simply informing that certain objects are not welcome there? To me that is not the same thing. The law deals with expressly forbidding a person from going up on or remaining on your property. I dont see anything about store policies, conditions of entry etc, so I don't understand how ignoring gunbusters signs is trespassing. Now, if they had a sign that said "Persons carring weapons/firearms/whatever are forbidden from these premises", that would be a different story (to my mind anyway).

I guess the other way to look at it is only people can trespass. Your gunbusters sign implies that my firearm is trespassing. So charge it with trespassing

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--.

I guess the other way to look at it is only people can trespass. Your gunbusters sign implies that my firearm is trespassing. So charge it with trespassing

Fun knee, but don't think that interpertation will work in court.

 

[peter nap]

I guess the other way to look at it is only people can trespass. Your gunbusters sign implies that my firearm is trespassing. So charge it with trespassing

That's good optiks!

Did I ever tell the story about right after they passed the motorcycle helmet law. It just said we had to wear one so many of us wore them on our knees.

The Judges in this state were pretty uniform in saying that people that were too stupid to know you were supposed to wear it on your head....needed to pay a fine.
We all got much smarter after that.

 

[Glockster]

§ 18.2-120. Instigating, etc.....

It's only instigating if you are dumb enough to own up to instigating.

Get plenty of gun toting patrons to show up and have management tell each individual, in turn, to leave. Takes time and a huge crowd dissuades others from stopping.

Manager: No guns.
Patron 1: OK, no money.
Manager: No guns.
Patron 2: OK no money.
Manager: No guns.
Patron 3: OK, no money.

.....Touristos from Michigan, on their way to Williamsburg....."Look at the wait, we're not stopping here."

Manager: No guns.
Patron 4: OK, no money.
Manager: No guns.
Patron 5: OK, no money.

...ect...

Sort of like someone posting that they have plans to show up at a particular time, just for general information purposes...sort of like having an App that tells you where your friends are so that you can go visit with them.....


:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

 

[Glockster]

My question is in the case of a 'gun-buster' sign, is it actually forbidding me from going up the property of another, or simply informing that certain objects are not welcome there? To me that is not the same thing. The law deals with expressly forbidding a person from going up on or remaining on your property. I dont see anything about store policies, conditions of entry etc, so I don't understand how ignoring gunbusters signs is trespassing. Now, if they had a sign that said "Persons carring weapons/firearms/whatever are forbidden from these premises", that would be a different story (to my mind anyway).

I guess the other way to look at it is only people can trespass. Your gunbusters sign implies that my firearm is trespassing. So charge it with trespassing

My guess is that the judge will charge an "educational fee" to help you learn the difference between people and inanimate objects (which clearly don't trespass any more than I "I don't know how that weapon [or whatever else you'd like it to be] got in my pocket, it must have jumped in there on its own. Bad weapon, bad weapon!"

Can't wait to see how that turns out if you decide to try that. Advance notice appreciated so that the videographer can capture that special moment. :lol:

 

[scouser]

I think it's pretty obvious what the gunbuster sign means. You, me, we are not welcome there if we are carrying a firearm.

Arguing semantics won't get any of us anywhere because any magistrate or judge is going to determine that the sign's message is clear. So appeal their decision and demand a jury trial, any guesses what the outcome of that would be?

If you saw the sign you know what it means, take your money elsewhere or don't carry when you enter the premises, the choice is yours.

 

[Glockster]

I think it's pretty obvious what the gunbuster sign means. You, me, we are not welcome there if we are carrying a firearm. Arguing semantics won't get any of us anywhere because any magistrate or judge is going to determine that the sign's message is clear, so appeal their decision and request a jury trial, any guesses what the outcome of that would be? If you saw the sign you know what it means, take your money elsewhere or don't carry when you enter the premises, the choice is yours

Exactly. AND anything else makes it look like we all look for opportunities to circumvent the rules while acting like a 10 year old, which certainly feeds to public perception that gun toters are [fill in the blank with whatever the fear of the day might be].