cracker barrel on gaskins

[Grapeshot]

--snip--

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.

The courts also proved that the device could be worn other than externally with a little help from them.

 

[peter nap]

To tell on myself Dan, when Skidmark said some people still take guns into certain CB's, he was talking about me. The difference is I started by taking my Taser which looks like a handgun in the holster, but isn't. Then I talked to the Managers who both said they were unaware of a Corporate Policy and My gun and I were welcome until they were told differently.

I have also used a version of the gun is trespassing routine with a "No Bears Allowed" sign at a Deer Feeding Site.
When I showed the Game warden the picture of the bear in front of the sign and asked for a Trespassing Warrant...he was as amused as I was.... in a grouchy way.:uhoh:

I was in no danger of being charged with anything though. I was just being a smart a$$. The worst that could have happened was to make me stop using that feed site.

 

[Glockster]

To tell on myself Dan, when Skidmark said some people still take guns into certain CB's, he was talking about me. The difference is I started by taking my Taser which looks like a handgun in the holster, but isn't. Then I talked to the Managers who both said they were unaware of a Corporate Policy and My gun and I were welcome until they were told differently.

I have also used a version of the gun is trespassing routine with a "No Bears Allowed" sign at a Deer Feeding Site.
When I showed the Game warden the picture of the bear in front of the sign and asked for a Trespassing Warrant...he was as amused as I was.... in a grouchy way.:uhoh:

I was in no danger of being charged with anything though. I was just being a smart a$$. The worst that could have happened was to make me stop using that feed site.

At the risk of appearing ignorant, what is a deer feeding site and what does it mean for you to use one?

 

[peter nap]

At the risk of appearing ignorant, what is a deer feeding site and what does it mean for you to use one?

I have a dozen areas on the farm where I feed Deer. Some have automated feeders, some just get corn on the ground.
It's perfectly legal from February to September but it's a game law violation to feed bears. Unfortunately, my bears don't know that and raid the sites.

I had a Game Warden tell me to not allow that anymore.

 

[Grapeshot]

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.....

They are congregating in quandrant 100 Alpha - drones are on station.
Mount up - we ride.
Procede to assist.

 

[scouser]

They are congregating in quandrant 100 Alpha - drones are on station.
Mount up - we ride.
Procede to assist.

it's skidmark's fault, he's the one who told me about GunKid

message received ... deploying the debarked chihuahuas and have the assault wheelbarrow on standby

 

[marshaul]

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?

It doesn't need to be explicit; the normal rules of curtilage cannot apply when property is open to the public. Such signs are necessary; otherwise, guests may go where they please (as a closed door does not imply curtilage when an establishment is open to the public).

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.

"Perhaps" Virginia intended mere conduct violations to require an explicit request to leave before incurring a trespass charge.

 

[marshaul]

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.

I don't think it's quite so obvious. Certainly not enough to justify a trespass charge without an explicit warning (from a person).

For example, many movie theaters which are posted have the sign affixed to a ticket booth. While these booths sort of provide a "checkpoint" to further entrance into the theater, the sign is ambiguous anyway, as it could conceivably apply to the booth itself (if it applied to the establishment as a whole, why was it not posted at the actual entrance?). Couple this with a fact that there is are multiple effective doormen, each of whom could ask a conduct violator to leave, and I find it a stretch to imagine that a person who OCes into a movie theater with a gun buster sign is automatically trespassing without having been told to leave.

Frankly, I find the Virginia law ambiguous enough in this regard to be of little merit.

 

[TFred]

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

I've been accused of having too much common sense to properly interpret the law, and if that is so, I will happily accept that label.

This post makes the most sense of all the ones I've seen so far, and even reminds me of the 18.2-308(O) debate, where some just bend over backwards to make that section say what it does not actually say.

It is well known that Virginia is different from other states where their "no guns" signs carry the force of law. It baffles me to no end that we who are supposed to be pro-gun twist and contort our laws into saying what they simply do not say, in order to give Virginia a "no guns" sign law.

When you carry this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, what we are actually proposing is to task our law enforcement community with the enforcement of the individual policy or whims of private property owners.

Technically this line of reasoning could just as ridiculously be applied to calling the cops to arrest someone who brings 21 items to the 20 items or less checkout line. The "sign" clearly states that those who bring 21 or more items are not welcome, therefore, they MUST be trespassing in that certain area of the store... let's have them arrested. There are dozens of equally ridiculous analogies. What about empty gas cylinders? Most stores that sell refills have a sign, "No gas cylinders inside the store." Oops I forgot, and carried it in, looking for where to turn it over... Should we call the cops and arrest for trespass? Or what happens in real life -> the clerk says please take that outside and put it in the cage... There was a sign. Same kind of "notification" as a gun-buster sign... Why different?

Ultimately, LAW enforcement should be used to enforce LAW. Not following a policy is not breaking a LAW until it actually is... refusing to leave after being asked to do so.

Maybe the horse is dead... probably even starting to stink a little... oh well. I'm convinced more than ever that a proper interpretation of the law leans toward my view... but we will never know it, because nobody appeals a trespassing charge to the SCOTUS.

TFred

 

[roscoe13]

I'm convinced more than ever that a proper interpretation of the law leans toward my view... but we will never know it, because nobody appeals a trespassing charge to the SCOTUS.

TFred

Just because an interpretation of the law agrees with SCOTUS doesn't mean it's proper, it only means that's the interpretation we're stuck with...

Roscoe

 

[TFred]

Just because an interpretation of the law agrees with SCOTUS doesn't mean it's proper, it only means that's the interpretation we're stuck with...

Roscoe

Well, that's a good point too.

I guess in the end it doesn't really matter that we have disagreeing factions on this, because for 100 nearly identical cases, it would be handled in about two dozen different ways on the ground anyway.

TFred

 

[skidmark]

Folks, I think we may have an answer. Steve Emmert writes at Virginia Appelate News and Analysis http://virginia-appeals.com/cav_opinions.aspx . To say he is a respected "authority" is like saying water is wet - everybody agrees on that.

I sent an email to him asking for some assistance in figuring out if the mere existence and presence of a sign is sufficient, or if actual verbal command to leave is required before one commits the offense of trespass. His response is below, over my email to him.

A general on-line search for cases of trespass involving weapons of any kind turns up nada. I no longer have access to a dedicated legal serch engine so am not able to find the first case so that I could Shepardize it. I've heard user's interpretation and now read Mr. Emmert's. Amazingly, they match up 100%.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say a No Guns or No Weapons sign, "placed is a spot where it may reasonably be seen" meets these interpretations. Your milegage, of course, may vary.

stay safe.

According to the state code section on plain-vanilla trespassing, a sign is sufficient notice as long as it’s placed in a spot where it may reasonably be seen. Code of Virginia §18.2-119. I don’t know of a code section dealing with weapons; that’s certainly out of my bailiwick, and I don’t want to lead you astray with a wrong guess. But you may want to look at the cases that interpret that statute, and see if any of them deal with weapons.

Steve Emmert

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: (skidmark
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 8:18 AM
To: emmert@virginia-appeals.com
Subject: trespass in Virginia

Mr. Emmert,

I wonder if you would be willing to do a little free legal research for me.

An on-line discussion board I participate in is stuck on the concept of trespass in Virginia, especially as it relates to private businesses that post "No Guns" or "No Weapons" signs.

Side A is of the opinion that the posting of such a sign constitutes notice from the property owner or owner's agent, and that a person entering the property with a gun/weapon has committed a trespass without the need for the owner/agent to command them to leave and they refuse to do so.

Side B is of the opinion that the sign itself carries no legal weight and trespass only occurs when one refuses to leave after being commanded by the owner/agent to do so.

Would you be willing to find case law on this and point me towards it?

Thank you in advance.

(skidmark)

 

[Grapeshot]

Hmmm - ProShooter, User, and now Mr. Emmett all concur.

My being a reasonable person (most of the time) and wishing to be unencumbered to exercise my reasonableness, I will reload my memory bank with this these esteemed opinions.

No reason not to avoid such private properties as restrict my RKBA for self-defense anyhow - but this just gives me one more check on the negative side of the balance sheet.

 

[OC for ME]

See sign, ignore sign, consequences may or may not manifest for the ignoree.

See sign, take money elsewhere.

Simple.

 

[peter nap]

See sign, ignore sign, consequences may or may not manifest for the ignoree.

See sign, take money elsewhere.

Simple.

Amen!

 

[marshaul]

...and now Mr. Emmett all concur.

I really don't see how you come to that conclusion. Mr. Emmett specifically declined to comment on anything but the "plain-vanilla" trespass case, which was never in dispute. Therefore, his communication to skidmark really changed nothing in the debate; the question whether conduct violations automatically incur trespass has not been satisfactorily resolved.

It seems obvious that there is quite a difference between flat-out "no trespassing" and a place otherwise open to the public which has certain rules of conduct.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that no cop would ever think twice about disobeying a gun buster sign, unless he was actually asked to leave and he was not there on official police business. This of course, seems eminently reasonable to them, but according to y'alls logic they would instantly become criminals and really should be prosecuted for that mere fact.

 

[TFred]

I really don't see how you come to that conclusion. Mr. Emmett specifically declined to comment on anything but the "plain-vanilla" trespass case, which was never in dispute....

Exactly. Mr. Emmett's reply is in response to the general, "you may not be here" situation, which is in my opinion, completely different than using a cop to trespass someone who is otherwise implicitly welcome, save for violating one or more privately generated rules or policies.

As everyone does seem to say, they can't find anything specific, and I doubt it exists.

TFred

 

[ProShooter]

As an aside, I'd like to point out that no cop would ever think twice about disobeying a gun buster sign, unless he was actually asked to leave and he was not there on official police business. This of course, seems eminently reasonable to them, but according to y'alls logic they would instantly become criminals and really should be prosecuted for that mere fact.

I can't speak for every department, but 2 that I have first hand knowledge of both said that the "wherever he may travel" exemption overrode the signs.

 

[marshaul]

I can't speak for every department, but 2 that I have first hand knowledge of both said that the "wherever he may travel" exemption overrode the signs.

No doubt. Some animals have always been more equal than others.

Too bad private establishments have every right to bar armed law enforcement as well (except when law enforcement is there in an official capacity). What I said stands.

 

[ProShooter]

No doubt. Some animals have always been more equal than others.

Too bad private establishments have every right to bar armed law enforcement as well (except when law enforcement is there in an official capacity). What I said stands.

So now we're comparing LE to animals?

You are a trip. Get over yourself.