Property Rights Supposedly Trumping Other Rights

[JamesCanby]

Well James, the problem with that argument is that you're listening to flawed reasoning. If you see a sign that says no trespass or no guns or know of it, and go there anyway, you are already guilty of trespass. They don't have to ask you to leave.

Let the bashing begin.:banghead:

Perhaps. But in the real world, what property owner is going to call the police and file a trespassing complaint without first having asked you to leave the property? I can't imagine any but the hardened-attitude-anti (anti-red underwear, anti-gun, anti-whatever) filing a complaint without first asking you to leave and having you refuse.

 

[peter nap]

Perhaps. But in the real world, what property owner is going to call the police and file a trespassing complaint without first having asked you to leave the property? I can't imagine any but the hardened-attitude-anti (anti-red underwear, anti-gun, anti-whatever) filing a complaint without first asking you to leave and having you refuse.

Me!:lol:

I had two fellows locked up from a game camera picture.
Damn Doghunters!

 

[KBCraig]

What grapeshot and skidmark are actually arguing is that property is more important than life.

Property rights and the right to life are the same thing.

You can argue it this way: all rights are grounded in property rights, starting with the idea that you own yourself and your body. The right to self defense is your right to protect and defend what you own.

Or you can make exactly the same argument from the opposite end: all property is the product of your life, and you have the right to protect not just your body, but all that your efforts and labor have produced.

 

[JamesCanby]

Apples and Oranges

Me!:lol:

I had two fellows locked up from a game camera picture.
Damn Doghunters!

The trespassers were no longer on your property (I'm assuming) so you couldn't tell them to leave. If a store owner happens to see that I'm carrying as I'm leaving the store, what's he going to do --- stop me from leaving so that he can call the police to charge me with trespassing? I don't think so ... at the most, if he has the chance, he'll tell me not to come back if I'm carrying....

So, yes, in your original post where you said that ignoring a posted sign for "no guns" automatically and technically makes you a trespasser, I suspect that nothing is going to happen to you unless the owner notices and asks you to leave.

In either case, you have not broken the CHP law, you have trespassed.

 

[peter nap]

That's true but I've hauled a few to the magistrates office as soon as I saw them.
No trespassing isn't french for welcome.

I don't think you understand how fed up people get with others doing what they want just because they THINK they have a right to.

In Va, doghunters are allowed to go onto private property to retrive their dogs. It's a scam to a lot of them. Just a way to hunt posted property.

They are not allowed to goi onto posted property with a gun or vehicle though. I catch them with either one and they're going to explain it to the judge, not me, because I don't want to hear it, don't care and don't give second chances!

Saturday I'm going to climb in a tree stand and wait. I just can't tell you how mad I'll get if some stupid a$$hole comes driving through my fields screwing up my hunting.

Trust me, telling him to leave is the very last thing in my mind!

 

[kennys]

Grasping at straws

I always seem to be after my kids for grasping at straws, but there is a lot of that going on here.

While chances are you will be charged with a crime for carrying in a place that is posted no carry, unless you refuse to leave after being told so if caught is slim to none, the fact is you are not respecting the owners rights.

We may not like their decisions as many have said, but having a permit does not make you exclusive to not follow private owner’s rules. I don’t care if you won’t be charged with breaking any laws. Write a letter let them know how you feel and get over it.

IANL, but seeing how people are money crazy these days, what if you needed to use your weapon for self defense at one of these places and an innocent, God forbid, got hit by a stray. Granted you may have saved yourself and others, but you run the risk of being sued civil, I don’t think that no gun sign you passed will help your case any. As I said IANL but I wouldn’t want to take the chance, it may be a little further to shop some where that allows my carry, but at least I have piece of mind knowing I am obeying the rules.

On a side note, As I do enter into an Establishment, I do look for signs on the way in, however I am not going to take a magnifying glass and cover every inch of the area. After that I up hold to don't ask don't tell. If a property owner is that against me carrying he needs to make it known other than the fine print.

 

[ProShooter]

In either case, you have not broken the CHP law, you have trespassed.

If the General Assembly did not intend for it to be a CHP violation, then why even codify it and list it under 18.2-308? They could have easily added a line at the bottom of your CHP that said "not valid where prohibited by private property owner" or sent you a form letter in the mail

 

[peter nap]

, the fact is you are not respecting the owners rights.

I think you said it all in those few words Kenny!

The law aside and I agree a lot of laws are stupid and I'd love to ignore them...it's disrespectful to ignore the property owners wishes.

We get too tied up in Bumblebutt Vs the Commonwealth of...

Instead of common decency and living by a code that allows everyone to live in their own homes, businesses and property, in peace...we try to scam our way around the rules.
"What he can't see won't hurt me".

I just can't understand why people who are otherwise fine individuals and wouldn't steal a piece of penny candy, have the "I have a right to do as I damn well please on your property", attitude.

Guns are NOT the issue here!

The ones that scream the loudest about NovaCop pulling the tape off of his serial number are sometimes the first to stuff his gun down his pants and shop at Valley View Mall instead of driving another 5 miles to a friendly store.

 

[JamesCanby]

Specific language

If the General Assembly did not intend for it to be a CHP violation, then why even codify it and list it under 18.2-308? They could have easily added a line at the bottom of your CHP that said "not valid where prohibited by private property owner" or sent you a form letter in the mail

James, in every other section of 18.2-308 where a law is broken there is a specific penalty (misdemeanor or felony) prescribed. The language about "does not authorize" is in a definition section that clarifies the language and intent of the law.

I suggest that if the writers and legislators who wrote, passed and enacted the law wanted there to be a specific penalty for carrying onto a property where the owner had banned firearms, then they would have placed that language in part A, making it subject to a misdemeanor or felony charge, depending on occurrence.

If it is a violation of the law, then would a police officer who happened to see someone carrying inside a store that had banned firearms, absent a complaint from the owner, be able to cite or arrest the carrier?

I don't think so.

Just to clarify .... mine is a technical argument about the law. I do not patronize establishments that ban firearms, whether I am CCing or OCing. I simply think that we ought to understand the law as written. Of course, ambiguity being what it is, that's why lawyers get paid the big bucks.

Perhaps the writers of the law realized that since there is no standard form or format for displaying a "no guns" indication at the entrance, someone who is carrying may miss that prohibition and walk into an establishment unaware of the prohibition. If he/she is then advised by the owner of the policy and then leaves, there is no harm/no foul. Trespass has not occurred, because the carrier left when advised.

 

[kennys]

I think you said it all in those few words Kenny!

The law aside and I agree a lot of laws are stupid and I'd love to ignore them...it's disrespectful to ignore the property owners wishes.

We get too tied up in Bumblebutt Vs the Commonwealth of...

Instead of common decency and living by a code that allows everyone to live in their own homes, businesses and property, in peace...we try to scam our way around the rules.
"What he can't see won't hurt me".

I just can't understand why people who are otherwise fine individuals and wouldn't steal a piece of penny candy, have the "I have a right to do as I damn well please on your property", attitude.

Guns are NOT the issue here!

The ones that scream the loudest about NovaCop pulling the tape off of his serial number are sometimes the first to stuff his gun down his pants and shop at Valley View Mall instead of driving another 5 miles to a friendly store.

+1 If common sense would rule, and more people would voluntarily respect each other I doubt we would have some of the laws we do today. But instead it always someone trying to get over on some one, and when they get caught looking for a way to exonerate themselves.

 

[skidmark]

James, in every other section of 18.2-308 where a law is broken there is a specific penalty (misdemeanor or felony) prescribed. The language about "does not authorize" is in a definition section that clarifies the language and intent of the law.

I suggest that if the writers and legislators who wrote, passed and enacted the law wanted there to be a specific penalty for carrying onto a property where the owner had banned firearms, then they would have placed that language in part A, making it subject to a misdemeanor or felony charge, depending on occurrence.

If it is a violation of the law, then would a police officer who happened to see someone carrying inside a store that had banned firearms, absent a complaint from the owner, be able to cite or arrest the carrier?

I don't think so.

Just to clarify .... mine is a technical argument about the law. I do not patronize establishments that ban firearms, whether I am CCing or OCing. I simply think that we ought to understand the law as written. Of course, ambiguity being what it is, that's why lawyers get paid the big bucks.

Perhaps the writers of the law realized that since there is no standard form or format for displaying a "no guns" indication at the entrance, someone who is carrying may miss that prohibition and walk into an establishment unaware of the prohibition. If he/she is then advised by the owner of the policy and then leaves, there is no harm/no foul. Trespass has not occurred, because the carrier left when advised.

Seems you missed a step or so in developing your point.

It is a violation of law to carry concealed without a valid CHP.

§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.

A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart; or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second violation of this section or a conviction under this section subsequent to any conviction under any substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony, and a third or subsequent such violation shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony.

Later on there is written an exemption to these law violations - the CHP.

So if by carrying where your CHP does not authorize you to carry, you have committed anywhere between a misdemeanor and a Class 5 felony.

I fail to see how anyone does not see that the Code clearly says under certain specific circumstances your CHP is suspended and that carry in violation of that suspension is a crime because carry without a valid (not suspended due to specific enumerated circumstances/conditions) CHP is in and of itself listed in 18.2-308 as a crime.

But then I fail to see how many folks fail to see a whole lot of things that are there as plain as the proverbial nose on their face (which unless you are crosseyed YOU cannot see on yourself).

stay safe.

 

[JamesCanby]

Seems you missed a step or so in developing your point.

It is a violation of law to carry concealed without a valid CHP.

§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.

A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart; or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second violation of this section or a conviction under this section subsequent to any conviction under any substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony, and a third or subsequent such violation shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony.

Later on there is written an exemption to these law violations - the CHP.

So if by carrying where your CHP does not authorize you to carry, you have committed anywhere between a misdemeanor and a Class 5 felony.

I fail to see how anyone does not see that the Code clearly says under certain specific circumstances your CHP is suspended and that carry in violation of that suspension is a crime because carry without a valid (not suspended due to specific enumerated circumstances/conditions) CHP is in and of itself listed in 18.2-308 as a crime.

But then I fail to see how many folks fail to see a whole lot of things that are there as plain as the proverbial nose on their face (which unless you are crosseyed YOU cannot see on yourself).

stay safe.

Well, as someone in here once opined previously, we'll just have to wait for someone to get arrested and see how the court rules.... I'm not as sure as you are that the way the law is written is unambiguous.

Now .... how about addressing the OC side of this issue? If I OC into a business where I do not see the prohibition against firearms, am I trespassing? Some other states that allow a business owner to ban firearms have specific requirements for the size, placement and wording of such notices. Not, however, in Virginia. And what about establishments such as Troy's, where the owner says CC is ok but not OC?

Seems to me that by insisting that an owner's property rights must be respected, that the owner should have some responsbility for posting proper and visible notice.

 

[peter nap]

Well, as someone in here once opined previously, we'll just have to wait for someone to get arrested and see how the court rules.... I'm not as sure as you are that the way the law is written is unambiguous.

Now .... how about addressing the OC side of this issue? If I OC into a business where I do not see the prohibition against firearms, am I trespassing? Some other states that allow a business owner to ban firearms have specific requirements for the size, placement and wording of such notices. Not, however, in Virginia. And what about establishments such as Troy's, where the owner says CC is ok but not OC?

Seems to me that by insisting that an owner's property rights must be respected, that the owner should have some responsbility for posting proper and visible notice.

§ 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 other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons 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, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-173; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1982, c. 169; 1987, cc. 625, 705; 1991, c. 534; 1998, cc. 569, 684.)

 

[JamesCanby]

The operative portion is ...

§ 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 other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons 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, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-173; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1982, c. 169; 1987, cc. 625, 705; 1991, c. 534; 1998, cc. 569, 684.)

The operative portion is: 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.

Posting a sign that is so small or in such a place where it would not be "reasonably seen" or including such a prohibition in small print in a laundry list of "thou shalt nots" inside the mall door does not seem to fit the trespass law. If owners want their property rights respected, then there should be a plainly visible, standard format notice that should be displayed at average eye level. Respect for rights has to be a two-way street, not a game of lawyer's "gotcha," as in too bad you didn't notice the 2" square sign at ground level around the corner of the entrance.

 

[peter nap]

The operative portion is: 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.

Posting a sign that is so small or in such a place where it would not be "reasonably seen" or including such a prohibition in small print in a laundry list of "thou shalt nots" inside the mall door does not seem to fit the trespass law. If owners want their property rights respected, then there should be a plainly visible, standard format notice that should be displayed at average eye level. Respect for rights has to be a two-way street, not a game of lawyer's "gotcha," as in too bad you didn't notice the 2" square sign at ground level around the corner of the entrance.

I don't think you'll find a Judge in Virginia that disagrees with you.

There is a lot more to the law than the code. There have always been precedents to font size and legibility of the documents. If there were not there would not be any reason to have a lawyer represent you.

 

[skidmark]

As has been mentioned before, it may take a court to decide if the notice was where it or they may be reasonably seen.

Pictures taken contemporaneously with the alleged offense will be passed around, inspected, and discussed by the jury. Hope for folks with bad eyesight.

In the meantime, could some more of us agree that intentionally violating the known wishes of a property owner is, at the least, not good manners?

stay safe.

 

[peter nap]

In the meantime, could some more of us agree that intentionally violating the known wishes of a property owner is, at the least, not good manners?

stay safe.

It is not good manners Skid but it is a little more too:

§ 18.2-23. Conspiring to trespass or commit larceny.
A. If any person shall conspire, confederate or combine with another or others in the Commonwealth to go upon or remain upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any part, portion or area thereof, having knowledge that any of them have been forbidden, either orally or in writing, to do so by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or having knowledge that any of them have been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted on such lands, buildings, premises or part, portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may reasonably be seen, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
B. If any person shall conspire, confederate or combine with another or others in the Commonwealth to commit larceny or counsel, assist, aid or abet another in the performance of a larceny, where the aggregate value of the goods or merchandise involved is more than $200, he is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than one year nor more than 20 years. The willful concealment of goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment, while still on the premises thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to convert and defraud the owner thereof out of the value of the goods or merchandise. A violation of this subsection constitutes a separate and distinct felony.
C. Jurisdiction for the trial of any person charged under this section shall be in the county or city wherein any part of such conspiracy is planned, or in the county or city wherein any act is done toward the consummation of such plan or conspiracy.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-15.1; 1960, cc. 99, 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 2003, c. 831.)

 

[JamesCanby]

As has been mentioned before, it may take a court to decide if the notice was where it or they may be reasonably seen.

Pictures taken contemporaneously with the alleged offense will be passed around, inspected, and discussed by the jury. Hope for folks with bad eyesight.

In the meantime, could some more of us agree that intentionally violating the known wishes of a property owner is, at the least, not good manners?

stay safe.

Intentionally violating.

Known wishes.

Yep, that's bad and can only lead to negative results for the violator and his compadres-in-arms.

Where is the wiggle room for unintentionally violating unknowable wishes? I'm not desirous of more establishments banning firearms, but if they choose to do so, they need to do it in a highly visible, unambiguous way.

It reminds me of the old Irish prayer:

May those who love us, love us.
If they don't love us, may God turn their hearts.
If He can't turn their hearts, may He turn their ankles, so we'll know them by their limping.

All I'm suggesting is that a business owner who bans guns should be made to display that fact prominently, so we won't have to go hunting for the little bitty sign....

 

[macfly]

Seems to me that if you really value the constitution and the rights it attempts to protect then you have no choice but to grudgingly accept a private entity's right to not allow you to enter with firearms. A business, just like you in your own home, is not somehow infringing your rights by telling you what they do not want you to do on THEIR property. You might really want to go onto their property to partake of whatever they offer but at that point, in essence, you are a guest who has agreed to abide by the host's rules. The constitution might protect your right to voice displeasure with the church by going out and taking a photograph of a cross upside down in a jar of urine...but it does not GIVE you the right to come into MY house and put that picture on MY wall. You get to call the shots on your property, so does a business. If I say you cant come into my house if you are black, white, latino, asian...whatever, have I somehow trampled your rights? No. It might not be very nice of me, but so what? you have no obligation to come in. same with a business. If you dont like their rules then move on to another sandbox.
we might try to influence a business by saying we wont give you money if you dont change YOUR rules, but they are under no obligation to comply.
Keep the big picture in mind. Just because you want to carry there does not mean they have to oblige or that they are somehow infringing your rights.
what is a more interesting question to me is how can a PUBLIC /FEDERAL institution such as a post office claim that you have no right to carry. as a citizen, that public land/building is , in a sense, YOUR property. you paid taxes to build it and it is open to the public.

 

[TFred]

Seems you missed a step or so in developing your point.

It is a violation of law to carry concealed without a valid CHP.

§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.

A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart; or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second violation of this section or a conviction under this section subsequent to any conviction under any substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony, and a third or subsequent such violation shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony.

Later on there is written an exemption to these law violations - the CHP.

So if by carrying where your CHP does not authorize you to carry, you have committed anywhere between a misdemeanor and a Class 5 felony.

I fail to see how anyone does not see that the Code clearly says under certain specific circumstances your CHP is suspended and that carry in violation of that suspension is a crime because carry without a valid (not suspended due to specific enumerated circumstances/conditions) CHP is in and of itself listed in 18.2-308 as a crime.

But then I fail to see how many folks fail to see a whole lot of things that are there as plain as the proverbial nose on their face (which unless you are crosseyed YOU cannot see on yourself).

stay safe.

I don't think anyone agrees with you on this. It's never been widely accepted as the fact as far as I can ever recall reading here.

Here's the part of the CHP code you mention:

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.​

The problem (at least one of them) is that the paragraph says "possession", not "concealment". The CHP has nothing to do with the possession on private property. This makes it clear to me that this paragraph is simply stating that having a CHP does not override the wishes of a private property owner.

TFred