Property Rights Supposedly Trumping Other Rights

[peter nap]

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

IMO (which doesn't mean much) TFred, it could swing either way. The problem is that even if a judge decides it, it will likely be aGD Judge.
So you may know how one judge in one venue reads it, and still have no idea what the rule will be in the next venue.

 

[JamesCanby]

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. [snip]

No question about that. My input is that the private entity's decision must be clearly displayed as I approach the property. Lack of a notice that is reasonably visible absolves me from any penalty, unless the owner tells me to leave and I refuse, which is a trespass violation, not a CHP violation.

Peter's posting of the trespass law demonstrates my point, that writing law and having ambiguity in applying different sections of the code are why we have courts and attorneys to adjuducate disagreements, and why lawyers spend years in the "practice" of law....

 

[JamesCanby]

[snip]

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

Thank you. That's what I tried to say earlier ... that O is explanatory, not legally enforceable as a CHP violation ... IMHO.

 

[ProShooter]

Originally Posted by skidmark

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.

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.

I do. My opinion has always been that your CHP is no longer valid for concealed carry while on the private property of another where firearms are prohibited. To me, its like the "no short, no shoes, no service" rule. Its a condition of entry. You are welcomed on our property if you do A, B, C and do not do X, Y, Z.

I believe that the GA specifically put subsection O in because the general public feels that the permit entitles them to go where they please. Its like a solicitor's permit. A solicitor's permit allows you to solicit within the county but certainly doesn't give you permission to stand at my front door if I prohibit solicitors on my property. I've had far too many door to door salesmen tell me "but I have a permit" and I tell them "fine, stand in the public roadway and sell, but do not take one step up my driveway. Your permit is not valid here".

 

[Mike]

Re private property owners, remember that the constitution does not impose any restriction on them - they can ban guns, blacks, whites, etc. and not violate the constitution - this is known as the public-private distinction.

Statutes can impose obligations on private proeprty owners, and those that visit them.

In Virginia, I do not think that 18.2-308(O) or "no gun" signs impose any criminal (including tresspass) penalty on those who violate signs and carry openly or concealed on premises marked with "no gun" signs.

 

[peter nap]

Re private property owners, remember that the constitution does not impose any restriction on them - they can ban guns, blacks, whites, etc. and not violate the constitution - this is known as the public-private distinction.

Statutes can impose obligations on private proeprty owners, and those that visit them.

In Virginia, I do not think that 18.2-308(O) or "no gun" signs impose any criminal (including tresspass) penalty on those who violate signs and carry openly or concealed on premises marked with "no gun" signs.

So going on that reasoning Mike, the signs at the DMV that say "No Trespassing After Business Hours" have no teeth because they can't make it conditional?:question:

That would make the hundreds of people prosecuted and convicted for that very happy!

 

[Grapeshot]

So going on that reasoning Mike, the signs at the DMV that say "No Trespassing After Business Hours" have no teeth because they can't make it conditional?:question:

That would make the hundreds of people prosecuted and convicted for that very happy!

I've seen signs like that at some area banks. Often wondered why they just didn't say "No Trespassing."

By saying ...."after business hours" does that then mean it is OK to trespass during business hours? :uhoh:

 

[230therapy]

So I asked my legal source the question and he said it was a moral position and not supported in law. I was misremembering a conversation we had a few years back. So that's that.

 

[user]

With Constitutional Carry, the problem evaporates.

Breaking the rule of a private enterprise is not a violation of the law.

If you CC where a shopowner posts gunbuster signs, all you have done is breal his rule, not the law.

Constitutional Carry allows for open or concealed as the firearms owner chooses. ...

Just plain flat out wrong. Breaking the rule of a private enterprise where that rule is a term of the grant of license they give you to enter their property is criminal trespass. Good for twelve months in the county jail plus a twenty-five hundred dollar fine, either or both. The terms of the provisions of any constitution guaranteeing rights only applies to the governmental entity that constitution controls. You don't have any right of free speech when you're in my house, for example.