Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
MADISON wrote:
MADISON wrote:
No such law exists in VA.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
mall open carry
- Thread starter budda64_99
- Start date
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
jpierce wrote:
I still find this surprising. The 14th amendment was enacted in part to keep the southern states from disarming black only to have the KKK soon follow the disarming of citizens.
I carry in Springfield all the time. I'm often there at night for the last movie and the security guards only want to keep you from wandering the mall, not stopping anything in the parking lot.
jpierce wrote:
I still find this surprising. The 14th amendment was enacted in part to keep the southern states from disarming black only to have the KKK soon follow the disarming of citizens.
I carry in Springfield all the time. I'm often there at night for the last movie and the security guards only want to keep you from wandering the mall, not stopping anything in the parking lot.
norahc
Regular Member
imported post
MADISON wrote:
Care to cite your source or the actual part of Virginia law that states this?
MADISON wrote:
Care to cite your source or the actual part of Virginia law that states this?
zoom6zoom
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
Mike's right. Posted signs in Virginia carry no weight by law, and you are not compelled to obey them. However, the owner of the property may ask you to leave. If you do not comply at that point you may be charged with criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor. This does not apply to facilities such as courthouses and Federal buildings - that's a different kettle of fish.
imported post
VALLEY VIEW MALL in Roanoke, Virginia, is owned by a very anti-gun person in North Carolina. Virginia law allows for the posting of a sign on the entrance saying"No Guns or No Weapons" The mall is so posted and it a mistomeanor if you are found with a weapon, inside the mall.
VALLEY VIEW MALL in Roanoke, Virginia, is owned by a very anti-gun person in North Carolina. Virginia law allows for the posting of a sign on the entrance saying"No Guns or No Weapons" The mall is so posted and it a mistomeanor if you are found with a weapon, inside the mall.
SicSemperTyrannis
Regular Member
imported post
Madison, you are still mis-stating Virginia law. Anyone can post a sign at their entrance forbidding weapons, as many malls do, but that does not carry the force of law in and of itself. Although I would not do so, you could still carry a firearm in such a place. If you were asked to leave and then refused, you could be charged with misdemeanor tresspassing. However, you would have to first be verbally ASKED to leave (the sign means nothing), and then you would have to REFUSE to do so in order to be charged.
Madison, you are still mis-stating Virginia law. Anyone can post a sign at their entrance forbidding weapons, as many malls do, but that does not carry the force of law in and of itself. Although I would not do so, you could still carry a firearm in such a place. If you were asked to leave and then refused, you could be charged with misdemeanor tresspassing. However, you would have to first be verbally ASKED to leave (the sign means nothing), and then you would have to REFUSE to do so in order to be charged.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
MADISON wrote:
No cite to statute or other authority.
Having said that, it might be argued that 18.2-308(O) might make it a misdemeanor for carrying CONCEALED against owner wishes - but, even if para O does mean this, a sign per se se does not prove you knew anything - VA has no signage statute. And, para O does not applu to OC, obviously.
MADISON wrote:
No cite to statute or other authority.
Having said that, it might be argued that 18.2-308(O) might make it a misdemeanor for carrying CONCEALED against owner wishes - but, even if para O does mean this, a sign per se se does not prove you knew anything - VA has no signage statute. And, para O does not applu to OC, obviously.
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
MADISON wrote:
Do the signs say it is a misdemeanor? Can you bring us a picture of it? If it does say that, we should get it corrected.
As previously stated: Posted signs in Virginia carry no weight by law, and you are not compelled to obey them. However, the owner of the property may ask you to leave. If you do not comply at that point you may be charged with criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor.
We are not attacking you on this. We just need a better understanding. If the mall, mall employees, or LEOs tell you any different than the above statement -- they are wrong.
You do have a couple of choices at this mall. Do not shop there, or concealed means concealed.
MADISON wrote:
Do the signs say it is a misdemeanor? Can you bring us a picture of it? If it does say that, we should get it corrected.
As previously stated: Posted signs in Virginia carry no weight by law, and you are not compelled to obey them. However, the owner of the property may ask you to leave. If you do not comply at that point you may be charged with criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor.
We are not attacking you on this. We just need a better understanding. If the mall, mall employees, or LEOs tell you any different than the above statement -- they are wrong.
You do have a couple of choices at this mall. Do not shop there, or concealed means concealed.
jimwyant
Regular Member
imported post
I have not been to Valley View Mall in many years, so I have not seen the sign in question. However, it is possible that since the owner is from NC, the sign is based on the signs that are seen regularly at anti businesses in NC that do carry legal weight. I work in the Raliegh/Durham area, and the building I work in has one on every door.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
MADISON wrote:
Has anyone out that way contacted management to complain?
MADISON wrote:
Get a photo of the sign and email to VCDL.
Has anyone out that way contacted management to complain?
paramedic70002
Regular Member
imported post
jpierce wrote:
jpierce wrote:
Doesn't being a citizen qualify as a group? Isn't "keep and bear arms" a civil right?
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
paramedic70002 wrote:
For purposes of equal-protection anaysis under the state action doctrine, courts usually only recognize quasi-suspect classes of persons earning heightened scrutiny if they constitute a discreet & insular minority with a history of past discrimination; woman, being a mjority is an exception, but, they are only do "intermediate scrutiny," a lessor form of heightened scrutiny than the usual "strict scrutiny."
But is a state wanted to pass a civil rights statute requiring all businesses to allow customers to carry guns, it certainly could do so.
In my opinion, at common law, innkeepers & common carriers may already have a duity to permit lawful and peaceable gun carry by coustomers - that issue should be litigated some day.
paramedic70002 wrote:
The discussion thread is conflating some concepts here.
For purposes of equal-protection anaysis under the state action doctrine, courts usually only recognize quasi-suspect classes of persons earning heightened scrutiny if they constitute a discreet & insular minority with a history of past discrimination; woman, being a mjority is an exception, but, they are only do "intermediate scrutiny," a lessor form of heightened scrutiny than the usual "strict scrutiny."
But is a state wanted to pass a civil rights statute requiring all businesses to allow customers to carry guns, it certainly could do so.
In my opinion, at common law, innkeepers & common carriers may already have a duity to permit lawful and peaceable gun carry by coustomers - that issue should be litigated some day.
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
Great concept! How about starting with Amtrak?
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
kparker wrote:
kparker wrote:
Agree. I like to take the train because there's no intrusive searching of baggage or person, and it's a more comfortable and enjoyable experience (albeit slooow). Unfortunately, Amtrak won't even let you transport firearms in checked luggage, let alone carry-on.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
kparker wrote:
Unfortunately there is a federal statute that appears to ban gun carry on interstate common carriers - you have to present your gun to the conductor, presumably for safe-keeping.
I recall looking at teh statute some time ago and wondering how enforceable it would be for permit holders carrying on their person - never did come up with any answer, but the statute appears to bar possession unless you present to conductor.
kparker wrote:
Unfortunately there is a federal statute that appears to ban gun carry on interstate common carriers - you have to present your gun to the conductor, presumably for safe-keeping.
I recall looking at teh statute some time ago and wondering how enforceable it would be for permit holders carrying on their person - never did come up with any answer, but the statute appears to bar possession unless you present to conductor.
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
Well, that would be a huge improvement over their current practice, which is simply to ban all firearms. Do you recall the exact statute?
imported post
The problem with surrendering a firearm to the conductor on a common carrieris that, with so many infringements incorporated into the statutes these days, one cannot be sure that the conductor is not a prohibited person. Thus even an attempt to comply with the law could become a violation.
The problem with surrendering a firearm to the conductor on a common carrieris that, with so many infringements incorporated into the statutes these days, one cannot be sure that the conductor is not a prohibited person. Thus even an attempt to comply with the law could become a violation.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Maybe we should lobby Webb for language in his National CCW reciprocity bill that would allow permit holders to carry on common carriers that do not have security checkpoints.
Maybe we should lobby Webb for language in his National CCW reciprocity bill that would allow permit holders to carry on common carriers that do not have security checkpoints.
imported post
I do not want to waste time and money lobbying for new laws to justify our servants' jobs. They constantly make things more complicated and expect us to thank them for it! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is not complicated. I simply expect them to uphold their oath to the constitution which might include repealing those laws abhorrent to it- if they fail in that task then we the people should remove them from office at the next opportunity. I am also tired of do-nothing congresscritters simply avoiding waves to make it to the next election- if they are going to do nothing then they should do it on their own time and without the public's money.
I do not want to waste time and money lobbying for new laws to justify our servants' jobs. They constantly make things more complicated and expect us to thank them for it! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is not complicated. I simply expect them to uphold their oath to the constitution which might include repealing those laws abhorrent to it- if they fail in that task then we the people should remove them from office at the next opportunity. I am also tired of do-nothing congresscritters simply avoiding waves to make it to the next election- if they are going to do nothing then they should do it on their own time and without the public's money.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Mike wrote:
"18 USC 922(e) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to deliver or cause to be delivered to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, to persons other than licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors, any package or other container in which there is any firearm or ammunition without written notice to the carrier that such firearm or ammunition is being transported or shipped; except that any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier for the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm."
I am now of the opinion that carrying or transporting your handgun on Amtrak from say Virginia to Florida to go to Disneyworld on a vacation is no more illegal under 18 USC 922 than doing same in your car. I know of no federal law barring being armed on Amtrak.
Anyone have an authority to the contrary?
Mike wrote:
Here is the statute that I should have posted earlier - note that it does not appear toban personal carry per se- it simply states that checking your gun is a defense to the charge of unlawful interstate commerce of firearms!
"18 USC 922(e) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to deliver or cause to be delivered to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, to persons other than licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors, any package or other container in which there is any firearm or ammunition without written notice to the carrier that such firearm or ammunition is being transported or shipped; except that any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier for the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm."
I am now of the opinion that carrying or transporting your handgun on Amtrak from say Virginia to Florida to go to Disneyworld on a vacation is no more illegal under 18 USC 922 than doing same in your car. I know of no federal law barring being armed on Amtrak.
Anyone have an authority to the contrary?