Concealed where they have signs that say not to? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Concealed where they have signs that say not to?


frank4570
04-17-2007, 12:56
I tried reading the laws on this but I can't make any sense of it.
I want to know what law,if any, is being broken if a person carries concealed in a private business which has a sign that says not to.
The culpeper video club just put up one of those signs.
If the penalty would be that they could ask me to leave, if they saw my concealed gun,....well, they could ask me to leave.
I am still trying to find out why the sign went up in the first place, it is something about another video club store wanting somebody to leave and the police telling the business they had to have a sign for the police to be able to do anything.

Gregw/aGlock
04-17-2007, 17:29
IANAL. That said, no laws are being broken if you carry in a posted business, unless they ask you to leave and you refuse. Then you could be charged with tresspassing. Personally, I try to avoid posted businesses, but if I must go in one, then I simply disregard the signs and keep the "concealed means concealed" attitude. If, by some remote chance, they find out and ask me to leave, I'll leave.

John Fry
04-17-2007, 19:35
It's a class 1 misdemeanor or 1 year in jail and a $2,500 fine. See Virginia1774
Virginia1774 (http://www.virginia1774.org/Page1.html)

frank4570
04-17-2007, 21:38
Originally posted by John Fry
It's a class 1 misdemeanor or 1 year in jail and a $2,500 fine. See Virginia1774
Virginia1774 (http://www.virginia1774.org/Page1.html)


Uh oh, looks like you are right.

"Code 18.2-119 provides that "[i]f any person without authority 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 by a sign or signs posted by [the owner] . . . , he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

If I remember correctly, a class 1 can also cause you to loose your permit.

Soul Hunter
04-20-2007, 10:49
and for a state that will tend to lock you up in you're driving too fast, you better be comfortable in your decision if you decide to venture into such an establishment. the manassas incident tells me that not all cops get it in VA.

Truckee
04-26-2007, 19:28
Originally posted by John Fry
It's a class 1 misdemeanor or 1 year in jail and a $2,500 fine. See Virginia1774
Virginia1774 (http://www.virginia1774.org/Page1.html)

DISCLAIMER: IANAL either, nor a judge. What I type here must be taken for what it's worth.

However, I am within the 'system.'

VA. Code 18.2-119 is written for situations of physical trespass. To include upon "Posted" property; post owner notification by oral, written or (POSTED) sign, and/or in violation of protective order or EPO etc.

There are statues dealing with methods to "Post" property. I can find no statute that designates, denotes or describes 'no guns' signage... and that type of sign does not prohibit "physical trespass," which 18.2-119 deals with.

I will not say that it would be "impossible" to find a liberal CA and a liberal judge that would try to use the Statute against you in the circumstance cited in this thread. But, I can confidently opine that a fair attorney would likely get such a charge stricken... even in front of a liberal bench. The courts know the intent of 18.2-119 as written and case law supports this opinion.

A quick search did not reveal anyone being charged using 18.2-119 when carrying inside a 'forbidden zone.' Where Virginians cannot carry is specified by statute. Property owners can, to be sure, specify what goes on within their property... however, one has to be specifically notified.

In all of the situations I know of, Gregw/aGlock has the scenario correct. I'm not in a 'liberal' part of the Commonwealth, but each of the officers that I know will not charge you... unless you remain on premises after being advised to leave. Claim you saw no signs and you're not liable as such signs have no merit by Code of Virginia.

vafish
04-27-2007, 10:15
I think it's a class 1 misdemeanor for the first offense and a class 6 felony for the 2nd.

If you read 18.2-308. it says:

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. For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature.

Then way down below in section O it says:

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 way I understand it is if Section O does not authorize you to carry where a private property owner prohibits it, then your permit is not valid and you can be charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

Of course I am not a lawyer, your mileage may vary, and this advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

golai
05-01-2007, 08:28
Perhaps the easy answer is that the trespass statute requires a person to remain on a property after being "forbidden to do so." The signs that I have seen simply say "no CCW" and not "no person carrying CCW."

I have spoken to two assistant commonwealths' attorneys in Northern Virginia and both have told me that you can only be charged with trespassing by a business that posts no CCW after being specifically asked to leave and the signs do not have any effect.

Don't take this as legal advice.

vafish
05-01-2007, 14:04
Originally posted by golai
Perhaps the easy answer is that the trespass statute requires a person to remain on a property after being "forbidden to do so." The signs that I have seen simply say "no CCW" and not "no person carrying CCW."

I have spoken to two assistant commonwealths' attorneys in Northern Virginia and both have told me that you can only be charged with trespassing by a business that posts no CCW after being specifically asked to leave and the signs do not have any effect.

Don't take this as legal advice.

Golai,


The big question for those 2 attorney's is "Is there any case law that supports your opinion?"

When I asked my attorney about carrying in a US Post Office in Va he said that he had researched it and felt that it was legal, but that there was no case law that had been taken to the appelate level in VA and until there was it really didn't matter because you could be arrested and become the test case, oh and he was more than willing to defend me at $200 per hour* if I was arrested for carrying in a post office.



* I think that was his fee, but it might have been even $300 per hour

golai
05-01-2007, 16:09
Vafish,

The Post Office stands on entirely different grounds (pun intended) because it is federal property and the federal law banning the carrying of weapons on federal property would pre-empt state law. (Let me add that it is not necessarily all that clear whether the Post Office can ban the carrying of weapons).

In terms of the no CCW signs in regular establishments, I did a little research which I ask that no one take as legal advice. In doing the research on the trespass statute it does not appear that the appellate courts have really addressed the issue of exactly what after "being forbidden to do so" means. It seems like the Courts take this as easily decided in the particular casee. I do think that logically it applies to persons and not items the persons might be carrying. If the signs said "no persons with concealed weapons (regardless of whether they have CCW permits)" I would think it might be, but maybe not, a different issue. Keep in mind that it is clear that once a place of business asks you to leave, you must comply or else you will be charged with trespassing.

In any event, I volunteer you to be our test case. Either that or have an elected official request an opinion from the Virginia Attorney General. The opinion is not binding on a Court, but persuasive.

vafish
05-01-2007, 16:43
Originally posted by golai

In any event, I volunteer you to be our test case.

Sure, just start sending the checks for my legal defense fund. When I think I have enough money saved up I'll push the issue and get arrested. :)

cs133atom
05-01-2007, 17:32
In Virginia, if you are a valid CHP holder and you carry on private party where the owner says NO; you can only be charged with trespass not a firearms violation. Section "A" of the code defines a concealed weapon and does not apply to CHP holders.

Thanks,

C

golai
05-01-2007, 17:47
Originally posted by cs133atom
In Virginia, if you are a valid CHP holder and you carry on private party where the owner says NO; you can only be charged with trespass not a firearms violation. Section "A" of the code defines a concealed weapon and does not apply to CHP holders.

Thanks,

C

Yes, but it is the trespassing charge we're worried about.

vafish
05-01-2007, 21:50
Originally posted by cs133atom
In Virginia, if you are a valid CHP holder and you carry on private party where the owner says NO; you can only be charged with trespass not a firearms violation. Section "A" of the code defines a concealed weapon and does not apply to CHP holders.

Thanks,

C

How do you explain section O?

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 way I read that your Concealed Handgun Permit is no longer valid if the private property owner prohibits carry on their property. If that's correct, it looks to me like you also could be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Not only that you could be charged even if they don't ask you to leave.

golai
05-01-2007, 22:22
Originally posted by vafish
How do you explain section O?

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 way I read that your Concealed Handgun Permit is no longer valid if the private property owner prohibits carry on their property. If that's correct, it looks to me like you also could be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Not only that you could be charged even if they don't ask you to leave.

I think the best interpretation of section O is only that it does not create a right to CCW on someone's private property, but that it does not invalidate the CCW. Simply put, it means that you cannot say to the private property owner, you can't kick me out because of my CCW because I have a permit.

cs133atom
05-02-2007, 15:54
Originally posted by vafish
How do you explain section O?

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 way I read that your Concealed Handgun Permit is no longer valid if the private property owner prohibits carry on their property. If that's correct, it looks to me like you also could be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Not only that you could be charged even if they don't ask you to leave.

Sorry for the delay in replying; as stated carrying on private property when prohibited by the owner of the property, or where posted as prohibited. Violation is a trespass charge and not a firearms violation. There is a ton of case law on this subject in the VA law books. Most of the time the trespass charge is dismissed as well as the property owner does not wish to press the issue.

Gregw/aGlock
05-02-2007, 17:44
How is "private property" defined? I wouldn't consider a shopping mall as "private property" as it is a public place. So, how do I handle signs at malls? Concealed=concealed. Someone's house is another story.

golai
05-02-2007, 19:42
Originally posted by Gregw/aGlock
How is "private property" defined? I wouldn't consider a shopping mall as "private property" as it is a public place. So, how do I handle signs at malls? Concealed=concealed. Someone's house is another story.

The trespass statute doesn't speak in terms of "private property." It merely requires the owner, lessesee, custodian or other personal lawfully in charge of the property to forbid a person from coming on or remaining on the property. Here is the trespass statute:

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.

frank4570
05-03-2007, 21:30
Originally posted by golai
The trespass statute doesn't speak in terms of "private property." It merely requires the owner, lessesee, custodian or other personal lawfully in charge of the property to forbid a person from coming on or remaining on the property. Here is the trespass statute:

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.

Ok, wait a minute. Does this mean that you can't be charged with a class 1 untill somebody has told you specifically to get out?

John Fry
05-03-2007, 21:47
In order to have the privilege to carry a concealed weapon, you must abide by its terms under 18.2-308 (O). If you go where the permit says you can't, then your permit is invalid and it is as if you didn't have a permit to carry concealed and will be charged with a class 1 misdemeanor. It has nothing to do with trespass under 18.2-308 (O). In fact, you could be charged with both carrying a concealed weapon and trespass. If you were to open carry in a place that had a no firearms sign, the worst that could happen is a trespass charge.

golai
05-04-2007, 17:03
Originally posted by frank4570
Ok, wait a minute. Does this mean that you can't be charged with a class 1 untill somebody has told you specifically to get out?

That would seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

golai
05-04-2007, 17:03
Originally posted by John Fry
In order to have the privilege to carry a concealed weapon, you must abide by its terms under 18.2-308 (O). If you go where the permit says you can't, then your permit is invalid and it is as if you didn't have a permit to carry concealed and will be charged with a class 1 misdemeanor. It has nothing to do with trespass under 18.2-308 (O). In fact, you could be charged with both carrying a concealed weapon and trespass. If you were to open carry in a place that had a no firearms sign, the worst that could happen is a trespass charge.

I don't believe your interpretation is correct.

ChuteTheMall
05-04-2007, 17:07
Originally posted by golai
I don't believe your interpretation is correct.

Neither do I (I'm not a lawyer).

golai
05-04-2007, 17:12
Originally posted by ChuteTheMall
Neither do I (I'm not a lawyer).

I am a lawyer (but don't take anything I say as legal advice). As I said before, I have been advised by several Commonwealth's Attorneys that the "no CCW" signs are ineffective. You have to be specifically asked to leave an establishment, and refuse to do so, before being charged with trespass.

In all honesty, in looking at the statute and the case law, I believe that reasoning is sound, but it is not entirely clear without caselaw on point.

ChuteTheMall
05-04-2007, 17:25
Originally posted by golai
You have to be specifically asked to leave an establishment, and refuse to do so, before being charged with trespass.


Can some pimply-faced teenage fast food clerk turn your presence into the crime of trespassing over a misunderstanding, or can you legally remain in a place of public accommodation (theater, restaurant, etc) until advised to leave by the police?

Does it become a crime before the cops arrive, or can you finish your latte first?

frank4570
05-04-2007, 18:10
I hate to say it but this sounds to me like one of those legal things which is so confusing that it can be interpreted any way the person in charge wants to interpret it.

An example of what I mean:
A friend of mine( Steve) lives out in the country. He looks out the window one day and sees a guy with a rifle in his yard hunting. He goes out and tells the redneck to leave. The redneck points the loaded deer rifle at Steves chest and tells him to go back inside. Steve knocks the rifle away(breaking his left hand in the process) and pounds on the redneck. When Steve gets back from getting his hand set at the hospital the sheriff arrests him. The judge sends Steve to jail for 30 days for assault. The judge says hitting the redneck more than once was more than self defense.
As far as I am concerned this makes no sense,but it happened.

golai
05-04-2007, 23:24
Originally posted by ChuteTheMall
Can some pimply-faced teenage fast food clerk turn your presence into the crime of trespassing over a misunderstanding, or can you legally remain in a place of public accommodation (theater, restaurant, etc) until advised to leave by the police?

Does it become a crime before the cops arrive, or can you finish your latte first?

Statute reads that the owner, lessee, custodian or person lawfully in charge of the property has to ask you. I doubt the pimply-faced teenage fast food clerk has the authority. The manager of the establishment would have the authority.

And no you could not wait around for the police to tell you to leave because they have no authority to charge trespassing on private property without the owner, custodian, lessee, etc. telling you to leave. Once the owner, custodian, lessee, etc. tells you to leave, you must do so at that point or else you are trespassing. Do not wait for the police to arrive.

SELFDEFENSE
05-08-2007, 18:54
Was it Boswell or some other English essayist who said "The Law is an ass".
Too many laws with too many interpretations. If I was on a jury I would routinely acquit.