Penalty for carrying concealed where prohibited on private property

[cREbralFIX]

imported post

What is the penalty for carrying concealed on private property where such has been prohibited?

I cannot find anything on it here or in the code.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

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.

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.

Is the penalty: 1) nothing...all they can do is tell you to leave, or 2) are you treated as if you're carrying concealed without a permit (Class 1 Misdemeanor)?

 

[curtiswr]

imported post

It would be treated as trespassing, I believe.

Here is a thread where it has been discussed:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/10177.html

 

[cREbralFIX]

imported post

Found it. Copied LEO229's post:

I have spoke on this time and time again but I guess either you did not see it or refuse to believe it. :?

YouCAN be charged with trespassing if yougo on the property of another after they have informed you they prohibit firearms.

Here is something that may help you understand that even the state understand and respect the wishes of private property owners....

Review the info below. You willsee in the CC code thathaving a CC permit does not grant you the authority to take a weapon onto the property of another if they have prohibited it. Private property beingcommercial and residential.


http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

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.


[line]

The code you want in the manner that would make you "happy" does not exist.

There is no code that says "Any person that carries a firearm onto the property of another where the property has been posted"No Firearms Allowed" shall be guilty of trespassing."

Trespassing is more than just having been told not to come back or seeing a sign that has the words "No trespassing"

Trespassing is when you are someplace you should not be... and weretold or knewyou were not welcome ahead of time.

In this case... there are signs displayed saying you are not welcome if you have a gun.

Do you really think it is OK to go on the property anywayand they have to tell you again that you are not welcome? You already know you are not welcome!!

Why is this so difficult to understand???

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

There is no penalty since private property owners have no power of law. They can, however, summon the police and the police can charge you with trespassing if you have not or will not remove yourself from the property.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

There is no penalty since private property owners have no power of law. They can, however, summon the police and the police can charge you with trespassing if you have not or will not remove yourself from the property.

Some establisments utilize off duty LEOs for security and they have the power of arrest 24/7 - so the plot thickens.

Yata hey

 

[skidmark]

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

There is no penalty since private property owners have no power of law. They can, however, summon the police and the police can charge you with trespassing if you have not or will not remove yourself from the property.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

A property owner does not need the police to come and "arrest" you for trespass. The propertyowner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof [a very important list of people who are legally considered to be in control of the question of who may or may not be on private property] may go to the Magistrate and swear out a criminal complaint of trespass against you [whichthey will doafter you have finally departed the property], which will be converted into a warrant, which will be given to the policewho will then detain you and issue you a summons to appear in court to face the trespass charge.

Police are generally prohibitted from arresting on misdemeanors that are not committed in their presence. However, the absence of the police to witness the criminal act does not mean you cannot be brought into court to face a misdemeanor charge of trespass. Your criminal hearing will most likely be a "he said/she said" type of affair, but do you want to bet on who the judge is most likely to believe has presented information beyond a reasonable doubt? On one side is a property owner/business person with a positive community reputation, and on your side is someone who stood around and argued about if the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof had the right and/or authority to tell you to leave, andwhether or notyou had to do so before the cops came to "force" your compliance.

Property owner or rude person? Hmmm? That's a hard one to guess, isn't it?

Would you prefer we visit you in jail on Saturday or Sunday?

§ 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.)

A Class 1 misdemeanor is punished by:

§ 18.2-11. Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor.

The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are:

(a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.

(b) For Class 2 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than six months and a fine of not more than $1,000, either or both.

(c) For Class 3 misdemeanors, a fine of not more than $500.

(d) For Class 4 misdemeanors, a fine of not more than $250.

For a misdemeanor offense prohibiting proximity to children as described in subsection A of § 18.2-370.2, the sentencing court is authorized to impose the punishment set forth in subsection B of that section in addition to any other penalty provided by law.

(1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, c. 788; 2000, c. 770.)

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[Nelson_Muntz]

imported post

skidmark wrote:

§ 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.)

stay safe.

skidmark

Time out sir. All the links in the above code cited discuss tresspassing orders in situations related to child abuse, family violence, and stalking. The last two in the last sentence are aimed at hunters/fishers. I may have missed it somewhere, but how does this relate to an armed citizen in a business that has a no firearms sign, or a residence where you have been simply verbally told?

 

[skidmark]

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

skidmark wrote:

§ 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.)

stay safe.

skidmark

Time out sir. All the links in the above code cited discuss tresspassing orders in situations related to child abuse, family violence, and stalking. The last two in the last sentence are aimed at hunters/fishers. I may have missed it somewhere, but how does this relate to an armed citizen in a business that has a no firearms sign, or a residence where you have been simply verbally told?

OR, as in

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 etc, etc, etc.

So you see, what we have is regular trespass and trespass after being ordered by a court not to trespass as part of a restraining order type of situation.

For those not in the know, commas and conjunctions are highly prized in the writing of laws, and are used to confuse the uninitiated or those who do not wear reading glasses because they lost their eyesight straining to read the :cuss::cuss:law.

stay safe. Glad to have been of help sorting out the 2 different portions of the code citation.

skidmark

 

[Nelson_Muntz]

imported post

Thank you sir. Conceded. I did miss that big or tying the second major clause to the highlighted citations starting with "or any person".

Time back in.


ETA: At least my reading comprehension is better than 4 out of 9 United States Supreme Court Justices.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

At least my reading comprehension is better than 4 out of 9 United States Supreme Court Justices.

That should be on a bumper sticker or T-shirt.

 

[W.E.G.]

imported post

Is somebody still citing LEO 229's opinion as law?

Indeed, doing just about anything in Fairfax County "can" get you arrested.
Just look at what happened to the North Carolina guy recently.

Doesn't mean its the law, or that the cops know the law.

All we know for sure is that LEO 229 says he will arrest you if you walk past the no guns sign.

Suppose the sign said "No brown belts allowed."

Would that still be grounds for arrest under the TRESPASS statute?

Or is it just somehow limited to guns, via some bootstrap/contrived interpretation of the "or is prohibited by the owner of private property" language in 18.2-308

I say bull to all of that.

Still the man said he would arrest me. He gets paid to arrest people.

Raise your hand if you think that sounds right.

 

[TexasNative]

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

Is somebody still citing LEO 229's opinion as law?

Pardner, have you bothered to read the above posts? LEO229 didn't say a word, and skidmark quoted Virginia law. I know that LEO is an evil person whose mission in life is to confuse and frustrate gun owners, but I don't really think he's responsible for all of the evil in the world.

Unless he's actually George W. Bush, of course.

 

[hsmith]

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

-- snip --

I think we can discuss this without getting personal.

 

[skidmark]

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

ETA: At least my reading comprehension is better than 4 out of 9 United States Supreme Court Justices.

Help! I've fallen and can't get up.:lol:

Thanks for the laugh.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[skidmark]

imported post

W.E.G. wrote:

Suppose the sign said "No brown belts allowed."

Would that still be grounds for arrest under the TRESPASS statute?

Or is it just somehow limited to guns, via some bootstrap/contrived interpretation of the "or is prohibited by the owner of private property" language in 18.2-308

If the sign said "No brown belts allowed" and you went in wearing a brown belt, you can be cited for trespass. At trial the judge will convict you and send you away for up toa 12-month vacation, as well as provide you the opportunity to balance the state budget.

And as long as the property in question is not the type where folks are invited to come in, say because it is a store or a restaurant, the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof can discriminate against everybody based on race, religion, nationality, sex, former condition of servitude or any other supposedly protected basis. That means you can put a sign on your property saying "No Police Allowed" and enforce it - as long as they are not there to exercise their police powers. It will work to keep them from knocking on the door and trying to sell you tickets to their fundraisers.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

skidmark wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

There is no penalty since private property owners have no power of law. They can, however, summon the police and the police can charge you with trespassing if you have not or will not remove yourself from the property.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

A property owner does not need the police to come and "arrest" you for trespass. The propertyowner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof [a very important list of people who are legally considered to be in control of the question of who may or may not be on private property] may go to the Magistrate and swear out a criminal complaint of trespass against you [whichthey will doafter you have finally departed the property], which will be converted into a warrant, which will be given to the policewho will then detain you and issue you a summons to appear in court to face the trespass charge.

Police are generally prohibitted from arresting on misdemeanors that are not committed in their presence. However, the absence of the police to witness the criminal act does not mean you cannot be brought into court to face a misdemeanor charge of trespass. Your criminal hearing will most likely be a "he said/she said" type of affair, but do you want to bet on who the judge is most likely to believe has presented information beyond a reasonable doubt? On one side is a property owner/business person with a positive community reputation, and on your side is someone who stood around and argued about if the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof had the right and/or authority to tell you to leave, andwhether or notyou had to do so before the cops came to "force" your compliance.

Property owner or rude person? Hmmm? That's a hard one to guess, isn't it?

Would you prefer we visit you in jail on Saturday or Sunday?

§ 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.)

A Class 1 misdemeanor is punished by:

§ 18.2-11. Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor.

The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are:

(a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.

(b) For Class 2 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than six months and a fine of not more than $1,000, either or both.

(c) For Class 3 misdemeanors, a fine of not more than $500.

(d) For Class 4 misdemeanors, a fine of not more than $250.

For a misdemeanor offense prohibiting proximity to children as described in subsection A of § 18.2-370.2, the sentencing court is authorized to impose the punishment set forth in subsection B of that section in addition to any other penalty provided by law.

(1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, c. 788; 2000, c. 770.)

stay safe.

skidmark

I should think that this assumes you continue to hang around and wait for all of this to go down.

 

[skidmark]

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

I should think that this assumes you continue to hang around and wait for all of this to go down.

No need to hang around and wait.

I said it once before, but I'll repeat it for those who did not get it the first time.

A property owner does not need the police to come and "arrest" you for trespass. The propertyowner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof [a very important list of people who are legally considered to be in control of the question of who may or may not be on private property] may go to the Magistrate and swear out a criminal complaint of trespass against you [whichthey will doafter you have finally departed the property], which will be converted into a warrant, which will be given to the policewho will then detain you and issue you a summons to appear in court to face the trespass charge.

Police are generally prohibitted from arresting on misdemeanors that are not committed in their presence. However, the absence of the police to witness the criminal act does not mean you cannot be brought into court to face a misdemeanor charge of trespass. Your criminal hearing will most likely be a "he said/she said" type of affair, but do you want to bet on who the judge is most likely to believe has presented information beyond a reasonable doubt? On one side is a property owner/business person with a positive community reputation, and on your side is someone who stood around and argued about if the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof had the right and/or authority to tell you to leave, andwhether or notyou had to do so before the cops came to "force" your compliance.

Property owner or rude person? Hmmm? That's a hard one to guess, isn't it?

Would you prefer we visit you in jail on Saturday or Sunday?

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

skidmark wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

I should think that this assumes you continue to hang around and wait for all of this to go down.

No need to hang around and wait.

I said it once before, but I'll repeat it for those who did not get it the first time.

A property owner does not need the police to come and "arrest" you for trespass. The propertyowner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof [a very important list of people who are legally considered to be in control of the question of who may or may not be on private property] may go to the Magistrate and swear out a criminal complaint of trespass against you [whichthey will doafter you have finally departed the property], which will be converted into a warrant, which will be given to the policewho will then detain you and issue you a summons to appear in court to face the trespass charge.

Police are generally prohibitted from arresting on misdemeanors that are not committed in their presence. However, the absence of the police to witness the criminal act does not mean you cannot be brought into court to face a misdemeanor charge of trespass. Your criminal hearing will most likely be a "he said/she said" type of affair, but do you want to bet on who the judge is most likely to believe has presented information beyond a reasonable doubt? On one side is a property owner/business person with a positive community reputation, and on your side is someone who stood around and argued about if the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof had the right and/or authority to tell you to leave, andwhether or notyou had to do so before the cops came to "force" your compliance.

Property owner or rude person? Hmmm? That's a hard one to guess, isn't it?

Would you prefer we visit you in jail on Saturday or Sunday?

stay safe.

skidmark

Why do you repeat yourself so often and use colors to dramatize your points. Can't you just talk like the rest of the folks?:lol::celebrate
For those few that do not recognize it - this is very witty, sarcastic humor intended to provide a break before somebody gets testy.

Yata hey

 

[W.E.G.]

imported post

skidmark wrote:

If the sign said "No brown belts allowed" and you went in wearing a brown belt, you can be cited for trespass. At trial the judge will convict you and send you away for up toa 12-month vacation, as well as provide you the opportunity to balance the state budget.

And as long as the property in question is not the type where folks are invited to come in, say because it is a store or a restaurant, the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof can discriminate against everybody based on race, religion, nationality, sex, former condition of servitude or any other supposedly protected basis. That means you can put a sign on your property saying "No Police Allowed" and enforce it - as long as they are not there to exercise their police powers. It will work to keep them from knocking on the door and trying to sell you tickets to their fundraisers.

stay safe.

skidmark

You see, this is where we disagree.

While a police officer who may be interpreting the law to serve his present inclination might see it that way, I don't think that is the intent of the law at all.

I do not believe a "trespass" arrest for wearing a brown belt in violation of a sign would withstand appellate scrutiny at all. Not just on the basis of the sign.

If the person in charge of the property approaches the brown-belt-wearer, and orders him to leave, then the trespass law is properly in force.

You don't bootstrap your way into the trespass statute by posting prohibitions on clothing or tools.

As for the other poster's suggestion regarding "getting personal," let me suggest that you read back through ALL the preceding posts on this board pertaining to this topic of whether a trespass conviction lies where a person enters private property with some OBJECT "prohibited" by a sign.

See the discussions LEO 229 and I have had on this subject, and tell me how it is not relevant to the discussion here. Mind you, I'm not looking for a further squabble with LEO 229. A poster above brought up LEO 229's previous interpretation of the law on this issue. Until we get an appellate opinion on point, this subject will remain a point of contention, and so long as I am welcome on this board, I intend to address this issue with scrutiny. It has nothing to do with "personal." It has everything to do with the law and the rights of each of us.

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

Here was my take on all of this.. and I freely admit to a lack of knowledge about Virginia law in this regard; please forgive me for my ignorance in this matter.

Anyway, let's take two different scenarios. S1 involves a homeowner and S2 involves a place of business. With our homeowner, all rights are reserved to him but with our business owner, certain rights are forefitted. For example, the homeowner may exclude any person for any reason from entering his domain (certain individual such as police and firemen may be excluded). He is not bound be any anti-discrimination laws in this regard.

The business owner is in a different place with this. There is an implied invitation to enter his property for the purpose of conducting business. And he is bound by the anti-discrimination laws. He can ask you to leave for good and valid reasons and this is where I believed him not to have the power of law because he cannot detain or arrest you (am I correct here??).

Anyway, thanks for the corrections and hope I explained my earlier thinking on this.