Source: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?127984-Trespassing
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 01:42:48
Document Index: 62372614

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 18', '§ 16', '§ 19', '§ 20', '§ 18', '§ 18']

I understand that a no guns sign at the entrance of a restaurant does not carry the force of law. What about private property that is not intended for a public presence?
11-15-2014, 12:04 PM #2
Essential to trespass is effective and constructive notice. A defense is "I didn't see the sign."
11-15-2014, 02:31 PM #3
So long as once being made aware of the trespass you take action to leave the property.
The generally approved advice is to not argue about how visible the signage is.
But I'm still wondering why you are on "pivate property that is not intended for a public presence".
Does this have anything to do with dog hunting on a posted game preserve?
11-15-2014, 03:30 PM #4
While a no guns sign may not have the force of firearm law behind it ... depending on the laws of the State that sign could still have the force of trespass law behind it.
Whether a sign carries the force of trespass law as being legal "notice" varies from State to State but to say that a no guns sign does not carry the force of law is to ignore that there are different parts of law that are not firearm specific but still affect the carrying of firearms.
11-15-2014, 03:36 PM #5
Bullsh&t....Read the code!
11-15-2014, 03:38 PM #6
Easy way for him to find out is try it and not blubber about it afterwards.
Shooting preserves fall under a different section of the code. While someone can still be charged with trespassing on as a class one misdemeanor, shooting preserves are required to post signs every 50 yards around the perimeter, (I posted along every access point also in large, easy to read signs...not in crayon though, which is the only defense a dog hunter may have)
§ 18.2-131
Trespass upon licensed shooting preserve.
It shall be unlawful for any person to trespass on a licensed shooting preserve. Any person convicted of such trespass shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor and shall be responsible for all damage. Owners or keepers of dogs trespassing on preserves shall be responsible for all damage done by such dogs.
Last edited by peter nap; 11-15-2014 at 04:05 PM.
11-15-2014, 03:41 PM #7
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 the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person 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, 16.1-278.2through 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 § 19.2-152.10or 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; 2011, c. 195.)
This is a really confusing thread. The OP started out asking about the legal effect of a "No Guns" sign.
Nightmare essentially changed the thread to make it about "Trespass."
From there it went to signage delineating "Private Game Preserves."
Seems to me that if a property owner posts a "No Guns" sign they are saying that they don't want you to bring a firearm onto/into the property. (NB: this was posted in the Virginia forum, so I really don't care what the laws in Michigan are.)
If the property is posted as "No Guns" and you don't see it or if you ignore it, the property owner may tell you to leave the property. If you do not, then he can call the police and have you charged with trespass. Unless I am missing something in the Virginia Code, carrying a firearm past a "No Guns" sign in Virginia has nothing to do with trespass. Trespass only occurs when the property owner or their agent tells a person to leave the property and the person refuses to do so.
Similar to the "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs. If you walk into such a property barefoot and/or shirtless, you are not subject to trespass until the owner tells you to leave and you refuse.
Last edited by JamesCanby; 11-15-2014 at 05:30 PM.
11-15-2014, 06:00 PM #9
A no trespassing sign posted in accordance with the statute is enforceable as is. He doesn't need to see it, just that he should have seen it.
A provisional sign like "No Guns" or "No skateboarding" is a different thing. The person is still welcome but under certain conditions that he has to read to comply with.
I'm seeing more signs that say things like "No skateboarding, violators will be charged with trespassing".
I know places that post "No Trespassing after dark", get convictions.
Or....You could follow David's usual poor advice, and add another charge or two.
Last edited by peter nap; 11-15-2014 at 06:03 PM.
11-15-2014, 07:18 PM #10
Agreed, though the property owner or their agent can tell you via a sign that lets you know you're not allowed to be there, e.g. "No Trespassing."
But I agree with the gist of your post. I've been in a store posted "no guns" because the owner knows me and said to come on in when I told him I was armed. I've also taken 20 items under the "15 or fewer" checkout sign because the the unoccupied cashier flagged me over. In neither case do I believe I was trespassing.
Would the OP please address why he is on "pivate property that is not intended for a public presence".
This could be anything up to someone's home.
(And for those that were not in on it, the dog hunting/game preserve reference was an inside joke.)
11-15-2014, 08:30 PM #12
11-15-2014, 10:44 PM #13
Sounds like a conditions of entry issue. I would say that you are in violation of trespassing as soon as you crossed that threshold.
11-16-2014, 10:13 AM #14
Goes by both the reasonable person standard and the idea that gun owners are assumed to know all the gun laws better than the legislators that pass them and know that they should know to look for all signage.
Interesting element of the crime is that the sign is posted by the owner (or other person empowered by the owner) -- but normally when you see a sign, you have no idea who put it up or that the owner is even aware of the sign.
Any thoughts on this element gang? In these cases do they have the owner testify that signs were posted via their authority? Likely not. And the other witnesses likely could not testify to this fact that is an essential element that the state must prove.
11-16-2014, 10:38 AM #15
Or you culd stay off others people's property where your not wanted.
11-16-2014, 10:49 AM #16
By the way David.....the offer for you to come to Va and teach us hicks all about the law is still open. You're even welcome to trespass on my farm
11-16-2014, 11:11 AM #17
I agree with ProShooter...
If the property owner has a condition attached to his permission to enter, such as a business open to the public but not open to those who carry guns because those who carry guns do not have permission to enter, evidenced by a no guns sign and a person carrying a gun enters anyway then that person has engaged in the activity of being on/in private property without the owner's permission.... an activity commonly referred to as "trespassing".
Being asked to leave (really just politely being required to leave) actually means the person has been caught already in the act of being on/in the property without permission. But... different States have different laws concerning when any legal penalties begin for the act of trespass.
For example... one State might require signs of a certain size and wording before a sign serves as legal notice. If that is so then a person is guilty of trespass if the sign is ignored and maybe even if the sign wasn't seen but a reasonable person should have seen it. Yet another State might consider a hand written sign as valid notification. While a different State's laws might require verbal notice by being asked to leave.
Thing is... just because a no guns sign has no force of firearm law behind it doesn't mean it might not have the force of trespass law behind it. And it is up to us to not only know the firearm laws but also any other laws that aren't firearm law but still might affect carrying a firearm of the State we happen to be in whether by residence or by visiting.
However, let us not confuse when the act begins with when the legal penalties for the act begin. The act of trespass begins when a person is in/on private property (that includes businesses) without permission. That is the definition of trespass.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/trespass/
Trespass Law & Legal Definition
Trespass is entering another person's property without permission of the owner or legal authority.
After all ... a person who steals money from the cash register is still guilty of engaging in theft whether he is notified or asked not to steal/gets caught or not. And so it is with a person who trespasses... whether they get caught (being asked to leave) or not they are still engaging in trespassing because they don't have the owner's permission. When the legal penalties kick in, including what serves as legal notice, differs with the different laws of different States.
11-16-2014, 12:19 PM #18
You are confusing your feeling about what trespass is/should be vs. what the legal definition of trespass is.
In reality, it is not trespass unless it meets the statutory definition of trespass. Which may differ in every state. But I'm highly skeptical that any state define trespass as ignoring some sign that purports to limit personal property carried upon the person of one of an invitee.
Absent any statute indicating that ignoring a 'no firearms' sign is trespass, it's not trespass.
11-16-2014, 01:15 PM #19
One must look beyond the statutes and in Common Law, where signage has proven to be sufficient warning/notice.
http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2012/07/...-trespass.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass
Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. -snip-
I am making the distinction between the legal penalties/definitions (and the laws for that do vary from State to State) and the actual act itself. It doesn't matter if the law recognizes a sign as "notice" of trespass or if the law requires a person be verbally "noticed" of trespass before legal penalties can be assessed.... the act of being on/in the property without the owner's permission is, in and of itself, trespass.
11-16-2014, 02:14 PM #21
How can you invite someone to trespass?
11-16-2014, 02:59 PM #22
That cite refers to trespassing, not violating a purported 'conditional entry' requirement. Two completely different animals.
ETA: I'm in Florida, therefore the laws in VA are not really of concern to me. However, I am 100% positive in my interpretation of the law where I reside.
11-16-2014, 03:10 PM #23
Not necessarily so in Virginia and this thread is in the Virginia sub-forum.
Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-16-2014 at 07:42 PM. Reason: Speeling
11-16-2014, 03:34 PM #24
Just follow the stickers !
11-16-2014, 05:07 PM #25
My guess is this is a tongue in cheek comment meant to confuse someone such as mcbeth, or you hahah