Weight of law

[Liberty-or-Death]

Sorry Grape, if you voted, it wasn't clear to me. I took your and Skid's comments to mean somewhere in between. More like, when in doubt, don't. Taking that into account, all tallied so far, we have 4 Yes and 2 No (or at least not convinced).

μολών λαβέ

 

[grylnsmn]

Thanks Grylnsmn, so that's one vote for "signs DO carry weight of law in VA". I appreciate your insight.

μολών λαβέ

It would be more accurate to say "signs carry the weight of law when posted to be reasonably seen" is the technical answer, but the effective answer is "unless the sign is so big and noticeable that you can't miss it, they'll ask you to leave first."

 

[TFred]

Let's get real simple here. If the General Assembly wanted a private owner's POLICY sign to carry the weight of law for TRESPASS, then the General Assembly would write a LAW that said so explicitly, as countless other states have already done. It's not a mystery here, I am quite sure that the General Assembly is aware that other states have done this, yet they have specifically chosen NOT to do it here in Virginia. That speaks with more authority than all the speculation any of us can muster.

And as previously suggested, replace the act of carrying a firearm with actions that others regularly do, such as bringing in food or drink, not wearing shoes or shirt, bringing in pets. As is too often the case, we are our own worst enemy on this topic. No sane person would advocate immediate criminal trespass arrest (without first simply asking to correct the policy violation) for someone bringing in a bag of popcorn to a movie theater. Or a teenage lawn worker, who dashes into a 7-11 for a quick can of soda without his shirt on. That is the exact same nature of policy violation as carrying a gun, and to even suggest that this should, on it's own, merit criminal trespass arrest, is ludicrous.

Imagine the consumer outrage over a theater having someone arrested for eating their own popcorn. That same outrage is what we as advocates for the normalization of defensive firearm carry should be prepared to bring to the table, but no, instead we worship the further discrimination of our own rights at the alter of private property ownership. It's not about private property ownership, or the right for the owner to make that decision. It's about making the owner UNDERSTAND that that decision is the WRONG decision.

TFred

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

Thanks TFred for your clear "vote".

μολών λαβέ

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

Found this interesting quote on a social networking site regarding one of the signs posted at Spotsylvania Towne Centre.

Here's the sign:

Here's the quote.

Criminal trespass requires clear notice - this sign does not provide it; moreover, the sign appears to relate to rules of conduct, not entry - trespass is a 1 or 0 sort of thing - either you are barred entry or you are not; can you imagine a swimming pool authority prosecuting kids for trespass cause they chewed gun under a sign that said no gum at the pool?
Mike Stollenwerk - May 17

μολών λαβέ

 

[TFred]

Found this interesting quote on a social networking site regarding one of the signs posted at Spotsylvania Towne Centre.

Just curious if you realize that Mike is the co-owner of this forum?

TFred

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

*nod*

μολών λαβέ

 

[wrearick]

In my opinion, that "sign" is pretty weak. In most case state and federal laws don't authorize who can carry weapons but restrict who can carry them. My understanding (and I can be off the mark easily) is that here in Virginia we have the right keep and bear arms unless restricted by a state or federal law. I currently am not covered/bound by any of those restrictions so I would look at that sign and say I am carrying a weapon as lawfully authorized by the commonwealth of Virginia and walk right past it. Now, before my vote gets tallied in one column or the other let me follow through with some of the other points that others have tried to make.

I would ask myself, does it appear that the mall owners "want" Law Abiding Citizens with a means of self defense on the premises? - No....but I can "prove" their poorly worded sign doesn't prevent that. If I have that discussion with mall management there are two possible outcomes - one they will agree with me and remove the signs or two they will continue to disagree and rewrite the signs to fix any loop holes.

My opinion is they are not going to change their mind so other than it costing them for some new signs I haven't hurt their pockets much. I strongly disagree with those who claim it would hurt the cause because getting rid of the loopholes will now cause those that CC through the exisiting loopholes to have that option closed to them. (another version is, pointing out that you came through an entrance that didn't have a sign that was clearly seen and now ALL the entrances are clearly marked hurts those who CC'd through those entrances in good conconcise prior to the change). To me that is hypocritical - You KNOW they don't want your business and your gun but you choose to shopt there and give them your money and PRETEND it is okay cause you came in via an unmarked entrance! How does that help the cause?! As Skidmark said, you still feel dirty, or should!

What I plan to do it petition the tenants (the folks trying to make money in the malls). I don't have enough of the guns=money cards yet but once I do I will gladly walk the mall, with my empty holster, and go store to store asking to speak to each manager, and let them know that I ( and a good number of people I know of) will not come and purchase at their location because of the Mall Management Policy. I will and do make an exception for those that clearly are friendly to 2A (Sears, Barnes and NOble, Off Broadway shoes) but only enter and leave via their private entrances.

Standing up for or supporting a cause is not supposed to be easy and is rarely convienent. Continuing to give money to a buisness that wants to deny me the right to self defense of myself and those I care for is what harms the cause, even if it is more convienent for me to shop there than find a similar item at a business that doesn't deny me that right. Heck, it may even cost more at a place that is not anti-2A but I am willing to spend a little more there than to give anything to the business that doesn't respect my right to self defense. I used to not want to penalize the tenants for the management policy but they chose to locate their business there, most times for the luxury of tapping into the mall traffic. If that traffic dries up (or they can identify why a segment of the traffic has dried up) they will put much more pressure on management to change the policy that we can ever do in letters and emails to the management company.

JMHO, YMMV