Does anyone know of any theaters that are in the Woodbridge (NoVa) area that allow CC?

I'm pretty sure the charge in that case would be only for trespassing...

Well I guess I'm a shitty lawyer, too, then, because in my opinion there is a RISK that you could be charged with "carrying a concealed weapon" under 18.2-308, as your permit is arguably* not valid on any private property where the owner forbids carry. It's right in the Code. Whether a cop who responds is sharp enough to know this and deem the sign adequate notice is another matter.

Whether the charge would stick depends on the specific facts of whether you had adequate notice that the owner did not permit firearms. While we do not have explicit statutory sign rules like TX or NC, saying that they have "no force of law" is inaccurate. If they are sufficiently conspicuous and gives reasonable notice of the owner's policy, I would bet many if not most judges in Virginia would convict you if it ever got that far.

I think a trespass charge based on the sign alone would be harder to stick.

*The only real LEGAL argument I see (as opposed to factual one as described above) to the CCW charge is that the wording of 18.2-308(O) which pertains to private property, suggests that the permit does not authorize you to possess a firearm where it's prohibited by the owner - but it does not clearly state that your permit to conceal is "invalid" and that your concealment is a crime because you were somewhere that the property owner didn't allow guns. That's a hairsplitter of an argument, though, and not one I'd want to be forced to make.

Some speeding charges ARE criminal, like reckless. Also, there is no "knowingly" or "intentionally" part of a speeding charge, and in any event, it's the same burden on the Commonwealth for an infraction as it is for a "crime."

I too am a shitty lawyer, because I also read the statute as possibly applying to carrying where forbidden

I've gotten into this conversation many times, and I firmly believe I could be charged in that manner

Also concur on the mens rea...good idea, but you'd be surprised how many instances it doesn't matter

Example 1: 80 mph is reckless....it doesn't matter idiot you didn't mean or intend to go 85

Example 2: sleeping with a 15 year old is rape..doesn't matter if you thought she was 18

There are whole classes of crimes where intent is irrelevant

See trio's post above. In many cases, the act itself is all it takes to be convicted. There is no element of "bad intent" or "knowingly" involved.

I do not see how obtaining the permit, in this case, would matter. That would be like claiming that you could not be convicted of speeding because, look, see, I got a driver's license. Completely irrelevant.

Guideline? No, not really, you have to look at a particular offense (both the Code and the case law interpreting it) to be sure. But generally speaking, an offense that is defined as requiring that the person does it "knowingly" or "intentionally" is going to have a mens rea element, whereas a status or "strict liability" offense like speeding isn't. That is not an all-encompassing guideline, but that's the most common example of the distinction.

In addition, there is lots of case law that discusses how mens rea can be satisfied even if there is only a very general or vague intent on the part of the accused. For example, even though the Code says "knowingly," you can be convicted of possession of a controlled substance if you knowingly possess pills that you should reasonable know are SOME kind of prescription or controlled medication even if you have no idea that they are actually X or Y.

What is the basis/rationale for her opinion? Not picking a fight, just wondering.

There is no case law and no AG's Opinions addressing this particular issue. All we can do is look to the language of the Code, and from that, there is clearly a risk. Many of the reasons stated in this thread in support of the notion that it can't happen are completely out in left field. I'm not saying it WILL happen, I'm merely pointing out that the Code could be interpreted to support it and so there is a risk given that there is no guidance from the courts or the AG on the matter.

I pretty much agree with everything you said. Trespass is entering or remaining upon the property after having been forbidden to do so. It the entry/presence of your person that is the crime, not what you are doing or carrying with you when you do it. So the obvious example is you're forbidden to enter and you enter, or you're told to leave (regardless of reason) and you don't. I do not see how any sign alone that merely states a policy of the owner could support an instantaneous trespass charge without some further demand that you leave or comply with the rule.

It would be nice if we could get at least an AG's opinion on the sign/18.2-308(O) issue to clarify it one way or the other.

Relying on prosecutorial discretion is a hazardous game.

I may see if I can prod one of the Delegates I know to request an AG's opinion on this issue.

No response here either, owners head seems to be firmly rooted in the sand.

The visable sign is no different than a "posted" sign on someones property line. As long as it meets the code's requirements of height, distance between signs, etc. it is enforceable and the accused can be charged with trespassing, regardless of whether or not he "saw" the sign. It is no different than using vertical silver spray paint lines. I know several police officers who have charged citizens with trespassing even though they had no clue what the silver line meant! Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So yes, a marked front door to a business is a reasonable way to inform CCW carriers not to enter and yes, you can be charged with a crime.

But, as stated above. Remember, were trying to convience a nation why we are responsible and why we need to carry a firearm. Getting into a legal disagreement with Joe Shopkeep isn't going to win any hearts and minds. Simply take your business elsewhere.