Paragon Village 12

[jmicheals1984]

I went to Paragon Village 12 about a week ago to find Signs that said "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" on both a door and the box office windows so I sent them an email using the corporate website asking why and also requesting that they take the signs down. I also told him that we were law abiding citizens and that a lot of VA Residents have CHPs and we have done a lot to get them.( I have a CHP). Here is what was sent back to me.

Hi Jeremy

Thank you for taking the time to email us your concerns in regard to the posting
of the signs prohibiting firearms. My name is Kris Knox and have been involved
in the management with Village 12 and Splitsville since we opened 3 years ago.
Throughout that time we have always had the policy in place to try to create a
safe environment for all of our guests and staff. While you and many others may
be very responsible with your firearms, that may not be the case for all. We are
not only a theatre but also a restaurant and bar as well. We work closely with
the recommendation of local law enforcement to do as much as we can to create a
safe environment which does include the policy of no firearms. I do sincerely
apologize to you and those that would be responsible but unfortunately we are
forced to make decisions for the masses. Please feel free to contact me directly
if you have any further questions to this email address. Again, thank you very
much for your time with this.

Thank You
Kris Knox

[Stratojaxter]

to do as much as we can to create a
safe environment which does include the policy of no firearms.

That policy worked out so well in Aurora

Anyway, this is why I purposely don't look for signs, and carry concealed. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

[DryBones]

when you contact places like this please ask them about their security staff... the answers are shocking. And they wonder why they are considered soft targets for the nutjobs.

[NewColonial]

Their signs mean nothing to me.

[ShotgunBlast]

So what I gather here is that people want their right to bear arms respected but to hell with a property owner's rights? Ok, got it.

[vaeevictiss]

Good thing the people that are not safe and responsible with guns will read that...
Ya, i too stopped caring about those signs long ago as they really mean nothing to me. Unless they print those signs on bullet proof material then they won't help as much as a gun. Only ones i will respect are the ones for government property. I'm not about to try and chance or fight those.

Concealed is concealed. I'll let the oc'ers fight the pointless battles.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Stratojaxter]

So what I gather here is that people want their right to bear arms respected but to hell with a property owner's rights? Ok, got it.

When a business decides it wants to be open to the public, they forfeit certain rights in exchange for more access to profit. For instance, they can't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation or identity... If they want to only allow black, Swedish, formerly male transsexual-lesbian, Conservative, Jewish, paraplegics, they can open a private club and dictate almost any rules they want, and members would be bound by contract. At that point they can ban guns, knives, hats, gum, pants, or whatever they want to ban. However, a public business does not have such a contract and I am in no way obligated to know their rules, seek out their rules, or read their signs. If they want me to leave because they do not like something I have LEGALLY brought into their business, they can come to me and ask me to leave, and I will leave without argument.

I also don't ask home owners for permission to enter their homes with a gun. My wife is allergic to most chemical scents and no one has asked me for permission to wear perfume in my house - although I did ask someone to stay outside once because she stunk.

[skeeterss0]

I feel that any buisness or organization that prevents me from protecting myself, should be forced to provide security for me and be liable if that security fails.

An instance of this is college campuses which prevent CHP owners from carrying.

[NewColonial]

Well said. Very well said.

When a business decides it wants to be open to the public, they forfeit certain rights in exchange for more access to profit. For instance, they can't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation or identity... If they want to only allow black, Swedish, formerly male transsexual-lesbian, Conservative, Jewish, paraplegics, they can open a private club and dictate almost any rules they want, and members would be bound by contract. At that point they can ban guns, knives, hats, gum, pants, or whatever they want to ban. However, a public business does not have such a contract and I am in no way obligated to know their rules, seek out their rules, or read their signs. If they want me to leave because they do not like something I have LEGALLY brought into their business, they can come to me and ask me to leave, and I will leave without argument.

I also don't ask home owners for permission to enter their homes with a gun. My wife is allergic to most chemical scents and no one has asked me for permission to wear perfume in my house - although I did ask someone to stay outside once because she stunk.

[dorminWS]

So what I gather here is that people want their right to bear arms respected but to hell with a property owner's rights? Ok, got it.

When a business decides it wants to be open to the public, they forfeit certain rights in exchange for more access to profit. For instance, they can't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation or identity... If they want to only allow black, Swedish, formerly male transsexual-lesbian, Conservative, Jewish, paraplegics, they can open a private club and dictate almost any rules they want, and members would be bound by contract. At that point they can ban guns, knives, hats, gum, pants, or whatever they want to ban. However, a public business does not have such a contract and I am in no way obligated to know their rules, seek out their rules, or read their signs. If they want me to leave because they do not like something I have LEGALLY brought into their business, they can come to me and ask me to leave, and I will leave without argument.

I also don't ask home owners for permission to enter their homes with a gun. My wife is allergic to most chemical scents and no one has asked me for permission to wear perfume in my house - although I did ask someone to stay outside once because she stunk.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, Stratojaxter, I'm afraid you are mistaken; it just doesn't work that way.

Businesses "can't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation or identity... “ because Congress and most if not all state legislatures have identified those as "protected classes" of individuals because there is deemed to be a high likelihood of discrimination that will abridge their constitutional rights (or at least that is the excuse used to justify it, generally speaking). We may not agree with 100% of this, but it is the law. Gun owners are not a "protected class" (although we are damned sure discriminated against, marginalized and persecuted these days nearly as bad as black folks might have been in 1960s Alabama). There is no contract. There is only private property rights and free will. If a business or property owner doesn't like guns, he can prohibit them on his premises. The Second Amendment applies to the government; not private individuals. If you as a gun owner don't like that, you are free to withhold your patronage and exercise your First Amendment rights (within the bounds of the strictures of the laws of libel, slander and other related torts) to encourage others to do likewise. But when you enter a business premises, your legal status is that of an invitee; and the owner of the locus in quo can certainly attach conditions to that invitation. And you certainly, as a householder, have a right to order any visitor (with the exception of LEOs when on official business) NOT to cross your threshold with a gun (or perfume, or whatever else it would offend you to have under your roof). It is your castle and you make the rules (within reason and the law, at least). I don't necessarily disapprove of quietly CCing and staying under the radar, but one should bear in mind that when they do, they are most certainly not "in the right". You could be charged with trespass by a property owner who was determined to press the issue.

[Stratojaxter]

I never said the 2nd Amendment applied to private individuals. I'm just talking about legal obligation. The signs have no legal weight. You can only be charged with trespassing if you are asked to leave, and fail to do so. Again, without a membership, I am no obligated to know or seek out a business's policies, and that includes reading signs they may have placed on a door. So, if thy don't ask me to leave, and I don't let them know I'm carrying, everyone is happy and no laws have been broken, at least in VA.

[dorminWS]

Again, without a membership, I am no obligated to know or seek out a business's policies, and that includes reading signs they may have placed on a door. So, if thy don't ask me to leave, and I don't let them know I'm carrying, everyone is happy and no laws have been broken, at least in VA.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doe this principle, in your opinion, apply to NO TRESPASSING signs, too?

[Stratojaxter]

Since we're discussing private property that is open to the public, it would seem odd to place a No Trespassing sign on your business, but I guess legally, you can do so. Unlike the random "No Firearms" signs, No Trespassing signs do hold legal weight.

The difference here is that in a place open to the public, I have a reasonable expectation that I am permitted to enter and conduct legal activity, unless someone in authority tells me otherwise. If it is not open to the public, such as a private dwelling, there is no such expectation.

[WRW]

The law was written as it was to prevent "gotcha" situations where, by oversight on the part of the patron or insufficiently prominent display of policy by the property owner, a carrier finds out too late of the policy and finds himself in violation of the law. It was not meant to give endorsement to carry until verbal notification.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

The law was written as it was to prevent "gotcha" situations where, by oversight on the part of the patron or insufficiently prominent display of policy by the property owner, a carrier finds out too late of the policy and finds himself in violation of the law. It was not meant to give endorsement to carry until verbal notification.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

'Zactly. Goes to the intent of the carrier. Cuts him some slack because he didn't intend to trespass; which would not be the case if he ignores the sign.
A Commonwealth's Attorney might well decide that the legislative intent WAS NOT to allow someone who ignored the sign to get off scott free; even if the sanction was only to get charged and have to show up and have it dismissed.

[dorminWS]

Stratojaxter, I’m really on your side here, but the facts are not.

“No trespassing” means “don’t come onto my property”

“No guns allowed” means “don’t come onto my property with a gun”

The principle is the same; only the scope of the prohibition is different. Ignoring the “no guns allowed sign is pretty much the same in principal as ignoring the “no trespassing” sign in your front yard. The fact that the property is open to business invitees (or even to the general public) does not diminish the owner’s right to control access to and use of his property. The right to hold, use, and control the use of private property extends to anti-gun asshats, too. And chances are, if you trespass with a gun, they’ll also be asshats about that. That’s my point. As a practical matter, if you want to quietly carry concealed and not tell the asshat, I think it serves him right. But if you get challenged, be aware that you really are not "in the right". And trespass is a crime. So your stated intent to leave quietly and amicably is well advised. BTW, I ain’t purporting to be giving legal advice here; I’m just commenting about the principles involved.

[Stratojaxter]

The problem is that without a specific law requiring a person to look for signage or inquire about what they can or can't do, then it leaves the burden of proof on the property owner to prove that you are purposely ignoring their wishes. Do you stop and read on the signs on the doors windows and walls of every store you enter? Of course not, nor are you required to. I understand that this leaves a legal gray area, but my protection and that of my family, is important enough to risk the unlikely event of the owner (1) noticing that I'm armed, or (2) doing anything except request that I leave if I am discovered to be carrying.

So, the only thing that i have left to add is that I still have a $50 gift card for Paragon, so if you see me, keep it quiet, will ya?

[SHMIV]

Actually, I do read every sign. Something important may be posted there.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[jmicheals1984]

If a Sign is posted, and I decide to carry anyways, I am considered trespassing. This is what the Fredericksburg Police Department explained to me, and at the most could be asked to leave. If I refused, then I could be cited for trespassing and criminal charges pressed. Personally, I think this sucks, and if they were not the best theater in town, I would be going elsewhere.

[ShotgunBlast]

I don't know why people continue to give money to companies that don't value their customer's basic rights. There is no incentive for the company to change their policy if there is no monetary loss due to fewer customers.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]