Status of Terry McAuliffe's executive order 50?
Posted: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 07:17:12
Can anyone help me understand the current status of the Executive Order made banning guns in state buildings?
My understanding is that Executive Orders are only good for 18-months which would mean it expired just over 2-years ago, but the text of the order did not actually ban anything but rather ordered agencies to make changes. Sooo, that leads me to two questions.
1) If a state agency has a "rule" or "policy" that you can't carry a firearm on the property then there is no law broken if you do. If asked to leave, and you refuse, then (and only at that point) there would be a trespassing law broken. Am I logicing correctly?
2) If the state building has a sign prohibiting firearms, that would mean that carrying concealed would be illegal since VA permits are not valid when a building has a "no guns" sign on the door, but carrying openly would be legal. (But as mentioned above, because you can be asked to leave you would either have to leave immediately or risk being arrested for trespassing (for refusing to leave). Again, does this logic sound correct?
Thanks for any clarification anyone can share.
-Mike
My understanding is that Executive Orders are only good for 18-months which would mean it expired just over 2-years ago, but the text of the order did not actually ban anything but rather ordered agencies to make changes. Sooo, that leads me to two questions.
1) If a state agency has a "rule" or "policy" that you can't carry a firearm on the property then there is no law broken if you do. If asked to leave, and you refuse, then (and only at that point) there would be a trespassing law broken. Am I logicing correctly?
2) If the state building has a sign prohibiting firearms, that would mean that carrying concealed would be illegal since VA permits are not valid when a building has a "no guns" sign on the door, but carrying openly would be legal. (But as mentioned above, because you can be asked to leave you would either have to leave immediately or risk being arrested for trespassing (for refusing to leave). Again, does this logic sound correct?
Thanks for any clarification anyone can share.
-Mike
