Inova Fairfax Medical Office Building

[SouthernBoy]

A distinction without a difference.

Oh, it is a difference when it comes to paying real estate taxes.

 

[Uber_Olafsun]

Its on the Inova Fairfax campus, but a separate building from the hospital itself. It's where the doctors have their offices. I do seem to remember, however, that Inova Alexandria has the same Texas statute on its doors. I'll check it out later and respond.

The last time I was at either location they just had the stickers. Maybe I will get a service call there in the next few days. When I go to fairfax I go in the entrance that is right by the college classrooms. Alexandria I go in the back but can easily check out the ER and main doors.

 

[markand]

Looks like somebody at Inova surfed the net for a no guns sign and picked one with wording they liked, without regard to whether it was specific to a particular state (Texas) or whether it cited correct Virginia statutes.

 

[JamesCanby]

Iova Alexandria is different

I walked over to Inova Alexandria Hospital last evening to see how they were posted. Instead of having the Texas No Concealed Carry statute on their doors, they had the typical gunbuster notice: No Firearms or Weapons allowed on this Property.

Looks like there is no consistency among Inova locations.

 

[ChristCrusader]

View attachment 11698
(Click on the thumbnail to enlarge.)

A person licensed under 4413 (29ee)...
May not enter this property with a concealed handgun.

As long as you're not licensed under 4413 (29ee), it doesn't seem to apply.
Perhaps HQ just shipped the wrong sign, but it seems to only affect visiting Texans who have the TX license.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

definately looks like a quote from the Texas statues although the wording of the 30.06 signage is different than what I see in the code. Not sure what the as ammended means..... maybe, as ammended to my use in a totally different state and referencing a section that I wrote that says "You can't do that"

It must be an old version of the required sign, which would not be valid in Texas. As you noted, in Texas the sign must read identical to the text in the statute "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun" along with other requirements

As long as you're not licensed under 4413 (29ee), it doesn't seem to apply.
Perhaps HQ just shipped the wrong sign, but it seems to only affect visiting Texans who have the TX license.

^^^^ Not sure how that would only effect people from Texas carrying with a Texas license. Texas statutes don't apply in VA so the sign would simply either be valid and apply to all concealed carrying or not valid and not apply to anyone, from Texas or otherwise.

 

[ChristCrusader]

As long as you're not licensed under 4413 (29ee), it doesn't seem to apply.
Perhaps HQ just shipped the wrong sign, but it seems to only affect visiting Texans who have the TX license.

^^^^ Not sure how that would only effect people from Texas carrying with a Texas license. Texas statutes don't apply in VA so the sign would simply either be valid and apply to all concealed carrying or not valid and not apply to anyone, from Texas or otherwise.

Because even if one were to liberally allow the consideration that somewhere in there was an expression that no entry was allowed with concealed firearms (potentially thereafter triggering an immediate trespassing violation), it specifically limits it as being directed only to those licensed under 4413 (29ee).

You can be "pursuant to" and refer to the phrasing, message, or philosophy without relying on the authority.
There may not be a legal authority in effect by the legislation cited, but there is still conceivably a message of no entry with a concealed handgun pursuant to, or similar to what was cited. But again, all that falls short when it limits its directive to only those licensed under 4413(29ee).

If they had only "mumbo jumbo pursuant to blah blah cite", followed up with "a person may not enter this property with a concealed handgun", I think that it might have started to offer a trespassing legal deterrent to carrying concealed there, despite the non-authoritative, irrelevant preface.

 

[Uber_Olafsun]

I am at fair oaks hospital right now and I see the sign on the professional building next to the hospital but not on the hospital itself just the sticker. I don't think that it is an INOVA bldg. as they have no signs on it just the 3620 address.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Because even if one were to liberally allow the consideration that somewhere in there was an expression that no entry was allowed with concealed firearms (potentially thereafter triggering an immediate trespassing violation), it specifically limits it as being directed only to those licensed under 4413 (29ee).

You can be "pursuant to" and refer to the phrasing, message, or philosophy without relying on the authority.
There may not be a legal authority in effect by the legislation cited, but there is still conceivably a message of no entry with a concealed handgun pursuant to, or similar to what was cited. But again, all that falls short when it limits its directive to only those licensed under 4413(29ee).

If they had only "mumbo jumbo pursuant to blah blah cite", followed up with "a person may not enter this property with a concealed handgun", I think that it might have started to offer a trespassing legal deterrent to carrying concealed there, despite the non-authoritative, irrelevant preface.

Ooh I see what you mean now. :lol: