Under Virginia's 2014 Sunday hunting law, does the exception for landowner-permitted hunting apply when the land is owned by a corporation or LLC, and does it cover public land?

Plain-English summary

The Director of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (now the Department of Wildlife Resources) asked two questions about the 2014 Sunday hunting law. Chapter 482 of the 2014 Acts of Assembly partially lifted Virginia's long-standing prohibition on Sunday hunting. It kept the general prohibition but added three exceptions:

1. Raccoon hunting until 2:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings.
2. Waterfowl, subject to geographic limits and a 200-yard exclusion zone around places of worship.
3. Hunting by a landowner, a member of the landowner's family, or any person with written permission from the landowner, on the landowner's property, with the same 200-yard buffer around places of worship.

The first question was whether "landowner" in the third exception meant only natural persons (individuals), since corporations, LLCs, and other entities also own large amounts of Virginia hunting land. The second was whether the exception applied to public land or only private land.

"Landowner" is not limited to natural persons. The word is ambiguous, the AG explained. Alone it could mean any owner of land; combined with the next phrase "or member of his family" the use of "his" could suggest a natural person. Two construction doctrines resolved the ambiguity. First, in pari materia: § 29.1-509(A) defines "landowner" elsewhere in Chapter 5 of Title 29.1 (the hunting and fishing chapter) as the "legal title holder . . . lessee, occupant or any other person in control of land or premises." Section 29.1-509(C) extends broad recreational-use liability protections to "any landowner" who gives permission to hunt, and the Virginia Supreme Court has applied that protection to non-natural landowners, including municipalities (City of Va. Beach v. Flippen, 1996). Reading § 29.1-521 to exclude corporate landowners would be inconsistent with § 29.1-509. Second, absurd results: it would be strange to let a person who owns land hunt on Sunday but bar a person from hunting on land owned by their family LLC, when nothing about the underlying public-safety or religious-day rationale turns on the legal form of ownership.

The exception is limited to private lands. The text of paragraph (A)(1)(iii) does not use the phrase "private lands." But the title of Chapter 482 says the Act relates to "hunting wild animals and wild birds on private property and state waters on Sundays." Virginia courts (Hawkins v. Commonwealth, White v. Commonwealth) read statute titles as guides to legislative intent. The fact that the legislature took care to mention "private property" in the title strongly suggests they intended the landowner exception to apply only to private property. If they intended all property (public and private), they would not have specified "private."

So a deer hunter on Sunday on the family farm: legal. A guest with written permission on a hunt-club-owned LLC tract: legal. A hunter trying to use the landowner exception on a state forest or wildlife management area: not legal under this exception. The waterfowl exception still applies regardless of land status, subject to its own conditions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Virginia's Sunday hunting law has been amended several times since 2014. Subsequent legislation expanded Sunday hunting more broadly and altered the structure of exceptions. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries was renamed the Department of Wildlife Resources in 2020. Anyone planning a Sunday hunt today should check current § 29.1-521 and current DWR regulations.

Common questions

What was Virginia's old Sunday hunting rule?
For most of Virginia's history, hunting on Sunday was generally prohibited (with limited exceptions like raccoon hunting before 2 a.m.). The 2014 Act was a partial repeal that opened Sunday hunting on private land with the owner's permission. Further loosening of the rule has happened in years after this opinion.

What does "written permission" mean for the landowner exception?
The exception covers the landowner, family members, and "any person with written permission from the landowner." The written-permission requirement applies to non-family hunters. Family members do not need written permission. The statute does not specify the form of written permission, but a signed and dated note describing the dates and species, kept on the hunter's person, is the conservative practice.

Are there other rules besides the 200-yard place-of-worship buffer?
Yes. Other generally applicable hunting regulations (licensing, bag limits, weapon restrictions, blaze orange, hunter education) all still apply on Sunday hunts. The Sunday law does not change those.

Can a hunter on Sunday hunt deer on adjacent public land?
Not under the landowner exception. The waterfowl exception, the raccoon exception, and the specific hunting opportunities on Sundays that the legislature may have added in subsequent years are separate questions. As of 2014 and reading the landowner exception only, the answer for non-waterfowl on public land was no.

What if the LLC owner gives written permission?
The opinion answers this directly: yes. A corporate landowner can give written permission and the hunter can rely on it for the Sunday exception, subject to the 200-yard place-of-worship rule and other generally applicable rules.

What about leased or licensed hunting land?
The opinion does not specifically address lessees and licensees, but § 29.1-509(A)'s broader definition of "landowner" (which the AG used to read § 29.1-521) includes "lessee, occupant or any other person in control of land or premises." That suggests a lessee might also count as a "landowner" who can extend Sunday hunting permission. The cautious approach is to get written permission from both the title holder and any controlling lessee.

Does this opinion address bow hunting, firearm hunting, or both?
Both. The Sunday hunting exception applies to "any wild bird or wild animal, including any nuisance species," and is not weapon-specific. Whatever weapon is legal for the species and season also applies on Sunday under the exception.

Background and statutory framework

• 2014 Va. Acts ch. 482: Amended and reenacted § 29.1-521. The title: "An Act to amend and reenact § 29.1-521 of the Code of Virginia, relating to hunting wild animals and wild birds on private property and state waters on Sundays."
• Va. Code § 29.1-521 (as amended): General prohibition on Sunday hunting with three exceptions: raccoons, waterfowl (with conditions), and landowner-permitted hunting on landowner's property (with the 200-yard place-of-worship buffer).
• Va. Code § 29.1-509(A): Defines "landowner" for purposes of Title 29.1 Chapter 5 as the "legal title holder . . . lessee, occupant or any other person in control of land or premises."
• Va. Code § 29.1-509(C): Recreational-use liability protection for landowners who give permission to hunt.

The interpretive moves:

• "Landowner" is ambiguous in isolation.
• Reading in pari materia with § 29.1-509 supports inclusion of non-natural persons.
• The absurd-results doctrine supports the same conclusion.
• Statute titles can guide interpretation; the title of Chapter 482 specifically referred to "private property and state waters," limiting the exception's reach to private land.

Citations

• 2014 Va. Acts ch. 482
• Va. Code § 29.1-509(A) and (C)
• Va. Code § 29.1-521
• Va. Code § 32.1-102.3:2 (cited as example of "family member" definitions)
• Va. Code § 37.2-100
• Va. Code § 51.1-500
• Va. Code § 54.1-2410
• Herndon v. St. Mary's Hosp., Inc., 266 Va. 472, 587 S.E.2d 567 (2003)
• Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993)
• United States v. Holland, 48 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D. Va. 1999)
• Boynton v. Kilgore, 271 Va. 220, 623 S.E.2d 922 (2006)
• Lillard v. Fairfax Cnty. Airport Auth., 208 Va. 8, 155 S.E.2d 338 (1967)
• Lucy v. Cnty. of Albemarle, 258 Va. 118, 516 S.E.2d 480 (1999)
• City of Va. Beach v. Flippen, 251 Va. 358, 467 S.E.2d 471 (1996)
• Hawkins v. Commonwealth/Southside Va. Training Ctr., 255 Va. 261, 497 S.E.2d 839 (1998)
• White v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 816, 127 S.E.2d 594 (1962)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2014/14-039_Duncan.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Mark R. Herring
Attorney General

900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1

August 22, 2014

Mr. Robert W. Duncan
Executive Director
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
4010 West Broad Street
Post Office Box 11104
Richmond, Virginia 23230-1104

Dear Mr. Duncan:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory Opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issues Presented

You inquire whether the word "landowner" in paragraph (A)(1)(iii) of Chapter 482 of the 2014 Virginia Acts of Assembly ("Chapter 482" or "the Act"), which amends and reenacts § 29.1-521 of the Code of Virginia, is limited to natural persons. If the word "landowner" is not limited to natural persons, you ask whether the exception created by paragraph (A)(1)(iii) to the general prohibition on Sunday hunting is limited to private lands.

Response

It is my opinion that the word "landowner" in paragraph (A)(1)(iii) of the Act is not limited to landowners who are natural persons. The exception to the general prohibition on Sunday hunting created by paragraph (A)(1)(iii) is limited to private lands.

Applicable Law and Discussion

In relevant part, Chapter 482 provides that it shall be unlawful "[t]o hunt or kill . . . on Sunday." The Act further provides:

The provision of this subdivision that prohibits the hunting or killing of any wild bird or wild animal, including nuisance species, on Sunday shall not apply to (i) raccoons, which may be hunted until 2:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings; (ii) any person who hunts or kills waterfowl, subject to geographical limitations established by the Director and except within 200 yards of a place of worship or any accessory structure thereof; or (iii) any landowner or member of his family or any person with written permission from the landowner who hunts or kills any wild bird or wild animal, including any nuisance species, on the landowner's property, except within 200 yards of a place of worship or any accessory structure thereof.

The term "landowner" in paragraph (A)(1)(iii) is ambiguous. Doctrines of statutory construction provide guidance for the interpretation of a statute; such doctrines are used to resolve ambiguity.

The doctrine in pari materia teaches that "statutes are not to be considered as isolated fragments of law, but as a whole, or as parts of a great, connected, homogenous system, or a single and complete statutory arrangement." Where there is ambiguity in statutory language, courts thus should interpret statutes in pari materia, "in such manner as to reconcile, if possible, any discordant feature which may exist, and make the body of the laws harmonious and just in their operation." Reading § 29.1-521 in conjunction with other parts of Chapter 5 of Title 29.1 suggests that "landowner" must refer to all landowners, not only natural persons. Section 29.1-509(A) defines the term "landowner" as the "legal title holder . . . lessee, occupant or any other person in control of land or premises." Section 29.1-509(C) provides broad liability protections to "any landowner" who gives permission to another person to hunt upon that landowner's property. It does not distinguish between property held by corporate entities and that held by natural persons. Courts, furthermore, have allowed entities that are not natural persons to claim liability protection under § 29.1-509. See, e.g., City of Va. Beach v. Flippen, 251 Va. 358, 362, 467 S.E.2d 471, 474 (1996) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that § 29.1-509 should apply only to private landowners and holding that the City of Norfolk in its capacity as a landowner is entitled to the protections of the statute). Should § 29.1-521(A)(1)(iii) be interpreted to apply only to natural landowners, that interpretation would be inconsistent with § 29.1-509.

The absurd results doctrine of statutory construction, furthermore, supports an interpretation of "landowner" that does not distinguish arbitrarily between natural persons and other entities owning land for purposes of (A)(1)(iii). The absurd results doctrine holds that if applying the plain language of a statute causes "illogical or unworkable conflict," the plain language is "insufficient to [determine] the statute's meaning." Arguably, it would be an absurd result to treat lands owned by a limited liability corporation, for example, differently than lands owned by an individual for purposes of § 29.1-521(A)(1)(iii). The term "landowner" thus should be interpreted to encompass both natural and non-natural persons.

Turning to your question regarding whether the exception to the general prohibition on Sunday hunting created by the newly enacted § 29.1-521(A)(1)(iii) is limited to private lands, I conclude that it is so limited. The text of paragraph (A)(1)(iii) does not use the term "private lands" or otherwise distinguish between public and private lands. Nevertheless, Chapter 482 is entitled, with emphasis added, "An Act to amend and reenact § 29.1-521 of the Code of Virginia, relating to hunting wild animals and wild birds on private property and state waters on Sundays." In construing Acts of Assembly, Virginia courts have held that the title may be indicative of legislative intent and guide judicial interpretation. Here, the General Assembly in the title of Chapter 482 expressly distinguishes between and includes both private property and public ("state") waters. There would be no reason to include the phrase "on private property and state waters" had the drafters intended the Act to apply to all property (private and public lands and waters).

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the word "landowner" in paragraph (A)(1)(iii) of Chapter 482 of the 2014 Virginia Acts of Assembly is not limited to landowners who are natural persons. The exception to the general prohibition on Sunday hunting created by paragraph (A)(1)(iii) is limited to private lands.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Mark R. Herring
Attorney General