Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Defending property in Virginia: Can I grip my gun?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    14

    Defending property in Virginia: Can I grip my gun?

    I often see officers grip their gun in their holster when in a situation that may require quick action. My question is can we do the same thing?

    If we see our car getting stolen, can we approach the thief tell them to stop while griping our gun in our holster.
    No threats, no mention of the gun, no pointing, just gripping it.

    Normally, if you do things like lift your shirt and show your gun, you are making a threat. It seems like this would be the same thing...


    Virginia Code
    18.2-282.

    It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by toreador View Post
    I often see officers grip their gun in their holster when in a situation that may require quick action. My question is can we do the same thing?

    If we see our car getting stolen, can we approach the thief tell them to stop while griping our gun in our holster.
    No threats, no mention of the gun, no pointing, just gripping it.

    Normally, if you do things like lift your shirt and show your gun, you are making a threat. It seems like this would be the same thing...


    Virginia Code
    18.2-282.

    It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.
    I always cringe when these questions come up.

    Gripping your gun, pulling up your shirt, turning your hip to the person and doing a belly dance...are brandishing.

    If someone is stealing your car, brandishing may or may not be illegal.

    There is no simple answer.

    Would I brandish if someone were stealing my car....try it sometime and you'll get the answer.

  3. #3
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    You may never use deadly force to protect property. If you are in your house and see someone breaking into your car, call the police. Do not go out there, and certainly don't go out there gripping a pistol.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ProShooter View Post
    You may never use deadly force to protect property. If you are in your house and see someone breaking into your car, call the police. Do not go out there, and certainly don't go out there gripping a pistol.
    Cite, please.



    Toreador,

    Until the posters can quote actual court opinions forbidding lethal force to protect property in VA, my suggestion is to play it safe and assume the law forbids it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699

    Re: Defending property in Virginia: Can I grip my gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cite, please.



    Toreador,

    Until the posters can quote actual court opinions forbidding lethal force to protect property in VA, my suggestion is to play it safe and assume the law forbids it.

    prev | next
    § 18.2-280. Willfully discharging firearms in public places.
    A. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering, and such conduct results in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such conduct does not result in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
    B. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon the buildings and grounds of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in a program or curriculum sponsored by or conducted with permission of a public, private or religious school.
    C. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon any public property within 1,000 feet of the property line of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school property he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in lawful hunting.
    D. This section shall not apply to any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties nor to any other person whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his life or property, or is otherwise specifically authorized by law.
    E. Nothing in this statute shall preclude the Commonwealth from electing to prosecute under any other applicable provision of law instead of this section.
    (Code 1950, § 18.1-69; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 735; 1999, c. 996; 2001, c. 712; 2005, c. 928.)

    Note section D. Open for discussion?

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    I'm sorry, but for sake of discussion and understanding the intent of your below cite, can I ask whether you were intending this to be a cite to support one of the above positions and if yes, which one?

    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    prev | next
    § 18.2-280. Willfully discharging firearms in public places.
    A. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering, and such conduct results in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such conduct does not result in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
    B. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon the buildings and grounds of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in a program or curriculum sponsored by or conducted with permission of a public, private or religious school.
    C. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon any public property within 1,000 feet of the property line of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school property he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in lawful hunting.
    D. This section shall not apply to any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties nor to any other person whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his life or property, or is otherwise specifically authorized by law.
    E. Nothing in this statute shall preclude the Commonwealth from electing to prosecute under any other applicable provision of law instead of this section.
    (Code 1950, § 18.1-69; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 735; 1999, c. 996; 2001, c. 712; 2005, c. 928.)

    Note section D. Open for discussion?

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    prev | next
    § 18.2-280. Willfully discharging firearms in public places.
    A. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering, and such conduct results in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If such conduct does not result in bodily injury to another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
    B. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon the buildings and grounds of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in a program or curriculum sponsored by or conducted with permission of a public, private or religious school.
    C. If any person willfully discharges or causes to be discharged any firearm upon any public property within 1,000 feet of the property line of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school property he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, unless he is engaged in lawful hunting.
    D. This section shall not apply to any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties nor to any other person whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his life or property, or is otherwise specifically authorized by law.
    E. Nothing in this statute shall preclude the Commonwealth from electing to prosecute under any other applicable provision of law instead of this section.
    (Code 1950, § 18.1-69; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 735; 1999, c. 996; 2001, c. 712; 2005, c. 928.)

    Note section D. Open for discussion?

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    In VA, you may use lethal force to protect a dwelling from right-now arson. My cite is User and the 2006 edition of Virginia Gun Laws by Bloomfield Press.

    And, I am personally certain that lethal force may be neither used nor threatened to defend other property (but, I cannot cite the court opinions so I will not make a declaration of law.)

    Thus, I truly believe that expanding the above-quoted statute to include all property beyond arson would be to misread the statute.


    ETA: Many thanks to Rudy DiGiacinto--here are my cites against lethal force in defense of property outside of arson: http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-16-2013 at 12:24 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cite, please.

    ....
    Easy-peasy.

    More, Citizen. Harder ones, Citizen.

    stay safe.

    Brandishing a Deadly Weapon In Defense of Personal Property is A Criminal Act

    Commonwealth v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 531 S.E.2d 567 (2000).


    "In this appeal, we decide whether a deadly weapon may be brandished in defense of personal property.
    Jon Douglas Alexander was charged with attempted murder in Rockbridge County. At a preliminary hearing on that charge, the general district court reduced the charge to that of brandishing a firearm in violation of Code §18.2-282 and convicted defendant Alexander of that charge.

    Michael T. Eustler, an agent of the lien holder of the defendant's vehicle, sought to repossess the vehicle. When Eustler arrived at the defendant's home, the defendant agreed to its repossession provided he could remove certain papers and tools valuable to him and having nothing to do with the vehicle being repossessed.

    Although Eustler agreed to permit the defendant to retrieve the items, Eustler "jacked up" the vehicle as the defendant was partially in the front seat. Eustler approached the defendant in a belligerent manner, and demanded the keys to the vehicle. Feeling threatened, the defendant entered his house and emerged with the keys as well as an unloaded rifle which he placed in a flower bed that was close to the vehicle. When Eustler again approached in a belligerent manner, the defendant retrieved the rifle and held it at his side. The defendant felt compelled to raise the rifle to his shoulder when he thought that Eustler was going to assault him. However, the defendant did not point the gun at Eustler until Eustler kept coming at him, at which time, Eustler "finally backed off." Eustler later called the police.

    We need not resolve the defendant's claim that Eustler's actions were "unwarranted and illegal . . . in attempting, by other than peaceful means, to unlawfully take [defendant's] personal property." Even if Eutsler's actions were unwarranted or illegal, the defendant, as an owner of personal property, did not have the right to assert or defend his possessory rights thereto by the use of deadly force. In Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 840, 842-43, 36 S.E. 371, 372 (1900), we said:

    The law is clearly stated by a learned judge in State v. Morgan, 3 Ired. 186, 38 Am. Dec. 714, as follows: "When it is said that a man may rightfully use as much force as is necessary for the protection of his person and property, it should be recollected that this rule is subject to this most important modification, that he shall not, except in extreme cases, endanger human life or do great bodily harm. It is not every right of person, and still less of property, that can lawfully be asserted, or every wrong that may rightfully be redressed by extreme remedies.

    There is a recklessness-a wanton disregard of humanity and social duty in taking or endeavoring to take, the life of a fellow-being, in order to save one's self from a comparatively slight wrong, which is essentially wicked, and the law abhors. You may not kill, because you cannot otherwise effect your object, although the object sought to be effected is right. You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty." See, also, 1 Bishop on New C. L., secs. 839, 841, 850. However, the defendant contends, and the Court of Appeals held, that these principles do not apply when there is a mere threat to use deadly force in protection of personal property. We do not agree.

    The threat to use deadly force by brandishing a deadly weapon has long been considered an assault. Harper v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 723, 733, 85 S.E.2d 249, 255 (1955). In Merritt v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 653, 658-59, 180 S.E. 395, 398 (1935), we said:

    Judge Moncure, in the Hardy Case, 17 Gratt. (58 Va.) 592, 600, [1867] quoted with approval from an old English case, thus: "An assault is any attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporeal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness, as by striking at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with such other circumstances as denote at the time an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it."Such a threat may give the threatened person a right to defend himself by the use of a deadly weapon. McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978). Further, as the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals notes, "[p]ermitting one to threaten to use deadly force leads in dangerous progression to an unacceptable conclusion. Here, the victim would have been entitled to use deadly force to repel the perceived threat." 28 Va. App. at 780, 508 S.E.2d at 916 (Judge Bumgardner, dissenting); 30 Va. App. at 153, 515 S.E.2d at 808 (en banc) (Judge Bumgardner, with whom Chief Judge Fitzpatrick joins, dissenting). Moreover, the owner of land has no right to assault a mere trespasser with a deadly weapon. Montgomery, 98 Va. at 844, 36 S.E. at 373. Indeed, in Montgomery, it was the landowner's brandishing of a sharpened corn-cutter that provoked the defendant's physical assertion of his right of self-defense. 98 Va. at 841-43, 36 S.E. at 372-73. For these reasons, we agree with the trial court that a deadly weapon may not be brandished solely in defense of personal property. Therefore, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's judgment. "

    See Also: Morris v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 127, 607 S.E.2d 110 (2005).

    "We disagree with Morris. "Brandish" means "to exhibit or expose in an ostentatious, shameless, or aggressive manner." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 268 (1993). When Morris looked at Ms. Molina, said "[he'd] like that," and then pulled up his shirt to uncover the flare gun, he exhibited or exposed the weapon in a shameless or aggressive manner. And Morris brandished the weapon in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of Peter Molina. Although Molina may not have said he was in fear for his own safety, he stated unequivocally that he feared for the safety of his wife, and that is sufficient to prove the "induced fear" element of a conviction for brandishing a firearm under Code 18.2-282."

    See Also: Huffman v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 469, 658 S.E.2d 713, (2008).

    "This Court has held, in connection with robbery, that "'the word "fear" . . . does not so much mean "fright" as it means "apprehension"; one too brave to be frightened may yet be apprehensive of bodily harm.'" Seaton, 42 Va. App. at 749, 595 S.E.2d at 14 (quoting 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 20.3(d), at 187-88 (2d ed. 2003)) (emphasis in original).

    In other words, "'[w]hen the pertinent test is cast in terms of a victim being put in "fear" of injury, it is not necessary that the victim be frightened; it is necessary merely that he be reasonably apprehensive of injury.'" Id. (quoting Charles E. Torcia, 4 Wharton's Criminal Law § 462, at 21 (15th ed. 1996)) (emphasis in original). The dispositive issue in this case, therefore, is whether there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Moon was reasonably apprehensive of bodily harm induced by Huffman brandishing the gun in her presence. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. It also ensures that we remain faithful to our duty not to substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact, even were our opinion to differ.Seaton, 42 Va. App. at 747-48, 595 S.E.2d at 13 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Moon's request of Huffman to put his gun away was sufficient evidence of Moon's requisite apprehension of bodily harm."
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Oh, and please forgive our manners.

    Welcome to OCDO!!!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, and please forgive our manners.
    We have manners?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, and please forgive our manners.

    Welcome to OCDO!!!
    Thanks for the clarification guys.

    Nice folks on this site.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699

    Re: Defending property in Virginia: Can I grip my gun?

    Apologies if I over indulged in the cite. Thanks for not pulling my chain to hard either.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by mpguy; 04-16-2013 at 12:48 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by toreador View Post
    I often see officers grip their gun in their holster when in a situation that may require quick action. My question is can we do the same thing?

    If we see our car getting stolen, can we approach the thief tell them to stop while griping our gun in our holster.
    No threats, no mention of the gun, no pointing, just gripping it.

    Normally, if you do things like lift your shirt and show your gun, you are making a threat. It seems like this would be the same thing...


    Virginia Code
    18.2-282.

    It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.


    Depending on your living situation/conditions free roaming dogs are more effective.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  14. #14
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Pepper spray, firehoses, or other less than lethal means should be ok. Maybe a territorial dog that would get right upset if someone tried taking his vehicle. Although I am not a lawyer so should ask one before acting on it...

    ---Use OC/pepper spray?
    § 18.2-312. Illegal use of tear gas, phosgene and other gases.
    If any person maliciously release or cause or procure to be released in any private home, place of business or place of public gathering any tear gas, mustard gas, phosgene gas or other noxious or nauseating gases or mixtures of chemicals designed to, and capable of, producing vile or injurious or nauseating odors or gases, and bodily injury results to any person from such gas or odor, the offending person shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.
    If such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the offending person shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
    Nothing herein contained shall prevent the use of tear gas or other gases by police officers or other peace officers in the proper performance of their duties, or by any person or persons in the protection of person, life or property.

    (Code 1950, § 18.1-70; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)




    ---other
    "... The use of deadly force to prevent threatened harm to property is never justified except in defense of habitation; ..." [ref footnote #2, which states, "The use of deadly force,in defense of “property” can also be justifiable, but the classic formulation lists only arson or burglary as crimes against property which can justify the use of deadly force. . . . Even then the use of deadly force must have been necessary.

    Defense of habitation and justifiable self-defense overlap in the “castle doctrine” which states that one may, without retreating, use force, to include deadly force if necessary, to keep aggressors out of his own house. This part of the castle doctrine is one aspect of defense of habitation. . . . [T]he justification exists in the curtilage as well as the castle.

    Roger D. Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia 114 (3rd ed. 1994). The defense of habitation and the castle doctrine have not been raised in this case."]

    Alexander v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 771, 780, 508 S.E.2d 912(1999)

    " Finding an attached garage a portion of the dwelling comports with the purpose underlying the burglary statutes of protecting the sanctity of the home. Compton, 190 Va. at 55, 55 S.E.2d at 449. Since the burglary statutes aim to protect a person's place of habitation and an attached garage is structurally and functionally part of the habitation, the burglary statutes naturally protect the garage. See Rash v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 22, 25, 383 S.E.2d 749, 751 (1989) (noting [Page 44] that “[t]he theoretical basis of common law burglary was the ancient notion that a man's home was his castle and that he had the right to feel safe therein”). As just another room of the dwelling, an attached garage receives the same protection as every other room."

    Lacey v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 32, 43-44, 675 S.E.2d 846, ___ (2009)




    What is interesting you won't be charge with discharging a firearm in public if you are acting in protection of property (18.2-280) but probably something else.

    The other from:
    § 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
    B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.
    C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.
    (Code 1950, § 18.1-69.2; 1968, c. 513; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, cc. 588, 599; 1992, c. 735; 2003, c. 976; 2005, c. 928.)
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  15. #15
    Regular Member HearseGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    172
    What if I feel like my life may be in danger?

    A for instance. Bob accidently cuts someone off in traffic. Bob turns into his destination. As Bob is walking through the parking lot he doesn't realize that the man he cut off has followed him. The man Bob cut off slams on brakes and gets out of his vehicle yelling, cussing and aggressively coming toward Bob. In his rage, he has not yet realized Bob is OCing. Bob puts his hand on his still holstered firearm and tells him to STOP. Bob apologizes and diffuses the situation.

    Is Bob justified in his actions. Does the aggressor have legal footing for a charge of some sort against Bob?
    Additional text for your reading pleasure...

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by HearseGuy View Post
    What if I feel like my life may be in danger?

    A for instance. Bob accidently cuts someone off in traffic. Bob turns into his destination. As Bob is walking through the parking lot he doesn't realize that the man he cut off has followed him. The man Bob cut off slams on brakes and gets out of his vehicle yelling, cussing and aggressively coming toward Bob. In his rage, he has not yet realized Bob is OCing. Bob puts his hand on his still holstered firearm and tells him to STOP. Bob apologizes and diffuses the situation.

    Is Bob justified in his actions. Does the aggressor have legal footing for a charge of some sort against Bob?
    This is why I hate it when these questions come up.

    Yes, no, maybe, I doubt it!

    If Bob is a whimpy little fellow with a broken arm and a heart condition...yeah, maybe he's justified.

    Otherwise, flip a coin. There is no across the board answer.

    Apologizing doesn't enter into it. Either he was in danger of death or serious injury or he wasn't.
    Yelling and cussing is protected speech and coming toward him aggressively only becomes assault when there is a reasonable fear that he could be hurt. Even then, simple assault in itself doesn't justify use of a firearm. There has to be a little more.

    That gun is NOT a magic wand that cures every situation. When it comes out there's a good chance that another soul's going a winging.

    If you want to scare people, get a naked picture of Janet Napolanato.
    Last edited by peter nap; 04-16-2013 at 03:16 PM.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    This is why I hate it when these questions come up.

    Yes, no, maybe, I doubt it!

    If Bob is a whimpy little fellow with a broken arm and a heart condition...yeah, maybe he's justified.

    Otherwise, flip a coin. There is no across the board answer.

    Apologizing doesn't enter into it. Either he was in danger of death or serious injury or he wasn't.
    Yelling and cussing is protected speech and coming toward him aggressively only becomes assault when there is a reasonable fear that he could be hurt. Even then, simple assault in itself doesn't justify use of a firearm. There has to be a little more.
    Ummm, check out the law on disorderly conduct relative to speech intended to cause a disturbance.


    I agree about these types of questions. Now were getting into posing scenarios and this can go on all day. If someone wants to know where to look, I'm happy to point. But, it gets a little tiresome being a personal research assistant or library for askers.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Ummm, check out the law on disorderly conduct relative to speech intended to cause a disturbance.
    That wasn't what he asked Citizen. The issue is cussing and yelling. The intent isn't to create a disturbance, rather convey a message in understandable terms. I learned that form of public speaking in the 2nd grade and just kept getting better.

    Even if it were disturbing the peace, it's a relatively mild misdemeanor. Putting your hand on your gun is a threatening gesture and if I were explaining the traffic laws to someone and he grabbed for his gun, it would be very bad.

    We have cases on this board of people being charged with brandishing for pointing a finger and saying "You weren't there" others who didn't even have a gun and someone saw it in the car.

    Putting your hand on it would not be looked at favorably, especially in gun unfriendly areas.
    Last edited by peter nap; 04-16-2013 at 03:35 PM.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by HearseGuy View Post
    What if I feel like my life may be in danger?
    The law doesn't care about your FEELINGS. Were you or were you not is what the law cares about.

    If the law cared about my feelings then most politicians would be headless now.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699

    Re: Defending property in Virginia: Can I grip my gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    That wasn't what he asked Citizen. The issue is cussing and yelling. The intent isn't to create a disturbance, rather convey a message in understandable terms. I learned that form of public speaking in the 2nd grade and just kept getting better.

    Even if it were disturbing the peace, it's a relatively mild misdemeanor. Putting your hand on your gun is a threatening gesture and if I were explaining the traffic laws to someone and he grabbed for his gun, it would be very bad.

    We have cases on this board of people being charged with brandishing for pointing a finger and saying "You weren't there" others who didn't even have a gun and someone saw it in the car.

    Putting your hand on it would not be looked at favorably, especially in gun unfriendly areas.
    Speaking of all this got me thinking. I watched a fellow officer put his hand on the top of his pistol, like as using it as a rest. I take because he or she is a officer that is OK? The gun was holstered the entire time

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by mpguy; 04-16-2013 at 04:37 PM.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    Speaking of all this got me thinking. I watched a fellow officer put his hand on the top of his pistol, like as using it as a rest. I take because he or she is a officer that is OK? The gun was holstered the entire time

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Myself? I would assume he is going to shoot me at that point ... don't touch your gun unless you are planning on shooting it is my philosophy

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699

    Re: Defending property in Virginia: Can I grip my gun?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Myself? I would assume he is going to shoot me at that point ... don't touch your gun unless you are planning on shooting it is my philosophy
    Agree with the philosophy. Just being a nosey cat I guess.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

  23. #23
    Regular Member Walt_Kowalski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    This is why I hate it when these questions come up.

    Yes, no, maybe, I doubt it!

    If Bob is a whimpy little fellow with a broken arm and a heart condition...yeah, maybe he's justified.

    Otherwise, flip a coin. There is no across the board answer.

    Apologizing doesn't enter into it. Either he was in danger of death or serious injury or he wasn't.
    Yelling and cussing is protected speech and coming toward him aggressively only becomes assault when there is a reasonable fear that he could be hurt. Even then, simple assault in itself doesn't justify use of a firearm. There has to be a little more.

    That gun is NOT a magic wand that cures every situation. When it comes out there's a good chance that another soul's going a winging.

    If you want to scare people, get a naked picture of Janet Napolanato.
    I personally disagree with you. Hands and feet ARE deadly weapons. I've seen many people severely injured by them. If someone is approaching me, threatening me with violence, and I am carrying a firearm, I'm going to use that firearm to defend myself, before the person has the opportunity to take it from me, and use it one me.

    I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    This is my personal view, and not a reflection of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -- George Washington

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Two obvious conclusions are presented by this discussion: 1) I need to teach my dog to shoot as there are no restrictions on what a dog does with a firearm (Virginia's constitution doesn't preclude canine usage of a firearm, therefore it must be presumed to be lawful), and no found case law regarding dogs being prosecuted for either brandishing or discharge (of a weapon, but fail to bag could be serious trouble, and any and all hunting restrictions apply unless the dog's name begins with either the letter "Q" or "Z"); 2) Anytime someone with a vehicle realizes that it is about to be stolen, if they listen carefully they would be able to clearly hear said potential car thief claim that they intended to steal the vehicle so that they could then immediately commit vehicular manslaughter on any and all living things within a reasonable proximity, thereby precipitating the car owners belief in imminent danger of being killed.


    No, I'm not serious about either of the above....just wanted to toss out my fair share of crazy scenarios that could then be explored. I'm just saying...is all.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt_Kowalski View Post
    I personally disagree with you. Hands and feet ARE deadly weapons. I've seen many people severely injured by them. If someone is approaching me, threatening me with violence, and I am carrying a firearm, I'm going to use that firearm to defend myself, before the person has the opportunity to take it from me, and use it one me.

    I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    This is my personal view, and not a reflection of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    You might be right Walt...I think Southpark did a special on that

    Personally, I don't plan on being judged or carried.
    Last edited by peter nap; 04-16-2013 at 06:41 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •