• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

VA case - illegal carry on property that's not curtlige ...

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
The concealed carry statute prohibits concealed carry unless you're in your own home, and the curtilage is part of the home. When you're out and about on a four-acre plot where anyone might show up, you're not allowed to have a concealed weapon in Virginia unless you've got a permit.

The problem I have with the Foley decision is not that there's a distinction between the curtilage and the "open fields", the "castle doctrine", or in Virginia, the "defense of habitation doctrine" as it's called, applies in the curtilage as well as the interior of the dwelling. The problem I have is this: Article 1, Section 13 of our Constitution, as well as the federal 2nd Amendment which is based on Virginia law, both use the term, "infringed". Neither of them says anything about "reasonable regulation". So what I wonder when people write statutes like this is, "What part of 'shall not be infringed', did you not understand?".
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It is not about understanding the term infringed, it is about giving a crap about infringing.....politicians, in general, don't give a crap about infringing.
 
Top