Need some VA gun law advice.

HPmatt said:

Thank goodness the Puritans only settled New England - the Episcopalian cavaliers settled Old Dominion.

Click to expand...

Guilty on both counts.

Could they use it?: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

Sure, if someone wanted to badly enough.

This one might be a stretch, but it also might be enough to get you that ride and have to post bond: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.050

Are either of them likely to be used? I have no idea because I do not research WA law and case law.

You pays your money and you takes your chances. I think it was Popeye that said that.

stay safe.

NavyLCDR said:

Only up to the point where the person who is open carrying AND has a permit to carry concealed is considered "under the influence". Then they are violating the law for no other reason than they have a permit to carry concealed. But if they don't have a permit to carry concealed and are open carrying, they aren't violating that particular statute. Kind of like the laws that some states have that require people with a permit to inform law enforcement officers if they are carrying concealed, but people without a permit are not required to do so.

There is no rational rationale behind such laws. It is a case of adding one law on top of another and ending up with a mess that doesn't make any common sense whatsoever. Like in Washington where it is now illegal for Wal Mart to sell plastic flare guns without doing a background check - but that doesn't stop them from doing so in just about every store in the state.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are misreading the law?

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.012

§ 18.2-308.012. Prohibited conduct.

A. Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of § 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of § 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of § 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of § 46.2-341.24. Upon such conviction that court shall revoke the person's permit for a concealed handgun and promptly notify the issuing circuit court. A person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be ineligible to apply for a concealed handgun permit for a period of five years.

B. No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer.

Click to expand...

The mere possession of a CHP does not mean a thing. It requires the overt act of carrying a concealed handgun to be prohibited from consuming an alcoholic beverage.

Otherwise your logic would also say that if you are intoxicated and have a drivers license in your possession you are guilty of Driving Under the Influence, regardless of where you are discovered to be in that intoxicated state.

stay safe.

NavyLCDR said:

In reply to Skidmark's post #19, which I am not going to quote for brevity - the Virginia Citizens' Self Defense League largely disagrees with what was posted.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/firearms-brandishing/



I must say, I am very thankful to live in Washington where we don't have such problems. Our state Supreme Court has ruled that a handgun simply carried in a holster cannot raise to the level of "manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons" which is basically the same thing that the Virginia Self Defense League says about a holstered handgun in Virginia.

In addition, the VCDL explanation of "brandishing" is much more in line with the actual definition of "brandishing" than Skidmark's post is:
Brandish (verb): wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

This article, and the criminal defense attorney referenced, also disagrees with

Click to expand...

Not to argue with the almighty VCDL, but I'll point to the real life case of Graham Cory who only placed his gun in a compartment in his car and was seen by a somewhat neurotic bus driver suffering from irritation that his team had lost their ball game that night, and a dislike for guns.

He was convicted in general district court and a jury in circuit court despite evidence that he didn't point, etc...or even acknowledge the bus drivers existance.

The bus driver testified that he felt his anger.
So Cory was convicted and it appears the Court Of Appeals will not hear the case.

NavyLCDR said:

Is that what you really think Graham Corry was observed doing?

http://www.richmond.com/news/article_4b327ec8-e4e5-5e39-aece-c6ddf3400407.html


What he was observed doing was REMOVING - not placing - the gun from the glove compartment and INSERTING a magazine into it. Would you not agree that is a far different action than a firearm remaining securely in a holster with nobody touching it?

Click to expand...

Maybe instead of getting your vast legal knowledge from a news clipping, you should read the transcript. I was at all the trials, have the transcripts have watched and have the dashcam video and watched reenactments of what he did.
Now your certainly entitled to your opinion and I don't give a rats ass what the law is in your stomping ground, but I do care that you get on here and tell mother goose stories that well may cause less informed readers to run afoul of Virginia Law.
You may also read the transcripts from Skidmark's trial where it was clearly shown he did Not touch his gun.

NavyLCDR said:

Is that what you really think Graham Corry was observed doing?

http://www.richmond.com/news/article_4b327ec8-e4e5-5e39-aece-c6ddf3400407.html


What he was observed doing was REMOVING - not placing - the gun from the glove compartment and INSERTING a magazine into it. Would you not agree that is a far different action than a firearm remaining securely in a holster with nobody touching it?

Click to expand...

Yes IMO that is what Graham was doing. The intent was to place the gun a specially prepared, holstered location.

How would you otherwise suggest that the gun be magically moved from the glove compartment w/o removing it or w/o touching it?

No, my statment was legitimate anyway but as usual, your going to argue. Which is fine. It's normal for you but at least the new folks will to be careful because they can be charged with brandishing. So carry on sailor.

One does not have to touch or move a holstered gun to run afoul of Brandishing and for all practical purpose intent has been removed as a required element.

peter nap said:

Maybe instead of getting your vast legal knowledge from a news clipping, you should read the transcript. I was at all the trials, have the transcripts have watched and have the dashcam video and watched reenactments of what he did.
Now your certainly entitled to your opinion and I don't give a rats ass what the law is in your stomping ground, but I do care that you get on here and tell mother goose stories that well may cause less informed readers to run afoul of Virginia Law.
You may also read the transcripts from Skidmark's trial where it was clearly shown he did Not touch his gun.

Click to expand...

We may have to add NavyLCDR to that roster of far away "experts" on Virginia Law, who like that fella from the Northeast Kingdom, finds it necessary to tell us poor, ignant bastards what the law really says....

NavyLCDR said:

Sounds to me, then, that the general recommendation should be ujust not to open carry anywhere in Virginia.

Click to expand...

No, the idea is to know the law and the real world consequences, and change the law... which many of us are doing.

James....actually I agree with much of what he says, I just don't want newbies thinking it's written in stone. Right, wrong or just misunderstood, a new open carry member may go to the dark side if he has a bad experience. That's something I've admired about your classes as well as Proshooters. They include pitfalls to avoid.

New people often can't handle police abuse.
It's a source of some pride when you say the magic words "am I free to leave"....and have him get a look like he won the lottery and say "Yes, that would be awesome ".

NavyLCDR said:

Sounds to me, then, that the general recommendation should be just not to open carry anywhere in Virginia.

Click to expand...

I encourage you to follow that recommendation.

NavyLCDR said:

Now there is an interpretation issue in subsection A. Does "such handgun" refer only to a concealed handgun - or does it refer to any handgun the person is permitted to carry concealed, whether or not they are actually concealing it? Subsection B refers specifically to a handgun that is concealed, but subsection A - not so much. I mean, after all Skidmark, you are the one claiming that a person does not have to be handling a firearm to be guilty of recklessly handling a firearm.

Click to expand...

Sorry to be so long in responding but there was this nap that had my name on it, and then a darling piano concerto that held my attention.

Is it an issue of interpretation, or a question of how the section should be interpreted? An issue arises when different courts make different interpretations and no higher court has resolved the differences (or where a higher court has made differing interpretations in separate cases). A question is just that - "How shall this be interpreted?" Questions are usually resolved by the time jury instructions are settled.

"Any person permitted to carry" what? Obviously, a concealed handgun. In Va there is no permit needed to posses a handgun or to openly carry a handgun.

Thus "any such handgun" can only refer to the handgun the defendant was permitted to carry. A concealed handgun.

Thank you for proving that my explanations were the most correct.

stay safe.

An open qustion to NavyLCDR

You are the one challenging how the interpretation of Va law is discerned by Virginia OCers. You have also indicated, in several places, that you have little if any intention to come to Va where you would be controlled by Va law.

I am of the opinion that it is pretty well known that I do like this sort or argument and would continue it till the cows have been home for several months.

That being said, what benefit do you see of continuing this pilpul?

Folks from Va who post to OCDO are generally in agreement about how to approach the issue of drinking while carrying. There are others in Va, who do not post here on OCDO, that feel pretty much as you do and act accordingly. Some of those folks, and I know them personally, are also ones that pull their handguns out of their holsters and pass them around to be admired - and do so in the middle of public places. Some of those folks have had the cops respond to MWAG calls about them and/or been told to leave the public place. To my knowledge and belief two (2) of them have been arrested for brandishing and one (1) was also arrested for reckless handling of a firearm. Again to my knowledge and belief it was because of the culture of the locality where those arrests took place that neither brandishing charge resulted in an indictment and the reckless handling was reduced to what passes in Va for "disturbing the Peace".

All this to come to my open question: besides us engaging in an exercise, what benefit do you see to continuing this discussion?

We are pretty much in agreement that we disagree and that there is little possibility of changing the other's mind.

stay safe.

And we are still not there yet? How much more finely do these hairs need to be split?

At the point where we are presently can we start charging admission/tuition?

stay safe.

skidmark said:

And we are still not there yet? How much more finely do these hairs need to be split?

At the point where we are presently can we start charging admission/tuition?

stay safe.

Click to expand...

He is going to continue until he is right. Hope you brought a snack.