• 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.

LEO's who claim ignorance of the law -

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Ohio Patriot wrote:
Well, it would be more correct to say there is no law that prohibits open carry, hence it is legal by default.

Correct.

Just like not killing somebody is lawful, even though it's not spelledout in the Virginia state code.

And not driving 120 mph is lawful by default of the wording contained in the speeding laws.

And not shoplifting is lawful by default of the wording contained in the petty larceny laws.

And better yet, consensual sex is lawful by default of the wording contained in the state'srape laws.:)

EDIT FOR TYPO
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
They are going to focus on crimes... not what is legal. :?

Well, that's what the law does, right?

To bring up the Red Shirt Law, they probably aren't taught that it's legal to wear a red shirt, either. :)
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
.... this was in roll call and had no reason to just "forget" at that moment. I did not personally see anyone OC until last fall !! I have been on the job for 16 years now. Imagine that.... after 16 years I finally see a unicorn! And prior to that I was unaware that OCing was legal in Virginia. Everyone thinks you have to CC if you want to go out armed.
This then seems to be a leadership problem. There are ~8500 registered, posting eligible OC'rs nationwide on this forum. There are an unknown number of them lurking without being registered. More even, that don't know this site exists.

It may have taken you 16 years before you've x'd paths with an OC'r, but did you keep it to yourself? After you found out/realized it was not illegal did you discuss it with your peers at FCPD? Does the Sgt at roll call periodically remind the shift about local happenings that are becoming more commonplace, just for them to be aware that they are perfectly legal? If so, why did those 3 FCPD officers allegedly attempt to railroad the traveler from NC? With the monitoring of this site by national, state, and local LEO agencies, how can anyone pretend they don't know?

I know whenever I am reminded of an unusual situation in my business I am prompted to use that to keep my folks informed, for them to bank as experience for possible future use. It's a responsibility we all have when performing our jobs with others.

BTW, will you tell us of your first OC encounter in 16 years, please? You indicated you didn't know it was legal until then, so, what happened? Did you use the valuable radio you carry to ask for clarification, or did you learn some other way? (I may have misunderstood your statement "And prior to that I was unaware that OCing was legal in Virginia. ")

I do not speak for the FCPD but my agency does periodically remind others it is allowed and that OCers are having events in the area. Not said in a bad way.. just a educational reminder. ;)

Back in 2006 we were all told about OCers in the area and there was no law against it. It was in 2007 I observed an old timer packing a wheel gun and we spoke about his gun. I had no reason to suspect he was doing anything wrong so the only thing I asked him for was...

"Why do you carry such a tiny gun?" :lol:

He gave me some funny stores. We had a good time. He was actually traveling through the state and stopped to get something to eat.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Sheriff wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Gee.. Sorry that no OCer has crossed my path in such a long time. It surely must be MY fault that this had not happened.
You don't need to come across an OCer or a CCer to realize that § 18.2-308 allows open carry in Virginia. You said there was no such law on the books sayingopen carry is legal.

You have been educated. :)
You are the first... that I know of here.. to point that out. It does not expressly ALLOW it.... it only says what cannot be concealed. One could deduce or infer that because it is written one way... the opposite must be permitted.

But if you tried to apply this logic and openly carry at a school you would be in trouble. Even the state police do not show you this as an example of a law that permits open carry.

This is a good observation on your part but IMHO the use is flawed as you cannot apply the code in the manner you suggest. :p

What I/we were talking about was there is no VA Code written specifically that PROHIBITS the open carry of a firearm in public.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

AbNo wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
They are going to focus on crimes... not what is legal. :?

Well, that's what the law does, right?

To bring up the Red Shirt Law, they probably aren't taught that it's legal to wear a red shirt, either. :)
Exactly.... The state is not in the habit of making a code for something that is permitted. Now this could happen is there was also something in the same code that said what was not allowed unless... ;)
 

Nelson_Muntz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
697
Location
Manassas, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
It was in 2007 I observed an old timer packing a wheel gun and we spoke about his gun. I had no reason to suspect he was doing anything wrong so the only thing I asked him for was...

"Why do you carry such a tiny gun?" :lol:

He gave me some funny stores. We had a good time. He was actually traveling through the state and stopped to get something to eat.

Glad to hear you didn't go off on the man. :)

Disturbed to hear you had a size issue with another man's piece. :shock:
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
You are the first... that I know of here.. to point that out. It does not expressly ALLOW it.... it only says what cannot be concealed. One could deduce or infer that because it is written one way... the opposite must be permitted.

In the absence of a specific law banning OC, 18.2-308most certainly does expressly allow OC. Simply because it says you can't carry a gun "hidden from common observation". If open carry was a crime, 18.2-308 would not need to say "hidden from common observation".

LEO 229 wrote:

But if you tried to apply this logic and openly carry at a school you would be in trouble.



There is a specific code section that bans weapons on school property....

§ 18.2-308.1 -- Possession of firearm, stun weapon, or other weapon on school property prohibited.

LEO 229 wrote:
Even the state police do not show you this as an example of a law that permits open carry.
What?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Sheriff wrote:
In the absence of a specific law banning OC, 18.2-308most certainly does expressly allow OC. Simply because it says you can't carry a gun "hidden from common observation". If open carry was a crime, 18.2-308 would not need to say "hidden from common observation".


There is a specific code section that bans weapons on school property....

§ 18.2-308.1 -- Possession of firearm, stun weapon, or other weapon on school property prohibited.


What?

I beg to differ.... my example was provided and OBVIOUSLY... I know there is a code regarding schools and this is WHY I mentioned it. Try not to be so bull headed. ;)

The state police have a web site where they advise you can open carry but do not identify a statute that covers it. They only advise "except where prohibited by statute." They then go into concealed carry and reference that code section in regards to concealed carry only.

The problem with your use of the code it is only talks about what is prohibited from concealed carry. Once again... it does not mean you CAN possess the listed itemsif carried openly. You are trying to read into a code prohibiting an act andhave it give you permission if you do the opposite. :lol:

This code simply was NOT intended to "grant permission" to do something just because it is the opposite of being prohibited. The only thing you are supposed to get from thatcode is that you cannot conceal the items listed. Period!

Once again I applaud you on your effort. But you are wrong. I am really surprised that you would read a code like this after 30 years of service. You should know better. :lol:

Prime example.... You cannot carry a switchblade concealed, right?? Then this means you CAN carry one openly under your logic.

But.... you are prohibited from even having one in your possession. Same goes for black jacks, brass knuckles, nunchucks, and throwing stars.So it is impossible to read that you have permission. If that was the case.. it would say so and add that exception clause so the reader would look for more prohibiting codes like the one below.



[line]


§ 18.2-311. Prohibiting the selling or having in possession blackjacks, etc.

If any person

sells or barters, or exhibits for sale or for barter, or gives or furnishes, or causes to be sold, bartered, given or furnished, or has in his possession, or under his control, with the intent of selling, bartering, giving or furnishing,

any blackjack, brass or metal knucks, any disc of whatever configuration having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, or like weapons,

such person shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

The having in one's possession of any such weapon shall be prima facie evidence, except in the case of a conservator of the peace, of his intent to sell, barter, give or furnish the same.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Prime example.... You cannot carry a switchblade concealed, right?? Then this means you CAN carry one openly under your logic.

But.... you are prohibited from even having one in your possession. Same goes for black jacks, brass knuckles, nunchucks, and throwing stars.So it is impossible to read that you have permission.
How in the world did this discussion switch to illegal knives and such? If something is illegal to possess, it makes no difference if it's carried in the open or concealed. :shock:

Let me try this one more time. Let's say a particular Virginiacode section prohibits the discharge of pellet guns on Sundays. This same law is therefore saying the discharge is legal on Mondays thru Saturdays.

I really wish you would quit trying to save face once you are corrected about anything. It's gettingold real quick. You said there was NO Virginia law that allows open carry in Virginia. I showed you there is. To prohibit carrying a weapon "hidden from common observation" means itIS legal to carry in open view.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Ohio Patriot wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're both saying the same thing...

Not really. LEO229 still says there is no Virginia law that allows a legal open carry.

But there is. The law very clearly says you can't carry a handgun "hidden from common observation". As somebody else said, this means you can, by default, legally carry ahandgun that's not concealed.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

Ohio Patriot wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're both saying the same thing...

actually, Sheriff is saying that if there is no law against something (open carry, for instance), then by default it is legal, while I believe that LEO is trying to counter by saying that some things are illegal without expressly having a law against them.

I may be wrong, but...
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:
.....I believe that LEO is trying to counter by saying that some things are illegal without expressly having a law against them.
I don't know whatposition LEO229 is presently taking. I don't know of anything that's illegal without it being specifically defined by law. I can't bash the city manager's head in, there's law against assault and malicious wounding. I can't carry a concealed weapon, there's laws against it without first obtaining a permit from the court. I can't go to Walmart annd steal a pack of chewing gum, there are laws against it. I can't steal a payroll check and forge it to myself for $3,500, there are laws against it.

On the other hand, I can open carry. Because the law says I can't conceal it "hidden from common observation" without first obtaining a permit from the court.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:
Ohio Patriot wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're both saying the same thing...

actually, Sheriff is saying that if there is no law against something (open carry, for instance), then by default it is legal, while I believe that LEO is trying to counter by saying that some things are illegal without expressly having a law against them.

I may be wrong, but...
No.. Sheriff claims the state wrote a law that identifies something is legal to do by way of saying... it is if the opposite is illegal. This isnonsense.

By default.... you can openly carry because there is no law prohibiting it.

Just like you can wear a red shirt. If there is a law that says you cannot wear a blue shirt in no way does this mean you can wear a read shirt. It only means you cannot wear the blue shirt.

By default..... you can wear the red shirt unless there is another law that prohibits the wearing of... red shirts.

He is attempting to use the concealed carry law to show open carry is legal.

Nice try... but it does not work. That code section has several other weapons that you cannot openly carry. So his "the opposite must be legal" challenge fails.

He is desperately trying to save face as he boasts about his 30 years as a LEO. :lol:
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

He is attempting to use the concealed carry law to show open carry is legal.

Nice try... but it does not work. That code section has several other weapons that you cannot openly carry. So his "the opposite must be legal" challenge fails.

He is desperately trying to save face as he boasts about his 30 years as a LEO. :lol:


I'm not attempting anything. I have succeeded.

You said there is NO law that allows for open carry.

Open carry is legal in Virginia by virtue of the wording below in red font.....

Read the code.... personal protection, when lawful to carry -- lawful to carry so long as the handgun IS NOT hidden from common observation.

How much clearer can the law get?????? :banghead:

§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.

A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart; or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second violation of this section or a conviction under this section subsequent to any conviction under any substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony, and a third or subsequent such violation shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony. For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature.............
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Sheriff wrote:
How in the world did this discussion switch to illegal knives and such? If something is illegal to possess, it makes no difference if it's carried in the open or concealed. :shock:

Let me try this one more time. Let's say a particular Virginiacode section prohibits the discharge of pellet guns on Sundays. This same law is therefore saying the discharge is legal on Mondays thru Saturdays.

I really wish you would quit trying to save face once you are corrected about anything. It's gettingold real quick. You said there was NO Virginia law that allows open carry in Virginia. I showed you there is. To prohibit carrying a weapon "hidden from common observation" means itIS legal to carry in open view.

Knives were brought in because of what you claimed. :lol:

If I amprohibited from concealing a {fill in the blank}.... I therefore MUST be allowed to openly carry it. All I did was swap gun with knife.

The code you are manipulating is titled.."Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry."

It is all about concealed weapons and what the punishment is.Period!! You cannot and should not construe the code to read that it somehow ALSO gives you permission to do the opposite of the code.

If you openly carry a bowie knife you could not be charged under the code section for having a concealed weapon. Not because the code says you "can" carry it openly... but because you are not concealing it in violation of this code section!

Now, this is the only code that I know of that comes this close to implying OC is legal but it does not expressly say it. You can onlyassume that this is the case but the state does not grant you that authority outright. There could bea locality or location where it is prohibited.

Your example on the pellet gun is lacking in that it only identifies a single item. It does NOT grant you permission to actually go do it the rest of the week as your suggest. There could be a local code that prohibits you from dischargingthat pellet gun. Therefore.. you could be in violation for shooting the other six days of the week.

[line]

How about when if says... "You areprohibited fromhunting any animal with a, BB Gun,pellet gun, firearm, black powder rifle, or cross bow, or bow and arrowon Sunday."

Does this mean you can hunt any other day of the week? Even outside hunting season?

Main point is this.....

If the state identified "It shall be lawful for anyone to openly carry a firearm anywhere in the Commonwealth of Virginia." then no locality could ban you and no business could bar you. The state trumps everyone else.

The state has not expressly given you permission to OC as there are many more factors at play. By default... you can OC. Just like you are allowed to walk, talk, and wear red shirts. No law against it.

The members here have heard arguments from both sides and they can decide.

Read into the code.. or read it correctly.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Sheriff wrote:
I'm not attempting anything. I have succeeded.

You said there is NO law that allows for open carry.

Open carry is legal in Virginia by virtue of the wording below in red font.....

Read the code.... personal protection, when lawful to carry -- lawful to carry so long as the handgun IS NOT hidden from common observation.

How much clearer can the law get?????? :banghead:

...Snipped

Obviously... you do not see things clearly. :lol:

You keep getting stuck on that one line..... You have failed to identify the purpose of the line.... It isthe criteria to charge someone for concealing the listed items. It does not mean the opposite is expressly legal to do.

That is your total hang up. 30 years...!!

You really are going to work that line to death in a feeble attempt to save yourself, huh?

You know you're wrong.. just admit it already. You are incorrectly interpreting the code to fit your needs.
 

ne1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
460
Location
, , USA
imported post

LEOsshould know the law and ignorance is no excuse (tell it to the judge, as they say). When a citizen's rights have been infringed remedy should be sought by providing the offending officer a formal education in the statutes on official oppression and deprivation of rights under color of law....
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Getting back to the OP...

The issue really comes down to protocol. And common sense. If someone is peaceably going about his business... shopping, eating dinner with his family, etc... with OCing, there's no immediate rush to arrest that person even if he is committing an unlawful activity. There's sufficient time to call it in and check before initiating a confrontation.

But, as others have said, it comes down to "THE GUN!!!" Common sense need not apply. Really, then, it's the hoplophobia to blame more than anything. Surely a holstered gun is a grave danger to society and must be stopped.

Anyhow, the letters would be a good idea to cut down on hassles in the first place. As a movement, I think we would rather have all LEOs respect our right to OC than to have a few mess up just so that we can use them as examples. I think a well-worded certified letter with delivery restricted to the CLEO would send the right message to get the word out that OC is legal.
 
Top