Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
The short story is that a guy was seized and his gun taken from him for officer safety--the gun being carried in a lawful manner as far as the policecould tell at the momentof seizure.
The case is Christian vs Commonwealth (2000).
The relevance of quoting the dissent is that the dissenting justices lost the vote, meaning the other side won and their opinion became law. It is quite interesting to see how the evidence and questions of law were viewed by the dissenters compared to the majority.
The dissent quotes below are out of context, so don't takeit to mean that for anygiven quote that the exact opposite is true. Readthe opinion, and thedissent. The dissentstarts on page 14 or so of the pdf.
...The police officers who seized Ricky Christian had no reasonable or articulable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity...
...[The officer] had no objective basis to believe that Christian, who was going to his home, "may have purchased illegal narcotics" from the undercover officers. Moreover, it is not illegal in Virginia to carry a gun if one is lawfully permitted to do so and if the gun is not held in a reckless or threatening manner...
...Christian lived in one of the apartments in the building where he was arrested. Christian did not approach the officers who were selling the imitation cocaine, and he posed no threat to them. The evidence merely proved that he entered the apartment building where he lived. Moreover, no evidence proved that Christian was going to the laundry room or posed a threat to the officers who were waiting in the laundry room...
...carrying an openly displayed firearm in public is not illegal in Virginia. Indeed, if a person desires to transport a firearm from his automobile to his residence, the firearm must be openly displayed...
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0558981.pdf
Edited to Add: The quotes are out of context. Don't take them literally and standing alone as statements of law!!
The short story is that a guy was seized and his gun taken from him for officer safety--the gun being carried in a lawful manner as far as the policecould tell at the momentof seizure.
The case is Christian vs Commonwealth (2000).
The relevance of quoting the dissent is that the dissenting justices lost the vote, meaning the other side won and their opinion became law. It is quite interesting to see how the evidence and questions of law were viewed by the dissenters compared to the majority.
The dissent quotes below are out of context, so don't takeit to mean that for anygiven quote that the exact opposite is true. Readthe opinion, and thedissent. The dissentstarts on page 14 or so of the pdf.
...The police officers who seized Ricky Christian had no reasonable or articulable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity...
...[The officer] had no objective basis to believe that Christian, who was going to his home, "may have purchased illegal narcotics" from the undercover officers. Moreover, it is not illegal in Virginia to carry a gun if one is lawfully permitted to do so and if the gun is not held in a reckless or threatening manner...
...Christian lived in one of the apartments in the building where he was arrested. Christian did not approach the officers who were selling the imitation cocaine, and he posed no threat to them. The evidence merely proved that he entered the apartment building where he lived. Moreover, no evidence proved that Christian was going to the laundry room or posed a threat to the officers who were waiting in the laundry room...
...carrying an openly displayed firearm in public is not illegal in Virginia. Indeed, if a person desires to transport a firearm from his automobile to his residence, the firearm must be openly displayed...
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0558981.pdf
Edited to Add: The quotes are out of context. Don't take them literally and standing alone as statements of law!!
