• 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.

Man Apprehended who Robbed Credit Union Armed with Rifle

2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_bank-robber_0226feb26,0,2897443.story

By Mike Holtzclaw and Ashley Kelly 928-6479 | 247-4778

10:03 p.m. EST, February 25, 2010

NEWPORT NEWS — A 48-year-old Newport News man was charged Thursday for robbing the Virginia Educators Credit Union twice this year, according to police.

Daniel Donaldson Jones entered the credit union just before 10 a.m. with a rifle and demanded money, police said. Police spokesman Lou Thurston said Jones was arrested after police received several calls from the public, including one call before noon that led police to a location near the bank where they found Jones. Jones was charged in connection with both Thursday's robbery and a Jan. 15 robbery at the same location, Thurston said.

Jones is charged with two counts each of robbery, wearing a mask in public, carrying a concealed weapon and entering a bank while armed, and four counts of using a firearm in the commission of a felony.


Banks aren't on the list of prohibted places where one may go armed. Does anyone know the basis for this charge?
 
N

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

Sounds like they didn't list the complete charge, which is

entering a bank while armed with the intent to commit larceny

edit:

yup. here it is:

§ 18.2-93. Entering bank, armed, with intent to commit larceny.
If any person, armed with a deadly weapon, shall enter any banking house, in the daytime or in the nighttime, with intent to commit larceny of money, bonds, notes, or other evidence of debt therein, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-90; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)



https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-93
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Anything that will further the brainwashing of the public. This is how you create folks who will insist that you can't carry into a bank, sometimes even firearms instructors!

TFred
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Someone needs to leave a comment... but I don't have a login for that site.

TFred

Here's what I would say, if I did:

Please get your facts straight. He was charged with "§ 18.2-93. Entering bank, armed, with intent to commit larceny", which is MUCH different than the non-crime of "Entering a bank while armed."

It is perfectly legal for a law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed (if permitted) or unconcealed firearm into a bank, unless the bank specifically asks you not to. And in that case, you should simply find another bank that does not strip you of your Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
 
2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

nova wrote:
It appears as though the charge is shortened to the line quoted in the article. Here's another reference to it as used by a VA court:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0253001.pdf
Click to expand...
Although the statute requires "with intent", the appellate court only notes that "

In order to prove the offense pursuant to Code § 18.2-93, the Commonwealth had to establish that appellant entered a bank while armed with a deadly weapon, but evidence of use or display of the weapon is not an element of this crime. Once appellant entered the bank while armed, this offense was complete ".

I guess the "intent" part was satisfied by his other actions.

Someone posted a comment on the D/P web page clarifying the charge.
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

2a4all wrote:
nova wrote:
It appears as though the charge is shortened to the line quoted in the article. Here's another reference to it as used by a VA court:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0253001.pdf
Click to expand...
Although the statute requires "with intent", the appellate court only notes that "

In order to prove the offense pursuant to Code § 18.2-93, the Commonwealth had to establish that appellant entered a bank while armed with a deadly weapon, but evidence of use or display of the weapon is not an element of this crime. Once appellant entered the bank while armed, this offense was complete ".

I guess the "intent" part was satisfied by his other actions.

Someone posted a comment on the D/P web page clarifying the charge.
Click to expand...
That's what I took as well. It's confusing, because the single paragraph on its own seems to say that the "crime" committed was simply entering the bank with the weapon, but I believe what they are actually saying and clarifying is that he was guilty of the crime because he had the gun in his possession while he robbed the bank. He didn't have to display or use the weapon as a part of the robbery, but the simply having them while he did commit the larceny was enough to convict for that "entering a bank while armed" law.

They probably should have said "Once appellant entered the bank with intent, and while armed, this offense was complete". I suppose the intent is obvious, considering that he did rob the bank.

TFred
 
B

BARELY ILLEGAL

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
93
Location
ATLANTA, Georgia, USA
imported post

Whoa there! This looks like a post about aRIFLE on a handgun site! I thought there was a rule about that!?!

I just had a post of mine DELETED under (pretenses of)the "no-rifle" rule, and I didn't even mention anything about rifles since the "no-rifle" rule went into effect.

Having rules and standards is one thing, selectively applying them is something entirely different.

Admin, delete this thread!

:cuss:
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

BARELY ILLEGAL wrote:
Whoa there! This looks like a post about aRIFLE on a handgun site! I thought there was a rule about that!?!

I just had a post of mine DELETED under (pretenses of)the "no-rifle" rule, and I didn't even mention anything about rifles since the "no-rifle" rule went into effect.

Having rules and standards is one thing, selectively applying them is something entirely different.

Admin, delete this thread!

:cuss:
Click to expand...
No, this is a thread about clarifying the true meaning of a Virginia law that says you can't enter a bank while armed, with the intent to commit larceny. It might help if you read the whole thread before you throw a tantrum.

TFred
 
B

BARELY ILLEGAL

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
93
Location
ATLANTA, Georgia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
BARELY ILLEGAL wrote:
Whoa there! This looks like a post about aRIFLE on a handgun site! I thought there was a rule about that!?!

I just had a post of mine DELETED under (pretenses of)the "no-rifle" rule, and I didn't even mention anything about rifles since the "no-rifle" rule went into effect.

Having rules and standards is one thing, selectively applying them is something entirely different.

Admin, delete this thread!

:cuss:
Click to expand...
No, this is a thread about clarifying the true meaning of a Virginia law that says you can't enter a bank while armed, with the intent to commit larceny. It might help if you read the whole thread before you throw a tantrum.

TFred
Click to expand...

But the story is a bout someone with a rifle. I was told there was a strict rule against posts about rifle carry. This man in the storycarried a rifle, did he not?

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Not a tantrum, just asking that rules be applied so people have a clear idea of what is or is not supposed to appear on this forum.
 
B

BARELY ILLEGAL

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
93
Location
ATLANTA, Georgia, USA
imported post

DrMark wrote:
BARELY ILLEGAL wrote:
I was told there was a strict rule against posts about rifle carry.
Click to expand...
...probably just for you. I haven't been told that.

:)
Click to expand...

Perhaps there is some selective enforcement; perhaps you're right.

For now, you'll notice I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt; maybe they haven't read the whole OP. But, if you look at the "read this first" post by John Pierce outlining the rules, you'll see the no rifle rule. If the admins want to invoke "we have the right to remove any posts we want 'cause it's our site" then fine, but I would hope they'd at least use that justification openly for removal of un-PC posts.

In the end, this thread is about a man carrying a rifle. The forum is about open carry of properly holstered handguns, and the mods have said on numerous occasions that they intend to prohibit discussion of rifle carry on this site
 
Nikki_Black

Nikki_Black

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
imported post

DrMark wrote:
BARELY ILLEGAL wrote:
I was told there was a strict rule against posts about rifle carry.  
Click to expand...
...probably just for you.  I haven't been told that.

:)

 
Click to expand...

Rule 11 pertains to the discussion of OCing a long gun as a means of carry in everyday life. It doesn't exclusively prohibit topics that have something to do with long guns, just the discussion of carrying one as a preferred carry weapon. Thats my understanding of it at least. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, guys. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top