Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Man Apprehended who Robbed Credit Union Armed with Rifle

  1. #1
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-lo...,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?
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post 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/leg...00+cod+18.2-93

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post



    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/opinio...wp/0253001.pdf





  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post 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


  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post 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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post 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/opinio...wp/0253001.pdf



    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.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post 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/opinio...wp/0253001.pdf
    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.
    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

  8. #8
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    So the next time I carry in a bank I better not pocket any Post Its, right?

    :shock:

    :celebrate:

    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ATLANTA, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post 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!



  10. #10
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post 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!

    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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ATLANTA, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post 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!

    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
    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.

  12. #12
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553

    Post imported post

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





  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ATLANTA, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

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



    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

  14. #14
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

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



    *
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •