Man Arrested For Gun In Bar

JamesCanby · Apr 13, 2011

There has been some very interesting hair-splitting going on in this thread regarding walking in OCing, then concealing and ordering a drink, with or without a CHP. Makes one's mind boggle at the permutations.

IMHO, a reasonable person -- including the judge -- would most likely say that the law, while it may be somewhat poorly written, prohibits the consumption of an alcoholic beverage while carrying concealed. The CHP aspect is moot: if you have a CHP, you are prohibited from imbibing. If you conceal without a CHP, you are in violation of other parts of the code. Either way, you're in trouble (if caught).

I invite those who believe that you can walk in OCing, and then conceal and imbibe to test that case and let us know how it works out. Inquiring minds want to know.

TFred · Apr 13, 2011

JamesCanby said:
[...lots of common sense stuff snipped...]

I invite those who believe that you can walk in OCing, and then conceal and imbibe to test that case and let us know how it works out. Inquiring minds want to know.

My thoughts exactly...

jmelvin said:
I don't see a realistic opening to legally consume alcohol for those who initially carry a sidearm onto the first portion of property that has been licensed to dispense alcohol for on premises consumption. The only possible opening I could see is if you carry your sidearm openly into an alcohol dispensary ordered your drink and then concealed your sidearm and drink your drink without moving from the exact location in which you first concealed your sidearm. If you step outside of that exact location you have stepped from one portion of the property with an concealed carried sidearm, onto another portion of the property licensed to dispense alcohol and consumed the alcohol, thereby violating the statute. In each movement once the sidearm is concealed, a person has carried a concealed handgun onto the property licensed to dispense alcohol for on site consumption, although it may be a different portion of the property licensed to dispense alcohol for on site consumption.

IANAL, and I'm pretty sure you aren't either... but I do have a fairly good understanding of English, I don't think anyone would agree with your use of "onto."

"Onto" explicitly implies starting from somewhere "off", not moving around within.

You step "onto" a boat. You don't walk around "onto" a boat once you are on board the boat.

JMHO,

TFred

jmelvin · Apr 13, 2011

TFred if you're on a boat and you take a step to a place that is also on the boat are you not stepping onto the boat? If you're not stepping onto the boat (although a new portion of the boat) are you then stepping onto something different altogether? What is the nature of this new thing that you are stepping onto if it is not boat (or a part of the boat)?

Note that the code does not say "No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club from premises that are not a portion of the premises of the club or restaurant...." Were I some prosecutor wishing to enforce this statute against someone who did not stay in the exact spot in which they concealed their handgun and drank their alcoholic beverage I would likely only seek to prosecute for one count rather than for individual counts for each place they carried their concealed firearm onto the premises and then drank, because I'm a nice guy like that.

I am not an attorney.

Repeater · Apr 13, 2011

TFred said:
My thoughts exactly...

IANAL, and I'm pretty sure you aren't either... but I do have a fairly good understanding of English, I don't think anyone would agree with your use of "onto."

"Onto" explicitly implies starting from somewhere "off", not moving around within.

You step "onto" a boat. You don't walk around "onto" a boat once you are on board the boat.

JMHO,

TFred

See, some of you are beginning to catch on. I have understood this for some years now. "Onto" is not a continuing offense. Once you have carried your gun "onto" the premises, the act is complete.

Compare with the classic courthouse ban.

TFred · Apr 13, 2011

jmelvin said:
TFred if you're on a boat and you take a step to a place that is also on the boat are you not stepping onto the boat?

My understanding of the English language is no. To step "on" implies that you were "off". You can't turn a light "on" that is already "on". "On" is a boolean value. You can't be more "on" than "on".

If you really don't get that, then English must not be your primary language. If you do but just don't want to admit it, then you are trying to stretch the law to mean what you want it to mean, and not what it does mean.

In either case, as invited before, please feel free to be the first test case, I'm sure we will all follow along with much interest.

TFred

TFred · Apr 13, 2011

Repeater said:
See, some of you are beginning to catch on. I have understood this for some years now. "Onto" is not a continuing offense. Once you have carried your gun "onto" the premises, the act is complete.

Compare with the classic courthouse ban.

Yep, and that is the whole point of why we are saying this is a very poorly written law. Prior poster excepted, I don't think anyone seriously thinks the legislature literally meant "carries onto" to be taken in that single moment of time sense of the phrase.

TFred

MSC 45ACP · Apr 13, 2011

Wolf_shadow said:
If you enter OC theoretically you can legally drink alcohol and have broken no law. Personally I feal it is bad form to drink in public while armed due to apearance only. And as always remember IANAL.

Many of us here feel the same way. it may be LEGAL to drink while armed but we consider it "bad form" to do so. We know that ONE adult beverage PROBABLY won't impair our judgement, but it COULD. I believe the damage done isn't consumption of alcohol, it is the APPEARANCE of "impropriety" as seen by the public.

If one of us is involved in a self-defense shooting, you KNOW the media will do their best to climb up the rectal orifice of the OCer or CCer involved. They will find out as much as they can and look for anything negative in our past of interest to antis. The "Guns are Bad" mindset is still prevalent among Sheeple and Communists.

Its just "human interest"... like rubberneckers at a fatal car wreck or fender bender. They HAVE to see what happened and a BONUS if there is blood involved.

We must continue our work as Good Ambassadors for The Movement by presenting ourselves to the public as normal, hard-working fellow Americans and not gun-toting redneck militiamen trying to subvert the government. We pay taxes, vote, have children in public schools and shop at the same places.

The clown in this article is quite obviously NOT "one of us", but sadly, the public doesn't see that. They may (or may not) know that mere possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is illegal. They will only read "the drunk with a gun" and assume he was just another Open Carrier or "NRA Member" that had one-too-many to drink. We see "Convicted Felon", the public sees "guy with a gun".

Repeater · Apr 13, 2011

TFred said:
Yep, and that is the whole point of why we are saying this is a very poorly written law. Prior poster excepted, I don't think anyone seriously thinks the legislature literally meant "carries onto" to be taken in that single moment of time sense of the phrase.

TFred

Yes, they did intend that meaning. It was a response to an AG opinion written by Jim Gilmore.

The original J2 from 1995 reads:

No person shall carry a concealed handgun into any place of business or special event for which a license to sell or serve alcoholic beverages on premises has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; provided nothing herein shall prohibit any owner or event sponsor or his employees from carrying a concealed handgun while on duty at such place of business or at such special event if such person has a concealed handgun permit.

This resulted in some confusion between on-premises consumption and off-premises consumption places.

In 1997, the General Assembly amended -308 to provide "improved" language.

By all means, review the history. Take a look at the floor substitute, and who submitted that. He is responsible for the word "onto" which replaced "into" -- but understand this: "on" and "onto" are not synonymous.

More than that, "onto" cannot reasonably be construed as synonymous with "inside."

TFred · Apr 13, 2011

Repeater said:
Yep, and that is the whole point of why we are saying this is a very poorly written law. Prior poster excepted, I don't think anyone seriously thinks the legislature literally meant "carries onto" to be taken in that single moment of time sense of the phrase.

TFred

Click to expand...

Yes, they did intend that meaning. It was a response to an AG opinion written by Jim Gilmore.

The original J2 from 1995 reads:

No person shall carry a concealed handgun into any place of business or special event for which a license to sell or serve alcoholic beverages on premises has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; provided nothing herein shall prohibit any owner or event sponsor or his employees from carrying a concealed handgun while on duty at such place of business or at such special event if such person has a concealed handgun permit.

Click to expand...

This resulted in some confusion between on-premises consumption and off-premises consumption places.

In 1997, the General Assembly amended -308 to provide "improved" language.

By all means, review the history. Take a look at the floor substitute, and who submitted that. He is responsible for the word "onto" which replaced "into" -- but understand this: "on" and "onto" are not synonymous.

More than that, "onto" cannot reasonably be construed as synonymous with "inside."

You should know from my postings well enough that I am first in line to learn more, especially when it comes to the history and development of laws.

Having said that... I am unable to find enough information to draw any solid conclusions. Unfortunately, AG opinions prior to 1996 are not on-line for free, so I was unable to find the Gilmore opinion that you mention. Perhaps that is the key.

I did chase down the amendments made to the law during the 1997 session, and although I do not know who Cranwell is (beyond the apparent author of the amendment), the change appears to be from:

No person shall carry a concealed handgun "into any place of business..."

to:

No person shall carry a concealed handgun "onto the premises of any restaurant...".

I honestly don't see much of a difference there with regards to whether they meant a moment in time crossing a boundary, or behavior in general while within the boundary.

As always, I'd be very happy to know more.

TFred

jmelvin · Apr 13, 2011

TFred said:
My understanding of the English language is no. To step "on" implies that you were "off". You can't turn a light "on" that is already "on". "On" is a boolean value. You can't be more "on" than "on".
If you really don't get that, then English must not be your primary language. If you do but just don't want to admit it, then you are trying to stretch the law to mean what you want it to mean, and not what it does mean.
In either case, as invited before, please feel free to be the first test case, I'm sure we will all follow along with much interest.
TFred

Yes English (American dialect) is my primary language. You, however, are confusing two different terms: "onto" and "on". "Onto" and "on" do not always have the same definition. While "on" may sometimes be used in lieu of "onto" it is not always proper to use "onto" for on. The Code section which you reference does not use the term "on", but it does use "onto" in the disputed first sentence. So looking at the definition of "onto" by Merriam Webster we see that it is defined as the following for a preposition (as used in the Code section):

1. to a position on
2. in or into a state of awareness
3. – used as a function word to indicate a set of each element of which is the image of at least one element of another set.

Applying the definition of “onto” to the Code statement we read:

“J3. No person who carries a concealed handgun [to a position on] the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100... may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises.”

Thus my very limited possible exception stands using the definitions of the wording used since one would have to carry the handgun openly to the one position in which one then chose to then conceal their handgun and drink an alcoholic beverage without changing their position on the premises if they do not wish to violate the statute.

I find it humorous that in your reply you follow up with something along the lines of “if you think you’re right then you go right on and do it as the test case and we’ll then see who’s right”, when using your argument the applicable possible exception that one must meet to legally carry a firearm concealed and drink alcoholic beverages in a licensed establishment is far more broad than my postulated exception. If I want to carry my handgun and enjoy a beer or such in a licensed establishment I’d do it while carrying openly and not have to worry about any possible exceptions, but take note I generally don’t do such anyway.

TFred · Apr 13, 2011

jmelvin said:
Yes English (American dialect) is my primary language. You, however, are confusing two different terms: "onto" and "on". "Onto" and "on" do not always have the same definition. While "on" may sometimes be used in lieu of "onto" it is not always proper to use "onto" for on. The Code section which you reference does not use the term "on", but it does use "onto" in the disputed first sentence. So looking at the definition of "onto" by Merriam Webster we see that it is defined as the following for a preposition (as used in the Code section):

1. to a position on
2. in or into a state of awareness
3. – used as a function word to indicate a set of each element of which is the image of at least one element of another set.

Applying the definition of “onto” to the Code statement we read:

“J3. No person who carries a concealed handgun [to a position on] the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100... may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises.”

Thus my very limited possible exception stands using the definitions of the wording used since one would have to carry the handgun openly to the one position in which one then chose to then conceal their handgun and drink an alcoholic beverage without changing their position on the premises if they do not wish to violate the statute.

I find it humorous that in your reply you follow up with something along the lines of “if you think you’re right then you go right on and do it as the test case and we’ll then see who’s right”, when using your argument the applicable possible exception that one must meet to legally carry a firearm concealed and drink alcoholic beverages in a licensed establishment is far more broad than my postulated exception. If I want to carry my handgun and enjoy a beer or such in a licensed establishment I’d do it while carrying openly and not have to worry about any possible exceptions, but take note I generally don’t do such anyway.

Well, I can happily agree that we both seem to think that definitions 2 and 3 do not apply here.

My contention remains that the word "onto", and subsequently, the applicable definition of onto: "to a position on", both imply a preceding state of "not onto", or "from a position not on".

In fact, if you look further down the page of the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition provided in your post, you will find several examples of this use of "onto", all of which solidly affirm a change in state:

Examples of ONTO

1. We climbed onto the building's roof. (Implies we were not on the roof before.)
2. The book fell onto the floor. (Implies the book was not on the floor before.)
3. The water spilled onto the floor. (I think you get my point...)
4. The cowboy leaped onto his horse.
5. Transfer the data onto a disk.
6. Turn left onto Third Street at the traffic light.

I maintain my opinion that one cannot "carry onto a premises" while one is already on the premises, and once again, that wording is why this law is confusing.

TFred

Repeater · Apr 13, 2011

On and Onto usage

This excerpt is from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved:

To indicate motion toward a position, both on and onto can be used: The cat jumped on the table. The cat jumped onto the table. Onto is more specific, however, in indicating that the motion was initiated from an outside point. He wandered onto the battlefield means that he began his wandering at some point off the battlefield. He wandered on the battlefield may mean that his wandering began on the battlefield. · In constructions where on is an adverb attached to a verb, it should not be joined with to to form the single word onto: move on to (not onto) new subjects; hold on to (not onto) our gains. · In their uses to indicate spatial relations, on and upon are often interchangeable: It was resting on (or upon) two supports. We saw a finch light on (or upon) a bough. To indicate a relation between two things, however, instead of between an action and an end point, upon cannot always be used: Hand me the book on (not upon) the table. It was the only town on (not upon) the main line. Similarly, upon cannot always be used in place of on when the relation is not spatial: He wrote a book on (not upon) alchemy. She will be here on (not upon) Tuesday.

Remember: a "fundamental rule of statutory construction is that penal statutes are to be strictly construed against the Commonwealth and in favor of a citizen's liberty." Therefore, construing "onto" by interpreting the more specific usage would be in favor of liberty.

This would appear to mean that the only way to violate J3 is while satisfying the other elements while concurrently going (wandering!) from outside to inside a restaurant or club. Once inside, it becomes legal to carry concealed and consume.

jmelvin · Apr 13, 2011

TFred in each of those sentences below you read into them information that does not exist. If you would please address my question asked above I think you might see what I'm saying. Just because one steps onto premises, does not mean that one stepped off of something other than those same premises. To make the conclusion that the person doing the stepping came from a separate set of premises, the person making the conclusion must either have information stating specifically where the person came from, or assume facts that are not present.

If you don't mind, please address the question I asked in my posting above (on the other page): If you're on a boat and you take a step to a place that is also on the boat are you not stepping onto the boat? If you're not stepping onto the boat (although a new portion of the boat) are you then stepping onto something different altogether that is not the boat? What is the nature of this new thing that you are stepping onto if it is not boat (or a part of the boat)?

Thundar · Apr 13, 2011

Hey User,

How would the rule of strict construction work in this case?

(Strict construction applies to the laws of the Commonwealth, not to the citizen)

It certainly isn't tautological to argue that "onto" means "onto", not "in" or "while carrying concealed".

Repeater · Apr 13, 2011

The recent changes to J3 seem to correct the earlier problem

Here's the current language:

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 of the Code of Virginia 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.

The phrase "while on the premises" makes it a continuing offense.

Still, the way it is written would suggest that the remedy is to carry openly (always a popular option here, right?) ONTO the premises -- then, if you wish, thereafter carry concealed (authorized by a CHP of course).

Thundar · Apr 13, 2011

Repeater said:
Here's the current language:

The phrase "while on the premises" makes it a continuing offense.

Still, the way it is written would suggest that the remedy is to carry openly (always a popular option here, right?) ONTO the premises -- then, if you wish, thereafter carry concealed (authorized by a CHP of course).

To be a continuing offence it must be an offense to begin with. An element of the crime as written is to carry concealed onto the premisis.

epilogue · Apr 13, 2011

Here is a hair: |

This is the current condition of said hair: - -

Repeater · Apr 13, 2011

Thundar said:
To be a continuing offence it must be an offense to begin with. An element of the crime as written is to carry concealed onto the premisis.

"No person ... may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises."

The continuing offense pertains to alcohol consumption, not the act of carrying some gun. Read it this way:

At no time while on the premises may a person consume an alcoholic beverage -- provided that person first carried a handgun, concealed, onto such premises. Thus, it would appear you may circumvent the consumption prohibition by carrying, UN-concealed, onto such premises.

TFred · Apr 13, 2011

jmelvin said:
TFred in each of those sentences below you read into them information that does not exist. If you would please address my question asked above I think you might see what I'm saying. Just because one steps onto premises, does not mean that one stepped off of something other than those same premises. To make the conclusion that the person doing the stepping came from a separate set of premises, the person making the conclusion must either have information stating specifically where the person came from, or assume facts that are not present.

If you don't mind, please address the question I asked in my posting above (on the other page): If you're on a boat and you take a step to a place that is also on the boat are you not stepping onto the boat? If you're not stepping onto the boat (although a new portion of the boat) are you then stepping onto something different altogether that is not the boat? What is the nature of this new thing that you are stepping onto if it is not boat (or a part of the boat)?

See Repeater's post just above (and just two minutes prior to) this one I've quoted. His post includes a quote that does specifically affirm my understanding of "onto", namely this part: "Onto is more specific, however, in indicating that the motion was initiated from an outside point."

I apologize for not specifically answering your question before, I assumed that my beating the horse to death would answer it for you. But since it did not, to answer your question, yes, it is my understanding that it would be incorrect to use the word "onto" to describe stepping from one spot on a boat to another. It's not the noun (boat) that makes that sentence wrong, it's the preposition (onto). Onto just doesn't mean what you want it to mean. If you don't agree with me and the dictionary, that is your prerogative, and we will have to agree to disagree.

TFred

Thundar · Apr 13, 2011

Repeater said:
"No person ... may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises."

The continuing offense pertains to alcohol consumption, not the act of carrying some gun. Read it this way:

At no time while on the premises may a person consume an alcoholic beverage -- provided that person first carried a handgun, concealed, onto such premises. Thus, it would appear you may circumvent the consumption prohibition by carrying, UN-concealed, onto such premises.

exactly!

Man Arrested For Gun In Bar

Activist Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member