Chesterfield Man arrested for open carrying NEAR a school

[Walt_Kowalski]

If he was not on school grounds (18.2-308.1) then there was no crime.. This is getting out of hand.

 

[Grapeshot]

According to the court records he is not charged under the GFSZ but with an 18.2-308.1 violation. It also appears that he is being held until his hearing.

Here is the case number GC11002216-00. You can search for the case here http://epwsgdp1.courts.state.va.us/gdcourts/captchaVerification.do?landing=landing . I would provide a link directly to the case but can’t seem to make one work.

This just gets worse and worse. He was charged for violation of § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry? When he was open carrying.

Trying my hand at linking the particulars:
http://epwsgdp1.courts.state.va.us/gdcourts/caseSearch.do?caseDetails=caseDetails

Do not understand his "being held" until his hearing as he has an attorney of record who should be able to solve that problem.

Just when I began to feel that Chesterfield was getting it too - then this happens. :banghead:


Edited to add: My linky does not work either - they apparently do not want public records to be too accessible.

 

[Repeater]

Anyone try FOIA?

I dare you to FOIA the incident report.

See if the Chesterfield County PD will be nice enough to accommodate your request.

After all, this incident occurred during Sunshine Week. As it turns out, many police departments do not seems to care very much about transparency.

 

[Stafford_1911]

The charge listed is specifically 308.1 not 308. The mere possession of a weapon is the issue with the few exemptions listed in 308 and the 7 listed in 308.1.

 

[Grapeshot]

The charge listed is specifically 308.1 not 308. The mere possession of a weapon is the issue with the few exemptions listed in 308 and the 7 listed in 308.1.

Appreciate the redirection.

My outrage is no less. The gentleman's conduct was clearly not within the parameters of paragraph B:

B. If any person possesses any firearm designed or intended to expel a projectile by action of an explosion of a combustible material while such person is upon (i) any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds; (ii) that portion of any property open to the public and then exclusively used for school-sponsored functions or extracurricular activities while such functions or activities are taking place; or (iii) any school bus owned or operated by any such school, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony

Look forward to a motion for dismissal with prejudice and trust that somebody in Chesterfield will have pen & checkbook ready together with a letter of apology to accompany the return of his handgun.

Looks like the next hearing date is April 15th in Chesterfield General District Court.

 

[Stafford_1911]

Look forward to a motion for dismissal with prejudice and trust that somebody in Chesterfield will have pen & checkbook ready together with a letter of apology to accompany the return of his handgun.

Considering there are two prior continued hearings listed I’d like to know why the hell this hasn’t happened already.

If there was ever a case to toss the concept of qualified immunity this would be it.

 

[Gunslinger]

So if a cop sees me smoking a hand-rolled tobacco cigarette, can he arrest me for possession of marijuana--because it was "close enough" to looking like a joint?

WTF?

Yes. The police are your friends.

 

[Repeater]

Appreciate the redirection.

My outrage is no less. The gentleman's conduct was clearly not within the parameters of paragraph B:

B. If any person possesses any firearm designed or intended to expel a projectile by action of an explosion of a combustible material while such person is upon (i) any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds; (ii) that portion of any property open to the public and then exclusively used for school-sponsored functions or extracurricular activities while such functions or activities are taking place; or (iii) any school bus owned or operated by any such school, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony

Look forward to a motion for dismissal with prejudice and trust that somebody in Chesterfield will have pen & checkbook ready together with a letter of apology to accompany the return of his handgun.

Looks like the next hearing date is April 15th in Chesterfield General District Court.

In the good old days in Virginia, it was not a crime to have a gun on school grounds.

In the late 70's, the General Assembly enacted a law that banned handguns inside a school building.

Not leaving bad enough alone, it's been downhill ever since.

A return to the good old days would be most welcome.

 

[wylde007]

In the good old days in Virginia, it was not a crime to have a gun on school grounds.

It still is not a crime to possess one on school grounds.

It is in fact still 100% lawful for an unloaded long gun to be in a vehicle either stowed or in a firearms rack per subsection (vi) of section B.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to [snip]

(vi) a person who possesses an unloaded firearm that is in a closed container, or a knife having a metal blade, in or upon a motor vehicle, or an unloaded shotgun or rifle in a firearms rack in or upon a motor vehicle;

So a student could have a firearm in a vehicle if they wanted as long as it was kept unloaded.

18.2-308.7 covers under-18 possession of firearms - shotguns and semi-auto rifles which do not meet the definition of an "assault" firearm are exempt from under-18 prohibition.

I can only imagine the brouhaha which would ensue if a student pulled up to an urban school with a shotgun or rifle in their vehicle in the trunk (or in plain view, even worse) and then having to defend it under law. However, preemption would rule the day, I should hope.

 

[ocholsteroc]

In the good old days in Virginia, it was not a crime to have a gun on school grounds.

In the late 70's, the General Assembly enacted a law that banned handguns inside a school building.

Not leaving bad enough alone, it's been downhill ever since.

A return to the good old days would be most welcome.

Well, We have certainly see a rise in crime sence then. There has been more mass shooting in the last 20 years than 60's~80's IIRC from internet info. PROOF gun control fails. Because it gives criminals safe working zones. :banghead::banghead:

 

[johnfenter]

This may wind up as the "sidewalk" problem....

If he was walking on the sidewalk on the same side of the street as the school, and walked past the school, he may have intruded upon the "Grounds' of the school per the real estate "plat" map for the area. Just as you own the sidewalk in front of your home for the purposes of shoveling snow or getting sued for people slipping and falling, the school may own the sidewalk even though it is a public right of way along school property. We shall see...

 

[Grapeshot]

If he was walking on the sidewalk on the same side of the street as the school, and walked past the school, he may have intruded upon the "Grounds' of the school per the real estate "plat" map for the area. Just as you own the sidewalk in front of your home for the purposes of shoveling snow or getting sued for people slipping and falling, the school may own the sidewalk even though it is a public right of way along school property. We shall see...

I don't think that it has definitively been stated where he was walking. Would hope that they judge would take intent into account and what a reasonable person would have believed.

A felony charge seems sooo far over the top. There is work to be done at the GA level on this.

 

[wylde007]

Just as you own the sidewalk in front of your home for the purposes of shoveling snow or getting sued for people slipping and falling, the school may own the sidewalk even though it is a public right of way along school property. We shall see...

This isn't just misinformed it is flat out wrong.

You DO NOT own the sidewalk in front of your house nor do you have any responsibility to it.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia we are a "colonial" land state. That means all lands can be traced back (adversed) to the original land grants from the King of England. Roadways in Virginia are not "easements" which grant someone permission to traverse property on a public thoroughfare while the underlying fee (ownership) remains to the adjacent owner, leased to the state.

In Virginia, right-of-ways are owned 100% by the city or county. School property does not protrude into the right-of-way. They are separate, specific entities which do not overlap. You are either in the street or you are on school property. Not withstanding the conundrum of straddling the right-of-way line (which would place you legally ON school property) you cannot be in two places at once.

If anyone ever got sued for the sidewalk in front of their house I would like to hear about it. The sidewalks and streets are the responsibility of the municipality - not the adjacent private citizens.

 

[Grapeshot]

Though I have a more extensive knowledge of real estate law (25+ yr. commercial mgt) than the average bear (pun intended), I am not able to cite the series of statutes and ordinances that would apply in this case applicable to right-of-ways and easements. That is why we employ real estate attorneys.

As an example - I have an 6' right-of-way across the front of my property - no sidewalk there - in Chesterfield. I cannot fence it, I must maintain it i.e. cut grass etc, and am potentially liable for injuries occurring on it. In fact I must keep trash (leaves) out of the gutter beyond the curb line.

In the City of Richmond where sidewalks are more common, most frequently front sidewalks are put in by the developer or the city, rather than the property owner. Whether by tradition or law, the city often makes major repairs or replacement improvements. Still the property owner is generally responsible for maintaining the condition of said area and, as noted before, potentially liable for injury occurring there.

Easements are specifically described as to their purpose i.e. for the installation and maintenance of utility services and do not as a rule include a general right-of-way use.

I would be very interested in any cites that refer to sidewalk, right-of-way, etc. that pertain directly to this case.

 

[wylde007]

As an example - I have an 6' right-of-way across the front of my property - no sidewalk there - in Chesterfield.

I would be curious to see a legal cite for a 6' R/W. Or is there 6' of property from where yours ends to where the paved surface (or curb) of the road begins, which is more likely?

I cannot fence it, I must maintain it i.e. cut grass etc,

True.

and am potentially liable for injuries occurring on it.

The operative word is "potentially". You are not liable by default for injury occurring in front of your house unless it occurs physically on your property.

In fact I must keep trash (leaves) out of the gutter beyond the curb line.

That may be a requirement contiguous with keeping the grass cut. You "enjoy" the benefit of the expanse of property in return for keeping the portion adjacent to yours clear of debris. Do you happen to live in an HOA? That could also play a role in homeowner responsibility.

In the City of Richmond where sidewalks are more common, most frequently front sidewalks are put in by the developer or the city, rather than the property owner.

Sidewalks are generally installed by the developer within public R/W or, less-commonly, public easement. When an development is completed the city will "accept" the improvements and take responsibility from the contractor for their upkeep, maintenance and repair.

Whether by tradition or law, the city often makes major repairs or replacement improvements.

The appurtenances exist within city R/W and are, by law, the responsibility of the city.

Still the property owner is generally responsible for maintaining the condition of said area and, as noted before, potentially liable for injury occurring there.

Once again with the "potential". The condition of the sidewalk is not the responsibility of the homeowner or business, unless something that the homeowner has done or constructed ILLEGALLY upon the city R/W creates such.

Easements are specifically described as to their purpose i.e. for the installation and maintenance of utility services and do not as a rule include a general right-of-way use.

Ingress/egress easements. Cross-reciprocal easements. Pedestrian Access easements. Sidewalk easements (on narrow R/W where the city wishes to install sidewalks but requiring R/W widening would produce undue burden on the homeowner(s) and/or create a non-conformance).

There are dozens of examples I could cite.

I would be very interested in any cites that refer to sidewalk, right-of-way, etc. that pertain directly to this case.

Under the state code, independent municipalities are permitted to adopt ordinances for subdivision (15.2-2200 et seq.) of land but the basic premises of private property and public R/W are typical throughout.

A good resource for review would be the Virginia Land Title Examiners Manual.

 

[Grapeshot]

You make my point Wylde that sidewalks in front of schools specifically are difficult to apply to this or any other similar case due in part to the convoluted and diverse nature of the laws and ordinances. What would a reasonable and prudent person think and how would that apply? IMHO - such a person would believe that the sidewalk was there for their unimpeded use unless they were causing direct harm w/intent.

I realize that I am throwing terms around with some abandon, but these all come into play here. Think that we have an opportunity to clean up one aspect of the GFSZ thinking by promoting a disassociated bill specifically targeting sidewalks and streets as being open and free to public access w/o restriction or penalty derived from that legal use. Such a proposal might also be useful in countermanding a venue reserving/blocking off a street for their private function and disallowing personal defensive tools. Were the state to preempt local municipalities, more the better.

There is more to this case than meets the eye at first.

 

[Gunslinger]

You make my point Wylde that sidewalks in front of schools specifically are difficult to apply to this or any other similar case due in part to the convoluted and diverse nature of the laws and ordinances. What would a reasonable and prudent person think and how would that apply? IMHO - such a person would believe that the sidewalk was there for their unimpeded use unless they were causing direct harm w/intent.

I realize that I am throwing terms around with some abandon, but these all come into play here. Think that we have an opportunity to clean up one aspect of the GFSZ thinking by promoting a disassociated bill specifically targeting sidewalks and streets as being open and free to public access w/o restriction or penalty derived from that legal use. Such a proposal might also be useful in countermanding a venue reserving/blocking off a street for their private function and disallowing personal defensive tools. Were the state to preempt local municipalities, more the better.

There is more to this case than meets the eye at first.

Under Common Law, and VA relies on it more than most states, allowing for peaceful passage on, a public right of way cannot belong to a school, church, etc because it belongs to the public. An extreme example would be a town that makes walking in the street illegal when sidewalks are present.

 

[riverrat10k]

Property pins in my front yard are about 5'-10' from the edge of pavement. I maintain the ditch for my own aesthetics and drainage. My mailbox is in the right-of-way. The city has repaired my crumbling terra cotta sewer line twice as it lies within the right-of-way, even though my maple tree roots are crushing it. Since I don't pay taxes on that strip of land, I see no legal reason to maintain it. It is my choice. The City of Richmond, however, thinks differently in some regards.

Sec. 38-152. - Unlawful accumulation.

It shall be unlawful for any person who owns or occupies property within the city to permit the accumulation of trash, garbage, refuse, litter, junk, demolition materials or other offensive, unwholesome, unsightly, unsanitary or unhealthy substances on such property or on any alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way, grass strips, or street abutting such property.

This section tells me that I am responsible for any sort of crap that finds its way into the right-of-way in front of my house. There are other code sections addressing this, most indicating it is my responsibility to maintain the public right-of-way to some degree. Hard to see how it could be my responsibility to remove a storm-damaged tree from the road, especially if it did not fall from my property.

 

[riverrat10k]

Google maps shows the school is located at the dead-end of Center Pointe Parkway, with undeveloped woods along the Parkway leading to the school. Does anyone know if that section of street has homes on it now? Appears to be public sidewalk all the way along the road.

 

[Repeater]

There is more to this case than meets the eye at first.

Getting the Incident Report would answer some questions. Would the Chesterfield PD honor a FOIA request?