Conceal Carry Question

[peter nap]

Not that there can be no discussion of illegal conditions, Peter. Rather that "Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here."

We discuss illegal acts of others and the impact or potential fall out of these things, preferable as they effect OC. Restricting an otherwise legal activity (1st Amend. rights) could well have a chilling effect on the RKBA. I think pursuing this (within narrow confines) is a capital idea.

I understand Grape! I just wanted to throw that in early because I can see the direction this will go and many comments will be legitimate.

The very nature of the OP's question is a good example. It's a real concern but there is very little case law that will cover it and just trying to sweeten it with opinions from a forum amounts to whistling in the dark through a graveyard.

Just like driving through a GFZ, the real question that has to be answered is not if it's illegal, only a test case will decide that....the question should be...what are the chances of being charged with it.

Obviously, much of LE would like us to think anything other than CHP permitted carry/possession, is illegal. Thus the Chilling Effect.

 

[ed]

The thread title could be amended to OC vs CC legal question, but don't see that is really necessary. The administration routinely allows questions regarding CHP training, discussions pertaining to permits and to § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons.

The question of acceptability is therefore well documented. Reasonable?

Richard is a friend of mine and has been for years.. I was just bustin his chops.

 

[Grapeshot]

I understand Grape! I just wanted to throw that in early because I can see the direction this will go and many comments will be legitimate.

The very nature of the OP's question is a good example. It's a real concern but there is very little case law that will cover it and just trying to sweeten it with opinions from a forum amounts to whistling in the dark through a graveyard.

Just like driving through a GFZ, the real question that has to be answered is not if it's illegal, only a test case will decide that....the question should be...what are the chances of being charged with it.

Obviously, much of LE would like us to think anything other than CHP permitted carry/possession, is illegal. Thus the Chilling Effect.

The "law" says it is illegal to carry in a GFSZ w/o a permit from that state. Agree that it has never been tested and if a constitutional challenge were properly made is would likely be struck down. Were someone to propose deliberately carrying in violation in a GFSZ, that would be a violation of forum rules, but saying that arrest/prosecution for such is unlikely is not in violation of the same rules.

Sometimes it is neither heads nor tails. When flipped, I'll call it: obverse or reverse. :lol:

 

[Marco]

A plastic frezzer bag (large enough to fit your firearm) and Thunder wear (or something similar).
The gun stays with you and is excessible, it's protected from the water/sand, it's out of sight (if that is what you're shooting for).

 

[Grapeshot]

The thread title could be amended to OC vs CC legal question, but don't see that is really necessary. The administration routinely allows questions regarding CHP training, discussions pertaining to permits and to § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons.

The question of acceptability is therefore well documented. Reasonable?

Richard is a friend of mine and has been for years.. I was just bustin his chops.

I was clarifying for those that might have taken the question at face value.

 

[architect]

It occurs to me that a small lock securing the zipper or otherwise preventing the "watchman" from accessing the bag's interior would go a long way toward demonstrating non-possession.

 

[richarcm]

My name isn't Richard. Its Richarcm. No "D". The "C" is silent.

And perhaps I should have reworded my title to make it understood that this also about OC because my question is that of a line between "possession" of a firearm. My question I think was not too clear.

I think we all know that a lot of the "rules" we go by are untested and not 100% written in stone for everyone to see. We talk about them all the time however and all have some sort of individual and general opinion as to what they consist of....much like the VCDL email that went out last night about our Attorney General's opinion of a conceal carry technicality that agreed with VCDL's take on it.

What I wanted to know was as a VA permit holder are there any general rules as to how close I must be to my backpack before my permit no longer covers it. Or does my permit still cover my backpack as long as nobody else is touching it. Once someone else touches it then it is considered their backpack? So a gun in my backpack in the middle of the beach is legit. A gun in my backpack on the lap of my friend is then a crime. Or no?

I'm not looking so much for the moral or personal preferences but general assumptions of the law. Knowing of course that, again, much of what we "know" is unknown/untested. And of course knowing that one possible alternative (which is what makes this OC related) is that my friend OC the firearm while I were to be in the water (which I articulated originally).

 

[peter nap]

Once someone else touches it then it is considered their backpack? So a gun in my backpack in the middle of the beach is legit. A gun in my backpack on the lap of my friend is then a crime. Or no?

If you have to put a very colorful issue in Black & White....that's correct. He's breaking the law.

 

[Grapeshot]

Very unique name Richarcm. Names are personally important to people. Bet there is an interesting history behind that one.
Is that pronounced as the two separate words "rich" and "arm" would be (rich+arm)?

As to your question(s) as posed - I think most everyone understood your intent, though some chaff did get mixed in with the answers.

Technically the test of "constructive possession" is the most relevant IMO.
http://www.virginia1774.org/Page1.html

"It is unlikely that there are other areas of the law that lead to more strife than this concept. It creates heartburn between prosecutors and the police, between defense attorneys and their clients, and it certainly vexes even the most competent of our judges."
http://www.vachiefs.org/vapleac/vplb/6-1/july11_possession_print.htm

Beach bags might easily be compared to this decision following:
"Handbags are made in various sizes, colors and styles, and some are designed to carry a great number of articles deemed necessary or convenient by the carrier. The bags are often supported by shoulder straps and are easily opened and closed by devices such as zippers, buckles or stays. A pistol carried in such a bag is not only near and about the carrier's person, hidden from common observation, but in some handbags it is so accessible that it could be fired without being removed therefrom. "t is so connected with the person as to be readily accessible for use or surprise if desired.. . ." Sutherland, supra, 109 Va. at 835, 65 S.E. at 15.

I would think that a simple lock on the bag (think miniature duffel bag w/grommets) and keeping the key on your wrist or ankle (like you would a locker key) would remove the question of constructive possession from your friend, eliminate any non-warranted search, and thereby make everyone happy. Google "beach bag w/lock" - there are many from which to choose.

Practically do I see any great likelihood of being charged for what is not an obvious or clearly defined infraction? No. Case law is all over the map. But you did ask.