Guilty on both counts.Thank goodness the Puritans only settled New England - the Episcopalian cavaliers settled Old Dominion.
Guilty on both counts.Thank goodness the Puritans only settled New England - the Episcopalian cavaliers settled Old Dominion.
Only up to the point where the person who is open carrying AND has a permit to carry concealed is considered "under the influence". Then they are violating the law for no other reason than they have a permit to carry concealed. But if they don't have a permit to carry concealed and are open carrying, they aren't violating that particular statute. Kind of like the laws that some states have that require people with a permit to inform law enforcement officers if they are carrying concealed, but people without a permit are not required to do so.
There is no rational rationale behind such laws. It is a case of adding one law on top of another and ending up with a mess that doesn't make any common sense whatsoever. Like in Washington where it is now illegal for Wal Mart to sell plastic flare guns without doing a background check - but that doesn't stop them from doing so in just about every store in the state.
§ 18.2-308.012. Prohibited conduct.
A. Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of § 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of § 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of § 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of § 46.2-341.24. Upon such conviction that court shall revoke the person's permit for a concealed handgun and promptly notify the issuing circuit court. A person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be ineligible to apply for a concealed handgun permit for a period of five years.
B. 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 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.
In reply to Skidmark's post #19, which I am not going to quote for brevity - the Virginia Citizens' Self Defense League largely disagrees with what was posted.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/firearms-brandishing/
I must say, I am very thankful to live in Washington where we don't have such problems. Our state Supreme Court has ruled that a handgun simply carried in a holster cannot raise to the level of "manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons" which is basically the same thing that the Virginia Self Defense League says about a holstered handgun in Virginia.
In addition, the VCDL explanation of "brandishing" is much more in line with the actual definition of "brandishing" than Skidmark's post is:
Brandish (verb): wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.
This article, and the criminal defense attorney referenced, also disagrees with
Is that what you really think Graham Corry was observed doing?
http://www.richmond.com/news/article_4b327ec8-e4e5-5e39-aece-c6ddf3400407.html
What he was observed doing was REMOVING - not placing - the gun from the glove compartment and INSERTING a magazine into it. Would you not agree that is a far different action than a firearm remaining securely in a holster with nobody touching it?
Yes IMO that is what Graham was doing. The intent was to place the gun a specially prepared, holstered location.Is that what you really think Graham Corry was observed doing?
http://www.richmond.com/news/article_4b327ec8-e4e5-5e39-aece-c6ddf3400407.html
What he was observed doing was REMOVING - not placing - the gun from the glove compartment and INSERTING a magazine into it. Would you not agree that is a far different action than a firearm remaining securely in a holster with nobody touching it?
Maybe instead of getting your vast legal knowledge from a news clipping, you should read the transcript. I was at all the trials, have the transcripts have watched and have the dashcam video and watched reenactments of what he did.
Now your certainly entitled to your opinion and I don't give a rats ass what the law is in your stomping ground, but I do care that you get on here and tell mother goose stories that well may cause less informed readers to run afoul of Virginia Law.
You may also read the transcripts from Skidmark's trial where it was clearly shown he did Not touch his gun.
Sounds to me, then, that the general recommendation should be ujust not to open carry anywhere in Virginia.
Sounds to me, then, that the general recommendation should be just not to open carry anywhere in Virginia.
Now there is an interpretation issue in subsection A. Does "such handgun" refer only to a concealed handgun - or does it refer to any handgun the person is permitted to carry concealed, whether or not they are actually concealing it? Subsection B refers specifically to a handgun that is concealed, but subsection A - not so much. I mean, after all Skidmark, you are the one claiming that a person does not have to be handling a firearm to be guilty of recklessly handling a firearm.
And we are still not there yet? How much more finely do these hairs need to be split?
At the point where we are presently can we start charging admission/tuition?
stay safe.