MarcSpaz wrote:Okay, I am going to help put this to bed. I sent the following message to the AG's office.
Representatives of the Office of the AG,
I have several questions about private citizens transporting loaded firearms in a private vehicle and its legality. The Code of Virginia is ambiguous at best and seems to contradict itself on this subject in locations. Since the AG’s office would be prosecuting accused violators of state firearms laws, I would like to know if I submit a request in writing to the AG’s office, if the AG (or staff) would be able and willing to provide clarification on a few questions about the Code as it relates to firearms laws? Please understand, I am not looking for legal advice, only clarification of the existing law as interpreted by the AG.
Thank you,
Marc Spaziano
If the AG's office will except my inquiry, I will submit in writing an official opinion from the AG. I'll let you know how this goes.
I'll be sure to see if a VA State CHP supersedes any county ordinances relating to transportation. This will be a valid question since a CHP override county level open and concealed carry restriction in some cases.
You won't get an opinion, since the AG doesn't issue opinions for private citizen's inquiries. You'd have to get a Senator or Delegate to submit it.
MarcSpaz wrote:The code of VA says transporting a concealed firearm is excusable if it is in your vehicle, unloaded and securely wrapped or stored in a container.
Well...not exactly
The securely wrapped exemption only applies during certain "circumstances" -
3. Any person who is at, or going to or from, an established shooting range, provided that the weapons are unloaded and securely wrapped while being transported;
4. Any regularly enrolled member of a weapons collecting organization who is at, or going to or from, a bona fide weapons exhibition, provided that the weapons are unloaded and securely wrapped while being transported;
5. Any person carrying such weapons between his place of abode and a place of purchase or repair, provided the weapons are unloaded and securely wrapped while being transported;
11. Any enrolled participant of a firearms training course who is at, or going to or from, a training location, provided that the weapons are unloaded and securely wrapped while being transported.
The stored container exemption only allows for handguns -
10. Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel and such handgun is secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel
Excellent point. What is "going to and from" though. It does not say "directly". What if I stop at a gas station? What if I intend to stop at Target for a glove? What if I have to pick up my buddy? It gets muddied. Then we have hunting, FTF sales, etc. Where would these fit?
We always took it to mean the literal translation of going to or from......If I'm driving from my house, to Burger King for lunch, and then to the range - First, I'm "going to" Burger King. Then, I'm "going to" the range....etc.
I am not in this type of law, but I think that is not really commensurate with other findings in federal courts (not that it matters, this is state, but usually they are somewhat confluent), in that stopping for lunch, getting gas, etc., in other states is okay.
I am still confused why we have this law, but if I want, I can put my handgun on my dash and drive pretty much anywhere anytime. I think we need these laws repealed -- not that that would happen with the future you-know-what coming in. It just seems completely arbitrary.
Meantime, keep your CHP!
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
But what if I ride my horse to a neighbor's farm to shoot? Put the 30-30 in a scabbard mounted on the saddle, ammo in saddlebags, and trot down the road?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
And if Bruce Dickinson wants more cowbell, we should probably give him more cowbell!
Jim, you were right. I know they said only Gov employees can request an "official opinion". I was hoping for an unofficial one. But no love.
I guess I'll have to escalate this to one of the peoples representatives for escalation.
BTW... I think its funny that they told me to ask a cop... LOL
Dear Mr. Spaziano:
Thank you for contacting the office of Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli with your request for assistance. The Attorney General appreciates your taking the time to write regarding the questions you have.
For future reference this office functions as the Commonwealth’s law firm. Our clients are the Virginia state government and the state agencies, boards and commissions. Due to statutory restrictions, conflict of interest rules and other policy considerations, we are unable to render private legal advice or otherwise assist private citizens in legal matters.
After reviewing your letter, we suggest that you contact the Virginia State Police with your questions regarding gun laws and regulations. Their contact information is displayed below.
We hope this information is helpful to you and that you get the assistance you need. Again, thank you for contacting this office and if we can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Eva A. Stuart
Constituent Services Administrator
Office of the Attorney General
You should write back and say "Wait, do I understand this right? You represent the government. The government answers to the people. I voted you into office. And the rule of law as you see it and plan to enforce it, against people like me, is completely unavilable to me? How doI know how to stay out of trouble when you wont even give me your opinion? This is a ridiculous letter you have sent me. Thanks for not serving the public as you are supposed to do."
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Remek wrote:You should write back and say "Wait, do I understand this right? You represent the government. The government answers to the people. I voted you into office. And the rule of law as you see it and plan to enforce it, against people like me, is completely unavilable to me? How doI know how to stay out of trouble when you wont even give me your opinion? This is a ridiculous letter you have sent me. Thanks for not serving the public as you are supposed to do."
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
.=============================I
This has been the rule on AG`s opinions since Hector was a pup.
As a practical matter, the office of the AG couldn't respond to requests like the from the general public if they had 10 times the staff they do now. Plus the rest of the legal profession would have a hard time getting paid for advice if the AG gave it away to everybody who asked. Ask the State Police to send you an officer for private security duties and see if you get it. Nobody would expect that. Same with the AG. Lots of other ethical problems with expecting AG to do that, too.
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
Remek wrote:You should write back and say "Wait, do I understand this right? You represent the government. The government answers to the people. I voted you into office. And the rule of law as you see it and plan to enforce it, against people like me, is completely unavilable to me? How doI know how to stay out of trouble when you wont even give me your opinion? This is a ridiculous letter you have sent me. Thanks for not serving the public as you are supposed to do."
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
.=============================I
This has been the rule on AG`s opinions since Hector was a pup.
As a practical matter, the office of the AG couldn't respond to requests like the from the general public if they had 10 times the staff they do now. Plus the rest of the legal profession would have a hard time getting paid for advice if the AG gave it away to everybody who asked. Ask the State Police to send you an officer for private security duties and see if you get it. Nobody would expect that. Same with the AG. Lots of other ethical problems with expecting AG to do that, too.
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
I know, its written to force you to pay an attorney to get an idea of what the law is. They never want you to get anything for free, particularly when lawyers are involved.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
There are no ethical problems answering. Even when you go to trial, your records are completely open on each side. Law is supposed to be grounded in open discussion and reason. Nothing is wrong with knowing how he interprets the law. In fact, if running for AG, you should have to delineate you stance on issues directly like this.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
My problem is, the politicians make the laws and the AG's office enforces the law through prosecution. Someone other that the people who are supposed to be an unbiased witness (aka the police) should be explaining the law to he people. The people who will be pointing the finger should be.
Police are not experts on the law. In PWC, you don't need any formal training or background in law to be a police officer. How can that person help me understand the rules that the government wrote and enforces?
I want to play the game, but I need to know the rules. I'm not asking a Trooper. My next step is going to be to question an actual law maker. The people of this great country should not have to pay a lawyer to get clarification on the laws when the private attorney can interpret it incorrectly too. Makes no sense.
Remek wrote:There are no ethical problems answering.
You think not? No offense, but if you do, there ain't enough free time in my day to explain it.
Remek wrote:
Even when you go to trial, your records are completely open on each side. Law is supposed to be grounded in open discussion and reason. Nothing is wrong with knowing how he interprets the law. In fact, if running for AG, you should have to delineate you stance on issues directly like this.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
What becomes evidence may be open unless it is sealed or subject to a protective order. But the confidences and secrets between the lawyer and his client are most definitely not. The AG's client is the Commonwealth and all it's entities. Just as one example, if the AG's office handed out legal opinions like candy, it might find itself in conflict with some entity of the Commonwealth that was adverse to a citizen who gotten free legal advice. In fact, I can se some smart lawyer (or even a smart laymen) doing that on purpose to conflict the AG out of a case. And if advice was given to all comers, it would quickly become impossible to even check for a conflict; which all lawyers are obligated to do before taking a case. You could make up examples of how this would cause similar trouble all day.
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
how would that be any different than the IRS providing a binding opinion once the fee has been paid? You certainly can get different opinions from CPAs, Auditors, HR Block employees, and whatnot. Even the Commissioner can have a different opinion. For _a_ particular question in _a_ particular situation you can get a formal and binding answer from the IRS upon payment.
And if Bruce Dickinson wants more cowbell, we should probably give him more cowbell!
