Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

To the OP - You should contact user. He already has handled a case like this and gotten a nolle pros from the CA for his client.

To me if the G Box is latched and the gun can't fall out its secured. Sad we have to have incidents where LE, judges and the populace all see a law differently

To the people saying I need to Lawyer up, I understand I should therefore I am going to get a court appointed lawyer( I know, I know :/) But I am a VCU student and I dont have parents that can afford one. So court appointed is my only option at the moment.

PeteyDoug wrote:To the people saying I need to Lawyer up, I understand I should therefore I am going to get a court appointed lawyer( I know, I know :/) But I am a VCU student and I dont have parents that can afford one. So court appointed is my only option at the moment.

Better than no lawyer. Educate yourself as well as you can on this and see if you can find some free help, perhaps from other students, in researching similar recent cases. The most directly applicable case law needs to be recent as this provision in the law did not take effect until July 1st last year. Again, good luck.

I did a quick search and did not find any case law interpreting this particular provision - because, as mentioned, it is still pretty new and it's likely no case has yet worked its way up to the appellate level yet. There could very well be a circuit court opinion on it, but those are harder to search and get a copy of.

By the way, the Virginia State Police recites this law on its web page about transporting firearms:

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_Transporting.shtm

@Tenchcoxe -ah yeah I was looking at an older copy for sure (2005 -face is red )

Just wanted to clarify my "readily accessible" statement - I meant that to mean it must be in a container of some sort, requiring an action to open the container, and then a second action to access the gun. Obviously if you have a CHP, none of this matters. Without CHP, if the gun is not in plain sight, i.e. OC, then it must be in a container - secured. Sorry to imply something different and cause confusion...

TenchCoxe wrote:I did a quick search and did not find any case law interpreting this particular provision - because, as mentioned, it is still pretty new and it's likely no case has yet worked its way up to the appellate level yet. There could very well be a circuit court opinion on it, but those are harder to search and get a copy of.

Contact user, as I posted above.

If I recall correctly the original Bill that went before the State Legislators actually included the provision that the container must be "locked". Before it was signed into law the language was changed from "locked" to "secured". If you can find the original bill and show that to the Judge and compare it to the law that was signed. That will prove the legislative body's intent of the law, where they actually removed the provision of being locked.

By the way IANAL. If I was, I would have to submit an invoice for my billable hours for my advice and I would be a lot richer than I am now

totes6 wrote:If I recall correctly the original Bill that went before the State Legislators actually included the provision that the container must be "locked". Before it was signed into law the language was changed from "locked" to "secured". If you can find the original bill and show that to the Judge and compare it to the law that was signed. That will prove the legislative body's intent of the law, where they actually removed the provision of being locked.

By the way IANAL. If I was, I would have to submit an invoice for my billable hours for my advice and I would be a lot richer than I am now

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe you ain't a lawyer, but you certainly THINK like one - at least about billable hours.

Here's a quick bit of input from user.
(you can contact him here -> http://virginialegaldefense.com/ )

user wrote:"secured" is a more general term than "locked", but not a synonym - if something is "locked", then it is "secured"; but if something is "secured", it is not necessarily "locked". In this context, "secured" means, "not flopping around, loose, somewhere in the car".

It seems to me that the intent of the General Assembly was to remove a missile hazard within an occupied vehicle or vessel by indicating that it was now legal to secure a firearm within a container, regardless of whether or not the legal owner of the firearm holds a CHP.

totes6 wrote:If I recall correctly the original Bill that went before the State Legislators actually included the provision that the container must be "locked". Before it was signed into law the language was changed from "locked" to "secured".

You are correct. See my comments upthread a little ways.

totes6 wrote:If you can find the original bill and show that to the Judge and compare it to the law that was signed. That will prove the legislative body's intent of the law, where they actually removed the provision of being locked.

Here is the legislative history of the bill:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... +sum+HB885

On the legislative history page you will find links to the senate amendments and the governor's recommendation, showing how the senate changed "secured" to "locked" and then the governor recommended changing it back to "secured" before he would sign it.

You also will find links to the bill in its various forms as it passed through the legislative process - specifically:

Here is the bill as prefiled Jan. 13, 2010, in which it used the word "secured":
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... +ful+HB885

Here it is as enacted by the house and senate, after the senate amended it to replace "secured" with "locked":
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... ul+HB885ER

Here it is after the governor sent it back with the recommendation to change "locked" back to "secured":
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... l+HB885ER2

And the final act, as enacted and signed by the governor, using "secured":
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... l+CHAP0841

It should be pretty darn clear that the General Assembly considered requiring the container or compartment to be locked, but then rejected that requirement in favor of requiring it to be "secured." And this also makes it clear that "secured" is not necessarily 'locked."

dorminWS wrote:

totes6 wrote:If I recall correctly the original Bill that went before the State Legislators actually included the provision that the container must be "locked". Before it was signed into law the language was changed from "locked" to "secured". If you can find the original bill and show that to the Judge and compare it to the law that was signed. That will prove the legislative body's intent of the law, where they actually removed the provision of being locked.

By the way IANAL. If I was, I would have to submit an invoice for my billable hours for my advice and I would be a lot richer than I am now

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe you ain't a lawyer, but you certainly THINK like one - at least about billable hours.

See I think exactly like a lawyer. Come up with the "legal premise", let my "Paralegal" find the documentation to back it up and send the "Client" my "bill".

@TenchCoxe: Thanks for being the "Paralegal" and finding the history of the bill, I was at work and didn't have time to hit google to find it.

But all joking aside, finding a lawyer with experience defending against firearm charges would definitely be in the opening poster's benefit. Even if you can't afford their charges, a lot of times lawyers are willing to take a couple minutes to chat about your issue (in hopes of convincing you to purchase their services) and sometimes lawyers are willing to do pro bono work, simply because they truly are devoted to that area of law or want to put their name out in public view. Calling around to a few lawyers should only cost you a bit of your time and a few minutes from your cell phone plan.

@tenchcoxe, thanks! That's some good stuff. I have pretrail on the 10th and ill have my lawyer appointed to me then. Ill have more updates after that, thanks guys!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

PeteyDoug wrote:@tenchcoxe, thanks! That's some good stuff. I have pretrail on the 10th and ill have my lawyer appointed to me then. Ill have more updates after that, thanks guys!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Thanks for the update, good luck!

ProShooter wrote:The officer made a mistake. The securing latch on your glove box is sufficient. There have already been court decisions in your favor on this.

I keep a .45 in my glove box (always unlocked, but secured by its latch), both my wife and I have CHP's and no one else uses the car, so what you're saying is its definitely not a problem?

If you have a CHP, it's a non-issue anyhow. The CHP is a permit that allows you to conceal a handgun.

The law at issue provides an exception to the rule that you normally must have a permit to conceal a handgun. It allows a person to keep a handgun in "secured" in a compartment or container in a vehicle or vessel, without a CHP.

Since you have a CHP, you don't have to worry about this exception.

Kreutz wrote:

ProShooter wrote:The officer made a mistake. The securing latch on your glove box is sufficient. There have already been court decisions in your favor on this.

I keep a .45 in my glove box (always unlocked, but secured by its latch), both my wife and I have CHP's and no one else uses the car, so what you're saying is its definitely not a problem?

Correct.

BTW, I attended the VACLE.ORG seminar yesterday on Firearms Law in Virginia. I asked his very question, and there was a little discussion of it, but everyone, including Stephen Halbrook and the NRA attorneys, agreed that "secured" did not mean "locked" and that it should be pretty clear that the general assembly did not mean the compartment or container had to be locked - if it had meant "locked," it would have said "locked", but it did not. It said "secured."