looks like laws updated on State Police website

[cham89]

Went to read up again on the laws for concealed carry this morning in preperation for getting my permit, and noticed that the law #'s and layout had changed, it looks like they have more stuff pertaining to concealed carry on the site now. Here's the link if anyone wants to read them: http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_StateLaws.shtm

[ProShooter]

18.2-308 was revamped. Makes it easier to find stuff now.

[Remek]

Pardon my ignorance, but I am rereading this:

18.2-308. Carrying concealed weapons; exceptions; penalty.

A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart; or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second violation of this section or a conviction under this section subsequent to any conviction under any substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony, and a third or subsequent such violation shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony. For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature. It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of clause (i) regarding a handgun, that a person had been issued, at the time of the offense, a valid concealed handgun permit.

The last sentence seems to indicate that they can charge you with a class 1 misdemeanor under this statute, if they wish. Then you have to go to court and provide the defense of having the permit.

Has anyone had this experience? What was the outcome? Now I am nervous to carry concealed.

[dusterdude]

Veryyyy interesting

[OakRidgeStars]

...For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature. It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of clause (i) regarding a handgun, that a person had been issued, at the time of the offense, a valid concealed handgun permit.

The last sentence seems to indicate that they can charge you with a class 1 misdemeanor under this statute, if they wish. Then you have to go to court and provide the defense of having the permit.

Has anyone had this experience? What was the outcome? Now I am nervous to carry concealed.

This would only pertain to a common device, let's say a camera, that is actually a firearm. You would have to be carrying this "camera" in a way that will make people believe that it was something other than a firearm. The law is written so you cannot do this and then claim protection by saying you have a concealed handgun permit.

It's kind of confusing, but that's the best way I can describe it.

[tommy610]

I really hope this could not be applied to CCW, and trying to disguise, say, the clip of a holster, by hanging a cell phone case over it, all the while, printing such that someone could say that it was clearly a firearm under his shirt. That would be a stretch, but that's what DAs are paid to do.

How did this get changed? Was there a Bill?

[OakRidgeStars]

I don't think that this is a recent change. It's pretty vague and obscure, so I doubt anyone with honest intentions could get in trouble over it.

[tommy610]

Yeah - it looks like that "deceptive appearance" wording was there as far back as 1994, at least.

[ProShooter]

You guys are missing how statutes are constructed, or at least how this one is.

18.2-308
A) Makes it illegal to carry a concealed weapon - so it establishes the law.
B) Gives an exemption to the law for a person in their home, etc.
C) Gives you a list of people and circumstances where you are given permission in essence, to break the law.
D) Outlines a process where you can obtain a permit in essence, to break the law.

That last sentence basically means that you "broke a law, but had permission to do so by way of having a permit"....as best as I can explain it.

I'm sure that one of our lawyer folks can better explain it, but that's a very basic, simple explanation.

[ProShooter]

Yeah - it looks like that "deceptive appearance" wording was there as far back as 1994, at least.

The deceptive appearance part is meant for sword canes, knives that have hidden blades, gun belt buckles, etc.

[Remek]

The "deceptive appearance" is describing one way the item is "hidden from view". In other words, it need not be invisible, but may be disguised.

Nonetheless, the point of breaking the law but being excused is exactly what affirmative defense means. But it is usually applied as I know it, only in court. After thinking it through though, it appears to be within the LEOs perview here.

And that's why we must carry our permits!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[JLSCustoms]

It looks like this is one of those things that fall under "at the officer's discretion" kind of thing. Unless you have a fun disguised as something else, like a deck of cards etc. you shouldn't have to worry

[Jakeiscrazy]

Seems like the solution is repealing .308! Seriously it's silly, racially motivated, and far to board.

[drakb]

thanks