Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Last night we had our quarterly member meeting with the Board of Directors at the Lafayette Gun Club. To my Surprise, Phillip Van Cleave from VCDL was there to speak about the upcoming year and what's on the agenda for VCDL.

During the talk, he brought up the Castle Doctrine and was saying it's not that much of a priority, because Virginia has some very good gun laws. He stated Virginia is a Stand your Ground commonwealth. He stated that as long as you are not the instigator, you can stand your ground. But if you are the instigator you are required to retreat....

Now, I always thought if a situation rises, you must try to retreat and only use your gun as the last resort... ???

I'm confused. So please o wise ones of the VGOF..... let me hear it!

Philip is 100% correct as always. As long as you are someplace that it's legal for you to be, and you are not the instigator, you do not have to retreat from a deadly threat. You could be in your home, in your car, at the mall or walking down the street. The only thing missing in Virginia law is protection from civil lawsuits after you have legally defended yourself.

OakRidgeStars wrote:Philip is 100% correct as always. As long as you are someplace that it's legal for you to be, and you are not the instigator, you do not have to retreat from a deadly threat. You could be in your home, in your car, at the mall or walking down the street. The only thing missing in Virginia law is protection from civil lawsuits after you have legally defended yourself.

+1

Criminally you are safe. The problem is that in civil trials the prosecution likes to make all kind of "what if" scenarios where you had other alternatives and thus should have to pay for the would be rapers/murders medical bills or pay their family for their death. The standard of proof in civil court is much lower.

IMHO, it really depends on the jury of your peers. In rural VA you likely have nothing to fear, but in NOVA your average peer probably thinks you are a terrorist just for owning a gun.

gunderwood wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:Philip is 100% correct as always. As long as you are someplace that it's legal for you to be, and you are not the instigator, you do not have to retreat from a deadly threat. You could be in your home, in your car, at the mall or walking down the street. The only thing missing in Virginia law is protection from civil lawsuits after you have legally defended yourself.

+1

Criminally you are safe. The problem is that in civil trials the prosecution likes to make all kind of "what if" scenarios where you had other alternatives and thus should have to pay for the would be rapers/murders medical bills or pay their family for their death. The standard of proof in civil court is much lower.

IMHO, it really depends on the jury of your peers. In rural VA you likely have nothing to fear, but in NOVA your average peer probably thinks you are a terrorist just for owning a gun.

+1 +1

OakRidgeStars wrote:The only thing missing in Virginia law is protection from civil lawsuits after you have legally defended yourself.

gunderwood wrote:Criminally you are safe. The problem is that in civil trials the prosecution likes to make all kind of "what if" scenarios where you had other alternatives and thus should have to pay for the would be rapers/murders medical bills or pay their family for their death. The standard of proof in civil court is much lower.

Phillip made it sound a little less frightening about this issue as well. He said for a family or someone to bring a civil lawsuit against you, they will need to find a lawyer that will take on the case. He stated that a lawyer will only take the case if they know they can truley win when it comes to things like this. This is why the Castle Doctrine isn't a priority of the VCDL.

gunderwood wrote:In rural VA you likely have nothing to fear, but in NOVA your average peer probably thinks you are a terrorist just for owning a gun.

Aint that the truth!


Thanks for the clarification on this.

Unkn0wN wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:The only thing missing in Virginia law is protection from civil lawsuits after you have legally defended yourself.

gunderwood wrote:Criminally you are safe. The problem is that in civil trials the prosecution likes to make all kind of "what if" scenarios where you had other alternatives and thus should have to pay for the would be rapers/murders medical bills or pay their family for their death. The standard of proof in civil court is much lower.

Phillip made it sound a little less frightening about this issue as well. He said for a family or someone to bring a civil lawsuit against you, they will need to find a lawyer that will take on the case. He stated that a lawyer will only take the case if they know they can truley win when it comes to things like this. This is why the Castle Doctrine isn't a priority of the VCDL.

gunderwood wrote:In rural VA you likely have nothing to fear, but in NOVA your average peer probably thinks you are a terrorist just for owning a gun.

Aint that the truth!


Thanks for the clarification on this.

If I ever find myself in this position it will because I just defended my life. In that case, while I'll consider it unfair and would like the protection from civil suits, it is the better outcome. I.e. I'd rather be alive and fighting a frivolous suit than dead.

gunderwood wrote:If I ever find myself in this position it will because I just defended my life. In that case, while I'll consider it unfair and would like the protection from civil suits, it is the better outcome. I.e. I'd rather be alive and fighting a frivolous suit than dead.

Oh I totally agree.

Another good reason to get the civil immunity clause into current law is to alleve overzealous State Prosecutors that either don;t like gunowners or are looking for some publicity or both.... I agree that I too would much rather be standing alive and well to fight then having someone driving my cars, spending my money and saying what a nice guy I WAS!!!

OakRidgeStars wrote:Philip is 100% correct as always.

Bull crap...not making this a priority merely because "VA already has some good gun laws" is ludicrous. Here in our home I have to think in terms of defense based on the lack of definitive law. Yes we have some good gun laws but VA concerning use of force sucks and VCDL (plus us) should make an issue of that. Even the police state of MD has a fairly comprehensive castle law.

zephyp wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:Philip is 100% correct as always.

Bull crap...not making this a priority merely because "VA already has some good gun laws" is ludicrous. Here in our home I have to think in terms of defense based on the lack of definitive law. Yes we have some good gun laws but VA concerning use of force sucks and VCDL (plus us) should make an issue of that. Even the police state of MD has a fairly comprehensive castle law.

Not making it a priority doesn't mean it isn't on the list, it just means Phillip thinks there are more important things to address first. I'd like to see such a prioritized list before making judgment.

gunderwood wrote:

zephyp wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:Philip is 100% correct as always.

Bull crap...not making this a priority merely because "VA already has some good gun laws" is ludicrous. Here in our home I have to think in terms of defense based on the lack of definitive law. Yes we have some good gun laws but VA concerning use of force sucks and VCDL (plus us) should make an issue of that. Even the police state of MD has a fairly comprehensive castle law.

Not making it a priority doesn't mean it isn't on the list, it just means Phillip thinks there are more important things to address first. I'd like to see such a prioritized list before making judgment.

Yes. Perhaps I was hasty in my judgement. But, it sounds like he poo-pood it and I certainly do not care to blindly follow whatever he says as the gospel. Castle doctrine and use of deadly force are 2 areas with glaring holes in VA law. That needs to be fixed ASAP.

Sometimes its very hard for a single member to affect a change in their opinion or their chosen direction,,.. I want to see this upcoming sessions list too.... I can't get to meetings due to job but do send suggestions to the board occasionally by email!

zephyp wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:Philip is 100% correct as always.

Bull crap...not making this a priority merely because "VA already has some good gun laws" is ludicrous. Here in our home I have to think in terms of defense based on the lack of definitive law. Yes we have some good gun laws but VA concerning use of force sucks and VCDL (plus us) should make an issue of that. Even the police state of MD has a fairly comprehensive castle law.

LOL! He was saying Phillip is 100% correct on the stand your ground, not the castle doctrine not being a high priority.

Unkn0wN wrote:

zephyp wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:Philip is 100% correct as always.

Bull crap...not making this a priority merely because "VA already has some good gun laws" is ludicrous. Here in our home I have to think in terms of defense based on the lack of definitive law. Yes we have some good gun laws but VA concerning use of force sucks and VCDL (plus us) should make an issue of that. Even the police state of MD has a fairly comprehensive castle law.

LOL! He was saying Phillip is 100% correct on the stand your ground, not the castle doctrine not being a high priority.

Yes I caught that. My bull crap was directed towards the notion that whatever he says is 100% correct. We dont want VCDL to drive the train. We need to do that and let them act on our behalf. Not the other way around. Their priorities must be ours otherwise they are no different than congress.

I also realize they do a great work and job for VA and do appreciate their efforts...

zephyp wrote:Yes I caught that. My bull crap was directed towards the notion that whatever he says is 100% correct.

Ah, Ok, now I got ya! Me so silly!

zephyp wrote:We dont want VCDL to drive the train. We need to do that and let them act on our behalf. Not the other way around. Their priorities must be ours otherwise they are no different than congress.

+1