What is or isn't a firearm?

[Tiassa]

Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50416-2004Jul14.html
Title: "Guns Worn In Open Legal, But Alarm Va."
Date: July 15, 2004

An interesting tale from the Post's Tom Jackman, and apparently running on the front page (A01). Essentially, some folks are getting jumpy because of Virginia's firearms laws; they're unsettled by the sight of people wandering around with guns strapped on like cowboys.

Be that as it may, there's actually something else that seems much more important than the social etiquette of making a point of your lethality:

The first incident, at a Starbucks on Leesburg Pike near Tysons Corner, might have inspired other gun owners to carry openly. It began shortly before 10 p.m. June 14, Perez said, with a complaint from a citizen. Police arrived to find a 19-year-old man carrying a .22-caliber pistol and a 21-year-old man with a 9mm pistol.

Perez said an officer spoke with the men, then took their guns and charged them with possession of a firearm in a public place. Virginia law 18.2-287.4 expressly prohibits "carrying loaded firearms in public areas."

But the second paragraph of the law defines firearms only as any semiautomatic weapon that holds more than 20 rounds or a shotgun that holds more than seven rounds -- assault rifles, mostly, Van Cleave said. Regular six-shooters or pistols with nine- or 10-shot magazines are not "firearms" under this Virginia law.

The day after the arrest, the officer consulted with a county prosecutor and determined that "he had erred," Perez said. He summoned the two men to the McLean District station, returned their weapons and dropped the charges.

Source: Washington Post

Now, the law's the law, and I don't take issue with the dropping of charges or the notion that the officer was in error. But ... is it a good idea to be redefining "firearms" in such a manner?

Just so we have it straight: This is not a firearm?​

Although crime is at a 20-year low, police don't seem to see a connection between the open-carry and the lowest homicide rate in the nation:

"Crime is at 20-year lows in the county," Lt. Col. Charles K. Peters pointed out, even though the population is soaring. The county's homicide rate was the lowest in the nation last year among the 30 largest jurisdictions. "Hopefully no one feels the need to carry a gun, lawfully or unlawfully," Peters said. "But there's no question it is lawful to carry a gun on the street. So we've had to ensure that all of our officers are updated on the nuances of Virginia law that allow citizens to carry firearms in public places."

Source: Washington Post

As for the politics? The "safety" folks, of course, are in an uproar, but the response from the "gun" folks is rather interesting:

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, an organization of thousands of Virginia gun owners, said members were involved in all three police encounters. But he said there was no coordinated campaign to start packing heat publicly.

"It was probably more of a coincidence, but not completely," Van Cleave said, noting that word of the improper confiscation spread quickly among members through e-mail. "This is a good opportunity to educate people. We have this inherent right, and not many people exercised it" . . . .

. . . . Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, an organization of thousands of Virginia gun owners, said members were involved in all three police encounters. But he said there was no coordinated campaign to start packing heat publicly.

"It was probably more of a coincidence, but not completely," Van Cleave said, noting that word of the improper confiscation spread quickly among members through e-mail. "This is a good opportunity to educate people. We have this inherent right, and not many people exercised it."

Source: Washington Post

Perhaps we now will get to find out how things go when civility is dictated by the constant specter of lethality. But there are some provocateurs who might have another effect--What will be the point of open-carry if local business establishments--e.g. Starbucks, Champps, or Town Center for instance--put up enough "no guns allowed" signs? The effect will be odd. People wandering around with guns on their hips but no place to go, except perhaps their neighborhood tavern.

Getting back to my original point ... Is it a good idea to have such a definition of "firearm"?
____________________

Article:

• Jackman, Tom. "Guns Worn In Open Legal, But Alarm Va." Washington Post, July 15, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50416-2004Jul14.html

Image:

• Smith & Wesson - see http://home.smith-wesson.com/

 

[Dreamwalker]

Hmm, I always thought that a firearm was a weapon that used a bullet propelled with an explosion of chemicals. No matter how many bullets it carries or how fast they can be fired.
Perhaps they should be categorized for easier understanding, but still, a six shooter is just as much of a firearm as an M60...

 

[Tiassa]

Re: Text of Virginia Law 18.2-287.4

The Virginia Citizens' Defense League has been kind enough to post a PDF of the law in question:

• http://www.vcdl.org/new/VA_18.2-287.4.pdf (Size: 32k)

 

[Mystech]

Only a loaded weapon with a 20 round magazine? Aren't hicap mags outlawed by the AW ban anyhow? I thought that 10 round mags are all you could really legally buy anyhow (unless it's preban). A distinction not made in that article (perhaps not yet tested in verginia) is that the weapon has to be loaded, does this mean I could just slide a loaded mag into my pocket and wear a pistol on my hip, but so long as the two are separate then everything is ok? This would act as an easy work around to the 20 round limit.

Defining fire arms in this way is entirely useless, and really invalidates any form of state gun control. I don't care who you are, six rounds from a .44 magnum is going to kill you several times over. I wonder if Virginia gun owners are going to start complaining about their inability to carry belt-fed support weapons down the street. It's necessary for self defense if say. . . an army of Chinamen come rushing over the hill at you! you never know, there ARE a billion of them after all. Also handy for hunting if you happen to spook a herd of buffalo and they start charging right at you.

Glad to hear that Virginia’s homicide rate is low, though, good for them.

 

[hotsexyangelprincess]

fight crime, shoot back. I agree with dreamwalker on the definition of a firearm. i never knew that had anything more. And concealed weapons do have to have a special permit. :m:

 

[Mystech]

And concealed weapons do have to have a special permit. :m:

Hmmm, if anyone wants extra credit from me, they can go fetch relevant laws regarding Virginia’s concealed carry laws. Do they offer licenses for concealed "Fire arms" or for concealed "weapons"? I think that would be rather relevant, however I'm far too lazy to look up the information myself. I'll go call my credit card company and see if they know anything about it. . . then again maybe just their mailing headquarters are in Richmond, crap. . . oh well I may just have to look this up myself.

 

[Nasor]

Laws often assign overly narrow definitions to common words, but it's understood that the special definition only applies to that single law. Look up pretty much any law and you'll see phrasing like “No one is allowed to do X, where the above-mentioned X is defined as blah blah blah.”

They obviously just wanted to ban openly carrying assault weapons and shotguns. I don't think it's part of an effort to re-define what 'firearm' means.

 

[vslayer]

hmm... does that mean you would be able to rob someone with a gun and not be charged with armed robbery

 

[Nasor]

Uh...no. The strange definition of 'firearm' only applies to that specific law.

 

[Persol]

But I do agree that it is wrong to redefine a word for one law. It's a bit misleading. I can see puting an 'except as noted' clause in there and then saying that this and that is OK.