Your definition of "Secured" Glove box carry

[Brian Pfleuger]

Slight hijack, but this is the main reason that I always advise people NOT to store a handgun in the glovebox. There's almost always stuff in there that you'll need for a traffic stop, and even if you plan to inform the officer (where it's optional) NOT having to deal with reaching past a firearm to get to your registration/insurance/whatever will always be a good idea.

That's also the reason why I no longer keep my wallet in my right back pocket when I carry, the gun being at the 330 position... nervous this makes the police man.

 

[Uncle Buck]

He should have left the courts out of it. It was an ok stop and you alerted the officer. He should have used his discretion and recognized that you were not a threat. Having secured the firearm, he then should have returned it at the end of the stop and simply said "You may want to look into whether or not you can carry like that because I'm not sure if that is ok". End of story.

And if the headlines later read: Man Kills Neighbor While Trick or Treating
Officer Jim Friendly stop the suspect last night for a routine traffic stop and knew there was a loaded firearm in the car. Instead of arresting the individual, he told the suspect to "look into whether or not he could legally carry the gun in his glove box" because he was not sure if it was legal or not.

I do not fault this police officer for his actions. (Although I do question why a judge was contacted, if it went to trial, wouldn't he have to recuse himself?) He had a question, he had it answered, he acted based upon that answer.

I "caused" a pretty good accident while I was a police officer in the military. I used my discretion to not apprehend a couple of drunks. I figured I would just have them park their car and give them a ride back to the barracks. A few hours later they decided they would retrieve their car and on the way back to the barracks, ran in to the officers club... Literally. Lucky for me our Wing Commander just chewed my posterior.

Civilian police officers face the chance of lawsuits much more readily than us military police did. Sometimes the better part of discretion is to not take chances. I am glad this worked out for the OP.

 

[brickeyee]

The specific issue of a locked container did come up during the legislature session and having the law only refer to locked containers was rejected.

Virginia does not use 'legislative intent.'

Lawyer up, even though it is only a misdemeanor (the first timer).

 

[KyJim]

Slight hijack, but this is the main reason that I always advise people NOT to store a handgun in the glovebox.

In my state (Kentucky) a gun is not considered to be concealed if it is the glovebox but is if it is in any other enclosed area, like the center console storage area. If you have a CCL, it doesn't matter of course.

 

[youngunz4life]

just my gut, nothing else

I do not fault this police officer for his actions. (Although I do question why a judge was contacted, if it went to trial, wouldn't he have to recuse himself?) He had a question, he had it answered, he acted based upon that answer.

I have serious doubts a judge was contacted. It sounds like a 'spin' to me.

 

[alloy]

I'd want a lawyer, but if a glove compartment isn't an actual compartment....I don't know what is.
I'd think the glove compartment or console compartment is exactly what they are talking about, which is why a lawyer would make sense.
Maybe Henrico has it's own law.

As of July 1, 2010, a concealed handgun permit is not necessary when 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.

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

 

[youngunz4life]

not only that Alloy and to further my obvious opinion on this case which I admit is speculation:

this cop would've done something differently depending on the person he pulled over. I am not speaking about the obvious of if he pulled over the Chief's Dad as an example...I mean in the broader sense. I feel like he did a diservice to this person who was just trying be honest and go about his business in this busy life we live. Tie goes to the runner, and he needed to cut this guy loose if he had nothing on him. Otherwise, he needs to treat everyone exactly the same.

By the way, I agree with your post also.

now, people make mistakes and aren't perfect, I have to give the LE that. However, I am definately not buying it. OP did the right thing though(really had no choice) - just go to jail and then go to court//really nothing else he could or can do

 

[Justice06RR]

To the OP, that is very unfortunate that you got arrested for something that would seem legal - if it does not specifically say in the state statutes that the firearm has to be locked.

Lawyer up ASAP. That arrest will also go on your record so you might need to have the lawyer take care of that so if you are ruled to be improperly arrested, they can expunge it from your record. Good luck

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

-Magistrate released me because he said I wasnt doing anything wrong or illegal.
-I still have court for carrrying a concealed weapon

I'm confused by these two points. If you weren't doing anything wrong or illegal, then why do you still have "court"?

 

[youngunz4life]

yes Dr Starngelove, we def need an update.

...only been one post in his TFL career, but I am confident we can get another sometime sooner than later

 

[brickeyee]

Maybe Henrico has it's own law.

Under preemption they cannot.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 from acting within the scope of his duties.

The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.

C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.

(1987, c. 629, § 15.1-29.15; 1988, c. 392; 1997, cc. 550, 587; 2002, c. 484; 2003, c. 943; 2004, cc. 837, 923; 2009, cc. 735, 772.)

 

[Don P]

That's also the reason why I no longer keep my wallet in my right back pocket when I carry, the gun being at the 330 position... nervous this makes the police man.

Thats a big 10-4. A real good way to get youself shot.

 

[chack]

I'd file s complaint with the officer's supervisor. Secured can mean a velcro strap, it doesn't require a lock.

 

[Peteydoug]

I have court on the 10th for a pretrail, I am getting a court appointed lawyer ( Broke college student)
As for my defense, i've found this link explaining the word "Secured" from a case just like mine:
http://virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/Documents/secured_defined.PDF

And this is a response from a user on a different forum:

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.

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.exe?101+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.exe?101+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.exe?101+ful+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.exe?101+ful+HB885ER2

And the final act, as enacted and signed by the governor, using "secured":
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+ful+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."

More updates after my pretrail, thanks guys!

 

[alloy]

That's some good stuff right there.
If I can jam a handgun in between/amongst all the maps and papers in my glove box, and still close it....it's more secure than any foam lined gun case.
Good luck!

 

[youngunz4life]

good luck+thanx for the update. you're in good shape. when those guys talk and/or chat with you before the trial just be respectful but affirmative that you want this dropped. you'd be surprised how they can tell you they'll make it go away, yet you actually lose. let us know...tell judge you're in college if it goes that far

 

[brickeyee]

if a glove compartment isn't an actual compartment

The issue is what "secured" means.

Virginia does NOT USE legislative history.

A long time ago the VA Supreme ruled that only the text of the law AS PASSED would be considered.

It shows the Legislatures final decision, and if they wanted more conditions they would have included them.

It is an overall weakness in our state system.

 

[alloy]

The way I see it....in my glove compartment is secure.
It's also the only compartment inside my car, unless the door pockets are to be considered, large enough to hold a handgun....but they aren't secure.
What are you looking for?
It appears the judge may find that a glove compartment's use, is the very definition of secure that is possible as required, I can wait to see.

 

[brickeyee]

You would think with all the attorneys in both houses of the state legislature they would have defined the term in the law explicitly and clearly.

They all know very well the Virginia Supreme Court rejected 'legislative intent' a long time ago.

 

[johnbt]

If the laws are well defined the lawyers will go broke because there will be nothing to argue about. And what will the judges do without lawyers to entertain them, watch soap operas?

John