user
Accomplished Advocate
so I'll give you mine. No, I don't like the situation, and no, I'm not happy with the law as it is. It seems once again you have grossly miscalculated, this time, the number of people that think that the law in question needs changing. I understand that many times the legislative process is slow and stubborn, witness the meaning in that part of my phrase "we must be relentless.", and never believed that changing the law would have ever affected any part of Scouser's trial.
...
The problem is not necessarily how the statute is written, it's how the courts have "interpreted" the statute. If you read the statute, you'd get the idea that it's illegal to use a gun on someone "in such manner" as to make a reasonable person fear for his physical safety. But what Scouser was charged with and convicted on was mere possession of a firearm where a member of the public saw it and, reasonable or not, said "I felt fear". The plain text and meaning of the statute does not prohibit inadvertent display, but that's how it's being used, and how it was used in Scouser's case. It's not necessarily about getting the law changed, because as written, it's a bit redundant but not bad. That case was about inadvertent display, and the "road rage" comment was about the complaining witness, not Scouser (who was oblivious to the fact that the complainant was angry with him). I thought it was clear that this was a case of retaliation, and not any real concern about the firearm, and that point was made several times during each phase of the proceedings. But when the courts decide on the basis of mere possession and the presence of some bozo who'll testify, "I felt fear" at trial, and the appellate courts won't allow the case to be appealed, then we're all in danger. So my view is that if we can get the statute repealed entirely, that way there's nothing to "interpret".
Everybody's entitled to second-guess the legal strategy all they want. None of us likes the result. The evidence was squarely before the court at every level, and the courts decided on the basis of whether or not Henrico County likes people to openly carry guns. Arguing at this point that I could have "gotten Scouser off" by doing this or that is useless when the "interpretive process" used by the courts results in convictions that are contrary to the law and to the evidence. He was denied due process of law in my opinion, because that statute was "void for vagueness" as applied. The average person can't read that statute and have the faintest notion that what it's taken to mean is that if someone else sees that he has a gun and says, "I felt fear", that he's facing up to twelve months in jail and a $2500 fine. The Court of Appeals refused to hear it, and the Virginia Supreme Court refused to hear it. What it means is that if they can deny your rights under the Fourteenth Amendment then they can take away your rights under the Second.
Last edited: