Schaaf v. Commonwealth

258 S.E.2d 574, 220 Va. 429, 1979 Va. LEXIS 277
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedOctober 5, 1979
DocketRecord 781622
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 258 S.E.2d 574 (Schaaf v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schaaf v. Commonwealth, 258 S.E.2d 574, 220 Va. 429, 1979 Va. LEXIS 277 (Va. 1979).

Opinions

HARRISON, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves Code § 18.2-308, which provides, in part, that “if any person carry about his person, hid from common observation, any pistol, ... he shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor, . . .”

[430]*430On March 20, 1978, Mrs. Frances Marie Schaaf appeared at the Henrico County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court to attend a hearing on a petition for an increase in the amount that her husband should pay for the support of their children. Near the entrance to the courtroom is the court’s security scanner. This machine is designed to detect certain grades of metal, and those who have business before the court are required to walk through the device before entering the courtroom. As Mrs. Schaaf went through, a deputy sheriff assigned to operate the scanner asked to see her handbag. Mrs. Schaaf complied with the request, and when the officer opened the handbag and began a search, Mrs. Schaaf stated, “It’s in the bottom.” When asked what was in the bottom, Mrs. Schaaf replied, “I have a gun.”

The defendant’s gun was a .25 automatic Titan handgun with five rounds of ammunition in the clip and one bullet in the chamber. The handbag was described as “a brown, zippered handbag, the zipper being at the top.” The officer testified that Mrs. Schaaf expressed surprise at her arrest and stated that she did not know that it was against the law to carry the gun in her handbag. She did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and was convicted in the General District Court of Henrico County and, upon appeal, in the circuit court of the county.1 Relying upon Sutherland’s Case, 109 Va. 834, 65 S.E. 15 (1909), Mrs. Schaaf seeks a reversal of the order of the court below imposing upon her a fine of $35.

Virginia’s concealed weapon statute has remained essentially unchanged for a period of seventy years. The relevant words of the statute are “if any person carry about his person, hid from common observation, any pistol. . . .” The defendant in Sutherland “placed a pistol, encased in its scabbard, in a pair of saddle-bags, pulled the lids of the saddle-bags down, hiding the pistol from view, and carried the saddle-bags in his hand down the road. . . .” 109 Va. at 834-35, 65 S.E. at 15. The court, in reversing the defendant’s conviction, said:

The purpose of the statute was to interdict the practice of carrying a deadly weapon about the person, concealed, and yet so accessible as to afford prompt and immediate use. “About the person” must mean that it is so connected with the person as to be readily accessible for use or surprise if desired. A pistol in a [431]*431scabbard and in a pair of saddle-bags with the lids down, though the saddle-bags be in the hand, does not fall within the language of the statute,.. .

109 Va. at 835-36, 65 S.E. at 15.

Although there are obvious differences between the accessibility of a gun in a lady’s handbag and a gun encased in a scabbard2 and carried in a saddlebag3 with the lid down, our holding in Sutherland is strong precedent supporting the position of the defendant. However, Sutherland was decided seventy years ago, and it is doubtful that this court in 1909 envisioned the modern day handbag commonly used by most women and by some men.

Handbags are made in various sizes, colors and styles, and some are designed to carry a great number of articles deemed necessary or convenient by the carrier. The bags are often supported by shoulder straps and are easily opened and closed by devices such as zippers, buckles or stays. A pistol carried in such a bag is not only near and about the carrier’s person, hidden from common observation, but in some handbags it is so accessible that it could be fired without being removed therefrom. “[I]t is so connected with the person as to be readily accessible for use or surprise if desired. . . .” Sutherland, supra, 109 Va. at 835, 65 S.E. at 15.

A gun in a saddlebag, although not readily accessible, did provide a measure of protection to a horseman traveling primarily in rural areas. It did not pose a serious and immediate threat to others. A gun in a shoulder bag or a large handbag is accessible and could pose a major problem and danger to the general public. Each day in this country thousands of homicides, assaults and robberies are perpetrated by the use of handguns. This knowledge prompted the General Assembly of Virginia to deny to all but a few officials permission to carry a concealed weapon, and to require all others who desire such permission to make written application and submit satisfactory proof of good character and necessity to the circuit court. The legislature also limited to one year the time such a permit could be granted by the court. Code § 18.2-308.

[432]*432A reversal of defendant’s conviction would in effect judicially sanction the carrying of a concealed weapon by all persons, male and female, who own a shoulder bag or a handbag. It would render useless the statute now requiring that permission be first obtained from the court by anyone who desires to carry a concealed weapon.

Respect for and adherence to the rule of stare decisis does not require such a course of action on our part. While Sutherland can be distinguished from this case on the facts, to the extent that there may b‘e á conflict Sutherland is overruled.

Our decision accords with the rule of a majority of jurisdictions that have addressed the issue. They hold that the carrying of a weapon in a handbag or other similar article, held in the hand or placed under the arm, constitutes concealment of a weapon on or about the person. See 79 Am.Jur.2d Weapons and Firearms § 11 (1975); Annot., 43 A.L.R.2d 492, 534 (1955); 94 C.J.S. Weapons § 8 (1956).

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jenmall Donte Simmons v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Morgan v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Virginia, 2022
Myers v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Virginia, 2021
Dorain Jerod Myers v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2019
People v. Wade
California Court of Appeal, 2015
Elias P. Doulgerakis v. Commonwealth of Virginia
737 S.E.2d 40 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2013)
Bernard Lamont Ruth v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2011
Hunter v. Commonwealth
690 S.E.2d 792 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2010)
McMillan v. Commonwealth
686 S.E.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2009)
United States v. Masciandaro
648 F. Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Virginia, 2009)
Pruitt v. Com.
650 S.E.2d 684 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2007)
Ohin v. Commonwealth
622 S.E.2d 784 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2005)
Richard D. Weatherford v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2005
James Junior Fountain v. Commonwealth of VA
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2002
United States v. Atkins
16 F. App'x 145 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Dwayne Lavere Barley, a/k/a v. Commonwealth of VA
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2000
Samuel H. Kingrey, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1999
Rommel Castro Eleccion v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1996
Main v. Commonwealth
450 S.E.2d 772 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 S.E.2d 574, 220 Va. 429, 1979 Va. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaaf-v-commonwealth-va-1979.