Schaaf v. Commonwealth
1979 Va. LEXIS 277, 220 Va. 429, 258 S.E.2d 574 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Carrying a handgun in a modern handbag, hidden from common observation, constitutes carrying a concealed weapon "about his person" under Virginia Code § 18.2-308, as such a weapon is readily accessible for immediate use.
Facts:
- Frances Marie Schaaf arrived at the Henrico County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court to attend a hearing regarding child support.
- Near the courtroom entrance, a security scanner was set up, requiring individuals to walk through it.
- As Mrs. Schaaf passed through the scanner, a deputy sheriff operating the machine requested to inspect her handbag.
- Mrs. Schaaf complied, and as the officer began searching, she stated, “It’s in the bottom,” and then clarified, “I have a gun.”
- The weapon was a .25 automatic Titan handgun containing five rounds of ammunition in the clip and one bullet in the chamber.
- Mrs. Schaaf's handbag was described as a brown, zippered bag, and she did not possess a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
- Mrs. Schaaf expressed surprise at her arrest, stating that she was unaware it was against the law to carry the gun in her handbag.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances Marie Schaaf was charged with carrying a concealed weapon under Code § 18.2-308.
- Mrs. Schaaf was convicted in the General District Court of Henrico County.
- She appealed her conviction to the Circuit Court of Henrico County, where she was again convicted.
- Mrs. Schaaf, as appellant, appealed the Circuit Court's order to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does carrying a pistol in a modern zippered handbag, hidden from common observation, constitute carrying a concealed weapon "about his person" within the meaning of Virginia Code § 18.2-308?
Opinions:
Majority - Harrison, J.
Yes, carrying a pistol in a modern handbag, hidden from common observation, constitutes carrying a concealed weapon "about his person" under the statute. The Court affirmed Mrs. Schaaf's conviction, reinterpreting the 70-year-old precedent of Sutherland v. Commonwealth. While Sutherland held that a pistol in saddlebags carried in hand was not 'about the person' because it was not readily accessible, the Court found Sutherland to be outdated given modern handbags. The Court reasoned that a pistol in a modern handbag is not only near and about the carrier’s person and hidden but is also so accessible that it could be fired without removal. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent the immediate threat posed by concealed handguns and supports the permit requirement. The Court concluded that upholding Sutherland would judicially sanction widespread concealed carry, rendering the statute useless, and thus overruled Sutherland "to the extent that there may be a conflict" with this decision.
Dissenting - Compton, J.
No, carrying a pistol in a handbag does not fall within the spirit or letter of the statute prohibiting carrying a weapon "about his person." Justice Compton dissented, first, on the grounds of strict construction of penal statutes, arguing that the act must be clearly within the statute's language. He interpreted "about his person" to mean directly in touch with the body or clothing, so connected as to be readily handy, and not merely carried as a commodity in an item like a handbag. Second, he argued that the majority's decision amounted to judicial legislation by overruling Sutherland. He contended that Sutherland was indistinguishable from the present case and that the General Assembly had tacitly approved Sutherland's interpretation by reenacting the statute multiple times over 70 years without altering the pertinent language. Justice Compton believed any change in the law should come from the legislature, not the judiciary. Justice Carrico joined in the second part of the dissenting opinion.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its reinterpretation of a long-standing concealed weapon statute and its willingness to overrule a prior precedent to adapt the law to modern circumstances. The decision broadens the scope of what constitutes carrying a weapon "about his person," making it clear that readily accessible items like handbags fall under the prohibition. This demonstrates the judiciary's role in updating statutory interpretation to reflect contemporary societal dangers and technological advancements, even when it requires departing from stare decisis. It also highlights the tension between judicial reinterpretation and deference to legislative inaction, as argued by the dissent.
