Present: All the Justices
SAMUEL L. FARNSWORTH
v. Record No. 042158 PER CURIAM
June 9, 2005
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
In this appeal, we review a judgment of the Court of
Appeals of Virginia affirming a circuit court judgment
convicting Samuel L. Farnsworth of knowingly and
intentionally possessing a firearm after being convicted of
a felony in the Commonwealth or in any other state, in
violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. Farnsworth v.
Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 490, 599 S.E.2d 482 (2004).
Farnsworth had been previously convicted of a felony, armed
robbery, in West Virginia in 1979. Upon completing his
sentence in 1985, he received a document from the West
Virginia Department of Corrections stating, “Any and all
civil rights heretofore forfeited are restored. DONE this
the 18th day of April, 1985.” The issue on appeal is
whether Farnsworth’s possession of a firearm in Virginia
violated Code § 18.2-308.2 even though the state of West
Virginia had restored his civil rights.
The Court of Appeals held that Code § 18.2-308.2 is
“plain and unambiguous and clearly manifests the
legislature’s intent to prohibit those who have been
convicted of a felony under the law of, inter alia, any
state in the United States, including West Virginia, from
possessing a firearm in Virginia.” Id. at 497, 599 S.E.2d
at 486. The provisions of Code § 18.2-308.2 set forth two
exemptions that allow a convicted felon to lawfully possess
a firearm in Virginia. The first exemption applies to
“ ‘any’ felon who has had his ‘political disabilities’
removed by the Governor ‘pursuant to Article V, Section 12
of the Virginia Constitution.’ ” Id. at 498, 599 S.E.2d at
486; Code § 18.2-308.2(B)(iii). The second exemption
allows “ ‘any’ felon whose ‘civil rights have been restored
by the Governor or other appropriate authority’ ” to
petition the circuit court of the jurisdiction where the
felon resides for a permit to possess a firearm.
Farnsworth, 43 Va. App. at 498, 599 S.E.2d at 486; Code
§ 18.2-308.2(C). The Court of Appeals found that
“Farnsworth did not obtain relief under either of these
statutory exemptions.” Farnsworth, 43 Va. App. at 498, 599
S.E.2d at 486.
For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court
of Appeals, we will affirm that court’s judgment.
Affirmed.