OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CRIMES AND OFFENSES GENERALLY: CRIMES INVOLVING HEALTH AND SAFETY - OTHER ILLEGAL WEAPONS. Federally licensed collectors of curios or relics are exempt from Virginia's one handgun per month purchase restriction when acquiring or disposing of curio and relic handguns among other firearms importers, collectors, manufacturers or dealers. Commonwealth has no inherent power to enforce its laws beyond its territorial boundaries. Licensed collector would not violate purchase restriction if, within 30-day period, such collector purchases one handgun in Commonwealth and also purchases by mail "relic handgun" from federally licensed dealer located outside Commonwealth, or purchases more than one handgun while traveling outside Commonwealth and returns to Commonwealth with such handguns. The Honorable Neil S. Vener Commonwealth's Attorney for Campbell County December 12, 1997 You ask whether a person who possesses a federal license as a firearms collector of curios or relics [footnote 1] ("licensed collector") is subject to the one handgun a month purchase restriction in section 18.2308.2:2(Q) of the Code of Virginia when engaging in the acquisition or disposal of curio and relic handguns with other firearms importers, collectors, manufacturers or dealers. In your written opinion, [footnote 2] you conclude that licensed collectors are exempt from the one handgun per month purchase restriction of section 18.2308.2:2(Q) when engaging in the acquisition or disposal of curio and relic handguns with other firearms importers, collectors, manufacturers or dealers. You believe that section 18.2308.2:2(I) is in conflict with section 18.2308.2:2(Q). You observe that since the exceptions contained in section 18.2308.2:2(I) and (Q) appear to be in conflict, and because section 18.2308.2:2 is penal in nature, [footnote 3] any ambiguity or reasonable doubt as to its meaning must be resolved against the Commonwealth. Section 18.2308.2:2(Q) provides that it is "unlawful for any person who is not a licensed firearms dealer to purchase more than one handgun within any thirty-day period." Section 18.2308.2:2(I), however, provides that the provisions section 18.2308.2:2 "shall not apply to (i) transactions between persons who are licensed as firearms importers or collectors, manufacturers or dealers pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 921 et seq." Applicable federal statutes separately define and regulate licensed importers, collectors, manufacturers and dealers. "The term 'importer' means any person engaged in the business of importing or bringing firearms or ammunition into the United States for purposes of sale or distribution." [footnote 4] "The term 'manufacturer' means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution." [footnote 5] "The term 'dealer' means (A)any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B)any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C)any person who is a pawnbroker." [footnote 6] Finally, "[t]he term 'collector' means any person who acquires, holds, or disposes of firearms as curios or relics, as the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall by regulation define." [footnote 7] There are several well-settled principles of statutory construction that must be considered in responding to your inquiry. The first is that "[i]f the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, and its meaning perfectly clear and definite, effect must be given to it." [footnote 8] It is unnecessary to resort to any rules of statutory construction when the language of a statute is unambiguous. [footnote 9] In such a situation, the statute's plain meaning and intent govern. Next, the "mention of a specific item in a statute implies that omitted items were not intended to be included within the scope of the statute." [footnote 10] It is clear that the collection of curios or relics has been omitted from both the definition of "antique firearm" [footnote 11] and the exemption to the prohibition in section 18.2308.2:2(Q). [footnote 12] Thus, collectors of curios or relics are not generally exempted from the prohibition restricting the purchase of more than one such weapon within a thirty-day period. However, if a collector of curios or relics is licensed as such pursuant to the federal statute, the exception to all provisions of section 18.2308.2:2, including the "one gun a month" rule contained in subsection I, would apply to transactions with firearms importers, collectors, manufacturers or dealers. Therefore, I am of the opinion that a federally licensed collector is not subject to the one handgun a month purchase restriction in section 18.2308.2:2(Q) when acquiring or disposing of curio and relic handguns among other federally licensed firearms importers, collectors, manufacturers or dealers. You also ask whether a licensed collector would violate section 18.2308.2:2(Q) should the collector, within a thirty-day period, purchase one handgun in the Commonwealth and also purchase by mail a "relic handgun" from a federally licensed dealer located outside the Commonwealth, or purchase more than one handgun while traveling outside the Commonwealth and return to the Commonwealth with such handguns. It is a firmly established principle that "the law of one state has no extraterritorial effect in another state." [footnote 13] It is equally well recognized that penal statutes "are strictly territorial, and cannot be enforced in any [state] other than that in which they originated." [footnote 14] "[T]he courts of one [state] will not enforce the penal laws of another." [footnote 15] A New Jersey court has held that "one sovereign cannot impose punishment within the territory of another," nor can one sovereign "be compelled to impose punishment within its own territory on behalf of [another]." [footnote 16] These recognized limitations on extraterritorial jurisdiction make it clear that the Commonwealth has no inherent power to require enforcement of its laws beyond its territorial boundaries. It is my opinion, therefore, that a licensed collector would not violate section 18.2308.2:2(Q) if, within a thirty-day period, such collector purchases one handgun in the Commonwealth and also purchases by mail a "relic handgun" from a federally licensed dealer located outside the Commonwealth, or purchases more than one handgun from a federally licensed dealer while traveling outside the Commonwealth and returns to the Commonwealth with such handguns. FOOTNOTES 1. Federal law provides for the licensing of collectors of curios and relics: "Any person desiring to be licensed as a collector shall file an application for such license with the Secretary [of the Treasury]. The application shall be in such form and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe. The fee for such license shall be $10 per year. Any license granted under this subsection shall only apply to transactions in curios and relics." 18sectionU.S.C.A. section 923(b) (West Supp. 1997). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has developed regulations for the issuance of a license to collectors of curios or relics. See 27 C.F.R. ch. I, pt. 178 (1997). 2. Any request by a Commonwealth's attorney for an opinion from the Attorney General "shall itself be in the form of an opinion embodying a precise statement of all facts together with such attorney's legal conclusions." Section 2.1118. 3. Section 18.2308.2:2 punishes violators with misdemeanor and felony convictions. 4. 18 U.S.C.A. section 921(a)(9) (West 1976). 5. Section 921(a)(10) (West Supp. 1997). 6. Section 921(a)(11) (West Supp. 1997). 7. Section 921(a)(13) (West Supp. 1997). 8. Temple v. City of Petersburg, 182 Va. 418, 423, 29 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1944); see also 1993 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 256, 257. 9. See Ambrogi v. Koontz, 224 Va. 381, 386, 297 S.E.2d 660, 662 (1982); 1993 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 99, 100. 10. Turner v. Wexler, 244 Va. 124, 127, 418 S.E.2d 886, 887 (1992); see Christiansburg v. Montgomery County, 216 Va. 654, 658, 222 S.E.2d 513, 516 (1976) ("Expressio unius est exclusio alterius."); see also 1992 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 145, 146. 11. Section 18.2308.2:2(G); see also 27 C.F.R. 178.11, supra note 1 (separately defining terms "antique firearm" and "curios or relics"). 12. See, e.g., 18.2308.2:2(Q)(2)(e). 13. 16 AM.JUR.2D Conflict of Laws 7, at 18 (1979). 14. Samuels' Case, 110 Va. 901, 903-04, 66 S.E. 222, 223 (1909). 15. James-Dickinson Co. v. Harry, 273 U.S. 119, 125 (1927) (distinguishing enforcement of civil liability arising under law of another state). 16. Application of Marino, 23 N.J.Misc. 159, 165, 42 A.2d 469, 472 (1945).