In Redd v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 256, 511 S.E.2d 436 (1999), the defendant, "a previously convicted felon, entered a convenience store and placed a 'long, black gun' on the counter." Id. at 258, 511 S.E.2d at 437. No gun was seized from Redd or produced at trial. See id. at 260, 511 S.E.2d at 438 (Benton, J., dissenting, on the ground that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the object placed on counter "had the actual ability to expel a projectile by the power of an explosion"). The Court found "the store clerk's description of the object Redd brandished and placed on the counter as 'a long black gun' was insufficient, standing alone, to prove that the object possessed the ability to expel a projectile by the power of an explosion,'" but affirmed the conviction because Redd's threat to kill the store clerk was an "implied assertion" of operability. Id. at 259, 511 S.E.2d at 438. Redd entered the convenience store and placed a "long black gun" on the counter. Id. at 258, 511 S.E.2d at 437. Redd ordered the clerk to give her the money in the cash register and warned "that she would kill the clerk if she set off the silent alarm." Id. The Court held: The store clerk's description of the object brandished by Redd as "a long black gun" is insufficient, alone, to prove that the object possessed the "ability to expel a projectile by the power of an explosion." However, Redd's threat, upon presenting the weapon, to kill the clerk was an implied assertion that the object was a functioning weapon, being in fact the firearm that it appeared to be and possessing the power to kill. This implied assertion, which was corroborated by the appearance of the object and was uncontradicted by any other evidence, was evidence sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the object was a firearm. Id. at 259, 511 S.E.2d at 438. In Redd, the act of placing the "long black gun" on the counter was, at best, an ambiguous gesture. It was not a clear assertion that the weapon was operable. The Court affirmed the conviction, holding: The store clerk's description of the object brandished by Redd as "a long black gun" is insufficient, alone, to prove that the object possessed the "ability to expel a projectile by the power of an explosion." However, Redd's threat, upon presenting the weapon, to kill the clerk was an implied assertion that the object was a functioning weapon, being in fact the firearm that it appeared to be and possessing the power to kill. This implied assertion, which was corroborated by the appearance of the object and was uncontradicted by any other evidence, was evidence sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the object was a firearm.