Guns Worn In Open Legal, But Alarm Va. (WaPost)

[Smurfslayer]

The issue of self defense not lost...

WRT Champps - it is an ABC establishment, meaning Concealed carry is prohibited. Only Open carry is legal there. Patrons could have chosen to leave their guns in their respective vehicles, but did not.


On yet another forum, here this time, I raise the objection to confirmed, first-hand knowledge ANY person EVER in recent times being approached, contacted, consulted, questioned, detained or arrested for a breach of the peace in Virginia for the act of openly carrying a firearm (ONLY). It simply doesn't happen that I can find out about(excepting events mentioned herein). It certainly won't now because whatever officer did it would be getting much less of a cost of living raise for their current review period. Not to mention the probable lack of promotability.

WRT the last post about verifying that these open carriers are lawful gun owners.... I don't like to (generally) answer a question with a question, but in this case I will.

How do the officers propose to not violate the Constitution of Virginia in unlawfully detaining a person who is open carrying a firearm?

see:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvtx/1991417.txt
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvtx/1011407.txt
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvtx/1022168.txt
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/0090041.txt
and let's not forget:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvtx/1031867.txt

The quote "anything more...than questioning / id check is harassment" is not quite true. Even that is unlawful, absent some other mitigating factor.
911 call? Sure the officer has to respond, but absent some criminal, or reasonably suspected criminal behavior, what justification can there be for contact other than the typical contact I have with Fairfax officers when open carrying - "Hi, how are you doing?"

I'm trying to get across here - fair is fair - every citizen is held to the standard of being responsible to know all laws and interpretation, but the law enforcement officers somehow are able to get by with the equivalent of "My Bad" ???

 

[Quartus]

How do you propose to verify that the ones with the guns are indeed lawful gun owners without ID'ing them? How are the officers to document who they dealt with without getting ID? Are the officers supposed to be mindreaders now?

No need to be mind readers. Constitution readers would suffice. "Probable cause". A 911 call from a hysterical idiot is not probable cause. Yes, it's cause to respond. No, it's not cause to do anything more than look in, see several armed citizens, and tell the aforementioned hysterical idiot that there is no crime being committed. No "contact" with the armed citizens is needed. No IDing them because they MIGHT be carrying unlawfully can be justified under the Constitution.

I do my best to uphold stereotypes of Southerners by owning lots and lots of guns and by being (as KSFreeman can attest) hilariously inept with chopsticks...

So, does that mean I have to forget how to use chopsticks now that I live in Virginia?

 

[mvpel]

Under Terry, even "reasonable suspicion" would suffice.

It's the "mere suspicion," aka "hunch," that doesn't cut it.

 

[tc556guy]

"No need to be mind readers. Constitution readers would suffice. "Probable cause". A 911 call from a hysterical idiot is not probable cause. Yes, it's cause to respond. No, it's not cause to do anything more than look in, see several armed citizens, and tell the aforementioned hysterical idiot that there is no crime being committed. No "contact" with the armed citizens is needed. No IDing them because they MIGHT be carrying unlawfully can be justified under the Constitution."

And we just went through this issue on another board. Your comment fails to take into account that a legitimate complaint has been received by the police regarding people carrying firearms. The complaint needs to be investigated to determine if a crime is/has been committed. You expect the oficers to, for some unknown reason, just assume that the guys possessing the guns are doing so legally.Well, actually, your reasons are not unknown...you want them to assume that because you are a gun person and somewhat biased in that regard in incidents of this sort.

You also ignore the need of the officers to identify in their written report the individuals involved in the complaint they have investigated.What good does it do to say in a report " yeah, went to location, saw individuals with guns, but since I didn't see a crime in progress, I assumed that they were law abiding people and no, I didn't bother to get their names and pedigree information, so I don't even know who they are". Thats the sort of report you are expecting with the response you made above.Problem is, thats not the sort of report that any agency would accept.

 

[Tamara]

tcsd1236,

How do you propose to verify that the ones with the guns are indeed lawful gun owners without ID'ing them?

The problem being that, under the legal circumstances, calling in a man in Virginia for carrying a gun is like calling in a man for wearing a green shirt. Neither is a crime. How does one know that the man in the green shirt is not a prison escapee? Or that the woman pushing the baby carriage isn't wanted for shoplifting in Utah? Or that the guy walking across the grocery store parking lot doesn't... well... you get the picture. Do we check the ID of everybody going about their daily routine?

Getting a call from a hyperventilating Ben & Jerry's stockholder about somebody carrying a gun in a place where it is perfectly legal for them to be doing so should result in the dispatcher asking the high-strung patchouli huffer if the person in question is actually doing anything wrong, and if the response is negative, the dispatcher should give a brief lecture on wasting the taxpayers money by making spurious 911 calls, followed by a transfer of the call to Mr. Dial Tone.

 

[Quartus]

Your comment fails to take into account that a legitimate complaint has been received by the police regarding people carrying firearms.

No it didn't. I mentioned that they needed to respond to the 911 call.

The complaint needs to be investigated to determine if a crime is/has been committed.

Yep. No problem. Upon arriving, it could be clearly seen that there were some people sitting having lunch, not obviously violating any law. Speak to caller, determine that caller is unaware of Virginia law. Inform caller of law. Done.

You expect the oficers to, for some unknown reason, just assume that the guys possessing the guns are doing so legally.

No, not for some unknown reason. Because that's what our Constitution requires them to do. Absent any evidence of a crime, they are to assume that no crime has been committed. An idiot calling 911 is not evidence of a crime.

Well, actually, your reasons are not unknown...you want them to assume that because you are a gun person and somewhat biased in that regard in incidents of this sort.

I'm biased in favor of the founding principles of this country. It's called "liberty". If they were standing handing out Hare Krisha literature my reaction would be the same.

You also ignore the need of the officers to identify in their written report the individuals involved in the complaint they have investigated.

Yes, I do, because that is THEIR problem. THEIR little administrative difficulty does not override the right of law abiding citizens to be left alone by the police.

What good does it do to say in a report " yeah, went to location, saw individuals with guns, but since I didn't see a crime in progress, I assumed that they were law abiding people and no, I didn't bother to get their names and pedigree information, so I don't even know who they are".

What good would it do? It would honor the blood of the patriots who died to give us the freedom that our current SCOTUS is slowly taking away. It would honor the principles on which this country was founded. It would recognize the right of citizens to be LEFT ALONE when they are not doing anything that even LOOKS like breaking a law.


Sounds pretty good to me.

Thats the sort of report you are expecting with the response you made above.

Yep. That's exactly what I'm expecting.

Problem is, thats not the sort of report that any agency would accept.

That's the agency's problem. Again, it doesn't trump the right of citizens to be left alone. Just like when the butler has to wait up late for the master to get home - being inconvenienced by the boss is part of the job.

The problem is we as a country are forgetting who the boss is.

It's not the guy with the badge.

 

[Real Gun]

the freedom that our current SCOTUS is slowly taking away

You make excellent points. I would just like to comment that our freedoms are threatened by many more forces than the SCOTUS, which wouldn't be so involved without outrageous bills coming out of Congress. I would have to agree that the SCOTUS or the entire Federal Court system's ducking of gun issues is a major flaw in due process.

All of this is why the upcoming election is more about Congress, especially the Senate, while the White House would be best left alone, i.e. supported for four more years. Should there be any SCOTUS appointments necessary, I would rather have them come from Bush. Imagine the alternative.

I think open carry in VA is a good civics lesson for everyone. Being too concerned about the psychology of it is short sighted in my opinion. Raising the profile of the RKBA and the right of self defense is exactly what is needed.

Would I open carry? Probably not, certainly not routinely or to make a statement, but I would welcome the fact that unintentional failure to conceal would not be a misdemeanor. I would also welcome occasions when packing would not control how I dress, contrary to my preferences at the time. Concealment should be a personal choice, not mandated. That will mean that observing open carry is definitely a possibility, and that one should not then conclude that the sky is falling. If there was a good reason why LEOs should conceal, then I would be willing to discuss the issue. Until then, I want to be and remain a first class citizen.

 

[dev_null]

Your comment fails to take into account that a legitimate complaint has been received by the police regarding people carrying firearms. The complaint needs to be investigated to determine if a crime is/has been committed.

As my fellow Virginian Quartus has so eloquently pointed out, "investigate" <> "body slam/cuff/detain/confiscate." Investigate under these circumstances means "determine that no law is being broken." What's hard to understand here?

- 0 -

 

[mvpel]

Investigation

In my case in Manchester, NH, based on the dispatch audio a full FORTY-THREE seconds elapsed between their call to the dispatcher that they were "still lookin'" for me in the store, to the time they reported "we got him" - having come up behind me while I was standing there browsing a book, grabbed me, and instructed me to put my hands on my head.

Some "investigation" there, eh? Compare that to "10-12 minutes" in Terry v. Ohio.

 

[tc556guy]

"Yep. No problem. Upon arriving, it could be clearly seen that there were some people sitting having lunch, not obviously violating any law. Speak to caller, determine that caller is unaware of Virginia law. Inform caller of law. Done."
No, you have a man with a gun. You have no idea if that man is possessing that gun legally until you ID him, check him for wants/ warrants/ prohibited status, etc.

"No, not for some unknown reason. Because that's what our Constitution requires them to do. Absent any evidence of a crime, they are to assume that no crime has been committed. An idiot calling 911 is not evidence of a crime."

Uh, nope. Thats not how it happens. Assuming, as the saying goes, makes an ass out of you and me. Assume nothing, verify everything.......nor does the Constitution require that on the street, as you claim.The Constitution requires that a presumption of inncence is granted...in court. This was not in court.

"The problem being that, under the legal circumstances, calling in a man in Virginia for carrying a gun is like calling in a man for wearing a green shirt. Neither is a crime"

I have been in Virginia...while open carry may be on the books, it is practiced so infrequently that it is still an activity that is likely to cause public annoyance, alarm and calls to LEO's, no matter how much gunnies may see it as some form of normal, daily activity.

The fact remains that the complaint needed to be investigated, which required that MV Pel be detained, rendered unarmed in the interest of officer and public safety, and the facts surrounding his being armed determined....then documented in a police report, which requires that the agency identify who he is by the usual pedigree information....none of which could have been done by simply standing back and simply observing him.Otherwise, you HAVE no information on the casde, other than a decscription of the person,and that is inadequate.

 

[mvpel]

No, you have a man with a gun. You have no idea if that man is possessing that gun legally until you ID him, check him for wants/ warrants/ prohibited status, etc.

Yes, you have "no idea," but if you also have no "reasonable suspicion," as required in Terry, that he might have wants/warrants/prohibited status, you have no basis on which to forcibly or otherwise detain him in order to ID him and check for wants/warrants/prohibited status, etc.

In Florida v. J.L., the Supreme Court decided that an anonymous call providing nothing more than an accurate description of the person in question, with no "indication of illegality," was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. They also declined to establish a "firearm exemption" to the Terry doctrine.

 

[mvpel]

In related news, this time from Romania...

Topless elderly ladies scare people on the Black Sea beaches

Romanian police are going to ban ladies over 60 years old to sunbathe at beaches topless. The police states that this "ugly show" distracts tourists.

The police in Constanta County famous with its sand beaches on the Black Sea coast, constantly receives complaints from people having holidays, about elderly ladies who demonstrate their wrinkled breasts to people while sunbathing, with no shame.

"Sunbathing topless has its age restrictions, and elderly ladies ought to understand this", said Chief of local police Victor Polesku. The policemen patrolling beaches say they are sick and tired of the busts of elderly females who filled the beaches.

"It is always pleasant to see young women sunbathing topless, provided that the women are attractive. But ironically, mainly elderly ladies sunbathe topless. This looks disgusting", says officer Ionut Polesku patrolling the beach in Constanta.

 

[Tamara]

tcsd1236,

I have been in Virginia...while open carry may be on the books, it is practiced so infrequently that it is still an activity that is likely to cause public annoyance, alarm and calls to LEO's, no matter how much gunnies may see it as some form of normal, daily activity.

Carrying a gun openly may be unusual, but it is legal, much like actually driving 55 in a 55 zone, and neither should, by themselves, be grounds for scrutineering by the heat no matter what howls of protest they draw from the legal illiterati.

 

[Quartus]

tcsd, I'm not trying to be insulting here, but please do us all a favor - learn to use the quote function. It makes things much easier. If you are using IE, all you have to do is highlight the text and hit the quote button. Alas, on this version of vBulletin, that is disguised as a text box thingy. It's on the right of the row of formatting tools. (I love vBulletin, but this version took a giant step backwards in user friendliness!)

Okay, back to the discussion.


"Yep. No problem. Upon arriving, it could be clearly seen that there were some people sitting having lunch, not obviously violating any law. Speak to caller, determine that caller is unaware of Virginia law. Inform caller of law. Done."

No, you have a man with a gun.

Yep. Perfectly legal, too. Just like if you had gotten a call about a man with a shirt. Or a man sitting down. Or a man with a briefcase. (OH! He might have a bomb!) The legal difference is ZERO.

You have no idea if that man is possessing that gun legally until you ID him, check him for wants/ warrants/ prohibited status, etc.

You don't NEED an idea that "that man is possessing that gun legally". What you NEED (i.e., what is legally required of you) before you take any action is a "reasonable suspicion" that he is NOT possessing the gun legally.

Simply the fact that is is unusual or that you don't like it does not change the legality of it. Nor does being unusual or disliked provide "reasonable suspicion". Absent any reason to believe that he is possessing the gun illegally, the presumption is that he is possessing the gun legally.


"No, not for some unknown reason. Because that's what our Constitution requires them to do. Absent any evidence of a crime, they are to assume that no crime has been committed. An idiot calling 911 is not evidence of a crime."

Uh, nope. Thats not how it happens.

I know that's not how that happens. That's the problem we're discussing - it doesn't happen according to the principles on which this country was founded.

Why is it that every time we one of these discussions that a LEO will point out that "that's not how it happens" as if that makes some kind of point?

Assuming, as the saying goes, makes an ass out of you and me. Assume nothing, verify everything.......

Only when you have the legal right to do so. Sorry, you don't get to put your safety above the rights of citizens.

nor does the Constitution require that on the street, as you claim.The Constitution requires that a presumption of inncence is granted...in court. This was not in court.

Check the 4th Amendment. That applies on the street. More importantly the principle of presumption of innocence applies everywhere. It is one of the foundation blocks of liberty.


"The problem being that, under the legal circumstances, calling in a man in Virginia for carrying a gun is like calling in a man for wearing a green shirt. Neither is a crime"

I have been in Virginia...while open carry may be on the books, it is practiced so infrequently that it is still an activity that is likely to cause public annoyance, alarm and calls to LEO's, no matter how much gunnies may see it as some form of normal, daily activity.

That doesn't make it a crime. That doesn't even make it suspicious.

The fact remains that the complaint needed to be investigated,

That isn't a fact, that's your assertion, which you cannot support from the Constitution.

which required that MV Pel be detained, rendered unarmed in the interest of officer and public safety, and the facts surrounding his being armed determined....then documented in a police report, which requires that the agency identify who he is by the usual pedigree information....none of which could have been done by simply standing back and simply observing him.

None of which was required. Yes, I know it's normal police procedure. Again, that's the problem.

Otherwise, you HAVE no information on the casde, other than a decscription of the person,and that is inadequate.

The only thing that was required was for the officers to determine if there was a reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place. Since a simple glance at the situation would confirm that there was none, no further action was justified. Idiots calling the police do NOT make a "case".

Let me ask you, tcsd, what you think the cops should have done when my neighbor (le'ts call him Joe) called 911 to complain about me parking in front of Joe's house? Should the cops have IDd me? Should they have questioned me? They didn't. All they did was to listen to the complaint and inform Joe that a public street was just that - public, and that there was no crime in someone parking in front of Joe's house. Wow! They didn't have a complete report! They didn't get my name!

Oh, that's different because there was no gun involved?

No, it's not different. Just because the caller was annoyed instead of foolishly afraid doesn't change the legal situation. In both cases police were called to investigate a report of a crime, and when they got there, found no reason to believe a crime was being committed.

 

[Quartus]

mvpel, I get your point, but really, I could have lived without that mental picture, thank you very much!

 

[alan]

tcsd1236:

A good part of this discussion seems to revolve around open carry in Virginia, where same is entirely legal, unless the law has been quite recently changed. You, or others may find this situation "offensive" in some way, which is your privilege of course. However, your sensibilities having been offended does not constitute PROBABLE CAUSE, particularly when we are talking about people sitting about in a place of public accomodatioin, in this case, a resturant or eating place of sorts, quietly having something to eat or drink.

Many years ago, when I lived for a time in Hopewell VA, I walked into a diner type place one Saturday afternoon, desirous of something to eat and a coffee, perhaps a bottle of beer. Anyhow, I sat at the counter, a stool away from an armed gentleman. He carried a small pistol in an open, belt holster.

Speaking for myself, I suppose you could describe me as "a gun person", however given that the pistol was holstered, I felt neither threatened nor troubled in the least. Any number of others in the place might have noticed that this gentleman was armed, however in-so-far as I recall, they seemed unpreturbed too. In any case, it seemed, since no police showed up, that everyone had behaved sensibly and calmly. Nobody got panicky, and General Quarters was not sounded.

If the police had showed up, for whatever reason, film plots aside, where the Bad Guy, all by himself, has everyone "covered", frightened into acting perfectly normal, and calm, the police, as I see it, would have had no reason whatever to question anyone whose sidearm was holstered.

I've lived a fairly long, relatively unsheltered life to date, and perhaps I've become desensitized to certain nuances. Of course, it is also possible that some people might be overly sensitive.

 

[Real Gun]

desirous of something to eat and a coffee, perhaps a bottle of beer. - alan

Well, if having a beer was an option in that place, it would be a different story, wouldn't it? Was there a distinction at that time between "nice restaurants" and "bars/taverns"? Mentioning alcohol complicates the issue.

 

[Tamara]

Real Gun,

Well, if having a beer was an option in that place, it would be a different story, wouldn't it? Was there a distinction at that time between "nice restaurants" and "bars/taverns"? Mentioning alcohol complicates the issue.

IIRC, in VA one may not CCW into an establishment that serves alcohol, such as an Applebee's, but one may open carry, so long as one does not sit in the bar area.

 

[Bushwhack-Bob]

The officers were "extremely polite"

Well if no one else is going to say it....."an armed society is a polite society."

 

[TallPine]

tcsd1236, thank you for confirming our worst fears about the police