A friend and I had legally carried firearms confiscated tonight


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

The Undertoad
June 15, 2004, 12:39 AM
I went to the NRA range tonight with a friend from school, but it was closed. Afterwards, we decided to open carry (legally) to Starbucks and get some coffee. This was apparently a very bad idea. We had been sitting and drinking our coffee for about 10 minutes when an officer approached and asked what we were doing, and if we could come with him.

Long story short, the two of us were disarmed and asked to sit in the parking lot. 7 squad cars surrounded us and we were left there for an hour while they tried to determine the legality of our actions. They eventually cited us on a state law, Class 1 Misdemeanor. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/leg...+cod+18.2-287.4 They asked to search my car but I politely refused on constitutional grounds. They didn't press the issue.

Unfortunately, the law referenced refers specifically to high-capacity "assault" weapons only. Will was carrying a Glock and I had a Walther P22 (not a carry weapon I know, as I said we were coming from the range)...My weapon is a RIMFIRE, not a centerfire as the law specified. And the Glock is not carrying a highcap mag and doesn't have a threaded barrel so I think Will is safe.

So I think I have a strong case in my defense given the wording of the law, but I still have a court date next month. And I still had to wake up my dad and tell him, and he was not happy. I graduate in less than a year and want to be a LEO, so I really want to be found not guilty (and, I want my weapon back!) Do I need to hire a lawyer? I'm a college kid, I have $75 to my name right now. I'm sure my parents would loan me the money for a lawyer if I really needed it, but it'd be rough.

So I think that Will and I are both safe (did I mention that we are the President and Vice President of the newly-formed-by-us shooting club at my college?)

So....do you think we need lawyers? Know any pro-gun lawyers that would work pro-bono? I already emailed the VCDL of which I am a member, and Will is going to contact the NRA tomorrow. This seems to be a pretty clear cut case of the officers misinterpreting the law, at least to us. They were all very professional and polite, we even spoke to two or three of them about guns and shooting and 2A. One officer told me that open carry was dumb because people who didn't know any better would call the cops and we'd have to sit through this inconvenient mess. Another expounded on the tactical virtues of CCW compared to open carry. They seemed like really good guys.

It's just been a pretty crappy night. :cuss:

Oh, also, I want my gun back. When should I expect to get it if I win in court?

If you enjoyed reading about "A friend and I had legally carried firearms confiscated tonight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mattx109
June 15, 2004, 12:57 AM
The link above seems not to be working. For any who are curious, here's the law that Undertoad referred to:

§ 18.2-287.4. Carrying loaded firearms in public areas prohibited; penalty.

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a loaded firearm on or about his person on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way, or in any public park or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public (i) in any city with a population of 160,000 or more or (ii) in any county having an urban county executive form of government or any county or city surrounded thereby or adjacent thereto or in any county having a county manager form of government. The provisions of this section shall not apply to law-enforcement officers, licensed security guards, military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, or any person having a valid permit to carry such firearm or to any person actually engaged in lawful hunting or lawful recreational shooting activities at an established shooting range or shooting contest. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

For purposes of this section, "firearm" means any (i) semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock or (ii) shotgun with a magazine which will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered.

Any firearm carried in violation of this section may be forfeited to the Commonwealth pursuant to the provisions of § 18.2-310.

The exemptions set out in § 18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of this section.

The Undertoad
June 15, 2004, 12:58 AM
Damn it must have goofed up the link when I cut and pasted - thank you for copying it here. OK, I need to go get some sleep. :(

Mr. Kook
June 15, 2004, 12:59 AM
Get a lawyer.

mattx109
June 15, 2004, 01:03 AM
The way I read the above is this:

Neither you nor your friend were carrying pistols with magazine capacities over 20 rounds, and in your case, the pistol uses rimfire ammunition.

As far as I can tell, you shouldn't have even been charged, as you weren't in violation of the law you were charged under.

In your place, I'd get a lawyer.

If anyone else has a different angle, please share. And Undertoad, please keep updating. I'm curious as to how this will go.

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 15, 2004, 01:17 AM
Lawyer can solve the problem in a Virginia minute.

Moral of the story: Don't scare the sheep. Particularly at a Starbuck's. Mocha frappi chai with no foam drinkers tend to be bliss......ful :D

countertop
June 15, 2004, 01:20 AM
Where was the Starbucks?

Was it in Fairfax County? Falls Church? Alexandria? Arlington?

Gray Peterson
June 15, 2004, 01:32 AM
CALL VCDL!! CALL VCDL!!! CALL THEM NOW! They just fought a big fight with Richmond's sheriff's department over this and they won! CALL THEM OR EMAIL THEM!!!

Email philip@virginiasystems.com

countertop
June 15, 2004, 01:42 AM
Lonnie is right.

Check out - http://www.vcdl.org/ where this issue is the lead alert on the home page

Wildalaska
June 15, 2004, 01:43 AM
No offense but if I was your dad I wouldnt pay for the lawyer...

Ya want to make a point fine, but make it on your own buck.

WildthinktwiceactonceAlaska

Pendragon
June 15, 2004, 01:47 AM
Well, I am not a lawyer, but my instinct is that the best defense is going to be a good offense.

Get a lawyer.

File a lawsuit.

Charge violation of civil rights, wrongful arrest (or whatever they call it), unlawful imprisonment, etc.

Ask for $10 million dollars.

Is there a grand jury hearing on this?

Here is what I would do - get a lawyer NOW - I bet you can fix this cheap if you get him to talk to the DA - he tells the DA that your guns don't fit the definition in the law - the deal is that he gives you your guns and drops the charges or you file a civil suit.

Oh, add to those civil charges something about malicious prosecution or whatever its called.

You need to make the DA and the police think that they have very little chance of winning a conviction - which would be a small victory for them, and make them fear that they have at least a middlin' chance of losing a big expensive lawsuit.

Hopefully someone will do a quick cost/benefit on the situation and let you go.

If that don't work, file the suit. Name each officer personally and everyone else you can.

Oh, you are not planning on being a LEO in that area are you :) ?

From what I have seen, the justice system is a huge juggernaught and once it builds momentum, it is extremely difficult to stop - you need to put the brakes on before anything happens.

Remember - the cost of getting a lawyer now is nothing compared to what you will be dealing with if this picks up steam. Hopefully you can make your parents see this.

Under no circumstances should you just "trust the system" or the police/DA to do the right thing or for "justice to prevail". Lawyer up - now.

countertop
June 15, 2004, 01:47 AM
http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/2329

http://www.vcdl.org/letters/VASP_OPEN.pdf

Gray Peterson
June 15, 2004, 01:59 AM
Let me copy over some stuff from the VCDL ALERT emails I've gotten...


HISTORY

"If you are not a police officer, then WHAT are you?" Words that
VCDL Board of Directors member Dennis O'Connor heard from a sheriff
last year at Richmond City Hall as he tried to lawfully enter the
building open carrying. Dennis told the officer, "A citizen." In
the end the officer let Dennis in. Dennis was attending the City
Council meeting back then to make sure that gun owners would no
longer be harassed as he had been two weeks earlier. He had been
unlawfully ejected from the previous Richmond City Council meeting
for carrying his concealed handgun. Several of us were there with
legally carried concealed handguns, but he was the only one singled
out for some reason. I got the situation cleared up with the
Sheriff's Office. Dennis tested the system, and except for the "what
are you" exchange, everything worked out.

THIS MONDAY

Dennis O'Connor met me at the Richmond City Council meeting on Monday
night. I addressed City Council on a proposed project called
"Neighborhood Safety Districts" which is aimed at stopping open-air
drug-markets. I told City Council that VCDL does not have a position
on the proposed ordinance, BUT the patron, councilwoman Robertson,
said that gun control would be part of the project. I told them that
they CANNOT create any new gun control by law - they can only enforce
existing laws. I did this to let City Council know that VCDL is
watching them, hopefully preventing them from coming up with some
gun-control scheme down the road.

"YOU CAN'T COME IN HERE WITH A GUN!"

When I originally entered the City Council building, I showed the
guard at the metal detectors my concealed handgun permit and he waved
me in. No fuss, no muss. Dennis, who had open-carried, arrived
before me and I found him in the gallery listening to the meeting. I
told him that everything went fine coming in. He said, "Well, that
is because I greased the skids!" He told me that when he came in
open carrying, the officer at the door asked him if he had a permit.
He told the officer that he was openly carrying and did not need a
permit (Dennis has a permit, but declined on principle to show it).
Dennis offered to show him his driver's license. The officer looked
at it and waved him in. A second officer stopped Dennis a few
seconds later and said, "You can't come in here with a gun!" Dennis
explained, that indeed he could come in with the gun. The officer,
clearly unsure of the law and sensing Dennis' confidence, finally let
Dennis continue to the City Council meeting. Dennis told me that the
officer then went directly to a phone and made a call.

"COME WITH ME."

Just as the proposed ordinance that I was to speak on came up for
public discussion, an officer walked down the isle and told Dennis in
a firm voice, "Come with me." Dennis looked at me, sighed, and
said, "Here we go again."

I watched him walk off with the officer. I figured Dennis could
handle it himself and I needed to address City Council, so I stayed
in the gallery. Fifteen minutes later I addressed them and left City
Council chambers immediately to see what had become of Dennis.

I went downstairs and there were four police officers at the door to
the building standing around talking. I KNEW what they were talking
about. I approached them, identified myself as the president of a
gun-rights organization, and asked where Dennis O'Connor was. "He
just left." I asked, "What happened?"

"We asked him to leave or get arrested and he left."

"On what grounds did you ask him to leave or get arrested?"

"There was a law that we could have charged him with for carrying a
gun in a public building that was given to us by a Magistrate."

"There is NO such law. Mark my words - the Magistrate is wrong.
This happened to Dennis last year and I called the Sheriff's Office
and they chewed out the officer who denied Dennis lawful access the
City Council meeting. Now, unfortunately I am going to have to call
the Sheriff's Office again and tell them that their officers have yet
again denied a citizen lawful access to the government under the
Freedom of Information Act."

The officers at this point were looked at me rather wide-eyed. I
asked them, "What basically did the law say that he had supposedly
violated?"

"The law says that you cannot carry a loaded gun in a city with over
160,000 people."

"If you read that law you will see it applies to a gun that has a
magazine that will hold over 20 rounds of ammunition at the time of
the offense - a so called 'assault rifle!'"

At this point, the eyes of one of the officers lit up. He said, "I
think you are right."

"Can I talk to the officer who initiated this?"

"Yes - he is upstairs, I will take you to him."

THE MAGISTRATE GETS IT WRONG

We met with the officer that had taken Dennis out of the chambers
(let's call him officer A). Officer A said he had been unsure if
Dennis had broken any laws, so he had called a Magistrate to
double-check. The Magistrate quoted him the law that Dennis was
breaking: 18.2-287.4. At that point both the officer that came up
with me and I spoke up simultaneously saying that law only applied to
'assault rifles.' Officer A looked taken aback. I asked him if he
had a copy of the law. He said not on him, but that he could look it
up on his patrol car's computer. He said he would do so, but it was
clear that he was convinced he had made a mistake. In fact, he
turned to the officer that came up with me and said, "So he WAS
legally here after all."

Officer A gave me the Magistrate's name and phone number and I called
the Magistrate on my cell phone as we were standing there.

The Magistrate answered the phone and I identified myself and
politely explained the serious mistake that he had made - a person
who was lawfully attending a City Council meeting had been unlawfully
ejected from the building. I asked him to please carefully read the
last paragraph of the law he had quoted and he would see the mistake
that he had made. The Magistrate sounded embarrassed. He said,
"Well, I haven't seen anybody arrested tonight on that charge."

I said, "Dennis was asked to leave or be arrested and, being a good
guy, he politely left."

The Magistrate clearly sounded relieved to hear that an arrest had
not been made (after all he would have to reverse his own
determination that Dennis had violated a law). He told me that no
one had actually been arrested under that law in 10 years. I said,
"Unless they were carrying a loaded firearm with at least a 21 round
magazine, they can't be arrested."

"SORRY FOR THE MISTAKE"

After I hung up with the Magistrate, Officer A said twice (shaking my
hand the second time), "Please tell Mr. O'Connor that I am extremely
sorry for the mistake. Tell him that this will NOT happen again." I
said I would give Dennis his message. Officer A then said, "Just out
of curiosity, are you armed, too?" I said, "You bet!" and I slowly
pulled back my coat so he could see my K-40. He laughed, clearly
surprised (he wasn't at the metal detector when I came in).

I told the officers, "I am ex-law enforcement myself. Technically
you guys should have known this law - remember that ignorance of the
law is no excuse. But I also know, as you know, that no one knows
all of the laws - it is impossible. You called the Magistrate to
check the law and he gave you bad information, so really his mistake
was far worse that yours. Once the Magistrate said a law was broken,
you were simply acting on his advice. Unfortunately for Mr.
O'Connor, it was bad advice."

The officers seemed grateful that I saw that they weren't entirely
responsible for the debacle. I could also tell they were damn glad
they hadn't arrested him.

POCKET LAW BOOK FOR POLICE IS WRONG

One of the officers showed me his pocket law book and I saw another
major problem. The book has very brief summaries of the laws for
police officers. Under 18.2-287.4 it said, "It is unlawful to carry
a loaded firearm in a city with a population of 160,000 or more."
That was it! No mention that a "firearm" is an 'assault weapon' with
a magazine capable of holding more than 20 rounds. So a police
officer is given BAD information in his own pocket law book! The
book should read, "It is unlawful to carry a loaded firearm with a
magazine that can hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition in a city
with a population of 160,000 or more."

The officers again emphasized that in the future the mistake they
made would not be repeated. I'm sure they were hoping I wouldn't
press the issue with their employer - the Sheriff's Office.

VCDL WILL ACT

However, I do plan on contacting the Sheriff's Office tomorrow. I am
going to say that I DON'T want disciplinary actions taken against the
officers (in my opinion the officers learned their lesson and seem
genuinely remorseful), but I do want the Sheriff's Office to train
their officers in this particular law so that there are NO MORE
repeats of this kind of incident. I am also going to contact the
agency that trains police in Virginia and tell them that they are
obviously failing to train officers on this very important, but
confusing, law. I will ask that they change their curriculum to
address this issue. We also need the General Assembly to fix this
law once and for all. Enough is enough.

THERE IS ALWAYS A SILVER LINING

In the end 6 officers and 1 magistrate got an education on Monday
night. All at Dennis O'Connor's expense and embarrassment. He said
he was ejected like a dog. I told him that in the end, the education
that he gave the police, a Magistrate, and VCDL members (as soon as I
could crank out this alert) was actually going to be good for
everyone - and fortunately no real harm had been done. Dennis
agreed, saying that it was really a comedy of errors between the
police and the Magistrate. We shook hands and both went home.

I am proud of Dennis. He had stood his ground firmly, but politely,
TWICE in one night. In the end he made the good decision to leave
quietly after the Magistrate ruled against him. He knew the police
were going to believe the word of the Magistrate over a regular
citizen. There was nothing to gain by insisting that the Magistrate
was wrong and getting arrested. He also knows that VCDL would be
right there to fix the wrong done to him the next day anyhow. And so
it shall be.

MY SUGGESTION TO YOU

It is a pain in the rear end, but I suggest you print out the short
law below, highlight the paragraph that starts "For purposes of this
section" through "for which it is chambered." Then underline
"equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold
more than twenty rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer
to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock." Keep it
on you (best idea) or in your car (not quite as good). That way if
this happens to you, you can show the officer the part of the law
that exempts you and hopefully avoid any further headaches.

Here is the law:

§ 18.2-287.4 Carrying loaded firearms in public areas prohibited; penalty

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a loaded firearm on or
about his person on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public
right-of-way, or in any public park or any other place of whatever
nature that is open to the public

(i) in any city with a population of 160,000 or more or

(ii) in any county having an urban county executive form of
government or any county or city surrounded thereby or adjacent
thereto or in any county having a county manager form of government.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to law-enforcement
officers, licensed security guards, military personnel in the
performance of their lawful duties, or any person having a valid
permit to carry such firearm or to any person actually engaged in
lawful hunting or lawful recreational shooting activities at an
established shooting range or shooting contest. Any person violating
the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor.

For purposes of this section, "firearm" means any;
(i) semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol which expels a
projectile by action of an explosion and is equipped at the time of
the offense with a magazine which will hold more than twenty rounds
of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a
silencer or equipped with a folding stock or;
(ii) shotgun with a magazine which will hold more than seven rounds
of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered.

Any firearm carried in violation of this section may be forfeited to
the Commonwealth pursuant to the provisions of §18.2-310.

The exemptions set out in §18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to
the provisions of this section.

***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL).
VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to
defending the human rights of all Virginians. The membership considers the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be an essential human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org

Gray Peterson
June 15, 2004, 02:02 AM
Bryan Whisler, who is the son of VCDL executive member Alan Whisler, went to city hall to pay a utility bill. He was open carrying. Two Richmond deputy sheriffs told him he could not openly carry a gun in the building and escorted him outside.

He was asked if he had a permit, he said he didn't need one to open carry. He volunteered to leave, but they detained him while they checked on what to do. A regular deputy was behind what is normally a captain's desk and it became a case of the blind-leading-the-blind. The deputy at the desk also thought that Bryan couldn't carry (probably because of our old friend 18.2-287.4).

A couple of Capitol police officers showed up and sided with Bryan, saying that Bryan was perfectly legal open carrying. (This confirms my personal experience with the Capitol Police during the General Assembly sessions. They seem to have their act together.) But the Richmond deputies did not want to back down from their previously stated position (hell, who does?).

During the course of the altercation, Bryan did mention that he had a permit for those occasions when he chooses to carry concealed. The issue was finally settled when Bryan agreed to pull his shirt over his gun and then go in to finish his business.

Ten seconds after hearing about this I was on the phone to Captain Sink, who had promised that this stuff wouldn't be happening anymore. Captain Sink was in a class, so I ended up talking coincidentally to the same deputy who was at the desk and had given bad advice to the deputies at City Hall. He said he had made a mistake, but added that someone carrying openly without a police badge could make people 'uncomfortable.'

I told him that 'uncomfortable' had nothing to do with the law. If something is legal, it is legal. If someone is uncomfortable with that, too bad. I think my message sunk in, but I won't swear to it.

That conversation ended with him acknowledging that Bryan had done nothing wrong and should not have been detained. He asked me to pass on an apology to Brian.

After hanging up with the deputy at the desk, I paged Captain Sink using the personal pager number he gave me after Dennis O'Connor's last ordeal at a City Council meeting. He called me back within 2 minutes. He was clearly angry with his deputies for their actions and asked me to have Bryan call him for a personal apology. He said he was irked that he and I were having this conversation again after he had promised me two weeks ago that all would be settled. He said the only solution was to have a one-on-one with his 35 deputies as he could catch them and make sure they understood the laws on open carry once and for all.

The good thing that came out of this is that Captain Sink is apparently on the Department of Criminal Justice Services, which trains all the police officers in the state. He said he would look into changing the curriculum to spend more time on 18.2-287.4. "An excellent idea," I said.

I finished by telling him that these incidents tend to increase the number of law-abiding gun owners who are open carrying in Richmond, so the quicker he educates his officers, the better. He said he understood and again vented his frustration with the whole situation and stupidity of his deputies for requiring Bryan to conceal his gun.

BTW, the deputy at the desk said because of the incident he had actually read the gun laws, instead of depending on a summary. Well, that makes --nine-- deputies in the Richmond Sheriff's department we have educated and one magistrate. Six deputies and one magistrate from Dennis' previous debacle, and now the two deputies that detained Bryan along with the deputy at the desk. Only 26 deputies to go... ;-)

Bryan handled the situation perfectly. He carefully and politely stood his ground, made his point, then complied with the deputy's orders to cover his gun, and finally finished his business. THEN he called VCDL to hopefully prevent this from happening again.

Keep in mind that VCDL is not encouraging or discouraging anyone form open carry. But dog gone it, it is your CHOICE and your RIGHT to do so and the police need to understand that. An exercised right is a right preserved.

In the meantime Dennis and I will be testing the system soon and I will let you know how it goes.

***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL).
VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to
defending the human rights of all Virginians. The membership considers the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be an essential human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org

Gray Peterson
June 15, 2004, 02:03 AM
POCKET LAW BOOK FOR POLICE IS WRONG

One of the officers showed me his pocket law book and I saw another
major problem. The book has very brief summaries of the laws for
police officers. Under 18.2-287.4 it said, "It is unlawful to carry
a loaded firearm in a city with a population of 160,000 or more."
That was it! No mention that a "firearm" is an 'assault weapon' with
a magazine capable of holding more than 20 rounds. So a police
officer is given BAD information in his own pocket law book! The
book should read, "It is unlawful to carry a loaded firearm with a
magazine that can hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition in a city
with a population of 160,000 or more."

The officers again emphasized that in the future the mistake they
made would not be repeated. I'm sure they were hoping I wouldn't
press the issue with their employer - the Sheriff's Office.

This issue is statewide. VCDL is going to have to do some more chewing out of the people in Fairfax.

Gray Peterson
June 15, 2004, 02:12 AM
You need to make the DA and the police think that they have very little chance of winning a conviction - which would be a small victory for them, and make them fear that they have at least a middlin' chance of losing a big expensive lawsuit.

Actually, there is absolutely zero chance they will get a conviction. None, zip, zero, and nada.

Get a good settlement, and take your future or current kids to challenge, or yourself to college, on Fairfax's dime. That'll teach a lesson.

gunsmith
June 15, 2004, 02:31 AM
GET A LAWYER
Ge t A Lawyer

Get a Lawyer Get A Lawyer

You can pay your dad off later when your making bucks,you can still be a Peace Officer and bring a lawsuit against unfair arrest...just maybe not the PD you bring a lawsuit against.
Try to get a lawyer that is pro gun and give VCDL some $$ to celebrate with and use the rest to go to college.

Post the phone number of the Starbucks in question so I may call them from Frisco and give them what for!!

WMC
June 15, 2004, 02:44 AM
8381 Leesburg Pike, located in the Pike 7 Plaza with Tower Records, Staples, et al.

703-893-5125

SapperLeader
June 15, 2004, 05:55 AM
I would get a lawyer and call vcdl for advice. VCDL has been dealing with this issue for a while now.

patentnonsense
June 15, 2004, 06:08 AM
Sounds like your VCDL is doing some great work - I'm impressed.

As several people have said, GET A LAWYER.
VCDL may be able to help you get a good one who's suitable.
A lot of people have had their lives ruined by not taking BS criminal charges seriously.

I think suing people to make a point is generally a bad idea. However, after you've gotten your criminal case dismissed, think about suing Starbucks: they started this, and they have money. You may be able to find out, from the police records, just what they reported. If they reported false info (e.g. "assault rifle") which led to your troubles, then they may have some liability. I don't know how this would play in Virginia, but it's worth a thought.

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 06:22 AM
I hope you'll keep us posted on this.

Did anybody mention Get a lawyer?

:D

It looks like there are already a lot of good people working on this, so you're not going to have to go it alone, but as patentnonsense pointed out A lot of people have had their lives ruined by not taking BS criminal charges seriously

Think of all the people who have lost their RKBA just because they pled to something they thought was going to be "no big deal, just pay a fine etc".

I'm generally not lawsuit happy, but I don't find much compassion for false arrests/wrongful prosecution when the facts of the law are so clear, and so easily verified.

Diggler
June 15, 2004, 06:51 AM
Just out of curiosity, For purposes of this section, "firearm" means any;
(i) semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol which expels a
projectile by action of an explosion and is equipped at the time of
the offense with a magazine which will hold more than twenty rounds
of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a
silencer or equipped with a folding stock or;
(ii) shotgun with a magazine which will hold more than seven rounds
of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered.Does this mean that if your buddy's Glock had a threaded barrel it could accommodate a silencer and thus be illegal to carry? You wouldn't have anything to worry about since yours was a rimfire...

Bubbles
June 15, 2004, 07:28 AM
Northern Virginians - write this down. Richard is a defense attorney who is well-versed in firearms issues, and he's very politically active.

Richard E. Gardiner
Suite 404
10560 Main Street
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 352-7276
Fax: (703) 359-0938
rgardi3717@aol.com
Areas of practice: Criminal defense, administrative law, civil litigation.
Bar admissions: Virginia; District of Columbia; numerous federal courts.
RKBA Organizational Memberships: NRA Benefactor member; Virginia Shooting Sports Assoc. life member andAssoc. life member and
currently director and Vice-President; VCDL Executive Member. Formerly NRA Legislative Counsel.

And oh yeah, don't say anything to anybody until you've talked to a lawyer!

Gray Peterson
June 15, 2004, 08:00 AM
And oh yeah, don't say anything to anybody until you've talked to a lawyer!

Except us of course! He needs to ask to get an answer as to whether or not he can get help on this, right?

Lobotomy Boy
June 15, 2004, 08:03 AM
You might want to consider a small donation to the maintenance of The High Road after you sue the bastards into submission.

In the long run, this may be a very good experience for you once you become a LEO. You'll not likely act in such an unconstitutional manner.

Good luck.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 08:11 AM
I understand that open carry is legal, but why would you want to do this and cause all these problems in the first place?

A $50 holster is better than a $400/hr lawyer.

Open carry generally will upset people, whether its legal or not. I think you got screwed by the police on this one because it doesn't sound like you did anything illegal, and I hope you get off, and agree you might want to sue them over this.

I am curious, though, why did you want to carry open instead of concealed?

OF
June 15, 2004, 08:30 AM
Sounds like Lonnie has this figured out. Sounds like you guys have a good group there in the VCDL.

- Gabe

PS: Do we really want to have another 'open carry is your right' 'you're an idiot for open carrying' argument all over this poor kids thread?

Selfdfenz
June 15, 2004, 08:43 AM
Undertoad,

Best of luck with the legal issues. I hope you get your hardware back in the same condition you surrendered it in. If your firearms weren't ballistically printed before they will be now me thinks.

I have to agree with many here in that what you did, while legal, might have exemplified poor judgement. Why did you you think a Starbucks nerd would know open carry was aok? Logic dictated the cops would likely get called. Did you have a plan to address what you would say to the police before you got out of the car? 5Ps apply

On second thought why did you think the police would know what you did was legal? Their actions indict they did not! The mindset of many in LE is enforcement oriented, ie they figure out what law might be closest to one that is being violated and enforce that one...and let the courts sort it out later.

Lotta hassle for nothing and now there are a bunch of nullons at Starbucks that think OP is illegal.

S-

Diggler
June 15, 2004, 08:55 AM
On second thought why did you think the police would know what you did was legal?Uh, 'cause it's their JOB!Lotta hassle for nothing and now there are a bunch of nullons at Starbucks that think OP is illegal.Not after he gets it thrown out, and retires on his settlement and spends his days at Starbuck's open carrying. They'll get used to it. :evil:

The Undertoad
June 15, 2004, 08:58 AM
Thanks guys. Already contacted the VCDL, who are trying to get it thrown out as false arrest. If that fails, I think I'll go the lawsuit route. I guess I'd better not say anymore until this is resolved....

OF
June 15, 2004, 08:59 AM
why did you think the police would know what you did was legal? Their actions indict they did not! Lotta hassle for nothingNothing?! The kid is (in the most pure sense of the term) exercising his rights. A right which has atrophied to the point where it might not come back at all. And if you've read anything that Lonnie posted about the VCDL, people exercising this right is having a very positive effect. Exactly the effect the founding fathers said it would. Exercise your rights or lose them. This one is on the ropes, and this kid and the people Lonnie's posts discuss are on the line exercising the right and it is coming back! At least in that community. The cops are going to re-write the training curriculum to include 'don't harrass open carry guys'. How is that not an amazingly positive and encouraging direct result of open carry and putting up with the headache it causes in the short term?

I can't think of a better example in support of open carry than this thread. It puts to bed the arguments of all the 'don't rock the boat' nay-sayers yapping about 'yes it's your right, but boy are you dumb for doing it'.

They are changing the police training over there to include support for your RKBA! How can you not absolutely love that?!

- Gabe

OF
June 15, 2004, 09:01 AM
PS: Getting the police straightened out (and at least one magistrate so far) opens the door to showing the rest of the community (Starbucks included) that we're not a bunch of whack-jobs. Once you can be assured that the police are not only not going to bother you in this community, but if they get a call the person who called is going to get straightened out...think about it. It's awesome.

OF
June 15, 2004, 09:04 AM
I guess I'd better not say anymore until this is resolved....Probably a smart move. But remember: if you need anything, there are people here who can help. I'd PM or call Jim March for advice if you need to ask for more help. You can do it privately and he'd be the guy to point you in the right direction.

- Gabe

Bubbles
June 15, 2004, 09:28 AM
I live in NoVA and have carried a firearm, both open and concealed, for years in the area where he got picked up. Reasons for open carry include:

- Concealed carry is not legal in VA in a restaurant that serves alcohol for on-premises consumption. However, open carry is legal in these establishments (long story - law changed in 1995). Until this law gets amended so permit-holders can carry concealed in a restaurant, open carry in Virginia will continue, if only to educate the "sheeple" and certain LEO's.

- The LEO's I've dealt with in Loudoun, Prince William, Fairfax, Arlington, and Richmond have been well aware that open carry is legal.

- Finally, if exercising a right is too much of a hassle or carries with it the threat of arrest, do we really have a right any more?

Remember that it may not have been a Starbucks employee who made the 911 call. A customer with a cell phone could have done it as well. Make sure you get a copy of the tape!

Also, if you're going to carry openly, keep a cell phone and a good defense attorney's business card with you.

El Rojo
June 15, 2004, 10:07 AM
I am from California. I will go ahead and join the bandwagon that even though you can open carry, why go to the hassle. Here in California we try not to rock the boat too much. We didn't fight the Californian assault weapons ban, because who really wants to take an assault weapon to the firing range or national match shoot. We didn't fight the handgun safety bill because they were just trying to make our handguns safer and who wants an unsafe handgun?

And the end result is California is a much better place to live than Virginia. Why you wouldn't even have to worry about idiots open carrying into a Starbucks here. Heck, you don't have to worry about any law-abiding citizen carrying at all.

Yeah, what on earth would make you feel like living a life of freedom and liberty. Dumb college kids.

[/satire]

sendec
June 15, 2004, 10:31 AM
Get a lawyer

Shut Up, anything you say can and will be used against..........

Check and see if "firearm" is defined elsewhere in the chapter containing that statute. Most codes had a definition section at the beginning of each unit. While the definition in that particular section may not match there might be another that does. Uh oh.

The real challenge will be selling this episode to a potential LE employer, who is interested in things like judgement and the propensity for excessive use of force and grandstanding. I'd start working on a story about why you felt it necessary to walk into a suburban Starbuck's visibly packing when you could have prevented this by pulling your shirt out or locking it in your car and getting your mochafrappalattechino to go. Yeah. it may be your "right", but that does'nt mean that it is the most right thing to do. Police executives will be far more interested in your judgement than your weapons collection.

Why do we insist that the vast majority, who could'nt give a rodent's posterior about guns, bend to our will and accommodate our desire to relive the good old days? I expect that gun carriers and cell phone users should accommodate ME, and keep it out of sight and earshot and dont let me see or hear it unless it is an emergency.

flatrock
June 15, 2004, 11:06 AM
I understand that open carry is legal, but why would you want to do this and cause all these problems in the first place?

A $50 holster is better than a $400/hr lawyer.

Open carry generally will upset people, whether its legal or not. I think you got screwed by the police on this one because it doesn't sound like you did anything illegal, and I hope you get off, and agree you might want to sue them over this.

I am curious, though, why did you want to carry open instead of concealed?

Why does it upset people? Because they've been led to believe that only criminals and police carry guns.

If we are forced to hide our guns because it makes people uncomfortable then we've given up our right, and we're allowing the gun control crowd to continue to groom the public for more gun control laws.

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 11:19 AM
I understand that open carry is legal, but why would you want to do this and cause all these problems in the first place?

A $50 holster is better than a $400/hr lawyer.

Open carry generally will upset people, whether its legal or not. I think you got screwed by the police on this one because it doesn't sound like you did anything illegal, and I hope you get off, and agree you might want to sue them over this.

I am curious, though, why did you want to carry open instead of concealed?"Now, Rosa, gets back here on the back of the bus before you get in trouble! The back of the bus gets there just the same. Why would you want to do this and cause all these problems in the first place? The front seats is for the white people. Sitting up there will upset people, whether its legal or not."

I knew I had heard this argument somewhere before.

Rights aren't rights if you're afraid to exercise them because of the "hassle."

Scott

Waitone
June 15, 2004, 11:21 AM
I question the wisdom of open carry even if it is "legal." You are the one who has the problem. You get to clear the mess up. You get to use your money. You pay the consequences for any malfeasance by LE.

In other words you have everything to lose.

That said, get a good lawyer and let him deal with LE.

Pay particular attention to what happens to your record following this event. You want to go into LE. If your record is in any way affect by your open carry games, you may have well just screwed yourself.

Open carry: a loser of a way to make a point.

R.H. Lee
June 15, 2004, 11:36 AM
Everybody's got opinions and here is mine.

GET A LAWYER!


As far as I can tell, you shouldn't have even been charged, as you weren't in violation of the law you were charged under
This is SOP for cops and DA's. They are hoping you will plead to a lesser charge so they will get a conviction, any conviction.

DON'T DO IT!

Go on the offensive. File whatever lawsuits you can, constitutional violations, whatever. File a civil suit also, unlawful arrest, mental anguish, time lost from work, incapable of performing marital duties. Ask for big $$.

My .02 :)

HankB
June 15, 2004, 11:47 AM
GET A LAWYER.

In addition to the arguments regarding false arrest, civil rights violations, etc., he can advise you whether or not criminal charges should be preferred against the LEOs who arrested and charged you on the grounds of strong arm - or even armed - robbery.

GET A LAWYER.

If this was me, I wouldn't just let this slide with a halfhearted apology and return of my property . . . just like law enforcement wouldn't let it slide if I took someone's property (i.e, stole it) if I later agreed to return it.

GET A LAWYER.

Zundfolge
June 15, 2004, 12:06 PM
Why do we insist that the vast majority, who could'nt give a rodent's posterior about guns, bend to our will and accommodate our desire to relive the good old days?
Yeah ... we should just shut up and enjoy our ride from the back of the bus.

:banghead:

Werewolf
June 15, 2004, 12:16 PM
ScottS being very wise pointed out quite correctly that:"Now, Rosa, gets back here on the back of the bus before you get in trouble! The back of the bus gets there just the same. Why would you want to do this and cause all these problems in the first place? The front seats is for the white people. Sitting up there will upset people, whether its legal or not."

I knew I had heard this argument somewhere before.

Rights aren't rights if you're afraid to exercise them because of the "hassle."

ScottOH MY GAWD!

Someone actually gets it! A right not exercised because it is a hassle or upsets others is no RIGHT AT ALL just like ScottS says!

That's really not such a difficult concept to understand.

To those that are against open carry because it rocks the boat I say - you are as much a part of the problem as any anti is. Rocking the Boat is what it takes more often than not to make things happen.

How do you think the current restrictions on RKBA got to where they are today? Because a few very vocal folks who were anti-RKBA rocked the boat. Now they're in the majority and if we don't rock the boat right back at 'em then the boat will sink right along with the RKBA.

To steal from another THR'r that we all know and some love I'll just sign off with:

WererockntheboatisnotalwaysabadthingWolf

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 12:27 PM
The good news is this happened in VA. The VCDL is the model for state gun advocacy groups, and the guy who runs it, Philip Van Cleave, is fighting the good fight for all gun-owners.

I'm confident they'll get to the bottom of it, without advocating he "avoid rocking the boat."

Scott

Lobotomy Boy
June 15, 2004, 12:42 PM
When (not if) you sue, you should also demand compensation for any future earnings this situation may have cost you in your career in law enforcement.

MBG
June 15, 2004, 01:04 PM
Andrew,

Sorry to hear about your troubles. I think the guys at the VCDL will help you get this sorted out very quickly.

Personally, I have open carried at that particular Starbucks once or twice with out trouble. I'm thinking that maybe I should do it more often.

In Virginia, legally all the management of Starbucks could do is ask Andrew and his friend to leave. All the police could legally do was enforce that request. The counter kids and customers may not have known that, but the Fairfax county police certainly did.

For those who say that good judgment means concealment, I've heard similar arguments from people to leave the piece home. And to leave it in the safe. And to get rid of it entirely. I guess we all draw our lines in a different spot.

Ten years ago, Virginia was well on the road to a Maryland like set of gun laws. It took a lot of public activism to get that turned around. And it takes public exercise of our rights to keep it from happening again.

Marty

wingedmonkey
June 15, 2004, 01:28 PM
At the risk of sounding redundant, GET A LAWYER. Gardiner is a good choice. The moral of the story is, know your surroundings. Starbucks is very anti-gun and most beat officers only know the Code based on the "table of contents" method.

It's a misdemeanor so the case will be heard in General District Court. Do not go without a lawyer well versed in the firearm section of the Code of Virginia.

sendec
June 15, 2004, 01:31 PM
OK, OK, you win. Go ahead and wander around Target and Penny's with you guns hanging out, after all it is your right.

Of course, that weird dude on the corner who wears nothing but a thong, and the guy who sticks a crucifix in a glass of pee and calls it art, and the kid at the stoplight whose radio is set to 11, they are just exercising their rights, also.

Several religions recognize the Swastika as a symbol. I have the right to wear it on a shirt, or emblazon it on a bill board. Have I lost my right to free speech by not doing so? I think not. I recognize that many people would find my exercise of said right as being offensive, and courtesy dictates absent exigent circumstances that reasonable people should not aggravate other reasonable people. (Note that this is for the purpose of example - I am not a member of any religious or political group in which the Swastika is used)

I am really intrigued by this fascination for open carry. No one in this example has stated anything about the reasons behind it, other than "it is a right." What possible practical rationale is there for open carry in a Starbucks? Who is up for open carry in church? There you may have a much greater "need" for the gun, and I will bet that many people do, (Anybody from JPFO want to chime in?) but how appropriate is that?

I think the invocation of the Rosa Parks example is also intriguing. I am not a member of the ACLU or NAACP- how many of you belong to either?

The fact that we have an absolute right to keep and bear arms does not mean that said right should note be tempered. None of the people on this thread who "disagree" with the initial premise have said that he should not carry, just that he should be discrete about it.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 01:45 PM
The question I asked earlier, that has yet to be answered, is why someone would want to open carry.

As far as I can tell the best answer so far has been that it is just to exercise a right.

If so thats fine, open carry and let freedom ring.

But why would you want to open carry instead of concealed carry? What is the reason, or advantage, of carrying open?

Graystar
June 15, 2004, 01:45 PM
You didn't mention what county this happened in. Check packing.org to see if your county is one with grandfathered prohibitions.

hammer4nc
June 15, 2004, 01:49 PM
And, the reason that leo's don't carry concealed is....????

I mean, it really is such a good idea, right?

Jay Kominek
June 15, 2004, 01:59 PM
But why would you want to open carry instead of concealed carry? What is the reason, or advantage, of carrying open?
Uh, perhaps he didn't have a permit to carry concealed?
Or perhaps Starbucks serves alcohol, and so they wouldn't be allowed to carry concealed in there, regardless of a permit?

Or maybe he is a free man, and he doesn't need a reason.

Diggler
June 15, 2004, 02:00 PM
Now, there you go bringing logic into all of this...

'Course, if'n i was to go git one of them purty CCW badges...

:D

joab
June 15, 2004, 02:04 PM
Of course, that weird dude on the corner who wears nothing but a thong, and the guy who sticks a crucifix in a glass of pee and calls it art, and the kid at the stoplight whose radio is set to 11, they are just exercising their rights, also And call the police about any of those actions and see how many show up. If your gonna wait for them, be sure you bring a lunch. ( except for the thong that is illegal in Fla

Why open carry?
Some times it's just more convient. Like the poster said he was on his way home from the range, or maybe you just want to walk to the mailbox, or it's too damn hot for a jacket, or anything more than a pair of shorts and a T shirt,
Bottom line is it's legal there (not here)

Toad SUE 12 years ago something similar (not firearms related) happened to me, I spent 20 days in jail and was never charged. My mothers lawyer almost begged me to sue, but I just wanted to forget about it because I had to live in the county. Now although the DA never brought charges I have to live with the arrest on my record or pay about $1500 to get it expunged, for a crime that I didn't do and was not even charged with let alone convicted of.

Be very carteful about this

sendec
June 15, 2004, 02:04 PM
Uh, plainclothes and off duty LEOs DO carry concealed. Many agencies mandate that the weapon stay concealed, just to avoid this kind of scenario. Agencies have disciplined officers who have "flashed". Some are not as stringent, but I doubt that any say "Sheesh, we dont care, put on your cowboy rig and go to town." You will also see (if you could) that many of us wear our shields on a carrier near the pistol, so if a jacket is inadvertently swept it can be seen.

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 02:24 PM
I think the invocation of the Rosa Parks example is also intriguing. I am not a member of the ACLU or NAACP- how many of you belong to either?I'm sorry, do I have to belong to one of those organizations to support civil rights? Where does it say that? Suddenly I can't support the First Ammendment, or the Second, or the Fourteenth, unless I join the ACLU? Let's see....ACLU for First and Fifth, NRA for Second, Trial Lawyers Assoc for Sixth, NAACP for the Fourteenth, NOW if I want to support the Nineteenth...Man, I have to join a lot of organizations if I want to support that Constitution thing.

Or, just maybe, are those rights for everybody? Any chance of that?None of the people on this thread who "disagree" with the initial premise have said that he should not carry, just that he should be discrete about it. Likewise, nobody said Rosa Parks had to get off the bus. She just had to stay in her place in the back. I mean, what's all the fuss? Why did she feel she had to ride in front? The back seats still get there.

sendec, I'm afraid you're displaying the all-too-common LEO attitude of, "I don't care if it's legal. I'm an LEO, and I don't like it. Therefore, you shouldn't do it."

Sad, really.

Scott

gunsmith
June 15, 2004, 02:42 PM
703-893-5125
And talked to really nice guy named Kramer there,he works there and said he didn't hear anything about what happend.
He said "as far as I know, wearing a gun is legal unless your in a bar or a Federal building,we don't serve alcohol,so we shouldn't have had a problem with it."

Seemed like a nice pro gun guy to me-certainly no dumb knee jerk anti,it may have been a customer who called the police.

Treylis
June 15, 2004, 03:21 PM
OK, OK, you win. Go ahead and wander around Target and Penny's with you guns hanging out, after all it is your right.

Of course, that weird dude on the corner who wears nothing but a thong, and the guy who sticks a crucifix in a glass of pee and calls it art, and the kid at the stoplight whose radio is set to 11, they are just exercising their rights, also.

Several religions recognize the Swastika as a symbol. I have the right to wear it on a shirt, or emblazon it on a bill board. Have I lost my right to free speech by not doing so? I think not. I recognize that many people would find my exercise of said right as being offensive, and courtesy dictates absent exigent circumstances that reasonable people should not aggravate other reasonable people. (Note that this is for the purpose of example - I am not a member of any religious or political group in which the Swastika is used)

Yes, it is their right. You not not have a "right" to be comfortable or unoffended.

I am really intrigued by this fascination for open carry. No one in this example has stated anything about the reasons behind it, other than "it is a right." What possible practical rationale is there for open carry in a Starbucks? Who is up for open carry in church? There you may have a much greater "need" for the gun, and I will bet that many people do, (Anybody from JPFO want to chime in?) but how appropriate is that?

Yes, it was mentioned, but you totally ignored it--it acclimates people to the sight of citizens--non-criminals, non-police--carrying. I've actually converted a number of people to pro-gun thinking by them coming up and asking why I carried.

And, in Arizona, the police don't bother folks who open carry. Why? Because it's a relatively common practice! It's exercised and most people don't think anything of it, plus, it's the only legal way to carry if you're under 21, or don't want to cough up huge chunks of money for 16-hour training marathons and fingerprinting.

I think the invocation of the Rosa Parks example is also intriguing. I am not a member of the ACLU or NAACP- how many of you belong to either?

What on earth does this have to do with anything?

The fact that we have an absolute right to keep and bear arms does not mean that said right should note be tempered. None of the people on this thread who "disagree" with the initial premise have said that he should not carry, just that he should be discrete about it.

Go ahead and temper your rights. That's fine with me. Just leave mine the hell alone.

yy
June 15, 2004, 03:37 PM
open carry versus concealed:


I'd open carry if I wanted faster access. I used an IWB holster and found that re-holstering was all but impossible with one hand. Plus I had to get through jacket and shirt before reaching the snap.


Oh, the original post by Toad mentioned that he and his friend came from or almost from the range. This was not a deliberate "educational" open carry with the intent to acclimatize people.

stay focused

Toad: any updates that you can tell us?

sendec
June 15, 2004, 03:37 PM
Look, clearly this is a larger issue for some of you than some of us. If you want to open carry in Starbuck's or Lowe's or Victoria's Secret, hold your head high and march on, but do not get all whiney and booboo lipped when somebody calls the PO-lice. Trying to acclimate the public is a noble aim, but WTH are you thinking? When you are sitting in Perks jazzed on scones and crapaccino what the heck are you going to think when somebody walks in packing? He's one of us and give him the wink, or hey, I am glad my rascal's wrapped so I can buy a couple seconds to burn my way out'o'here. Bottom line, on this planet, on this date and time, two groups of people display firearms: cops and badguys. Right, wrong or indifferent, if you think that strolling Kroger's with your gun visible is going to change the thought process of the average American non-gunner, you have been sniffing the Hoppe's in a closed room. There are a bunch more of them than there are of us, and this kind of ballistic PDA makes us no friends.

Do what you need to do, get that rig low on the hips, sidle up to the counter and order yourself a double mocha hot chocolate and a rasberry danish. Heck, you're a free man, make it double caramel, and a chai tea for the horse!!!

I'll be the guy in the back booth with the concealed guns staring innocently off into space when the cops show up.

Don't Tread
June 15, 2004, 03:39 PM
I have a question for all of those who are against open carry,

Are you so ashamed of the fact that you are carrying a handgun that you feel a need to conceal it??? (this only applies to those who have the option of open carry and do not do so)

Personally, I wish my state had open carry, I would definitely take advantage of it, do you realize how hot it gets in the summer in Florida?? I wouldn't want to have to wear extra clothes just to conceal a weapon if I had a choice.

Ramjet
June 15, 2004, 03:48 PM
Toad, what LE agency arrested you? Was it the Fairfax County Police?

JPL
June 15, 2004, 03:49 PM
This happened in Fairfax County in the Tysons Corner area of Vienna/McLean.

In fact, this happened right across from my office. I can see the Starbuck's from my building if I'm up high enough.

While this area is densely populated, it's in the county, not either town.

It wouldn't matter if it was, as neither Vienna or McLean are over 160k people.

And Fairfax County has a board of directors type administration.

I don't think it has the county manager type arrangement.

Treylis
June 15, 2004, 03:56 PM
When you are sitting in Perks jazzed on scones and crapaccino what the heck are you going to think when somebody walks in packing?

I don't think anything special, because it's a common occurance.

I'm not even going to bother to address the rest of what you said, as it's nothing but ad hom ridiculousness loaded with unfounded assumptions and statements which are demonstrably not true.

And, well, the cops aren't going to show up. Gee, I guess that's because people still do that around here. Feel free to keep enjoying yourself in the back, though.

Wildalaska
June 15, 2004, 04:04 PM
Are you so ashamed of the fact that you are carrying a handgun that you feel a need to conceal it??? (this only applies to those who have the option of open carry and do not do so)

No I just see no need to make a statement....

WildopencarryruinsitforusallAlaska

rock jock
June 15, 2004, 04:05 PM
Don't be too hard on sendec. He does have a valid point and it is not about exercising a right. It is about strategy in our fight for RKBA. One group advocates "in your face" tactics, others say go slow and easy with incremental steps. Personally, I think the correct strategy is different for every state and city. The "slow and easy" approach helps to acclimate a typical anti-gun community; sometimes the aggressive tactics are necessary to push exposure to the next level. Remember, "Discretion is the better part of valor."

WMC
June 15, 2004, 04:07 PM
gunsmith- It may indeed have been a customer. We got a weird look from a guy sitting outside as we entered, and when we were in line a guy came in and stood behind us in line, only to leave the store about 10 seconds later. However, I got the impression from the police that an employee called us in. We'll be on top of that and the 911 call, so we'll see.

In case you didn't figure it out, I am Andrew's friend who was open carrying with him last night.

jkominek is right on- neither of us have concealed carry permits, so open carry is the only option (we're working on it, so no need to post 'Get a damn permit already). Moreover, and more importantly, we are free men who like to exercise our rights.

Not to be a party pooper, but I don't care if you're for or against open carry, because that's really not the issue here. Why is this turning into the 547th forum on open vs. concealed? Let's focus on the facts of the case and let's stop focusing on something that's completely moot and is a personal choice- there are 546 other forums for us to get info from on open vs. concealed.

Updates should be coming in a little while.

-Will

Don't Tread
June 15, 2004, 04:19 PM
If open carry were to fall into disuse it could get to the point that if you don't conceal your gun and keep it that way you will be breaking the law and be hauled off to jail, do you honestly want it that way?? Having to always go to the trouble of sneaking your gun around?? Why should we have to hide the fact that we are carrying, as if we were criminals.

I see it the opposite of the anti-open carry people, Why should a law abiding citizen have to hide their gun as if they were a criminal that's afraid to get caught with it??? I think that the option of concealed should always be there, But I don't think that it should be the only option (as some on this thread seem to beleive)

So, Why should a Law Abiding Citizen have to sneak their guns around??

(edited to add: I didn't see the post imediately before this one, before posting it)

sendec
June 15, 2004, 04:19 PM
It's not an issue of shame - it's an issue of common sense. For those of you who live in places where open carry is commonplace, good on ya, but those are relatively few and far between.

I live in an area where technically open carry is legal. Also, technically, it is legal for women to go topless. Now I am a big fan of women in general and topless women in particular, but does this seem like a great idea, in the greater scheme of things? The court held that women have the right to go topless because men can. Know what's gonna happen when Little Miss Civil Liberties is sashaying down main street in all of her glory. Attract attention, cause a ruckus? Her exercising her rights will lead to chaos, ACD accidents, dogs lying with cats.... oops, forget the last one.

It will not be the downfall of civilization as we know it if this particular right was'nt exercised. Sure, us guys would eventually take it for granted, but no good will come from it in the long run, except for the sunburn remedy purveyors. Some things are just better kept under cover and only deployed when needed.

Again, if you choose to display your guns, breasts, or anything else, that is your choice, but think about the bigger picture, and not just impressing the counter girl or guy.

One final thought for the original poster: As you were getting out of the car and getting ready to walk inside, was'nt there a little voice in the back of your head saying something along the lines of "Dude, this may not be the brightest thing we are about to do?" Did you think that maybe you were about to pee away your whole career? Those little voices are frequently right. I hope it works out for you, but man, one fleeting second of not-thinking-ness can cause a world of hurt.

No further

Jay Kominek
June 15, 2004, 04:31 PM
two groups of people display firearms: cops and badguys.
I'd be very interested in some factual, verifiable information on exactly how many bad guys carry their guns holstered in plain view. It seems to me that I only ever hear about them engaging in mexican carry, or just walking from their car into the establishment they're going to rob, carrying the gun in their hand.
but does this seem like a great idea, in the greater scheme of things?
It doesn't matter whether or not we think it is a great idea. The fact that it is the lady's right means that only her opinion matters.
And that, is the point.

cordex
June 15, 2004, 04:59 PM
Tactically it makes better sense to me in my position to carry concealed. (Frankly, the same tactical arguements I apply to myself would seem to apply to police on duty as well, but ...) I can understand and even learn from arguements along this line. On the other hand, some of the other arguments against open carry I've seen here do nothing to further the goal of the "conceal your pistol" crowd, and actually make me want to distance myself from that group.

I have carried openly once or twice without incident, and have seen strangers do likewise - also without incident.

The big benefit I see of legal open carry is when concealed weapons are accidentally uncovered it becomes a non-issue as opposed to a crime.

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 05:02 PM
When you are sitting in Perks jazzed on scones and crapaccino what the heck are you going to think when somebody walks in packing? He's one of us and give him the wink, or hey, I am glad my rascal's wrapped so I can buy a couple seconds to burn my way out'o'here.Am I particulary dense? What does the above quote mean? "...glad my rascal's wrapped...burn my way out'o'here...?"
Bottom line, on this planet, on this date and time, two groups of people display firearms: cops and badguys. Typical "cop" attitude. Why not just shorten it to: The entire world is made up of two groups: "us cops" and "them." Nice.

As for the Wildalwaysputsstupidthingsinhereguy: How does it "ruin" it for us? I would argue the VCDL guys, some of the most ardent proponents of open carry, have done more to get gun-friendly legislation passed in VA than any other group--including the NRA and GOA--has ever managed to. Have they "ruined it" for VA? If so, I hope they go and "ruin it" like this in other states as well. Maybe they can "ruin it" like this at a national level.

Open carry "Ruins it for us all?" Please.

Scott

cropcirclewalker
June 15, 2004, 05:14 PM
I think sendec is really a gun controller.

my 2 cents

MrAcheson
June 15, 2004, 05:21 PM
I'd be very interested in some factual, verifiable information on exactly how many bad guys carry their guns holstered in plain view.

I guarantee most people who were robbed at gunpoint saw the gun. Some folks may have been robbed with menacing candybars in the criminals pockets, but thats it.

If you open carry good. Have a grand time, but don't whine when somebody makes a fuss over it. Frankly if I see a guy carrying I don't automatically assume friend. I keep an eye on him since he's the biggest known threat in the room. You should be bright enough to expect it since you are inherently attracting attention to yourself with that behavior.

Rights also have nothing to do with social pressure and everything to do with limitations of government and the law. Thats why cops and governmental authorities should know better and thats really what is important in this case. Its not even that the cops were called, its how they behaved once the arrived.

Wildalaska
June 15, 2004, 05:23 PM
As for the Wildalwaysputsstupidthingsinhereguy: How does it "ruin" it for us? I

First of all its WidlinsertpithystatementhereAlaska..so you misspelled my name...although I guess what you are trying to do is just yer way of making a minor flame without getting in too much trouble..

That being said, make sure you ignore all of my posts in the future since they are "stupid"

That being further said, my last response is is that if you cannot figure out the political dangers that open carry means to gun owners then there is no sense talking further to you. Myslef, Ill argue the point with those who dont resort to flaming.

WildastothecaseitselfImakenojudgementAlaska

NMshooter
June 15, 2004, 05:23 PM
So, where is this place where women walk around topless while openly carrying handguns? I might need to move there!:evil:

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 05:29 PM
two groups of people display firearms: cops and badguys.

No I disagree, bad guys usually dont carry their guns out in the open.

But I do think that the public views people who carry guns openly as one of two groups: cops or crazy people.


I think sendec is really a gun controller.

I don't know him, but I pretty much agree with what he is saying. I am not a gun grabber, just don't see a need to cause a big stir by toting a hog leg in public.

As for the Wildalwaysputsstupidthingsinhereguy

Hmm... that sounds kind of personal.


It looks like the supporters of open carry can't put forth a logical argument short of name calling? Come on, I was hoping for at least a high school level debate here.

cordex
June 15, 2004, 05:56 PM
WildastothecaseitselfImakenojudgementAlaska
Really?

-CorIthoughtthatyourjudgementonthiscasewasclearsinceyoudecidedthat
opencarryruinsitforusallexceptIassumeinthecaseofuniformedofficerswho
peoplehavebeenconditionedtoacceptaslawfulcarriersofweaponsTheother
sideoftheopencarrycoinisofcoursethatifpeopleareexposedtolawabidingand
politecitizenscarryinghandgunsopenlythey'llbegintorealizethatperhaps
noteveryonewhocarriesagunisacoporacriminalandwhenyourcarrypiecegets
accidentallyexposedsomedayyouwon'thavetodealwiththekindofharassment
thatUndertoadhashadtodex

PS Those of you who say "legally open carry if you want, but don't complain when you're harassed by people who are supposedly hired to ensure the law is followed" make me wonder. Should authors of unpopular books submit to police harassment and not whine about it?

Or, put plainly, should only popular rights be defended and only popular means of execution of rights be protected?

How would you feel if police decided that concealed carry of a firearm was suitable cause for weapon seizure and detention?
I don't know him, but I pretty much agree with what he is saying. I am not a gun grabber, just don't see a need to cause a big stir by toting a hog leg in public.
Are you arguing against all carry, or just open carry?

Mr. Clark
June 15, 2004, 05:57 PM
All I can say is: wow!

With some of the friends we find ourselves with here, hinting that people who open carry are nothing more than immature cowboy wannabes and crying about ruining it for us all, who needs enemies?

Astounding.

cropcirclewalker
June 15, 2004, 06:00 PM
:two groups of people display firearms: cops and badguys.
So if I open carry and if I am not a cop, what am I? Is that name calling?

But I do think that the public views people who carry guns openly as one of two groups: cops or crazy people.
So if I open carry and I am not a cop, what am I? Is that name calling?

Hmm... that sounds kind of personal.

With that, I agree.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 06:04 PM
Are you arguing against all carry, or just open carry?


My comments are intended for open carry. I carry concealed daily.

I am not opposed to open carry on moral or legal grounds, and I agree everybody has a right to do it. If they want to exercise that right, I wouldn't try to stop it, I would only question the logic of open carry.

It is simply reality that a lot of people are made nervous by open carry. Its not right, its just the way it is. So if you open carry, I dont see why you would be surprised that people react to you differently.

I could exercise my free speech right by wearing a swatiska, tearing up the Bible, and preaching the doctrine of the Ku Klux Klan in public. But people might think I was a little crazy if I did it.

Bottom line is, if you carry open, at least part of the public is going to be freaked out, I don't see any reason to call unwanted attention to myself.



cropcirclewalker, I dont think I called you any names. My statement was that if you carry open, some of the public is going to think you are crazy. I am not necessarily one of them, but there are a lot of people out there who would think so.

Wildalaska
June 15, 2004, 06:06 PM
Really?

Yeah Cordex really..notice I havent commented specifically on the facts of Undertoads case (ecept to mention he should pay for his own lawyer)...since I dont know what the facts are and am only seeing his view of it...

As to the efficacy of carrying concealed I have made my views known over and over again...without conceding that carrying a firearm is constituionally protected, I note that there are lots of things are constituionally protected that I wont do...

Like burn a flag...

Wilddoyouknowwhatreallyhappenedin undertoadscaseAlaska

RealGun
June 15, 2004, 06:14 PM
Open carry rights are worthless if you can still be routinely harassed because of it. I would ask the DA to drop charges and certainly point out why by way of a lawyer. If it's expensive despite having done nothing wrong, I would sue, if VCDL will back you up. Although from SC, if VCDL sets up a fund administration, I would be willing to send a check.

In SC we currently have a guy who, as a security guard, killed a crazy in self defense. His story is solid. He is being held on murder charges. He needs money too.

cordex
June 15, 2004, 06:25 PM
My comments are intended for open carry. I carry concealed daily.
Oh. So when you say you don't see a need to cause a big stir by "toting a hog leg in public" you only mean in a manner that causes a stir. Would you therefore stop carrying altogether if a reporter decided to do a sensational piece on people who carry weapons concealed and a stir was raised over concealed carriers?
I could exercise my free speech right by wearing a swatiska, tearing up the Bible, and preaching the doctrine of the Ku Klux Klan in public. But people might think I was a little crazy if I did it.
Well ... sure ... but wearing a swastika or tearing up a Bible or advocating the KKK isn't cause for police to harass you (assuming that you're doing so in an otherwise lawful manner). If police do harass you for those actions, a phone call to a local CLU will get plenty of support and often result either in an out of court settlement or a successful lawsuit. So why should those who choose to open carry have to live with police harassment - and moreover be told to not complain about it when it happens? Why would people who claim to support civil rights where it comes to gun control actually grant tacit approval to police who abuse their authority to harass lawful gun owners? I just can't figure that out.
Bottom line is, if you carry open, at least some people out there are going to be freaked out, I don't see any reason to call unwanted attention to myself.
I'm with you 100% and therefore have chosen to carry concealed. But I won't blindly tell people who have chosen to carry openly that they're idiots who hurt our cause and have no reason to do so and deserve what they get.

Ramjet
June 15, 2004, 06:31 PM
Given that this case happened in Virginia, I find all the antipathy to open carry interesting. One of the few legislative losses VCDL suffered this year was failure to get the ban on concealed carry in restaurants repealed. As someone has pointed out, in Virginia, if you patronize a restaurant that serves alcohol, concealed carry is against the law and open carry is your only option (and a perfectly legal one). If the powers that be were really that concerned about the citizenry getting freaked out over open carry, you'd think they wouldn't be forcing people into doing so (most of the police organizations who took a stand opposed the repeal).

Herself
June 15, 2004, 06:36 PM
Open carry, by nice, polite, ordinary folks, is one way to counter the "guns = bad" mindset. But don't kid yourself: the right, like all rights, comes with responsibilities. You are now Prime Target for any malefactors* planning armed robbery/assault/etc. near you. You are morally bound to keep that sidearm secure -- lest little Johnny, JD in training, yank it from your holster and sprint away. Your behavior must be held to a higher standard: you can carry a gun or a temper, but not both. Others will examine you and your behavior with greater critical interest than they would were you not visibly armed.

Personally, I'm not up to it. (In my state, they frown on open carry anyway). I carry concealed. But that does not mean I think others should be denied the option!

I want to find out where this is that I can doff my top on the hot days -- come August, that would be right nice sometimes. On the other hand, those darned pin-ups you boys look at set the bar altogether too high. Old & sweaty is not purty. Sendec, folks wouldn't stare, they'd run off screaming!

...I do worry about open carry in a Starbucks: that stuff is caustic! I'm not sure I'd want to risk exposing a fine firearm to it.

--Her(ohthe heckI'm goin'topless,dreamonyalowlives!)self

________________
*okay, it's a polysyllable. But it's almost impossible to misconstrue.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 06:42 PM
Would you therefore stop carrying altogether if a reporter decided to do a sensational piece on people who carry weapons concealed and a stir was raised over concealed carriers?


If it is concealed, it can't cause a stir. No one knows its there.


Well ... sure ... but wearing a swastika or tearing up a Bible or advocating the KKK isn't cause for police to harass you


I agree, and I also agree that there was no cause for the police to have harassed the protagonist of this thread, and nothing I have said implies that.

But I won't blindly tell people who have chosen to carry openly that they're idiots who hurt our cause and have no reason to do so and deserve what they get.

Nor have I said any of that. All I have said is that some people are going to be freaked out by it, and don't see a reason to draw that kind of attention.

Selfdfenz
June 15, 2004, 06:43 PM
Posted previously>
"Someone actually gets it! A right not exercised because it is a hassle or upsets others is no RIGHT AT ALL just like ScottS says!
That's really not such a difficult concept to understand."

Here's one to run with then.....
As a pedistrian you have the right of way over cars in my local. End of story.
This morning a very unfortunate elderly woman exercised that right in front of a Mercedes and he was not able to get stopped. Stuck her and knocked her out of her shoes. I have not heard for the FD/MedEvac how she is doing.

BUT!....Am I torturing your logic to say that she preserved respect for her right to cross streets by this exercise. Guess she really taught the dude in the MB a lesson uh.

Let me ask where some of you start applying the logic of right time, right place and common sense to your argument? Or is it an all or none deal. Guess so.
Not once did I read the guys were in fear they were about to get gunned by thugs waiting for their coffee. They were making their point by golly and they did it. GB'em I hope they win and win big. What pride thay can take going back to Starbucks and ananana their by then new staff. Big win!!!!!!

Also, don't know if Rosa Parks was hurt making her point but many were and hurt bad. If you could ask them would they and been willing to stay healthy and still get the same result, I bet all would take that option. I think if these young men wanted to make a point there were better times, better places and using approaches that exemply a more example of good common sense.

BTW I have carried open...in the woods where it made sense, not at Starbucks.
I have a CHL for the rest of it.

S-

Let me ask where some of you start applying the logic of right time, right place and common sense to your argument? Or is it an all or none deal. Guess so.

gunsmith
June 15, 2004, 06:50 PM
Crop guy
I think sendec is really a gun controller.

I am completely in the "bear any arm you like any way you like"camp.

:cool:


But calling Sendec a horrible,vile name like "gun controller"
is too much even for me!
Don't you know children may see that!:neener:

cropcirclewalker
June 15, 2004, 06:53 PM
I was arrested myself almost 2 years ago for openly carrying in my car at the St. Louis Airport. I sat chained to a bench for a couple of hours talking to the nice, polite but ignorant police guys while their lowbrow leaders sat in another room trying to think of something to charge me with. Then they hadda let me go. I have been immunized about fearing the "Officer Friendly".

The cop is NOT your friend.

Since then, I have discovered something like title 18 or something called sort of like "depriving one of their civil rights under the color of law" There is a thread here somewhere about it from a guy from Colorado.

Look it up.

About Open Carry and why it seems LEOs admit that it's legal, but that one shouldn't do it. They claim that it makes the sheeple nervous, but I think it ;

1) Makes the LEO nervous. Sort of irrational since there could be lots of ccw types there too.

2) Takes away some of their thunder. Cops are used to giving instructions and expecting them to be followed. Implicit in their instructions is the threat of violence. They have a gun. When they are confronted by a lawfully armed citizen, they lose some influence.

(insert some disclaimer here that not ALL leos are control freaks, just most)

3) It is my opinion that many leos on this forum are closet gun controllers. They infiltrate amongst the liberty minded hoping to amelearate (sp?) the attitudes of many of us that have had just about enough. You know, common sense, don'tspoilitfortherestofusI'llaskher, MMM, reasonable, VPC, don't panic the sheeple stuff like that.

Who amongst us would lock up a person for asserting a God given right protected by the constitution? As the guys at Nuremburg found out, Just following orders is not a defense.

cordex
June 15, 2004, 06:55 PM
If it is concealed, it can't cause a stir. No one knows its there.
And what if a reporter obtained and released a list of CCW holders in your county as has happened elsewhere? Suddenly anyone who has that list and knows your name (say, at any place you present a credit card or check) suddenly "knows" (or thinks) that you're carrying.

Or maybe if you accidentally expose your concealed weapon. (It happens.)

Instant stir.
I agree, and I also agree that there was no cause for the police to have harassed the protagonist of this thread, and nothing I have said implies that
And I have no beef with you or your chosen method of carry. :)
Nor have I said any of that. All I have said is that some people are going to be freaked out by it, and don't see a reason to draw that kind of attention.
No you haven't, and I'm sorry I wasn't clear. While I was responding to your post, I was directing that particular statement at others who have posted in this thread.

fjolnirsson
June 15, 2004, 07:02 PM
legally open carry if you want, but don't complain when you're harassed by people who are supposedly hired to ensure the law is followed

I picked this quote pretty much at random from a bunch of others which seemed to press the same point. That point being that open carry is bad.
On another thread, I saw a comment from someone(don't remember who), which said something to the effect of,"carry a gun all you want, but keep it concealed, people don't need to see that $$$$."

I recognize that many people would find my exercise of said right as being offensive, and courtesy dictates absent exigent circumstances that reasonable people should not aggravate other reasonable people.

Hmm, about 25 years ago, folks said much the same things about homosexuals. "I don't care if they want to do that sort of thing at home, but I don't want to see it."
Gays and lesbians were ostracized and discriminated against for their personal lives. Exactly what many gun owners go through today. Gays and lesbians were fired from jobs in many cases because they had been"outed". It isn't that bad for us (yet), but how many of us are subjected to anti gun propaganda at work?
Let's see now, how did the gay/lesbian community deal with this? They got active. They decided they wouldn't hide it anymore.
Now they have the right to have "open carry" relationships anywhere they like.
I guess they should have just kept quiet, and they wouldn't have gotten hurt. I guess if they had just kept it out of sight, they would have been better off. I guess if they hadn't rocked the boat, it wouldn't have been "ruined for the rest of us".
Hmmm. Why do I bother.

By the way, given the choice, I'll carry concealed.

gunsmith
June 15, 2004, 07:03 PM
even experienced CCW folks let their guard down and some one see's their carry gun.
You should not be prosecuted for having an accidentaly untucked shirt.

BTW

Welcome to the high road ,Andrew and Undertoad.
Not every thread is so contentious,I have gotten very great advice from thr on things from ammo to zoology-good luck!

Standing Wolf
June 15, 2004, 07:06 PM
Sue the @#$%^&!s.

RealGun
June 15, 2004, 07:08 PM
Let me ask where some of you start applying the logic of right time, right place and common sense to your argument? Or is it an all or none deal. Guess so.

I don't think it's too much to ask for police to know what's legal in their State. I definitely expect the DA to know when to properly file charges. I think it is outrageous for us, of all people, to decide that the gun owner in this case is somehow at fault. Like lots of people, I wouldn't open carry if I could in most circumstances, but if others do it legally, it is none of my business whether it is wise to do so. I might offer thoughts to consider, but I wouldn't feel it appropriate to discredit someone.

If more people became accustomed to seeing people carrying guns and were aware that it was legal and why they might be doing so, we wouldn't have so much hassle about gun rights. Our carrying could be considered just as normal as that of the police.

I think more incidents could occur if open carry were pervasive, but why turn ourselves into antigunners by insisting that concealed carry was the only responsible way to carry a gun. The police do fine with open carry. What's the difference, if one prefers not to be discreet? In an ideal world without infringements on RKBA, it's supposed to be free choice. We are buying into a lot of antigun logic to think of it any other way. Other open carry States do okay, because people are used to seeing it.

What should have happened here is that when called, the police should have assured the Starbucks that these fellows were good to go, and we'd all be applauding the story.

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 07:15 PM
First of all its WidlinsertpithystatementhereAlaska..so you misspelled my name...although I guess what you are trying to do is just yer way of making a minor flame without getting in too much trouble..Well...actually you misspelled your own name, unless you're now going to be known as Widl Alaska. Kind of takes some of the steam out of it, don't it?That being said, make sure you ignore all of my posts in the future since they are "stupid"My, aren't we testy? I never said your posts were stupid. But the cutesy little thing in between the name...come on.That being further said, my last response is is that if you cannot figure out the political dangers that open carry means to gun owners then there is no sense talking further to you. Myslef, Ill argue the point with those who dont resort to flaming.Well, to me, flaming is calling someone names and adding nothing of substance to the conversation. Kind of like, "Oh yeah, well there's just no talking to you! You're too dumb!" You know...kind of like this:...if you cannot figure out the political dangers that open carry means to gun owners then there is no sense talking further to you.The question you have not answered is this: How has the VCDL, an ardent supporter of open carry rights, "ruined it" for the people of VA? I'll wait, and please give examples.

As for the "only people who open carry are cops and badguys" argument, aside from the outrageous attitude this displays, let me ask the LEO's this: Do the "badguys" really carry openly in $80 Kydex holsters? How often have you seen this? For me, if I see a guy open-carrying, the one thing I'm sure of is he's not a badguy. Similarly, if I see someone's t-shirt slide to the side, and notice a pistol stuffed in his waistband, I'm more likely to give this guy the hairy eyeball. I won't automatically assume he's a badguy, but he's higher on the threat list than the guy who's openly wearing a 1911 in a Blade-tech holster on a Wilderness Instructor Belt.

Scott

WMC
June 15, 2004, 07:21 PM
Looks like we win. I got a call from the Pres. of VCDL (Andrew called them earlier today) stating that the VCDL had contacted the Ffx. PD and that they police had acknowledged fault and had agreed to drop the charges and issue a full apology, clear my record, and return my Glock. The cop is supposed to call when he gets on duty later tonight, in about an hour. I'll post how it goes here, and Andrew hopefully will post later. I plan on getting everything in writing. Unless the cops feel like stalling with the return of my gun or clearing my record, a lawsuit likely will not happen. Thanks for the help.

-Will

Mr. Clark
June 15, 2004, 07:26 PM
That's good to hear. It never should have happened in the first place. The good guys win.

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 07:34 PM
Will,

Congratulations! I'm glad right prevailed in this instance.

You're a better man than I not to sue, but that's another matter. For now, congratulations.

And congratulations to the VCDL for showing--once again--what a state gun rights advocacy group is supposed to be. We all owe these guys thanks.

Scott

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 15, 2004, 07:45 PM
If they apologize and return everything in short order, call it a day. And expunge the record.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 07:56 PM
Do the "badguys" really carry openly in $80 Kydex holsters?


$80 for a plastic holster is the most outrageous thing in this thread. You didn't really do that did you?

Wildalaska
June 15, 2004, 07:57 PM
But the cutesy little thing in between the name...come on.

Well your option is to ignore it then Scotty me lad...as I now ignore you..

WildtataAlaska

Shovelhead
June 15, 2004, 08:01 PM
Cool, Good to hear the good guys win one for a change.

This thread sounds like some of the diesel forums where "they eat their young".

Might have to stop by Starbuck$$ for a $5.00 cup of coffee. :neener:

Ed

DMF
June 15, 2004, 08:12 PM
For me, if I see a guy open-carrying, the one thing I'm sure of is he's not a badguy. So the guy with the 1911 and open carry isn't a threat? What other categories can I elminate as threats? How about the 60 year old lady or the 13 year old boy? Can I be SURE based on gender, race, age, where they live, what they drive, etc, etc. If you could clue me in on the universal indicators of who is and is not a badguy it would make my job a lot easier.

Making assumptions like that can be VERY dangerous to anyone, but cops will have more encounters with potential "badguys" than most so they are even less likely to subscribe to that philosophy.

Whatever probability you want to assign to certain characteristics the ONLY person you are 100% sure of is yourself. You end up getting 99% sure of those you know VERY well, but the rest of the folks are far enough down the scale that I can't be SURE just based on their mode of carry.

Moparmike
June 15, 2004, 08:14 PM
After you get it back, the first thing I would do is go back to that damnable Starbucks, open carrying and a copy of the statute in your pocket, and have a freaking pot of coffee in plain view of anyone.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 08:38 PM
Moparmike,

If he does that, they can just ask him to leave if they want to. If he doesn't go, the police can go get him for trespassing.

Edward429451
June 15, 2004, 08:39 PM
I would still sue them. Stand tall man this is your planet/country too. It's legal, THEY caused a stir, not you. You were within your rights and the hasseled you under color of law wrongly.

For the record, I carry (semi) openly. I'll carry concealed to not frighten the blissninny's but make sure the cop can see it if appropriate. Don't let the blissninny's get you down, they'll jump on the bandwagon when it's safe to.

Edwardblissninny'sruinitforus!429451.

:neener:

hammer4nc
June 15, 2004, 08:45 PM
Well, the more typical reaction, when .gov personnel make mistakes, is to go into lockdown mode, and circle the wagons. We see it so often, and it only makes the situation worse, as far as maintaining respect of the public.

If they are going to admit error, and issue appropriate apologies (as it looks now), we should also give the agency a "well done", and accept the apology as gentlemen.

We can imagine this little incident will be the topic of daily briefings in that section of Virginia for a while. Maybe the cause of RKBA, has been advanced? A positive result, it sounds like.

Moparmike
June 15, 2004, 08:52 PM
Sure, they can ask him to leave. But if they dont, the cops cant do squat. That's where I was going with that.

sumpnz
June 15, 2004, 08:56 PM
I'll second the motion to stay the lawsuit. Of course that will be withdrawn if they refuse to return the confiscated property in the same condition or better than it was in when taken, or if they refuse to completly clear the records of the two gents involved with a full apology.

Yes, it was a pain in the butt for them, and some compensation would be jusifiable, but in this case I say let it go. Save the lawsuits for when the govt refuses to make it right on their own.

Werewolf
June 15, 2004, 08:56 PM
There was a time when open carry in the USA was completely legal and everyone did it. Concealed carry was considered dishonorable and the act of a coward. Concealed carry was made illegal in most jurisdictions after the Civil War for many reasons most of us are familiar with.

My - how times have changed...

Now guns are demonized to the point where law abiding citizens have to hide them even if they don't carry.

If I was a LEO - and I'm not - I'd prefer that the citizens I was sworn to serve and protect carry their weapon openly and not concealed. That way I could tell the law abiding honorable citizens from the dishonorable dogs that would hide their weapons away so they could gain the advantage of surprise over their victims because if everyone carried open it would only be the criminal that hid his or her weapons.

However, because weapons are perceived by the general population as evil things the tactically wise thing to do today is carry concealed so as not to give the bad guys any tactical advantage. Why is that true? Because most Americans wouldn't carry even if they had the option so carrying open is little more than a sign that says shoot me first to the BG's or hey look at me I'm a crazy paranoid gun carrying loon.

The only way to change that will be to do as Rosa Parks did - rock the boat - as one poster correctly pointed out - and as another pointed out about the gays and lesbians - be open about how we feel about the RKBA issue and then put our money where our mouths are by carrying openly where it is legal (and lobbying our lawmakers to make it legal where it isn't).

Carrying open where it's legal may not be tactically sound but then neither were the actions of civil rights activists when many Americans of color were beaten or killed for their activism. The same holds true for the gays and lesbians - many suffered for coming out but come out they did and though they aren't completely free now they at least are not demonized by the majority as they were just 25 years ago.

If gun owners are not to be demonized then the general population must come to see that we are not the bad guys they believe we are. They must be taught that we are John and Jane living next door, we are the guy who teaches science in high school or the guy who comes over to fix our plumbing or even the sweet young thing that waits tables while working her way throught college.

I ask? How many of us avoid even talking about guns if the subject comes up in normal conversation (even with our friends) - quite a few I'd bet - and that perception is based on comments made by many THR members on many different threads over the last year that I've been here.

Is accomplishing the dedemonization of RKBA going to be done with out some pain? NO! Nothing worth having is ever gained without cost.

From what I'm hearing hear it seems many who claim to be for the RKBA are not willing to pay the cost to retain and exercise those rights.

I forget who said it but who ever it was sure got it right when they said:

Freedom isn't Free!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Wildalaska
June 15, 2004, 08:56 PM
After you get it back, the first thing I would do is go back to that damnable Starbucks, open carrying and a copy of the statute in your pocket, and have a freaking pot of coffee in plain view of anyone.

Maybe he ought to wait until he can pay his own legal fees.

WildeasytobeprovacativeonsomeoneelsesdimeAlaska

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 09:01 PM
There was a time when open carry in the USA was completely legal and everyone did it.

Are you sure everyone did it???

sumpnz
June 15, 2004, 09:05 PM
Ummm, Wild I don't recall seeing any posts where he said he actually was having somebody else pay his legal fees. He said he could get help from his parents if needbe, but didn't say he actually did. (Excessivly harsh criticism deleted prior to posting).

Desertdog
June 15, 2004, 09:11 PM
The Offending Starbucks
8381 Leesburg Pike, located in the Pike 7 Plaza with Tower Records, Staples, et al.

703-893-5125
Send the manager a copy of the law, or present him/her a beautiful framed copy of the law while open caryrying, and then don't do business with them when you are NOT open carrying!:evil:
At least till the is changed.:D

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 09:12 PM
sumpnz,

He did say he only had $75 to his name though.

So I think the implication was if he needed a lawyer, someone other than him was going to be footing the bill.

sumpnz
June 15, 2004, 09:15 PM
He did say he only had $75 to his name though. Yeah, but it's his business if he has the money to pay for it himself, or if he get assistance, whether from his dad, us, VCDL, or whoever the heck feels like helping him out.

Edited for typo.

Moparmike
June 15, 2004, 09:20 PM
Maybe he ought to wait until he can pay his own legal fees.

WildeasytobeprovacativeonsomeoneelsesdimeAlaskaNo need to pay legal fees for a legal activity. If he stays past his welcome, that is an entirely different matter called 'trespassing'.


I applaud the "framed law" idea.:D

Dbl0Kevin
June 15, 2004, 09:20 PM
It is my opinion that many leos on this forum are closet gun controllers. They infiltrate amongst the liberty minded hoping to amelearate (sp?) the attitudes of many of us that have had just about enough. You know, common sense, don'tspoilitfortherestofusI'llaskher, MMM, reasonable, VPC, don't panic the sheeple stuff like that.

And some people wonder why the public views us as paranoid gun nuts. Gee I have no idea why. :rolleyes:

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 09:24 PM
Hmm, about 25 years ago, folks said much the same things about homosexuals. "I don't care if they want to do that sort of thing at home, but I don't want to see it."
Gays and lesbians were ostracized and discriminated against for their personal lives. Exactly what many gun owners go through today. Gays and lesbians were fired from jobs in many cases because they had been"outed". It isn't that bad for us (yet), but how many of us are subjected to anti gun propaganda at work?
Let's see now, how did the gay/lesbian community deal with this? They got active. They decided they wouldn't hide it anymore.
Now they have the right to have "open carry" relationships anywhere they like.
I guess they should have just kept quiet, and they wouldn't have gotten hurt. I guess if they had just kept it out of sight, they would have been better off. I guess if they hadn't rocked the boat, it wouldn't have been "ruined for the rest of us".
Hmmm. Why do I bother.

I had the same thought reading the thread earlier today - right down to the "why do I bother" and I didn't bother to post. Also thought about interracial couples having to using more discretion in public (more so in the past) than couples of the same race. I'm glad some people were willing to put their necks on the line challenging the status quo.

LAR-15
June 15, 2004, 09:33 PM
I have no problems with open carry.

LAR-15
June 15, 2004, 09:36 PM
Why would someone want to carry openly?

"I'm armed. STFAFMALMA".

Sort of like why is a poison dart frog so colorful?

It screams "Eat me and die!"

Shovelhead
June 15, 2004, 09:39 PM
This was the store near Bailey's X-Roads & Skyline Towers, right?

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 09:41 PM
Well your option is to ignore it then Scotty me lad...as I now ignore you..Yes, it is always easier to ignore the issue than to answer the hard questions, isn't it?

According to you, VCDL has "ruined it for all of us" again by supporting open carry.

Again, please, "How has VCDL 'ruined it' for the people in VA by supporting open carry?"

Waiting....

As far as suing goes: IMHO, the officers involved should be fired, and I would fight strongly for nothing less. You arrest the wrong guy, or you think you have enough evidence to arrest someone for a crime, and you're wrong, that's one thing. Errors in judgement are bad, but they happen from time to time. You arrest someone for something that's not a crime at all, i.e. you are ignorant of the law you are sworn to uphold, then it's time you were cut loose and look for other work.

Scott

Shovelhead
June 15, 2004, 09:46 PM
Toad, WMC,
Were there actually an arrest, or were you "detained" and cited with the firearm infraction?

Ed

edit to correct names.

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 09:54 PM
First post says, They eventually cited us on a state law, Class 1 Misdemeanor.

If I read this correctly, they were detained, disarmed, weapons confiscated, charged with a Class 1 Misdemeanor, and released with a pending court date.

Scott

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 10:06 PM
OK, I have a couple of questions to toss around here, theoretically of course.

First, if you saw a guy with a gun in a holster, openly carried, in a state where this was legal, would you pay him any more or less attention than someone of similar appearance who does not have a gun on display?

Second, at what point do supporters of open carry feel comfortable drawing the line? For example, if the guy was carrying open without a holster (mexican style) would that bother you?

What if he had his hand on the grip of the gun?

What if he had it unholstered, holding it in plain view, but keeping it pointed in a safe direction?

It would seem the 2nd amendment would allow for bearing arms in these ways also, wouldnt it?

I think the argument over open v. concealed carry boils down to what your threshold of acceptable is on a continuum between concealed carry and walking around with the gun in your hand.

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 10:18 PM
I think the argument over open v. concealed carry boils down to what your threshold of acceptable is on a continuum between concealed carry and walking around with the gun in your hand.I don't think that's true. I think most jurisdictions have a law regarding "brandishing," which my dictionary says is:1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously.I think it would be hard to argue that an affirmative action, like taking your gun out and holding it in your hand, would not fall into this definition.

Scott

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 10:25 PM
So do you think brandishing laws are un-Constitutional?

The 2nd amendment says I can keep and bear arms, and doesn't say it has to be in a non-ostentatious manner.

Understand I am not talking about making threats or acting in a menacing manner. The guy is just strolling down the road, smiling, whistling, smelling the roses, holding his gun in his hand keeping it pointed in a safe direction with his finger off the trigger.

joab
June 15, 2004, 10:29 PM
Lone_Gunman
To me the issue here should not be how it makes others feel
It should simply be a matter of what is legal, nothing more. If someone feels threatened they have a right to call the cops. If I'm walking a pet Chiuaua and it makes some one nervous they have a right to call 911. It's up to the police to determine if there is a crime and act accordingly. He can give me a lecture on having dangerous animals in public if he wants, but if there is no crime there is no crime, end of encounter. He certainly would not have the legal standing to confiscate my mutt.
If you or anybody else feels that they should cover up then by all means do so those that don't feel that need should not be force to or demonized because they choose to take advantage of a law in their favor.

ScottS
June 15, 2004, 10:31 PM
So do you think brandishing laws are un-Constitutional?

The 2nd amendment says I can keep and bear arms, and doesn't say it has to be in a non-ostentatious manner.

Understand I am not talking about making threats or acting in a menacing manner. The guy is just strolling down the road, smiling, whistling, smelling the roses, holding his gun in his hand keeping it pointed in a safe direction with his finger off the trigger.

Scott (standing on the shore, waving and watching as this thread starts to sail off toward nonsense-land...waving...waving...)

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 10:32 PM
Come on, Scott, don't give up. You were sqirming so well. Why should the situation I described not be legal?

I don't think you can think of a reason... but you might surprise me.

fjolnirsson
June 15, 2004, 10:52 PM
Why should the situation I described not be legal?

Scott is not the final arbiter of justice. Scott is not the law. The law in some places state that individual may op[en carry. If the people of the state are inclined to be alarmed, they should pass a law to make it illegal. And that would be another matter entirely.

I did not notice anywhere that any of us said brandishing should be legal, nor was anyone brandishing a gun. What we have here is an arguement over whether or not it is proper for an individual to exercise a right guaranteed by the Bill Of Rights, and also affirmed by the state law in which an individual resides.

As for the question, another person's rights end where they begin to infringe on mine.
If I see a person with a gun, many things are then taken into account. Manner of carry, manner of dress, time of day, place of occurence, number of people present, maner and mannerisms of said individual, and any other circumstances which may have bearing on the situation. Under certain circumstances, I may hunker down next to the guy and draw my own weapon. I may shoot him. I may yell at him to drop the weapon. It depends entirely on the circumstances, as interpreted through the filter of my experience and training.
Most places I know of do not permit brandishing. However, I will not always have the totality of facts in any given event, and therefore must react according to those facts I do have.
That said, nobody was brandishing, according to the story we were given. It may be 100% truth, or it could be 100% fiction, or anywhere betwee. This being the high road, I tend to take folks at their word. I realize this may seem strange to some, but that's my choice.

fjolnirsson
June 15, 2004, 10:54 PM
Understand I am not talking about making threats or acting in a menacing manner. The guy is just strolling down the road, smiling, whistling, smelling the roses, holding his gun in his hand keeping it pointed in a safe direction with his finger off the trigger

In my experience and training, that would indicate something off kilter. I don't know of anywhere this would be legal. I would probably take cover and contact the local PD, who hopefully would be informed as to local and state law.

The Undertoad
June 15, 2004, 10:56 PM
Scott is correct in his assessment of the situation.

If I read this correctly, they were detained, disarmed, weapons confiscated, charged with a Class 1 Misdemeanor, and released with a pending court date.

I emailed with the President of VCDL and talked to him on the phone this morning. He called the PD and informed them of the specifics of the law in question.

Will and I went to the PD tonight and collected our weapons. The officer apologized and also gave us a bit of a lecture on the intelligence of open carry. He said he's a NRA member, 2A supporter and shooter, but never open carries when not in uniform because it just plain freaks people out. He seemed like a nice guy who just screwed up.

I was happy to call it a day and get the charges dropped and my property returned. It turns out he didn't even file any paperwork "because he wanted to research the law more thoroughly"...not sure how much of that had to do with the VCDL talking to his commanding officers, but I got the sense that he was genuinely trying to look out for us.

(oh and the legal fees: I have a line of credit, and I was prepared to sell my firearms, knives, etc. If it came to it I would have asked my parents for a loan with a full intent to pay them back with interest. Gladly, it didn't happen like that).

Oh, and it was a citizen with a cell phone who called us in, not Starbucks. Apparently they didn't care so much, but the officer said some woman was SHRIEKING at him when he pulled up "THERE THEY ARE, THEY'LL SEE YOU!!!" :banghead:

So in my book, all's well that ends well. Except how my parents are ahem, politely requesting, that while they are paying for my college, I should sell all my guns. I can buy as many as I want after I graduate, of course. But that's a whole other can of worms, and since they stuck by me with this I'm willing to do as they ask. (I can still shoot my roomies' guns ;))

fjolnirsson
June 15, 2004, 10:58 PM
Except how my parents are ahem, politely requesting, that while they are paying for my college, I should sell all my guns.

:eek:
At least keep one for defense!

joab
June 15, 2004, 11:05 PM
The officer apologized and also gave us a bit of a lecture on the intelligence of open carry. Maybe you should have given him a bit of alecture on knowing his job and the responsibilities that it entails.

Legislators make the laws Jurists interpret the laws and cops enforce the laws, shrieking women are nowhere in the mix

Gray Peterson
June 15, 2004, 11:13 PM
Sell all your guns? Time to move out and cut bait.

Sorry, I have no patience for parents who try to put my ownership of firearms in the closet. I have three of what I call "non-negotiables":

1) My sexuality. I will not put my partner in the closet and myself in the closet for ANYONE. It's one thing to not talk about something, it's another to totally cut off your relationships and lie about it.

2) My partner. Same as 1) above. My parents tried to play the game with me saying that if I "turn straight" and give him up, they'll pay for my college. What I let loose with was a string of profanities aimed at them and hung up the phone. Needless to say they called back and apoligized, and I told them that if they EVER pulled that ever again, I'd change my name, eventually my address, and just disappear from their lives. They wouldn't pay for my college, though. My question to the married people in this thread: Would you give up the one you love the most for college being paid for? I don't think you would.

3) My guns. Had a few small conflicts with my current room mate over this. Now he's as much as gun nut as I am. Basically, I was paying most of the rent while he was getting back on his feet, and he made it a slight issue over my handling of my firearms. I told him that when he actually takes NRA courses in personal protection and home defense, he can talk to me about my handling afterwards. He agreed, and he did what I asked in regards to the NRA courses. Now I have yet another Pink Pistol's member in my household. :)

GunGeek
June 15, 2004, 11:16 PM
Sell them all to me for $1, as long as I can shoot them while I have them I'll sell them back to you for $1 after you graduate. :D

O.F.Fascist
June 15, 2004, 11:23 PM
I support the right of people to openly carry.

I wish we still had that right with regards to handguns here in Texas.

joab
June 15, 2004, 11:27 PM
My question to the married people in this thread: Would you give up the one you love the most for college being paid for? I don't think you would. Not all of us are happily married all the time, ask me next week when she didn't just wreck the cars. Right now I'd trade her for a pack of Kools ( and I hate menthol)
I'm sorry I don't mean to make lite of your post and I agree with and respect your position

Hawkmoon
June 15, 2004, 11:29 PM
Nevermind.

As usual, I got here a day late and a dollar short,

fjolnirsson
June 15, 2004, 11:32 PM
Hawkmoon,
He was cleared of charges. No foul on his part. The officers were wrong.

PhilipVanCleave
June 15, 2004, 11:33 PM
Sorry if this message is a little out of place chronologically. I wrote hours ago, but go sidetracked and didn't post until after undertoad posted:

I contacted the police today, leaving a message for the captain of the precinct (McGowen) where the arrest occurred. I explained that I was the president of a gun-rights organization and that if he would look at the arrrest report and read the last paragaph in 18.2-287.4, he would realize that two false arrests had been made. I asked that this situation be rectified immediately.

I checked back tonight and the officer that answered the phone (Officer Heenan) said that the charges were being dropped and that the officer would be calling both gentlemen to explain that he had misinterpreted the law!

It is going to be important to get a letter saying that all charges have been dropped and that all arrest records will be expunged. Also, they should get their guns back immediately - any delays would be unacceptable.

VCDL will be following up with the police chief to see that he educates ALL of his officers on this law, so that there are no more false arrests.

Once this has been completely settled, I will put out a VA-ALERT to VCDL's 3,000 member VA-ALERT list and let the world know about this incident and its resolution.

VA-ALERT is free and you can join/unjoin at will on VCDL's web site - www.vcdl.org

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 15, 2004, 11:43 PM
Welcome to THR.

gabeodog
June 15, 2004, 11:56 PM
What angers me the most is the broad on the cell phone.

She went and told all her friends she stopped a crime before it happend.
Or some story like that, and now she is the envey of her bridge club.
The police should call her up and say thank you for bieng a tippster but it was w/in the rights of the law for them to open carry.
jmo

joab
June 16, 2004, 12:15 AM
Welcome, and thank you. When are y'all coming to Fla.:)

JPL
June 16, 2004, 12:50 AM
I'd like to know who the arresting officer was.

Herself
June 16, 2004, 12:59 AM
Congratulations to our young heros, who have had one pass close enough to hear it whistle. Time for some serious PR in VA, billboards and radio spots: the cops, being an organized body with reason to know the law, will learn quickly but the public...may need a bit more help.

You know, I was thinking the "walking along the road, smiling, holding a gun in a safe manner" thought-experiment mentioned in this thread was indeed fantasy-land...until it occurred to me that weekend before last, I was doing just that! It was a parking lot at the State Fairgrounds rather than a road, but public space in the exact manner of a road, and me with a smile on my lips and handgun in hand.

I'd purchased a gun (a lovely and highly conspicuous chrome-slide Star BKS, with pearl-grey anodized frame and hardwood grips, oooo*) at the gun show, and they don't let you walk out with it in a brown paper bag. Nope -- nice man at the door looks at your purchase, sees it has an intact "sold" sticker and the description/serial matches your receipt, and you march out with the firearm in plain sight. It's not a big deal. Despite a multitude of other events happening on the fairgrounds, blissninnies are not darting around in wild-eyed alarm, pestering 911 operators with calls.

Now, I know we don't have an oversupply of common sense in my state (the legislature once tried to set pi to 3, and then 3.2!**). So I kind of suspect it's that folks are pretty much used to seeing happy gunnies, purchase in hand, sauntering across the lots at the fairgrounds at least four weekends a year. So it could be that the notion of open carry as a way to get the disarmed to not panic at the mere sight of guns has some merit, ya think?

--Herself
____________________________
* Hey, it's a matter of personal taste, okay? :)
** The higher figure is silly, but not as dumb as it looks: it would have applied to round barns, to determine the square footage for property-tax assement. Round barns being historic and all, the measure was laughed down.

carpettbaggerr
June 16, 2004, 01:44 AM
Why should the situation I described not be legal? I don't think you can think of a reason... but you might surprise me.
Did Herself suprise you Gunman? And will you admit it? :scrutiny: Or are you going to keep arguing just to argue? :)



And people wonder why the shooting community is so male-dominated. :rolleyes:

Wildalaska
June 16, 2004, 02:11 AM
Context carpet bagger, context...

Gun Show at fairgrounds..person walking with gun....alarm bells?...probably not....

Here in Alaska...person gets out of truck in Anchorage, wearing hunting clothes, filthy dirty, has 44 on hip, goes into ToGo Mart....naw, hes just goin about his bizness...

Person walking into Nordstroms with AK in hand? Calling 911....

Rant....

A lot of my problem with open carry is the "in your face screw your sensibilities I do what I want despite what others think" attitude associated with it...then again I feel the same way about flag burning, signs at marches that say "we are Here, we are queer, we are coming for your children", people holding placards with aborted fetuses, people holding "Burn in Hell Reagan " signs and all the other accoutrments of todays impolite society.

I prefer my freedoms and rights excersized quietly and politely. I dont piss on crucifixes ,wipe my ass with the flag, parade down Main Street with a Machine Gun or try to make loud statements. That convinces nobody except the fellow travelers crowing about how great it is...if ya think you are convincing a soccer mommy that carrying a gun is OK by tossing it in her face you are dead wrong. People are convinced by reason and by mature reflection not by confrontation.

If I wanna convince a soccer mommy, or a so called "blissninnie", Ill invite em shooting, not flash guns at em in Barns and Noble. I wanna establish my view of the second amendment, Ill write my congressperson, join a party, get involved...not rant on the internet.

If half of you spent as much energy working through the political system as ya do raising your fists saying right on becasue a bunch of college kids who cant even pay their own legal fees provoke idiot cops into confiscating their guns we'd be in a hell of a lot better shape with respect to attitudes towards firearms...

Rant off

WildandallmybrassisresizedhoorayAlaska

El Rojo
June 16, 2004, 02:57 AM
WildAlaska,

I think the reason so many people disagree with you is because you seem to think that you know exactly what is best and that all other opinions are substandard to your own. You are entitled to that opinion, but that doesn't mean anyone has to accept it. You don't have to agree with open carry, that is fine. You can make all sorts of wild assumptions and make grand generalizations about people who open carry all you want. Just re-read your post before this one. You are talking about tossing guns in people's faces and generally attempting to incite a flame war. You have been consistantly doing so through out this thread.

The one thing you haven't seemed to notice is that no money was spent on this young man's encounter with the law. He doesn't have to have money, he resolved the issue without having to hire a lawyer. He didn't spend any time in jail. There will be nothing on his record. He won. And all you can talk about is how he supposedly threw a gun in a soccer mom's face? Talk about blowing the situation out of proportion in order to advance your agenda.

Again, I appreciate these two young men and what they did. You don't have to if you don't want and we would appreciate it if you just let it be. We know open carry might not be the best form of carry. Hell, we would all carry carbines around underneath our jackets if we could. However, we continue to carry around little pocket rockets or full sized 1911's and they still don't stack up to a good rifle. Yet we do it anway. Not everything in this world has to be about what is best or what is most efficient. That is why we live in a free country, where people can decide for themselves what they want to do. So if I wouldn't open carry, nothing says these two guys can't open carry. And if they want to accept the responsibility for doing so, then let em. Why is that so hard to understand? If you don't like it, deal with it. Organize a way to ban open carry if you are so opposed to it. Otherwise do us all a favor and go do something productive with your time other than get down on two young men who had the guts to exercise their rights and when they were confronted with adversity, they justly prevailed. You would think we would be supportive of these two for standing up for all of us? Instead we make wild accusations and broad generalizations and jump to all sorts of conclusions that really have no merit. :barf:

You know, for all of the talk about how people who open carry make themselves a target, I think it would be nice to have at least one reference where someone was taken out first or at all because the bad guy saw they were packing. Just one case would be a good start.

fjolnirsson
June 16, 2004, 03:11 AM
I couldn't find the smilie for clapping hands, so...

Good Post!

Wildalaska
June 16, 2004, 03:18 AM
Nice speech EL Rojo, but you misread my post...try again...

WildandtheprotaganistsherearenotherosAlaska

Gray Peterson
June 16, 2004, 03:58 AM
The fact that he was embarassed, humiliated, and cited over open carry may in fact be a way for the Legislature to take action next year on this issue. VCDL is already planning a line of attack next year in the legislature.

VCDL Alert Update:

18.2-287.4 STRIKES AGAIN!

New VCDL member Andrew King and a friend, William Coggin, both
college students were unlawfully arrested for open carry at a
Starbucks in Northern Virginia by Fairfax county police on Monday
night.

Apparently another patron called the police on her cell phone and was
shrieking hysterically at the dispatcher about 2 men with a gun.
Seven patrol cars arrive and Andrew and William are taken outside.
Their guns are confiscated and they are detained for an hour as
police try to figure out what to charge them with. Andrew was asked
if they could search his car. To his credit he said, "No." That
issue was then dropped by the police (to their credit).

Finally, the police came up with a charge - YOU GUESSED IT -
18.2-287.4 carrying a loaded firearm in a city with a population over
160,000...

Sigh.

Both Andrew and William, who had acted politely through the whole
incident, were given a ticket to appear in court for a class 1
misdemeanor and released.

Andrew emailed me that night and I responded to him, asking for
details (officer's names, badge numbers, William's info, etc.)

Tuesday morning I called the precinct where the arresting officer
worked and left a voice mail for the captain. I politely told him
who I was, that his officers had unlawfully arrested two law-abiding
young men, told him to read the definition of 'firearm' in
18.2-287.4, and to read the arrest report. I asked that the charges
be dropped immediately, stating that if this actually went to court
that an unlawful arrest lawsuit would certainly follow.

I didn't hear back from the Captain, but later Tuesday evening I
called the precinct. The officer that answered the phone knew all
about the situation and said that the charges WERE BEING DROPPED and
the arresting officer would be calling both young men and apologizing
for his misinterpreting the law.

I personally called both Andrew and William and told them the good
news. I told them to be sure and get their guns back ASAP and not to
accept any kind of runaround or delay in doing so.

I also talked to William's mother, who was concerned about the
incident. She seemed quite relieved when I emphasized that William
had done nothing wrong or illegal. On the contrary he had been
careful to obey the law as he exercised a valuable constitutionally
protected right here in Virginia. The fault, I told her, was
completely with the police not knowing the law. Her son, I said, had
acted like a gentleman, handling the situation as good as could be
expected.

Andrew is a new member and had not visited the VCDL site yet, so he
was not familiar with the battles that VCDL has been battling with
18.2-287.4. I told him to download a copy of that law and keep it
with him.

I REPEAT TO ALL OF YOU: it is wise to keep the highlighted copy of
18.2-287.4 from the VCDL web site with you and it would be smart to
memorize the key parts so you can speak intelligently on that law if
you run into an officer who is attempting to misuse it on you.

I got an email on Tuesday night from Andrew. Indeed the arresting
officer did call, apologized for the mistake, lectured them on open
carry (this cop doesn't know when to quit pushing his luck, does
he?), and they both went down and got their guns back. They were
assured that the ticket was completely destroyed and there would not
be any kind of record except the police report, which does not refer
to them as suspects.

I was glad that the police saw the light and dropped the charges
swiftly, saving these two young men undue stress and financial
hardships awaiting trial, but I am still angry over the treatment of
Andrew and William. But at least the ordeal was over in less than 24
hours.

Of course it is not over for VCDL. I will be asking one of our
attorneys to write a letter to the Fairfax chief of police asking him
to please explain 18.2-287.4 to ALL his officers so we have no more
false arrests. I am also shopping around for a delegate or senator
to carry a bill to strike 18.2-287.4 altogether. At a minimum the
wording needs to be fixed once and for all. But striking it is what
should be done and that is what VCDL will be looking to do. In that
sense what happened to Andrew and William will be powerful ammunition
in getting rid of that terrible law.

Well a couple of weeks ago we educated 9 officers and 1 magistrate in
Richmond. Now we are going to probably add a whole lot of Fairfax
police to that list.

If this happens again, a false arrest lawsuit would definitely get
the attention of a lot of police departments. Let's hope it doesn't
come down to that.

***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL).
VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to
defending the human rights of all Virginians. The membership considers
the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be an essential human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org

4570Rick
June 16, 2004, 05:48 AM
Rant....
If I wanna convince a soccer mommy, or a so called "blissninnie", Ill invite em shooting, not flash guns at em in Barns and Noble. I wanna establish my view of the second amendment, Ill write my congressperson, join a party, get involved...not rant on the internet.
Rant off

This is irony...I can tell. :D

SapperLeader
June 16, 2004, 05:57 AM
Undertoad and WMC, glad to hear things worked out for you both. VCDL is a great organization, and im glad they were able to step up to bat for you.

Undertoad, as for selling your guns, here is a great counter argument for your parents. "Mom, Dad, your right, these guns are bad. I will go sell them right now. I will now spend all my free time in college drinking, drugging, and doing my best to make a grandchild for you. Thank you for showing me the truth". If that doesnt put things in perspective for them, nothing will. Personally, college life is stressful enough, without taking away one of the more relaxing hobbies I have. I mean shooting other peoples guns are fun, but not the same as shooting your own. Plus, its pretty hard to conceal carry for sd purposes, when you dont own a firearm :(.

ScottS
June 16, 2004, 06:48 AM
Three facts which Widlalaska won't let interfere with his opinion:

1) VCDL is a strong advocate of open carry. As a group, they open carry often, both individually and en masse.

2) VCDL regularly educates ignorant LEO's as to the law in VA. Read their VA-Alerts. They regularly "stack up" apologies from the LE Agencies involved.

3) VCDL has tremendous success in passing gun-friendly legislation in their state. Again, check their website or subscribe to their alerts. Their legislative track record is astounding.

From from "ruininig it for all of us" or "tossing it in their faces," they are doing exactly what they intending to: educate the public and ignorant LEO's that the gun-carrying world is not "divided into two groups: cops and badguys." I'll say it again, IMO they are the model for a gun rights advocacy group.

Although it would never occur to me to burn the flag, it is legal. And if someone wants to do it, they shouldn't be arrested for violating some non-existant law. And if someone called 911 to say,"OMG, there's a guy burning a flag, I would expect the police to be educated enough in the laws their were sworn to uphold to say, "So? Nothing illegal about that."

Scott

Wishes the VCDL were a national organization
Glad this thread stopped drifting into "Well, if I pointed it, but not right at you should that be illegal? Huh?"

RealGun
June 16, 2004, 07:03 AM
If the parents don't accept the guns, they do not except the child as an individual. Leveraging their support for college expenses only has merit if further extravagance with additional guns, impacting the parents, is curtailed. Existing guns, if indeed paid for in full, are a done deal and should remain. A minimal compromise, if necessary, for example if guns have been purchased extravagantly, would be to retain at least one gun. It will be up to the child to have and enforce boundaries. Selling all the guns would be a sign of dysfunction in the family, but it is hard to say from a distance exactly how this should go.

A test of exactly what the parents have in mind is to make it known that shooting would continue regardless. Are they after the financial impact or are they after the guns?

spartacus2002
June 16, 2004, 07:17 AM
Welcome aboard Phillip and thanks for the work you do on our behalf here in VA!
Spartacus (proud VCDL member)

Gray Peterson
June 16, 2004, 07:28 AM
I will take some small credit for bringing Philip's attention to this particular thread and getting him to register here. (unless of course, Toad and WMC did that before, if that is so, the credit goes with them). :)

Whatever may be the case, welcome aboard, Philip!

Stand_Watie
June 16, 2004, 08:01 AM
Great news Undertoad and WMC. I'm glad it worked out well for you, and I'm glad you've got VCDL there to help out.

Harry Tuttle
June 16, 2004, 09:14 AM
"THERE THEY ARE, THEY'LL SEE YOU!!!"

gee, i wonder which NVA MMM member y'all freaked out in Starbucks?

Any bets on when a Fairfax County Open Carry repeal bill gets proposed by her friends?

PhilipVanCleave
June 16, 2004, 09:19 AM
Looks like quite a chat board! BTW, I had two people in quick succession Tuesday morning bring this thread to my attention and both suggested I come up here to comment. Now that I am registered, if there are any other threads in the future that I might be missing that VCDL should know about, don't hesitate to contact me to come check it out. I appreciate the kind words about VCDL Lonnie, Sparticus, and Scott.

Treylis
June 16, 2004, 09:32 AM
Any bets on when a Fairfax County Open Carry repeal bill gets proposed by her friends?

I sincerely doubt that'll happen, as she probably already thought it was illegal. And even if one of her friends brings up the fact that it is, what on earth are you saying? That we shouldn't exercise our rights out of the fear that we might lose them?

dev_null
June 16, 2004, 09:33 AM
The link to the document is Here (http://www.vcdl.org/new/VA_18.2-287.4.pdf).

Phil (or anyone else), is this going to be affected by the various changes on 1 July?

- 0 -

Leatherneck
June 16, 2004, 09:53 AM
dev_null is this going to be affected by the various changes on 1 July? I think not--this is one of the few pro-gun changes in the last legislature that did not pass. I've suggested that Delegate Scott Lingamfelter might be willing to take this on...

TC
TFL Survivor

JPL
June 16, 2004, 10:06 AM
While I'm not much of a gun person, I must admit that I'm rather disturbed at the theory that people shouldn't, as a matter of course, do what is perfectly legal under the law.

That's a very poor precedent to set for oneself and our society.

Stefan Tahmassebi
June 16, 2004, 10:11 AM
This particular statute defines the banned "firearms" as follows:

For purposes of this section, "firearm" means any (i) semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock or (ii) shotgun with a magazine which will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered.

Thus, if the firearm does not fall within this definition, and these individuals were otherwise acting lawfully (and open carry is lawful in Virginia) then the state has no criminal case against them.

The charges should be dropped and the firearms returned, and there may be a civil rights cause of action against the officers and the police department under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The right to carry open in Virginia is clearly established, and under an analogous U.S. 5th Circuit case, involving the open carrying of a knife, a 1983 action was upheld.

Unless a person wishes to be wrongly convicted for a crime they did not commit, it would be very foolish not to hire a lawyer. These individuals should most certainly engage counsel to represent them. A class 1 misdemeanor may carry a sentence of up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2500. VA. CODE ANN. 18.2-11.

These individuals should contact the NRA's General Counsel's Office at 703-267-1250.

STEFAN B. TAHMASSEBI
Deputy General Counsel, NRA

ScottS
June 16, 2004, 10:15 AM
And even if one of her friends brings up the fact that it is, what on earth are you saying? That we shouldn't exercise our rights out of the fear that we might lose them?Nah. I got the impression he meant that whenever they ran into a law they didn't like, they started shouting "Repeal Conceal" and "Halt the Assault" nonsence. Maybe they'll get a pink Hundai and drive around Fairfax County shouting "Close Open Carry."

Scott

Gray Peterson
June 16, 2004, 10:27 AM
Looks like quite a chat board! BTW, I had two people in quick succession Tuesday morning bring this thread to my attention and both suggested I come up here to comment. Now that I am registered, if there are any other threads in the future that I might be missing that VCDL should know about, don't hesitate to contact me to come check it out. I appreciate the kind words about VCDL Lonnie, Sparticus, and Scott.

I only wish we had your organization out here in Washington. WCDL could kick butt and take names in the Legislature.

Old Fuff
June 16, 2004, 10:31 AM
Treylis:

I respectfully disagree with my fellow Arizonian …

I suspect that most of the anti-gun folks in Virginia think open carry is illegal, and if or when they find out differently they will mount a campaign to outlaw all open carry (we don’t live in the wild west anymore, etc.). I also predict that they’ll be supported in this by many of the state’s law enforcement organizations and news media.

Does this mean that pro-gun people in Virginia should give up open carrying their guns? Well not necessarily, and that’s a decision each individual will have to make for themselves.

But everyone should understand that “defending the right” in the manner advocated by some is sure to lead to a fight in the legislature sooner or later. So Virginia gun owners had better get ready for it. They had also better realize that the forces that will be aligned against them are powerful ones, and this is a battle they could lose.

While I believe that we should be steadfast in defending our legal and civil rights regarding these issues, I also agree with WildAlaska’s point that one doesn’t win by antagonizing or frightening the general population who’s support we need.

We may advocate our "rights" all we want, but the hard truth is that they can be, and often are restricted or eliminated by statutes, and these statutes have been upheld by the courts. Anyone who doesn't think so should try open carry in New York City or Chicago.

Gray Peterson
June 16, 2004, 10:42 AM
Unless a person wishes to be wrongly convicted for a crime they did not commit, it would be very foolish not to hire a lawyer. These individuals should most certainly engage counsel to represent them. A class 1 misdemeanor may carry a sentence of up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2500. VA. CODE ANN. 18.2-11.

Well, you're a little late. The charges are already dropped.

Toad and WMC, I would suggest giving the General Counsel's office a call, and see if you can in fact persue a 42USC1983 case against the officers involved. The fact that the cop gave you a "stern lecture" against open carrying totally destroys their credibility and gives credence to the idea that Fairfax will continue these actions against people just because.

PhilipVanCleave
June 16, 2004, 10:56 AM
Delegate Cole from Fredericksburg has already stepped up to the plate to offer to fix/repeal 18.2-287.4 (I will talk to him in July at a VCDL picnic to work out details). He monitors our VA-ALERTS and stepped forward.

BTW, all the anti-gun organizations in VA know open carry is legal here. Issue comes up every year when we try to repeal the restaurant ban. The anti's say "they can just open carry in restaurants," hoping we will be to shy to. Of course, they anti's are unhappy that so many are actually doing so they tried to disallow all carry in restaurants, but they got creamed in committee.

Gray Peterson
June 16, 2004, 11:05 AM
I suspect that most of the anti-gun folks in Virginia think open carry is illegal, and if or when they find out differently they will mount a campaign to outlaw all open carry (we don’t live in the wild west anymore, etc.). I also predict that they’ll be supported in this by many of the state’s law enforcement organizations and news media.

News media, maybe.

Law enforcement...no. Remember that the anti-gun portion of the state is around Fairfax/Arlington and generally the area closest to DC. I think Philip can answer Old Fuff's call on that one. Most of the chief law enforcement officers (that is, Sheriffs and Chiefs) outside of the NoVA area are very pro-second amendment, and quite aware that open carry is LEGAL.

I don't live in Virginia, but most of my ancestry and a lot of mother's side of the family call the Commonwealth home. Believe you me: There is no way in hell that what you state may happen willl happen in Virginia. The road in Virginia is one towards liberalizing gun laws.

For example, starting on July 1st, 2003, laws against open carry by grandfathered local ordinances were declared inapplicable against CHP holders and holders of licenses from recognized states. As of July 1st, 2004, the laws will be totally PREEMPTED. You have a very strong pro-rights organization that will call any local official to the mat and tell them that what they are doing is illegal, and that they will SUE if they don't comply. Every time, the localities back down. If we had VCDL-like organizations in every state (Oregon Firearms Federation and Ohioians for Concealed Carry are two notables for being extremly effective), we wouldn't have had any problems getting open carry bans repealed, and so on.

A lot of people are suggesting that we shouldn't "rock the boat" by open carrying where it is perfectly and totally without a doubt legal. Well, it used to be 35 years ago that two people kissing in general if they are of the same sex were arrested for "disturbing the peace" because of the idea of hecklers veto was very strong back then. Do you think gay rights activists told people to stop doing it to keep bigots from passing more laws? No. They sued, they fought, and they won, and now, I'm a US Supreme Court case away from being able to marry my partner.

Gun rights organizations should realize, as VCDL has realized as well as gay rights organizations a long time ago realized, that no amount of grovelling and kowtowing to the anti-gunners will satiate them. They will not stop until we are all disarmed. If we show any sort of weakness like what some people are suggesting by not excercising our rights, then they will win. The only way to win is to throw their stupid ideas in their faces, and do what we want within the laws, and tell them to pound sand.

Toad and WMC, you should not only make an example of the officers who did this, you should also make an example of the woman who called the police and shrieked. What she did was no different than defamation of your character. You start going after these shriekers, and make them REGRET IT. Sue them until they cry uncle, sue them until you own their homes, their cars, and have garnished their wages for life. Make that woman an example that if you make a false complaint, you will pay for it with your livelyhood. If you do discovery, find out who made the complaint, the cell phone number, and the address. Find out from the police report what the woman's name is, and then go after her legally and financially. She is civilly negligent and liable. MAKE HER AN EXAMPLE!!!

RealGun
June 16, 2004, 11:17 AM
We may advocate our "rights" all we want, but the hard truth is that they can be, and often are restricted or eliminated by statutes, and these statutes have been upheld by the courts. Anyone who doesn't think so should try open carry in New York City or Chicago. - Old Fuff

Those are not RKBA States...VA is. Open carry is legal because it is Constitutional, not because it is a popular idea, blowin' in the wind. Civics education would be more important than defending the concept of open carry, leaving it subject to popular opinion, rule by ignorant mob.

Old Fuff
June 16, 2004, 11:37 AM
I certainly hope you gentlemen are right, and if you think the “in your face” response is the way to go, fine. However, even constitutional rights are subject to court review and interpretation. All I advise is that you’d better expect a fight (at least in certain areas) and be ready for it.

Here in Arizona we enjoy the same rights that you have in Virginia, and perhaps more. On the other hand in California which is just next door the exact opposite is true. The difference in population demographics and left-wing politics is the reason why. I wish you the best of luck. I would hope that Virginia remains like Arizona and that population influxes doesn’t cause it to become another California.

Don Gwinn
June 16, 2004, 12:35 PM
Well, that couldn't be much more irrelevent. "Court review?" "interpretation?"

What does that have to do with this case? The interpretation has been made by the legislature and the courts already. There isn't a word of law anywhere in the Virginia legal code that prohibits or even might be interpreted or stretched to prohibit what these two were doing. It is perfectly legal. That IS the interpretation, and that IS what the courts have to say on the subject.

And you STILL think they should cower.

:banghead:

Edward429451
June 16, 2004, 12:50 PM
Hear hear!

If a citizen makes an honest mistake, they still staple it to their forehead with an "It's the LAW" to go with it, and prosecute. A fine precedent.:rolleyes:

Now if the cops make a mistake, we're supposed to walk away with an apology and not pursue it? Bad precedent and totally unfair to a people who are supposed to be the power and be free...

Even if the guy loses in court, it would set a good precedent that they cops cannot go around wrongly harrassing the public at large and be immune from consequences. There's a responsibility that goes along with the duty of law enforcement. If we don't make them realize that by personally naming the offenders in the suit, they just get more arrogant and abuse the citizenry more. Sue their pants off and send the message to other LEO's that they better excercise good judgement.

tyme
June 16, 2004, 12:55 PM
(sendec) Look, clearly this is a larger issue for some of you than some of us. If you want to open carry in Starbuck's or Lowe's or Victoria's Secret, hold your head high and march on, but do not get all whiney and booboo lipped when somebody calls the PO-lice.
They can call the police all they want. The police should tell them to fly to New Zealand if they want to screw with things they don't understand. And for idiots who persist in tying up police lines after being told open carry is legal, the callers should be cited for obstruction of justice or filing false police reports.

If these panicking sheeple would simply ask about open carry when they see someone open carrying, most firearms enthusiasts would immediately come across as not a threat, reasonable, and friendly, even if there's an insurmountable difference of ideology. IMO, this represents a socialization problem on the part of the panicky blissninnies who call police whenever they see a gun.

I have my own reasons for liking and disliking open carry, but they only affect me and are totally irrelevant to this board. It would be nice if people commenting on what they personally prefer would not degrade others who haven't reached the same conclusion, particularly if they live in different states with different laws.

sendec
June 16, 2004, 02:12 PM
I am glad it worked out for these guys and would recommend they invest heavily in lottery tickets with the way their luck is running. I'd also like to ask when they are planning on doing it again.

For all the puffing and blowing, no one has come up with an articulable reason to do this, other than "because I can" or "it's convenient" or "I cannot get a permit". You may think this ranks up with facing off a tank at Tianamen Square, but it makes as much sense as carrying an accordian wherever you go. People are going to look at you funny, they are not going to ask you for a polka.

Let me know when we have innoculated 21st century America to the sight of people bowling while visibly armed. By that time a lot of us will probably be carrying particle beam weapons concealed while saying "how quaint."

The "panicked sheeple" in San Ysidro and Luby's and Columbine and Pep Boys and at the Bank of America and Norco probably had other things on their minds than saluting the American sportsman when they met their respective open carriers.

hammer4nc
June 16, 2004, 02:32 PM
Officer sendec singlehandedly erases any good will that might have ensued by the agency involved with this incident...

Nazi's, columbine, luby's, san ysidro, bank of america, urine-soaked crucifix's...all totally irrelevent to this case. Yet, at the same time, pleading for an "articulate reason", for exercising a legal right. Now, that's entertainment!

sumpnz
June 16, 2004, 02:33 PM
The "panicked sheeple" in San Ysidro and Luby's and Columbine and Pep Boys and at the Bank of America and Norco probably had other things on their minds than saluting the American sportsman when they met their respective open carriers. So then by that logic, it would be just as acceptable to ban hunting rifles becuase some nut named Charles Whitman used them to gun down a bunch of people from a tower at UT Austin.

Edit: Sorry for the thread drift.

ojibweindian
June 16, 2004, 02:48 PM
Interesting.

In reading this thread, I cannot but be reminded of other threads in which the topic of a call to arms against the usurpation of our rights is discussed. It appears that, in some instances, this call to arms is woefully shallow.

But, at least, in reading this thread, I know who would stand and who would do otherwise.

moa
June 16, 2004, 03:01 PM
Cropcirclewalker, you said:

"Since then, I have discovered something like title 18 or something called sort of like "depriving one of their civil rights under the color of law" There is a thread here somewhere about it from a guy from Colorado.

Look it up."

IIRC, it is 18 United States Code 1983.

ScottS
June 16, 2004, 03:06 PM
I am glad it worked out for these guys and would recommend they invest heavily in lottery tickets with the way their luck is running. I'd also like to ask when they are planning on doing it again.This just makes no sense. I guess every time I don't get arrested for something that's not illegal, I should consider myself lucky? "Man, you're lucky you didn't get arrested for not breaking the law." What kind of police-state BS is this?

I would have paid serious money for sendec to be one of the officers involved in this incident when their supervisors told them to call and apologize to the citizens they wrongfully detained and cited. Serious money. But then, he's the originator of the "only two groups carry openly: cops and bad guys" attitude.

What sendec, Widlalaska and Old Fuff don't want to deal with are the real-world facts: 1) VCDL actively encourages open carry to educate the public and ignorant LEO's as to the laws regarding firearms, and to "normalize" the concept of the "non-badguy gun owner;" and 2) far from turning the public against them, "ruining it for all of us," and "losing" open carry in the legislature, they have been staggeringly successful in their efforts.

When the established facts disagree with your theory, I guess you have to just disregard them and cling to your theory.

Scott

edited to add: sendec's attitude is exactly why I would like to see the individual officers involved in this incident sued. Without recourse, there is no right. Here we have a presumed LEO claiming two guys who weren't breaking the law, who were wrongly detained/cited were "lucky." Sue them.

Treylis
June 16, 2004, 03:27 PM
For all the puffing and blowing, no one has come up with an articulable reason to do this, other than "because I can" or "it's convenient" or "I cannot get a permit". You may think this ranks up with facing off a tank at Tianamen Square, but it makes as much sense as carrying an accordian wherever you go. People are going to look at you funny, they are not going to ask you for a polka.

I already mentioned it when you said basically the exact same thing above, but you totally ignored it, yet again:

Yes, it was mentioned, but you totally ignored it--it acclimates people to the sight of citizens--non-criminals, non-police--carrying. I've actually converted a number of people to pro-gun thinking by them coming up and asking why I carried.

RealGun
June 16, 2004, 03:32 PM
It occurred to me that the person that called the police with the "Oh my God, they have guns!" reaction, is probably influenced by television and movies, in which there is NEVER a portrayal of an honest citizen packing a handgun in a modern day setting as a matter of routine. I guess we are responsible for our own stupidity, but I still think the entertainment industry is very influential...not in our favor either. It will remain to the police when or if to make an incident from these calls, but getting a producer to do a favorable script would sure help. Some of the calls might not occur. Contrived messages are certainly nothing new for film makers.

cropcirclewalker
June 16, 2004, 03:36 PM
ScottS

What you said.

Maybe there are LEOs out there who really do look at the public as "Criminals who haven't been caught yet". I've heard of them and I have been hassled by some of them, but maybe there are more of them than we like to believe.

The cop is NOT your friend.

Open carry can cause them to become afraid because unlike CCW, the average open carrier DOESN'T have to get permission from anybody. Doesn't have to be background checked, Doesn't have to be fingerprinted, doesn't have to have a permission slip to show anybody in authority and doesn't have to have any "Approved" Training.

Maybe they fear the open carrier because that open carrier never got down on his knees and asked politely for the right to carry.

Maybe it makes their elite club of gun toters just a little less elite.

Who knows, I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.

Wildalaska
June 16, 2004, 03:53 PM
The cop is NOT your friend.

The lawyer is a scum sucking shark. The politicians are greedy tyrants. People who dont like guns are blisninnies. ATF agents are jackbooted thugs. People who object to open carry are unrealistic..

I could add others but this isnt the round table.

I prefer my world, not quite as dark and Hobbesian.

WildproudtobeasheepleAlaska

Kevmo327
June 16, 2004, 04:13 PM
On the subject of open caryy....IMHO, I think that these guys did nothign qwrong except go into a place where some one got panicky and called the police on them.

I also understand both sides of the open carry arguement going on here...There are those who open carry because it is their choice and their right and there are some that do it to prove a point....Example of the latter...here is AZ I was runnign some errands and a guy wheels up next to me on motorcycle dressing in torn up jeans and a wife beater t shirt wuith not one but two Desrt Eagles in shoulder rigs...Judgin by the smug look on his face he knew and was very pleased that he was drwaing attention to himself and while he was well within his rights in AZ to be doing this I do not beleive that it is the image that we, as responsible gun owners, needs out there on the street.

I would be interested in hearing what others think of this as I discussed this on a simailr post on another forum and was flamed for not respecting his 2A rights

Leatherneck
June 16, 2004, 04:26 PM
In my opinion, WildbepoliteAlaska has a valid message: remember when we used to say "An armed society is a polite society"? Emphasis on polite. Nothing shameful about covering up if your intention is to avoid panicking people who aren't as enlightened as we are. :D

OTOH, civil obedience to make a political point--Who can disagree with that?

Now, I personally don't care a rat's patooty if some NoVA soccer mommy gets a panic attack over the sight of a gun. But as a practical matter, anyone who carries openly better be prepared for encounters of various kinds.

I do thank the Graces that we have VCDL and Phil carefully guarding our RKBA in the Old Dominion.

TC
TFL Survivor

cropcirclewalker
June 16, 2004, 04:39 PM
I don't think you are WildproudtobeasheepleAlaska.

I think you may be more an apologist for the black sheep.

cropcirclewildyoumayevenbeajudasgoatI'llaskherwalker

The Real Hawkeye
June 16, 2004, 04:56 PM
Maybe they fear the open carrier because that open carrier never got down on his knees and asked politely for the right to carry.

Maybe it makes their elite club of gun toters just a little less elite.BEAUTIFUL!!!

DHolland
June 16, 2004, 06:55 PM
I have been reading the forums for quite some time now - but not posted before. I thought I would add some to this thread.

I am really glad that it worked out the right way (according to the law) for both young men - if it is legal then it is legal and the LEO's should have been aware of that.
I find myself torn between two beliefs though - if it is legal then they of course have every right to do so and should not have been subjected to this whole mess and on the other hand I wonder why carry openly under those circumstances? I personally think that CCW is more effective as a self protection measure. I always carry, but the only time I do so openly is when out in the woods or something like that (of course it has been said already that Texas does not have open carry, so it could be a moot point).
I am not going to debate if what they did was right or wrong, of course it was right and legal, just not something I would have done.
By the way - I am glad that I decided to finally post. I was an Internet acquaintance of Don Nelson on a few other boards and started looking into other forums at his recommendation. I retired from the service (24 years, Navy Hospital Corpsmen Master Chief) a couple of years ago - I am a disabled Vet (wrong place at the wrong time) and did most of my time either on Destroyers or with the USMC (Infantry). I find myself in agreement with many of the members, and find some of the others 'judgment' to be questionable at best :-) Some even downright 'scarry' :-) But then again, that is true of every forum. I’m glad to get to know all of you …
D

sumpnz
June 16, 2004, 07:02 PM
Mr Holland - May I be the first to say WELCOME TO THR! Hope to read many posts from you in the future. I find myself torn between two beliefs though - if it is legal then they of course have every right to do so and should not have been subjected to this whole mess and on the other hand I wonder why carry openly under those circumstances? That's something many of us struggle with. I think that in the end it is up to each of us to make that determenation at the time, and I would hope nobody would critisize that choice provided it did not involve law breaking (as in this case).

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2004, 08:56 PM
Undertoad,

I am curious, after all this mess settles, do you plan on open carry again?


Also, for the supporters of open carry, how many of you actually carry this way?

voilsb
June 16, 2004, 10:52 PM
I've opened carry for exactly the rational reasons posted here: to help educate people that "guns"!= bad", and "people with guns != criminals"

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2004, 11:25 PM
voilsb,

So do you think it worked? Did any of the people you talked to while carrying open seem to have their mind changed?

PhilipVanCleave
June 16, 2004, 11:46 PM
Also, for the supporters of open carry, how many of you actually carry this way?

I open carry often. Have to in restaurants that serve alcohol, but I often open carry for comfort.

PATH
June 17, 2004, 12:41 AM
Wow! This has been one long thread to get through. Interesting though.
Living in New York State let me say that I wish I were in Virginia. The laws here have become more draconian in incremental steps. Gun registration in NYC started in 1968 and was to be an aid to police. Now the laws are so restrictive that owning is expensive and difficult. Carry of any sort in NYC is forbidden.(Unless you are wealthy or well connected.)

My .02 cents. Don't give in on any right! They will take more rights away from you as time goes on if you allow them. I truly admire the efforts of VCDL. The rights of gun owners have been protected in this case. Look what happened to mvpel in New Hampshire. If open carry is legal then it is legal. If you choose to open carry then do so! We cannot back down or they will be all over us like stink on a bear.

Here in New York we have to beg for our rights. A judge can deny you for any reason. Think not? Go appeal their decision and see how far you get.

New Jersey, California, New York, and Maryland are prime examples of what can happen if we do not organize and fight for our rights. I envy all of you who live in "free" America! Here in New York we fight a forlorn hope I fear!

Never surrender! Never retreat!


p.s.

I mean no disrespect to those fine rights groups fighting in the aforementioned states!

Hawkmoon
June 17, 2004, 12:46 AM
Open carry can cause them to become afraid because unlike CCW, the average open carrier DOESN'T have to get permission from anybody. Doesn't have to be background checked, Doesn't have to be fingerprinted, doesn't have to have a permission slip to show anybody in authority and doesn't have to have any "Approved" Training.
Once again, everything depends on what state you're in. My state requires a license to carry concealed, and does NOT allow open carry for those who have no license. I am still attempting to get a definitive interpretation as to whether or not open carry is legal if you have a license. (In my state, it is a "handgun" license, not a "concealed weapon" license. No mention on the license regarding mode of carry.)

This is very obviously not a one-size-fits-all situation.

Bubbles
June 17, 2004, 06:37 AM
Lone_Gunman - I've helped educate several restaurant owners and managers in northern Virginia on the carry laws, as well as people on the street. Granted, we have an unusual situation here: if a restaurant serves alcohol, open carry is legal, concealed carry is illegal - but then who would know?

I haven't had problems, but I suspect that's because 1) I'm a woman (don't laugh - women get away with a lot more than men), and 2) I dress professionally when I'm carrying openly. I've had people think I was an off-duty LEO, and when I told them that I was a citizen exercising my rights, and I explained the law, they were ok with it.

gunsmith
June 17, 2004, 03:54 PM
The "panicked sheeple" in San Ysidro and Luby's and Columbine and Pep Boys and at the Bank of America and Norco probably had other things on their minds than saluting the American sportsman when they met their respective open carriers.

Cops have no duty to protect all the people all the time. "You don't need a gun" I hear that incredibly boring,useless argument all the time here in CA. Yet criminals are still killing without checking the law books,Mountain Lions are still stalking in suburban parks.
I will agree to stop carrying guns when the police agree to provide me with 24/7 personal protection

The "panicked sheeple" in San Ysidro and Luby's and Columbine and Pep Boys and at the Bank of America and Norco probably had other things on their minds than saluting the American sportsman when they met their respective open carriers.

Thats right! they simply died without being able to fight back,they were taught for years to co operate with robbers and rapist "for their own safety" Cops are allways telling people it is better not to fight back,to submit...Thanks alot for the great advice...I am sure the The "panicked sheeple" in San Ysidro and Luby's and Columbine and Pep Boys and at the Bank of America and Norco probably listened to that kind of advice and wondered "why are we being killed,we are being cooperative"?

Why are they called "Sheeple" anyway?

Daniel T
June 17, 2004, 03:55 PM
Lone Gunman,

I don't know what kind of car you drive, but hypothetically, let's say it was a beater. Specifically, a red '88 Mazda 323 with a broken window latch on the back left window. Maybe the passenger side door doesn't lock either. Also, say you're too young to get a concealed carry permit, but old enough to legally own a handgun. You like to go out to the range about once a month (because, since you're a college student, once a month is all you can afford), and now you're coming back from your trip. You haven't eaten in a while, and since you only have condiments in the fridge, you pull over to get some food.

You're in a state where open carry is legal. What do you do with your pistols?

Let's make it even more simple. Say you're a 20 year old, and are old enough to own a pistol but not old enough to get a concealed carry permit. Do you stay disarmed?

ScottS
June 17, 2004, 04:27 PM
By the way, with all that went on in this interesting thread, maybe we missed out on something. Many talked. Many huffed and puffed. Some actually did something. In addition to the good efforts of VCDL, Gunsmith deserves kudos for actually calling the Starbucks in question. I was pretty impressed that someone actually took the time to talk to someone at Starbucks and find out what their take on it was. Nice going.

Scott

Lone_Gunman
June 17, 2004, 06:04 PM
Daniel T,

I would still probably not open carry in the scenario you describe, though I wouldn't necessarily fault others for doing so. I am not opposed to open carry on theoretical grounds, its just that from a practical standpoint, I don't want the hassle of people being freaked out and calling the police about "a man with a gun".

Waitone
June 17, 2004, 06:18 PM
Unfortunately when I was born I was alloted only so much time and so many resources. I therefore have to pick my battles because I don't have an unlimited supply of ammo (so to speak). Open carry is one of those issues while appealing for a number of reasons is not worth me wasting my ammo. Didn't say it wasn't a worthy battle. Did say is wasn't a worthy battle for me to engage in.

Those in Virginia have at least a small chance of victory. Those of us in NC face a horrific open carry law the likes of which I doubt exists anywhere else though I may be wrong.

RealGun
June 17, 2004, 06:52 PM
The main reason I would value open carry is that it would not be a misdemeanor to fail to conceal, even when intending to do so. If I am printing or flashing or whatever the term, it would be no crime. At any other opportune time, I would like the option to open carry.

If we are talking about VA, where open carry is supposed to "normal" by way of being legal, why be shy about helping people get used to it? It's not our fault that folks never see anyone on TV except cops and bad guys with guns. At the same time, I would recommend some discretion, but it's too much like the anti mentality to worry so much or be judmental and controlling about how other gun owners choose to carry.

TimW
June 17, 2004, 06:59 PM
I open carry. "Because I can" is all the reason I need.

If YOU need more reasons why I open carry:
1. Because I can
2. Because it's more comfortable
3. For educational purposes.

I open carry about 50% of the time when I do carry.

As for the "image" thing, some of my best supporters (money, time, energy) during my mayoral race were from the biker community. These guys did a LOT for me. Many of them carry openly. They support the Second Amendment and freedom. They vote (well, them that can...:D ) and they spend money.

So, they look "rough". If what they're doing is legal, who am I to say anything just because of what they look like or how they're dressed.

Many years ago in a local gun store/club, my wife and I were milling about the store. Several feet away was an older, scruffy lookin' dude...someone you'd hate to meet in an alley lookin'.

My wife, who is very pro-gun and came with her own when we married, whispered something to the effect of "they let anyone in here....I'd hate to meet him in a dark alley."

I just smiled and nodded until we moved out of earshot, then said:

"Do you know who that was?"
"Nope"
"Alice Cooper"

Oops.

Lawyers and politicians look very nice all dressed up. Bikers look like "scum of the earth". Police, we have been told, are your friends and foreigners just can't be trusted.

As we know, looks can be deceiving.

dev_null
June 17, 2004, 07:25 PM
I hear Vince is a great guy. Even if he does play golf. :D

- 0 -

thumbody
June 17, 2004, 09:44 PM
I can not believe some of you guys . (Don't do it the sheeple may get excited and you will ruin it for all of us). The uninformed and the antis are afraid of all guns. The AK the AR and semi auto handguns in particular. Should we give up our right to these so as not to scare or affend them? I have never wanted a military style rifle but I will not call for them to be banned because the antis may be scared. We need to stick together not divide ourselves.

Lone_Gunman
June 18, 2004, 12:30 AM
The AK the AR and semi auto handguns in particular. Should we give up our right to these so as not to scare or affend them?

No we shouldnt give up the right at all, but getting in a soccer mom's face with an AK 47 is probably not the best way to convince her that gun owners are nice people and AK's are OK.

Putting a gun on your hip and strutting around like John Wayne isn't going to get you too far, whether you like it or not.

I am not against it on moral or Constitutional grounds. I just don't see how it helps our cause. If you think open carry educates the public and makes them more comfy with guns in general, I would respectfully disagree.

gunsmith
June 18, 2004, 03:26 AM
Thanks Scott!

The Real Hawkeye
June 18, 2004, 08:12 AM
Putting a gun on your hip and strutting around like John Wayne isn't going to get you too far, whether you like it or not.How about if he didn't strut around like John Wayne? How would one be able to strut around and still have your approval? The reason you associate a gun on the hip of a non-police officer/nonmilitary personnel with John Wayne is that you are not accustomed to seeing regular good guy/non-criminals doing it, other than John Wayne in the old Westerns. This is the point, i.e., to get the image out there as a common occurrence, wherever possible, of a regular good guy walking around with a gun on his hip. People need to see more of that image. Otherwise, we surrender the image-making to Hollywood Leftists, and then you only see cops, military personnel and bad guys carrying guns openly.

Lone_Gunman
June 18, 2004, 08:24 AM
This is the point, i.e., to get the image out there as a common occurrence, wherever possible, of a regular good guy walking around with a gun on his hip.

I understand completely your point. The best reason anyone has been able to come up with for open carry is education of the public. I just am not so sure its going to do anything more than freak people out.

Only a small percentage of gun owners will ever open carry, so I don't think you will ever have enough people doing it to make it look like something mainstream.

To each his own, though. As I have said before, I am not theoretically or constititutionally opposed to the idea, I just think walking around with your gun out looks garish at best and stupid at worst.

Hey but maybe after I see the 4 or 5 of you who carry open, I will get re-educated and change my mind.;)

The Real Hawkeye
June 18, 2004, 08:49 AM
You know what though, off duty cops around where I live are notorious for bad concealment off duty. They tend to wear outside of the belt holsters, and cover it with an untucked shirt or jacket. The other day I saw one trying to conceal it with a vest that failed to cover the bottom third (and sometimes more) of his holster. In other words, he might as well have been carrying open in plain clothes. His buddy had his covered with a garment, but what he was covering could only have been a Glock. I could even tell the make and model of the gun, for crying out loud. I didn't see anyone freak out, and this was in a suburban Barnes and Noble bookstore. And, no, I don't live it Texas. In fact, the only situation my state lets you to open carry is when you are actually engaged in hunting in locations where hunting is permitted, or on your own property (and this probably doesn't include those who live in urban or suburban areas).

Lone_Gunman
June 18, 2004, 08:58 AM
Obviously, though, the sheep don't always remain calm... Just look at the guy who started this thread.

RealGun
June 18, 2004, 09:12 AM
Putting a gun on your hip and strutting around like John Wayne isn't going to get you too far, whether you like it or not.

Discrediting the idea with a caricature is not convincing, There would be only a fraction of those open carrying that do it with any swagger, especially western style.

Consider that if the entertainment industry were involved, the population could get used to any idea. Consider how socially unacceptable crude language was not that many years ago. Don't tell me that the film industry has not been influential in that regard. If movie and sitcom plots included lawful civilian carry on a regular basis, it would definitely have an impact on the social acceptance of appearing in public openly wearing a gun. The only reason for public aghast at observing open carry is that they don't know of a positive explanation for it.

Consider that it's just a gun until someone draws it and has a finger on the trigger. Otherwise, awareness of a gun should have the same unconcerned reaction as for a policeman with a belt full of stuff.

The only message from observing someone calmly wearing a gun is that here is a person who chooses to defend himself rather than imprudently rely upon the police.

Our reasons for concealment are different than those of lawmakers who create concealment requirements. They want it to be a secret and to control it, while acknowledging reluctantly and conditionally that we have the right to carry a gun.

RealGun
June 18, 2004, 09:14 AM
The best reason anyone has been able to come up with for open carry is education of the public.

The best reason I have read is "for comfort".

Wildalaska
June 18, 2004, 11:37 AM
Discrediting the idea with a caricature is not convincing, There would be only a fraction of those open carrying that do it with any swagger, especially western style.

And this assumption is any more valid than the one it is attacking..???

Hows this....since many will open carry just to get the "sheeple" used to guns, cant we assume that these peoiple are just gonna "swagger" around with an "in your face attitude"...


WildwhyisoneassumptionmorevalidthananotherAlaska

dev_null
June 18, 2004, 11:52 AM
No.

Orthonym
June 18, 2004, 12:04 PM
No one can carry openly, (except for some exceptions that haven't been tested lately, AFAIK). A moderate fee, fingerprints, and a laughably short course will get you a concealed-carry permit. Carrying concealed without the permit is a felony, carrying openly is a fairly seriously misdemeanor. (IANAL, so look this up and/or consult a lawyer before doing anything questionable.) At least if I lived in Georgia, I could carry openly in my own curtilege. Not here. Unfortunately, the FL legislature tends to pass any law suggested to them by the cop lobby.

Aw, shoot, didn't mean to rant off-topically; what I meant to say was,


Welcome, Kevmo327, and

Welcome, DHolland!

Y'all do understand that you'll be required to provide all of the ammo for the great Schuetzenfest when we all get together? The only way you can escape is by recruiting an even more junior person to join up. snork.

When I say junior, that's with tongue in cheek. DHolland, from what he says, is infinitely senior to me in the real world. What's it like to order Marines to hold still while you stick them and cut them?

gunsmith
June 18, 2004, 02:19 PM
I've seen every John Wayne movie and believe me,he would strut around even when he wasn't wearing a sidearm.

"The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"
Is one of the best movies ever made

RealGun
June 18, 2004, 04:27 PM
Hows this....since many will open carry just to get the "sheeple" used to guns, cant we assume that these peoiple are just gonna "swagger" around with an "in your face attitude"...

Well Mr. Wildpainintheassalaska :>), maybe you should push for passage of a law that dictates the necessary body language when open carrying. I am positive that at least one wouldn't strut and show off...me. I don't believe that is an assumption. Rather than assumption here, I think we're really talking about degree of cynicism, except in this case we spar with each other instead of our real opponents.

Herself
June 18, 2004, 06:58 PM
Why open carry? ...Here's why I would if I could:

It may have escaped notice by some of you, but girls are not built the same as boys. We tend to have higher, narrower waists and more hip, and those of us who are on the skinny side don't have a lot of practical gun-concealment real estate, especially in slacks and a non-drapey top.

So, I carry in my purse -- first target of your standard purse-snatcher -- and devote no small amount of attention to where it is vs. where children and unknown adults are.

I have one (1) holster that fits well and works well, an inexpensive low-slung hip holster. The kind that hangs well below one's belt and has a thigh strap or two. It's great, comfy, secure, easy for me to reach...and concealable only under a heavy winter coat (or maybe a lab smock, but oh would it print).

So there's why. Plus, bein' visible armed is (IMO) a deterrent to both serious criminals and annoying nitwits. I've been stalked and had my unfair share of mashers through the years, and there's nothin' like a shootin' iron to keep the jerks at bay! Oddly, nicer-behaved menfolk haven't seemed to mind it at all....

(I don't think anybody noticed that I earlier suggested our two young heros had "dodged a bullet." While there is no question their actions were legal, and I believe them to be justified, open carry in most places in the US is nevertheless an action that carries known risk; young men are among the most likely to court risk, that's part of their nature, but let's acknowledge that it was an avoidable risk. WA makes a valid point but there is a time to embrace risks as well as a time to steer clear of them. It's not the same time for everyone).

--Herself

RealGun
June 18, 2004, 07:43 PM
(I don't think anybody noticed that I earlier suggested our two young heros had "dodged a bullet." While there is no question their actions were legal, and I believe them to be justified, open carry in most places in the US is nevertheless an action that carries known risk; young men are among the most likely to court risk, that's part of their nature, but let's acknowledge that it was an avoidable risk. WA makes a valid point but there is a time to embrace risks as well as a time to steer clear of them. It's not the same time for everyone).

I do not intend to be argumentative or necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder what kind of risk you have in mind. Are we talking about the risk of some citizen freaking out or are we talking about the risk of getting arrested by a cop who doesn't know the law? One risk that has been mentioned, if not here elsewhere, is that open carry is an invitation to get shot first during an incident.

I am more interested in open carry as a temporary convenience or a concession to hot weather and light clothing. I would rather open carry than down size to a more concealable pea shooter. I am also interested in having an unintentional printing or revealment of my concealed weapon not be against the law (=open carry). I might also elect to remove a garment layer and expose a gun, if I thought the circumstances were appropriate.

Firethorn
June 18, 2004, 08:18 PM
I'm tempted to open carry to educate the masses, in this case it'd be great if those two visited the starbucks alot open carrying in the future. That was the person who panicked is more likely to be there sometime when they show up.

1st time: Call the cops
2nd time: wondering why they aren't in jail/prison, ask the employees, who say "it's legal, and they're regular customers, if a little wierd"
3rd time (hopefully): Shrug, along with the rest of the patrons.

Desertdog
June 18, 2004, 10:37 PM
One risk that has been mentioned, if not here elsewhere, is that open carry is an invitation to get shot first during an incident.

Possibly true, unless there are several people people open carrying in the area, in which case the BG would probably go to find an easier target.

An armed society is a polite society.

Moparmike
June 18, 2004, 11:31 PM
Is this thread really going anywhere?

RealGun
June 19, 2004, 06:08 AM
Is this thread really going anywhere?

It's a classic in my opinion, but we may have beaten it into submission.

The intriguing question that I think remains is whether we would use the right to open carry or whether we are so involved in the gun control environment that we think concealment is the only proper way to carry, in part to accommodate what other people might think. As individuals we may stand back, never willing to do battle with the dragon, always thinking in the shorter term. I think a coordinated resolve to carry openly on a regular basis, but not exclusively, would go along way toward educating the public, not to mention the police.

We should take note of VA as a model in this regard. If one is not able to relate to open carry due to living in a different State, then perhaps comments poo pooing the subject should be withheld.

.45&TKD
June 19, 2004, 01:03 PM
Why don't we have a National Open Carry Day for the states where it is legal?

If the nation can put up with gay pride parades surely we should be able to exercise our constitutional rights on one designated day. It would be educational, reduce risks because of large numbers, and get media attention.

Desertdog
June 19, 2004, 03:02 PM
Sounds good to me. IMHO, should have less crime, at least for one day, in the states where it is done. All should use holsters which should look better to the public.

Be sure and carry a copy of the revalent law that covers open carry.

To prevent any surprises about why there are soooo many people running around with firearms, that it should be well publicized in advance.

pinblaster
June 19, 2004, 08:08 PM
Sounds good to me too! July 1 might be a good day. I wish we could open carry here in MD.

sumpnz
June 19, 2004, 10:59 PM
With the exception of the range, today was the first time I open carried in public. I was on the way home from the range and had to stop at the new Ace Hardware (on Houghton, just S of Valencia, for Tucsonans). I had been carrying my Ruger P944 in a hip holster as usual at the range. When I got the store, naturally, I didn't want to leave it in the car, so in I walked with it still on my hip. I was kinda nervous as I didn't want to have to explain to my wife why she needed to bail me out if something like what happened to Undertoad happened to me. Fortunatly, only a few people even seemed to notice, though I did pick up on the very polite and prompt response to questions about where the septic enzymes were located :p . I was very careful to project the image of a polite, courteous person, and had no problems whatsoever. The way that went, I may just open carry a few more times, if for no other reason than to get myself comfortable with the situation.

Werewolf
June 20, 2004, 11:44 AM
I was very careful to project the image of a polite, courteous person, and had no problems whatsoever.

As sumpnz pointed out if open carry is to be used as an educational tool and a means to desensitized the populace to the sight of it then it is critical that the populace observe only correct behavior in those that choose to open carry.

In addition I believe the choice to open carry if it is to be used to educate/desensitize involves a decision concerning where to do it. Ffor tactical reasons it would be foolish to open carry on a dark, deserted, urban street. It might very well be foolish for exactly the opposite reason to open carry in a crowded mall where the folks one is trying to educate could indeed become aroused.

IMHO the logical choice of where to open carry for educational/desensitization purposes seems to me to be the smaller local businesses; for example a MacDonalds, hardware store, gas station, restaurant etc.

If open carry was legal in Oklahoma that's what I would do for both comfort and to educate/desensitize. As I don't frequent places where the likelihood of needing the tactical advantage of CCW is high I would open carry 90% of the time. On the rare occasions I might have to go to a less than safe zone I'd CCW.

Both methods are viable depending on location and circumstance. The universe isn't black and white, real life isn't digital and absolutes are pretty rare. Open carry vs CCW is no different.

Wildalaska
June 20, 2004, 01:52 PM
Why don't we have a National Open Carry Day for the states where it is legal?

Great way to arouse the agenda driven into seeking to make it illegal.

Lots of people are like me in this world...we just go on our merry way until somebody tosses something in our face, then we get pissed. Dont matter what the politics is, its the fact thats its being thrust upon us.

To many people, open carry day would be like other "Days" and "Weeks" where politics is tossed in your face by people screaming "look at me, Look at me"..

I dont wanna look at anybody by whats on their hip, or in their pants (or whom), or in or out of their womb, or between them and their god....

WildopencarryonoprahtommorrowAlaska

The Real Hawkeye
June 20, 2004, 01:59 PM
Great way to arouse the agenda driven into seeking to make it illegal.Considering the source, I am convinced that Wildalaska believes your idea to be a good one for our cause. Bad for his cause, but good for ours, otherwise he would have recommended you go ahead and organize it. It's always helpful when your adversary is open about what he would and wouldn't like to see happen. ;)

TCD
June 20, 2004, 02:42 PM
I'm not going to speak for wild, but I know as an Alaskan, open and concealed carry both apply. I'm not going to carry openly in any city of a decent size which I think the virginia law was also targeted at. However when I go hiking or do any of those activites I'll probably carry openly. Never know when you'll run into a ticked off moose. I reguarly see people carrying openly when hiking and don't give it a second thought. However I would give it a second thought if I saw a person carrying in downtown Anchorage or even in my smallish town Soldotna(5,000)

And I think while some of us would be perfectly fine with open carry, you must remember that there are many people who arn't and that will only incourage them to get more laws on the books for them, and take the ones we want off.

However, being that the law is the law, fight those guys with what ever you got.

RealGun
June 20, 2004, 03:35 PM
If lawmakers made open carry legal or it never was illegal, I wonder what we think they had in mind. I think we are expected to use mature and honest judgment, but you can't open carry and keep a secret at the same time. I think we are used to the concealment mentality and can't quite get a grip on the open carry idea. Let me put it this way, I wan't to be able to open carry just like a cop and have people be just as accepting. I do, after all, carry for the same reason.

In lieu of a uniform, if I have to be considerate in how and what I carry, how I dress, how I behave, body language, etc., fine, but I have a right to carry. Again, some are real cautious about this, just because the public isn't used to it. The antis win.

It is definitely too controlling to be fussing about how others might spoil it for everyone. I don't think anyone can rightfully claim that it is any of their business.

If a gun is just a thing until you draw it and put your finger on the trigger, why shouldn't the public understand that? I venture to say that they understand that perfectly, when referring to a cop. They probably also understand that the "thing" is loaded and ready to go.

gunsmith
June 20, 2004, 04:40 PM
I opened carried in Phoenix a couple of yrs ago when I was there for Christmas, it was my first time in AZ and I was a little nervous too.
At first GF and I were in Scotsdale...no one blinked an eye,one lady gave me a dirty look the second day. After two weeks it became second nature. I didn't notice anyone treating me different and wasn't looking to see if any one was looking. It was as unobtrusive as my cellphone:cool:

We went to a shady part of town to pick up the GF's uncle who lost his car after his latest DUI to cart him to an AA meeting. Being a NewYorker I noticed the young thugs on the corner sauntering to our vicinity probably attracted to our nice rented SUV. After I got out of the car they saw the full sized Glock on my hip they turned right around and left the block...Not bad at all,I thought to myself. If the gun had been concealed I would have had to deal with them, I would rather be left alone.
My GF who has zero streetwise sensitivity hadn't even noticed.

Does anyone know if Undertoad got his gun back?

The Undertoad
June 21, 2004, 01:23 AM
Gunsmith - I did indeed get my gun back, and my friend picked up his at the same time. Each gun was in an evidence box, with pistol (slide locked back), holster, magazine, and ammo all seperated into different envelopes. Looked like it was in the exact same almost-new condition it was when it left my care and passed a functions check fine.

Warren
June 21, 2004, 02:38 AM
here is AZ I was runnign some errands and a guy wheels up next to me on motorcycle dressing in torn up jeans and a wife beater t shirt wuith not one but two Desrt Eagles in shoulder rigs...Judgin by the smug look on his face he knew and was very pleased that he was drwaing attention to himself and while he was well within his rights in AZ to be doing this I do not beleive that it is the image that we, as responsible gun owners, needs out there on the street.

Actually this is kind of cool, in a cinematic "up yours!" to the sheeple kind of way.

If only he had some kind of big blade hanging off his belt...now that would complete the image.

sevenpoint62mm
June 22, 2004, 12:49 AM
Undertoad get a lawyer and force him to countersue both criminal (for denying you your rights and time) and civil (for court costs and loss of professional reputation). I called called my retained legal advisor and he says you have a good case against these zealous LEOs

Treylis
June 22, 2004, 01:23 AM
one lady gave me a dirty look the second day.

She probably gave you a dirty look because it was a Glock and she's a 1911 fan. ;-P

cropcirclewalker
June 22, 2004, 01:31 AM
Where do I get one of those "Wife Beater" tee shirts?

fjolnirsson
June 22, 2004, 01:36 AM
Where do I get one of those "Wife Beater" tee shirts?

Hmm. I thought everybody knew what those are. Must be our local slang only.
A "wife beater" is a white tank top style undershirt.

voilsb
June 26, 2004, 10:17 PM
Where do I get one of those "Wife Beater" tee shirts?

Hmm. I thought everybody knew what those are. Must be our local slang only.
A "wife beater" is a white tank top style undershirt.
I think he was being silly. A wife beater is not a tee-shirt. Therefore, what is a "whife beater" tee shirt? Is it a tee-shirt? A "wife beater"? A "wife beater" on the left, with a tee-shirt sleeve on the right?

gunsmith
June 27, 2004, 01:43 PM
this thread is hardly on topic

http://www.wife-beaters.com/shirts.html
wife beater (noun) 1. tank-style underwear shirts. Origin: based on the stereotype that physically abusive husbands wear that particular style of undershirt.

RED-DOG 40
June 27, 2004, 06:30 PM
Hmmm....I wear those type tank tops all the time and I don't have a wife..:uhoh: .......anymore...:scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "A friend and I had legally carried firearms confiscated tonight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!