Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A friend and I had legally carried firearms confiscated tonight

Discussion in 'Legal' started by The Undertoad, Jun 15, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Undertoad

    The Undertoad Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    VA
    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?
     
  2. mattx109

    mattx109 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    The Green Mountain State
    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.
     
  3. The Undertoad

    The Undertoad Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    VA
    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. :(
     
  4. Mr. Kook

    Mr. Kook Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Location:
    Kansas
    Get a lawyer.
     
  5. mattx109

    mattx109 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    The Green Mountain State
    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.
     
  6. 7.62FullMetalJacket

    7.62FullMetalJacket Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,991
    Location:
    Cedar City, Utah
    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
     
  7. countertop

    countertop Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    At the diner
    Where was the Starbucks?

    Was it in Fairfax County? Falls Church? Alexandria? Arlington?
     
  8. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    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
     
  9. countertop

    countertop Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    At the diner
    Lonnie is right.

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

    Wildalaska member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,296
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    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
     
  11. Pendragon

    Pendragon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,361
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    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.
     
  12. countertop

    countertop Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    At the diner
  13. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    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
     
  14. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    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
     
  15. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    This issue is statewide. VCDL is going to have to do some more chewing out of the people in Fairfax.
     
  16. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    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.
     
  17. gunsmith

    gunsmith member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    Get A Lawyer

    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!!
     
  18. WMC

    WMC Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    13
    Location:
    VA
    The Offending Starbucks

    8381 Leesburg Pike, located in the Pike 7 Plaza with Tower Records, Staples, et al.

    703-893-5125
     
  19. SapperLeader

    SapperLeader Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,202
    Location:
    Virginia
    I would get a lawyer and call vcdl for advice. VCDL has been dealing with this issue for a while now.
     
  20. patentnonsense

    patentnonsense Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Messages:
    534
    Location:
    Dallas
    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.
     
  21. Stand_Watie

    Stand_Watie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    east Texas
    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
    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.
     
  22. Diggler

    Diggler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,297
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Just out of curiosity,
    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...
     
  23. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    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!
     
  24. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    Except us of course! He needs to ask to get an answer as to whether or not he can get help on this, right?
     
  25. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page