Doooh! Here we go again. Alexandria Va. Police harras law abiding gun owner!

[bsf]

Everyone seems to be jumping on the same bandwagon here. It would not surprise me if the store manager did indeed ask explicitly or implicitly the police to remove the OC guy, and then changed her story or colored the truth when confronted by the OC guy. It also could have gone down as described at VCDL. Impossible to tell from the info available.

I think these people OC’ing in areas where it leads to problems with LE are little nuts. I think it is nice that some heed to call to “serve & protect” but I find it best to escape their attention.

 

[coyote_jr]

I think these people OC’ing in areas where it leads to problems with LE are little nuts. I think it is nice that some heed to call to “serve & protect” but I find it best to escape their attention.

That ain't liberty buddy.

 

[bsf]

That ain't liberty buddy.

You are right. That is reality. An idealist I am not.

Not a buddy, just a stranger chiming in like everyone else.

 

[mobeewan]

The "suspect" could have given his last name, as a matter of courtesy, though he is certainly under no legal obligation to do so.
Actually, I believe he is. There was a supreme court ruling recently that basically said you can not refuse to identify yourself to a police officer, or at the very least you are not immune to prosecution should you chose to do so. Some guy from Nevada got busted for it and the case went to the supreme court and he lost.

In Virginia you only have to give your name or show ID if you are stopped for a traffic violation. You have to give the man your liscense because Va law says you have to.

However the Atty Gen of Va has made a ruling 02-082http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf that says based on the Terry case you cannot be penalized or cited for obstruction of justice by not identifying yourself. It makes the cops job harder but too bad.

Don't forget if they don't have your name they can't fill out a report that winds up being on your record. In Va you also don't have to give the officer your SSN either.

 

[glocktoberfest]

I think these people OC’ing in areas where it leads to problems with LE are little nuts. I think it is nice that some heed to call to “serve & protect” but I find it best to escape their attention.

bsf ,
I think I remember someone else questioning that in a prior thread . hummm , lets see , responces went something like this :

a its my right

b there gonna ship you off to a camp on a train if you can't OC

c its not breaking the law

d your an idiot for not agreeing with us

e the Cops & there families involved should lose there homes in a law suit and live under a bridge.

f Hawaiian shirts are for goobers ( concealed carry option / no conflict )

g someone needs to stand up for our rights and this guy is my hero

h and my favorite, a PM from a THR member ,
"I understand that many people are ignorant and i genuinely feel pity for those that are too dumb to realize that they are ignorant, but those of you who proudly display their ignorance and are too stupid to even try to do anything about it are intolerable wastes of time"

 

[ForeignDude]

There Are Other Issues Here...

I have to agree with both sides on this thread. Yes, OC'ing where you are likely to draw the attention of law enforcement is a tad masochistic, with a dash of nutty for good measure. On the other hand, allowing a right to be determined by the possibility of police harassment renders that right essentially moot. Hell, if avoidance was the only metric, none of us would carry: all of us here should expect that, at some point, we will be reported to the police by some fearful citizen who caught sight of the weapon, i.e., "man with a gun" call.

However, there is are more important issues at play here, all of which ought to encourage gun-owners to carry openly, at least on occasion. That is, Open-Carry serves several important functions.

First, in cases such as those described in Norfolk and Alexandria, it serves notice to local law enforcement that law-abiding behavior cannot be punished based on the officer's whim, prejudice, or ego. It thus serves to educate police about the limits of their authority, and it encourages professionalism and impartiality on the part of the local force.

Second, it serves notice to local political authorities that affected individuals will actively resist encroachment upon fundamental liberties, a critical element in the relationship between citizen and government. Put differently, a citizen who accepts blindly the dictates of an authority figure can hardly be said to be a free citizen of a democratic society. Where authority is absolute and unquestioned, there lies the seeds of tyranny: the relationship between citizen and government becomes one where parent dictates to child.

Finally, Open Carry serves to "normalize" the bearing of arms within the larger community. Occasional Open Carry by all gun-owners serves notice to pro-gun, anti-gun, and neutral parties within society that gun ownership is a right, and that bearing of arms by law-abiding citizens is occurring all around. Normalization benefits all of us who carry, inasmuch as all types of carry (concealed or open) gradually become part of the background social "noise". By noting that individuals can carry guns without going berserk, Open Carry also teaches citizen-peers a very important lesson: bearing of arms by the law-abiding is harmless, whereas bearing of arms by criminals is harmful. The intention of the individual, not the gun, is the key factor.

FWIW, once I return to the VA, I intend to Open-Carry occasionally. I think the ultimate benefits outweigh heavily the attendant risks.

 

[glocktoberfest]

Finally, Open Carry serves to "normalize" the bearing of arms within the larger community. Occasional Open Carry by all gun-owners serves notice to pro-gun, anti-gun, and neutral parties within society that gun ownership is a right, and that bearing of arms by law-abiding citizens is occurring all around. Normalization benefits all of us who carry, inasmuch as all types of carry (concealed or open) gradually become part of the background social "noise". By noting that individuals can carry guns without going berserk, Open Carry also teaches citizen-peers a very important lesson: bearing of arms by the law-abiding is harmless, whereas bearing of arms by criminals is harmful. The intention of the individual, not the gun, is the key factor.

true , Wouldn't be something to have an open carry rally , hundreds of men & women open carring and at the end of the day , nobody got shot , robbed , or worse ? that would give the anties something to think about .

 

[feedthehogs]

It seems a writ of mandamus needs to be issued by the court to the local law enforcement agencies and if violated by any officer, they should be arrested and charged.

No judge likes to see his orders ignored.

If its legal to OC then by God you should be able to OC without fear of being hasseled by the police or being deemed unstable by those gun owners who neither have the stones or inclination to do so.

 

[Titan6]

Once I get back to Virginia I intend to open carry nearly every day. I want go ahead and establish the boundaries for which places are victim zones. Once I figure that out I will likely stop OC and go back to concealed carry.

 

[45Frank]

Just incase you haven't noticed over the years cops are now becoming weenies. I have heard on the tube lately that crime and murders are up in DC, NY, Philadelphia and other big cities. So who do the cops taget not the gangbangers that may be dangerous but lets see the guy who is legal, the honest back ground checked, none nut case person with something to lose because he is a LEGAL LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. How many crimes where committed while the cops are harassing a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. Just last night on the news they said Gonzolas is going in front of congress to debate why crime is up. In the same segment the women says well we all know Jail isn't the answer.

 

[Deanimator]

e the Cops & there families involved should lose there homes in a law suit and live under a bridge.

That would be me.

Actions have consequences, sometimes dire ones.

The cops who abused the guy in Norfolk committed multiple crimes and civil torts. They were cruel and arrogant during the commission of these crimes and civil torts.

Apparently, they thought they could unlawfully abuse someone for their own amusement. When they have to explain to their children why there won't be any Christmas presents for the foreseeable future, and that they need to get used to living in grandma's basement, they'll see they were wrong.

 

[joab]

I think these people OC’ing in areas where it leads to problems with LE are little nuts. I think it is nice that some heed to call to “serve & protect” but I find it best to escape their attention.

Serve and protect is a motto not a calling

These nuts are willing to sacrifice their comfort and possibly their freedoms to protect the rights of those that are unable or unwilling

If more people felt like you do I would agree that they were nuts, but the majority appreciate their efforts.

There is one certain member who keeps PMing me about taking a ride, trying to twist it as if this is some sort of reason for not standing up for your rights
The ride is not the point
The point is the reason for taking the ride

If everybody just hides from the attention of the government they will become our oppressors
If just a few are brave enough to stand up and get their attention there is a small chance that they will be held in check for a little longer

The meek will not inherit the earth, they will get the decaying leftovers after the strong have taken their fill

 

[buzz_knox]

I think these people refusing to ride at the back of the bus in areas where it leads to problems with LE are little nuts. I think it is nice that some heed to call to “serve & protect” but I find it best to escape their attention.

Just a little modification to get you to think about what the world would be like if certain people had taken the "go along to get along advice" years back.

 

[joab]

Just a little modification to get you to think about what the world would be like if certain people had taken the "go along to get along advice" years back

A good analogy on correcting social ills, but

This is not a case of civil disobedience.
It is simply a case of someone operating within the law and being harassed for it. More along the lines of

I think these people with tattoos and piercings and wild hair in areas where it leads to problems with LE are little nuts.

 

[glocktoberfest]

[There is one certain member who keeps PMing me about taking a ride, trying to twist it as if this is some sort of reason for not standing up for your rights
The ride is not the point
The point is the reason for taking the ride/QUOTE]



JOAB , how many "rides" have you been on ? And thanks for clearing up that issue 4 me .

 

[buzz_knox]

This is not a case of civil disobedience.
It is simply a case of someone operating within the law and being harassed for it. More along the lines of

I think the analogy holds. Much of the civil rights movement dealt with opposing illegal constraints on otherwise lawful activity.

 

[joab]

JOAB , how many "rides" have you been on ? And thanks for clearing up that issue 4 me .

That has what to do with this conversation?
I have never been shy about discussing my previous rides here
Your high school antics will not be engaged here son. You will notice that I did not address your twists in your first post

Much of the civil rights movement dealt with opposing illegal constraints on otherwise lawful activity.

Yes, but segregation was the accepted law of the state at that time. Ms Parks made a much greater challenge with greater potential repercussions in trying to change a law
These guys have the law on their side, they are simply trying to get that acknowledged

 

[txgho1911]

The fight in VA for open carry is the fight people in many other states cannot fight without breaking the law. Teach them well those lessons they need any and everywhere you can.
The employee who gave instruction to throw them out should be given some space under that bridge as well.
Maybe that manager could help that person along with knowing how famous that store and she is now.

 

[Deanimator]

The employee who gave instruction to throw them out should be given some space under that bridge as well.

Unless I've missed something, up to this point, there ISN'T any evidence that any employee ordered the man ejected. Based on the cop's attitude and explicit statements, and the previous pizzeria episode, I don't have any trouble believing that the cop simply lied to advance her own agenda. I'd love to see the look in her eyes when she gets served.

 

[bsf]

Different paradigms.

I think the ultimate benefits outweigh heavily the attendant risks.

Benefit to others >>>>>>>> risk to self.

 

[HiroProX]

I think these people OC’ing in areas where it leads to problems with LE are little nuts. I think it is nice that some heed to call to “serve & protect” but I find it best to escape their attention.

"Serve & protect" is not a calling. It is a motto that thanks to court decisions is practically a fraud.

a its my right

c its not breaking the law

These two seem to cover the vast majority of comments. Cops are not empowered to make the law up at whim.

e the Cops & there families involved should lose there homes in a law suit and live under a bridge.

Yes, because criminal actions by cops should have the most severe consequences.

g someone needs to stand up for our rights and this guy is my hero

Well someone needs to, it's evident that some people aren't going to.

 

[.cheese.]

Open-carry is legal there. I don't care whether or not some people think open-carry is foolish or not. It was legal, he didn't break the law, and the cops had no business both making their own set of rules and twisting the request of the manager.

 

[Well Regulated]

Everyone seems to be jumping on the same bandwagon here. It would not surprise me if the store manager did indeed ask explicitly or implicitly the police to remove the OC guy, and then changed her story or colored the truth when confronted by the OC guy. It also could have gone down as described at VCDL. Impossible to tell from the info available.

You can hear the audio of the officer talking recorded during the event at the following thread

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/3671-1.html


This wasn't a he said she said. This was a bad cop, plain and simple.

 

[Beatnik]

Just stay out of trouble.....

I just turned 33.
I've spent 20 years here.
The cops here are pretty much my only frame of reference for what cops are like.

So, I ask the people against open carry: is this what I'm supposed to think of cops?

Am I supposed to see them as cultivating a society where civilians spend all of their effort avoiding cops, where the cops are only there to interfere with our daily comings and goings?

Am I supposed to see them as the people to call when things have gone horribly wrong for me,
or am I supposed to see them as the people who make things go horribly wrong for me?

Because I don't think it takes much thought to figure out which one I get from "just keeping my nose clean" when it comes to exercising my rights. And I don't want to live in a society where we think like that.

 

[orionengnr]

reason to OC?

I believe that I saw it best expressed thusly:

"A right not exercised is soon lost."

Wish I knew whom to credit it to..