Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

i told you i am done with this conversation and i am........ you only see what you want to see in my posts..... i bet as soon as you read the first line of my original post stating that i am a leo that you immediately went into abrasive mode. you read what you want but not the complete picture of anything. you have no understanding of law enforcement or law enforcement tactics and training. you think anyone who does not immediately agree with every statement you make is therefore ignorant. the difference between you and i is i agree with a lot of things you say..... however there are some things you say that you have no idea what you are talking about specifically because you do not understand what i am talking about. why continue this discussion further when you will do nothing but continue to become more abrasive. you are probably sitting at home in your chair yelling at the computer screen to make yourself feel better. i hope that works for you. until you learn that while you may have some knowledge of a topic you do not know everything there is to know about it you will continue to read what you want to read and ignore the rest. sure i feel i am an expert on police tactics and criminal law. i have earned that right to think that way however i learn something new everyday and always appreciate the chance to do so. maybe you should try looking at life in a different fashion and instead of the me me me i am always right attitude try looking inward for things about yourself that you could learn from. when you do that you will realize that no one person, and this may come as a shock but yes this includes you, knows it all. then maybe you will take the time to actually stop and understand what others are saying before you try and prove how tough and smart a guy you really are.

thanks for playing and once again i hope the rest of your day is wonderful!

So happy that I am not in this one.
Bill

sbcpd10 wrote:i told you i am done with this conversation and i am........ you only see what you want to see in my posts..... i bet as soon as you read the first line of my original post stating that i am a leo that you immediately went into abrasive mode.

Hardly. If you did a search on the forums you would know that not to be true. I argue forcefully, but going off half cocked or reading comprehension issues are not usually my problem.

sbcpd10 wrote:you read what you want but not the complete picture of anything.

This is an interesting charge from a LEO who is all about the investigation and disarming citizens in the moment and is completely unprepared to defend his actions in court; I should note is also unwilling to go ask his magistrate this exact question and report on it too. Ironically, I was the one talking about such big picture things like Rights and how the whole incident, from initial call to final lawsuit if you were to handle it with someone knowledgeable, would play out.

sbcpd10 wrote:you have no understanding of law enforcement or law enforcement tactics and training.

Yes and no. I know enough to know how you are trained to gain compliance out of simple things like holding onto an ID and asking to search stuff you have no legal ability to do so until I give compliance.

sbcpd10 wrote:you think anyone who does not immediately agree with every statement you make is therefore ignorant.

Not true. Again, search the forum and you will see I push people to argue for their opinions and have played devil's advocate on many occasions. An unfounded opinion is the product of a lazy and ignorant mind. It's worth nothing. I base any claim of ignorance on the actual arguments put forth. You sir, have not impressed me at all. You have only done the following:

1. Leverage your LEO title as proof I must be wrong.
2. Leverage your LEO training as if it was actually the law instead of the cliff notes version.
3. Ad hominem attacks about someone (me) you don't even know.

How's that for reading comprehension?

sbcpd10 wrote:the difference between you and i is i agree with a lot of things you say..... however there are some things you say that you have no idea what you are talking about specifically because you do not understand what i am talking about.

What exactly do you agree with? Is this more LEO "good cop" training? We haven't agreed on anything yet, so please enlighten me as to what you agree with. As for not knowing what I am talking about please tell me explicitly what that is. How have I twisted some part of the law? I have a small law library at home, everything from The Law to Tucker's commentary on Blackstone to Black's law dictionary to more light reads. If your personal collection or cliff notes are missing, I can substitute Wikipedia. We do have actual lawyers on this forum and if I have mistakenly explained or misunderstood something I would love to know for my own edification.

At this point I've probably read more actual law texts than the average LEO will do in their life. Granted, I focus mostly on the parts that interest me so the average LEO has way more breadth than I do. Besides, until this post, I've never claimed any special training etc. to justify my argument; I have argued the facts forcefully. I am not claiming that you should agree with me because of my learning, but I am trying to point out that I am not as ignorant as you would like me to be.

sbcpd10 wrote:why continue this discussion further when you will do nothing but continue to become more abrasive.

How have I been abrasive? Not laying down to unlawful authority? Arguing the facts forcefully? Please enlighten me. I don't think I have called you any names and the nearest thing I have come to making a statement about your character is saying you have an authoritarian complex. In my defense, that was several posts in after you made it clear you view it as your right to disarm a law-abiding citizen without RAS or PC.

sbcpd10 wrote:you are probably sitting at home in your chair yelling at the computer screen to make yourself feel better. i hope that works for you.

I have laughed at my computer screen, but never yelled at it. I am not one for impulsive behavior. Have a little self control. Given the degrading grammar and punctuation of your latest post I would bet on a little psychological projection is going on with that statement.

sbcpd10 wrote:until you learn that while you may have some knowledge of a topic you do not know everything there is to know about it you will continue to read what you want to read and ignore the rest.

On the contrary, I have been corrected on this forum and elsewhere many times. There are people on this forum with PMs which express my thanks for the correction because I have learned as much as I have by realizing I can learn from everyone and continually learning. E.g. I have started reading Mises' treaty Human Action to better my economic understanding. In case you are wondering, it is about 900 pages and starts with the epistemological concerns of economic science, hardly light reading. I bounce around the subjects, but I apply the same level of learning to all. I hardly know everything, nor will I ever know everything. In fact, the more I learn the more I'm impressed by how little I actually know.

sbcpd10 wrote:sure i feel i am an expert on police tactics and criminal law. i have earned that right to think that way however i learn something new everyday and always appreciate the chance to do so.

Why? Because you are a LEO? I always like to point out that I know people who on paper are great, but I wouldn't hire them to mow my lawn. A title, a degree, etc. mean nothing as to the actual competence or skill of an individual. I also know people who only have a HS education which I would hire in an instant.

As a side note, you haven't earned any such right. The concept and execution of natural rights in this country allows for nothing of the sort. By the very nature of you being a human (I'm assuming as you could be software too ), you have the right and ability to think. Your experience or work has nothing to do with it. It falls under the generic right to life as put forth in the Declaration of Independence (which was just a summary statement of the philosophy). Also, your experience or work means nothing as to the justification of your opinion. Either your opinion is rational or it isn't. Appealing to yourself as an authority is a common logical fallacy.

sbcpd10 wrote:maybe you should try looking at life in a different fashion and instead of the me me me i am always right attitude try looking inward for things about yourself that you could learn from.

I'm not always right, nor have I claimed that at any point...what makes your right though? Do you have any references? Why are you unwilling to answer a simple question about what RAS you have to execute a Terry Stop or Stop and Frisk? The law says you must have it or you are the criminal (technically, but immunity from the law is a great thing...your department would pick up the bill). Let me break it down very simply for you.

Someone(s) call the police and say a man has a gun. Keeping and bearing an arm is not a crime or RAS to suggest they may commit a crime. Your duty requires that you go out there and investigate. You may or may not find a person with a gun. If you do, you investigate, but do you actually have RAS to disarm them? Nope. You have no inclination that they have, are or are about to committed any crime, so if you do disarm them it is you who has broken the law is it not? Your only method of legally getting that gun or my shoes for that matter or anything else you want is if I comply with your request to hand it over. Not complying with a request is not RAS either. At most I am bound to stop and identify, nothing else. I can't legally resist you if you force me to hand if over (i.e. take it by force), but the lawyers will have a field day with that. Go ask your magistrate.

sbcpd10 wrote:when you do that you will realize that no one person, and this may come as a shock but yes this includes you, knows it all. then maybe you will take the time to actually stop and understand what others are saying before you try and prove how tough and smart a guy you really are.

Old hat, already covered.

sbcpd10 wrote:thanks for playing and once again i hope the rest of your day is wonderful!

It most certainly will be as long I'm treated like a citizen and not a subject. I have no beef with LEO going about their lawful business, I do have one with LEOs who think they are god or at least better than their "subjects" and violate rights at will.

As is correctly noted here, the CA LEO could do what he did and the citizen complied because the CA code requires it. VA has no such law, so the requirements of RAS are required unless you volunteer to do it. http://www.californiaopencarry.org/Cali ... nCarry.pdf

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

CA has to provide that provision or else the LEO has no authority to check the lawfully carried firearm without RAS.

And it's gunderwood with a Knockout!!

and the crowd goes wild!

Palladin wrote:And it's gunderwood with a Knockout!!

and the crowd goes wild!

Except for some grammar issues. I really should proof read things, but sometimes I'm just too lazy.

The only thing suspicious about Garrett (gunderwood) is why he knows so much. Personally I think he's an android built by some government think tank lab...anyway

Boys and girls please dont fight over the pail and shovel. Plenty to go around. Have a nice day and dont eat any sand. Not good for you...

And for any new folks wondering I can indeed detain you and take your gun...but only here...

As I have stated multiple times I am done with this. As I have also stated multiple times he is right on a number of things. However he is dead wrong on several things as well and refuses to acknowledge it because he thinks he knows everything. I tried to help with understanding on something and he attacked what I was saying without even acknowledging his ignorance of what I was actually saying. There is no point in arguing or having a discussion with someone who thinks they are always right and therefore I will not waste my time. He is the type of person to argue with a sign post, throw a rock at it because he is mad, and then take the wrong way home.

sbcpd10 wrote:As I have stated multiple times I am done with this. As I have also stated multiple times he is right on a number of things. However he is dead wrong on several things as well and refuses to acknowledge it because he thinks he knows everything. I tried to help with understanding on something and he attacked what I was saying without even acknowledging his ignorance of what I was actually saying. There is no point in arguing or having a discussion with someone who thinks they are always right and therefore I will not waste my time. He is the type of person to argue with a sign post, throw a rock at it because he is mad, and then take the wrong way home.

I can't acknowledge a generality any more than I have. I have already claimed I could be wrong and asked you for specifics because I don't think I am. You have refused to provide those, so how am I to cross reference anything you say?

I posted because you were using your LEO title as proof that you are correct and everything I have studied says you're not. It would be shameful to have a citizen not exercise their rights because some authoritarian cop said so.

As for arguing with a sign, hardly. There is no point in arguing with an object which is incapable of rational thought. Now, arguing with the rational and people who posted a stupid sign, sure.

Edit: Are you ever going to make a specific statement about what point of law I am mistaken on and a rational argument around it or are you just going to continue the ad hominem attacks? You have yet to construct a single argument as to why you are correct. You have stated it as fact, used your presumed expertise in the matter as proof, and then launched on personal attacks.

you have repeatedly stated any action i would take as being an unlawful action and in violation of your rights..... yet not once did i ever say anything about an action that was.... so you either did not read close enough to understand what i said(which is what i told you to begin with) or you have no clue what an unlawful act or violation of someones rights are.... at no point did i ever say i would walk up to any random person with an open carry firearm, take their gun away from and lock them up..... i did however say upon receiving a complaint of a suspicious person i would investigate the situation with the information i which would obviously be an attempt to gain more information about what is going on, if a person i am interviewing has a weapon on them then yes i can temporarily disarm them for my own safety while dealing with them and yes they must identify themselves or they can be held until such a time that their identity has been determined..... you turned that into a completely different thing and then argued repeatedly i was acting unlawfully and violating your rights which is not the case.... however as i already said if you identify yourself and have not committed any crime and can lawfully be in possession of the firearm then our encounter is ended.... personally i generally ask someone not to reload their firearm until i have left but that is a simple request and not a requirement.... but at no point in what i said did someone's rights get violated

sbcpd10 wrote:As I have stated multiple times I am done with this. As I have also stated multiple times he is right on a number of things. However he is dead wrong on several things as well and refuses to acknowledge it because he thinks he knows everything. I tried to help with understanding on something and he attacked what I was saying without even acknowledging his ignorance of what I was actually saying. There is no point in arguing or having a discussion with someone who thinks they are always right and therefore I will not waste my time. He is the type of person to argue with a sign post, throw a rock at it because he is mad, and then take the wrong way home.

No point in arguing with me either sport...now please keep it to a debate level...both of you...

sbcpd10 wrote:you have repeatedly stated any action i would take as being an unlawful action and in violation of your rights.....

No, I said the actions you said you would do would were unlawful. I'll quote you since you already forgot.

sbcpd10 wrote:PC can be obtained by what information we have at the time. What was going on in the area at the time? For example had there been a few armed robberies? Maybe a few burglaries? Who knows? Depending on the circumstances an officer does have the right to do a Terry stop and in this case he didn't need to pat down anybody because the firearm was in plain sight. So already the officer knows the individual he is dealing with is armed. Of course he is going to check his ID.

A burglary last night does not give you PC to disarm anyone. VAs stop and identify law does not require my ID either. It requires my name and address.

sbcpd10 wrote:He was called for a suspicious person with a firearm. He not only could but SHOULD check the person for the above things, run the serial number on the firearm to see if its stolen, and inquire about the person's reasons for being there in that situation.

Really? So you would stop a citizen who is open carrying, detain them, unlawfully search them (because you don't have RAS or PC) and run their serial numbers without RAS? The stop and identify law does not require me to comply with any such nonsense. A Terry stop requires RAS. You get away with not having RAS or half-a$$ing it because most people don't know that you need it or

sbcpd10 wrote:I can tell you right now if I had responded to this call and he had refused to identify himself to me then he would have sat in the jail until he did identify himself and to be quite frank the more he whined about what his rights were and tried to tell me about how he was going to sue me the more I would have laughed.

There is such a thing as unlawful detainment and unlawful arrest. Once Skidmark is cleared of any wrong doing, there almost certainly will a lawsuit because of a cop who has the same attitude as you.

sbcpd10 wrote:edit* Let me say this though. Why wouldn't you give your ID? Why would you not want the officer to do his job? Not only is he investigating a complaint and protecting the citizen(s) that made the complaint, he is protecting your rights when he goes to the complainant and says "hey thanks for calling, now let me explain to you why this person just walked away. The law says........." Now he just educated some poor left winger who thought they knew everything.

I don't have to stop and show you my papers and you wouldn't like it either if someone did that to you. That is why I would identify, but not give you my ID. You aren't doing your job, you would be harassing a law-abiding citizen.

sbcpd10 wrote:at no point did i ever say i would walk up to any random person with an open carry firearm, take their gun away from and lock them up

Lock them up, no, but please re-read quote number three. Yes, I did read your post and apparently know what it said better than you do. That isn't LE, that is a bully on a power trip. You said that if someone reports a person with a firearm you would do disarm them, run their serial numbers and detain them until they answered your questions. A phone call doesn't give you RAS or PC, nor does crimes being committed in the area. You need some reason as to why the person you stopped may have committed a crime and the OC of a firearm doesn't count.

sbcpd10 wrote:i did however say upon receiving a complaint of a suspicious person i would investigate the situation with the information i which would obviously be an attempt to gain more information about what is going on, if a person i am interviewing has a weapon on them then yes i can temporarily disarm them for my own safety while dealing with them and yes they must identify themselves or they can be held until such a time that their identity has been determined..... you turned that into a completely different thing and then argued repeatedly i was acting unlawfully and violating your rights which is not the case.... however as i already said if you identify yourself and have not committed any crime and can lawfully be in possession of the firearm then our encounter is ended.... personally i generally ask someone not to reload their firearm until i have left but that is a simple request and not a requirement.... but at no point in what i said did someone's rights get violated

Unless you have RAS or my compliance, how do you continue an interview/detention without it? I would love to see the reference where any court has ruled that you can execute a stop and frisk on a citizen without RAS.

Since you still don't get it: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/crimin ... stops.html

When Will The Police Stop A Person?

Generally, the police may stop a person for committing a traffic violation, for suspicion of being engaged in criminal activity, or to arrest the person for a criminal act. After being stopped by the police, a person will typically be questioned.

Can The Police Stop And Question People Who Are Not Under Arrest?

Yes. The police can stop a person, and ask questions, without "arresting" the person. Upon seeing suspicious activity, the police may perform what is called a "Terry Stop," and may temporarily detain people to request that they identify themselves and to question them about the suspicious activity. The scope of a "Terry Stop" is limited to investigation of the specific suspicious activity, and if the police detain people to question them about additional matters, the stop can turn into an "arrest." For their own safety, the police can perform a "weapons frisk" on the outside of a person's clothes (sometimes called "patting down the suspect") during a "Terry Stop." During this frisk, if they feel something that may be a weapon, they may remove it from the suspect for further examination. However, they are not entitled to remove items from person's pockets that do not appear to be weapons, even if they believe that the items are contraband.

OC is not suspicious activity. I know of no case law where OC established RAS. If you do, I'd love to see it, but I won't hold my breath. You are going to Terry stop a OCing citizen and run their serial numbers for what exactly? The LEO in the video didn't have RAS either, but CA cut a specific exemption out for OCing which allowed him to do it. The performance of lawful activities doesn't not constitute RAS.



Since I'm a dumb hick, take from a professional LE mag: http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine ... e_id=92004

the officer in this case was responding to a caller who reported seeing an assault inside a truck traveling down the road. Police located the truck, which had by then pulled off the road. A man, Larry D. Hiibel, was standing by the vehicle and a young woman was inside. The officer approached and, pursuant to a Nevada law, asked Hiibel if he had any identification. Hiibel refused to provide identification.1 He was then arrested, charged with obstructing a public officer in the discharge of any legal duty of his office, convicted, and fined $250.

In an opinion released on June 23, 2004, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this arrest and conviction.2 It is important for officers to know that, without regard to the various misrepresentations of the national media, the Court's holding in Hiibel is very narrow.3 The Court held that, during a Terry stop (in other words, when the officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is ongoing), an officer may ask a person provide his or her name. If there is a state law that requires that the person provide his or her name, anyone who fails to comply with the request may then be arrested.

Stop-and-Identify Statutes4
Vagrancy laws that permitted officers to require people to demonstrate that they had good reason to be where they were, engaged in whatever conduct they were engaged in, were struck down by the Supreme Court in Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972). The Court found vagrancy statutes to be unconstitutionally vague, as they provided police officers with too much discretion regarding whom to stop and question and what standards to apply before making an arrest.

Generalized stop-and-identify statutes later suffered the same fate. In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), a Texas stop-and-identify statute was found to be unconstitutionally vague because it permitted stops that were not based on the constitutionally mandated standard of reasonable suspicion.

The latest Supreme Court review of a stop-and-identify statute occurred in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). The California stop-and-identify statute was at issue in that case. It permitted stops only on the basis of reasonable suspicion, thereby curing the problem that had the troubled the Court in Papachristou and Brown. But because there was no definition of the required identification in the statute, the Court struck the statute down as unconstitutionally vague.

Isn't This an Illegal Seizure?
The Court found no Fourth Amendment violation in the conduct of the officers. According to the Court, the call received by the police provided the necessary reasonable suspicion upon which an officer could detain Mr. Hiibel for investigation of criminal activity.

Nor was the Supreme Court concerned with the request that Mr. Hiibel identify himself. The Court noted that asking questions is an ordinary and important part of any police investigation, including asking a person for identification. The mere request for identification does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.6 Citing a series of Supreme Court decisions, the Court stated that it is "clear that questions concerning a suspect's identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops" and that "obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests." The Court noted that a person's name may make the officer aware of whether the offender is wanted or has a history of violence or mental illness or a history of committing a particular type of crime:

The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. . . . The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. . . . A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.7

What Hiibel Means and Does Not Mean for Law Enforcement
Hiibel affirms that during a lawful Terry stop an officer may ask the detained person to state his or her name. Hiibel also affirms that in states that have statutes that make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself on demand during a Terry stop, a person may be arrested for refusing to do so.

It is important to note what Hiibel does not do. It does not extend or expand the scope of a permitted Terry stop or provide a new or different basis on which to stop and detain persons. It does not permit officers to demand proof or documentation of identity. It does not permit officers to randomly stop persons and demand that they identify themselves.

Bringing a Stop-and-Identify Statute to a Jurisdiction Near You
Law enforcement officials who work in states that do not have stop-and-identify statutes may wish to work with their legislature to adopt one. To comply with Hiibel, such statutes should be narrowly drafted, so that they apply only in the context of Terry stops and require only a verbal statement of identity.

You can't demand ID. You need me to identify my self, which I can do verbally. The call here provided RAS because the call was about a crime in action, not a lawful activity. What are you going to do in court, well sir he was lawfully carrying a gun so I had RAS?

And again...

But what of suspects who are stopped but are not operating vehicles? Current law generally does not require that ordinary pedestrians even carry documentary identification and it remains to be seen what courts will do with the issues surrounding a requirement of documentary identification. Naturally, if someone is arrested, any documentary identification on that person can be located in the search incident to arrest.

How about the opinion of a VA Commonwealth Attorney? http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf

Things like this allow for stop and ID:

Arlington County Code
§17-13(3)(c) Identification.
"It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification."

They don't allow for a Terry stop.

Here is another LEO on OpenCarry:

Actually... providing your identity does not mean having an ID card. Providing your identity means you say who you are.

As I said.. it is just my personal opinion that it should be required in some certain situations.

In regards to the caller... perhaps she was driving to get away and phone went dead.

Ah, finally found the case I was thinking of...got a lot of stuff rattling around up there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.

In 1995 the Miami-Dade Police received an anonymous tip that a young black male was at a bus stop wearing a plaid shirt and carrying a firearm. The police went to the bus stop and saw three young black men, one wearing a plaid shirt. Acting solely on the tip (the officers did not observe any criminal or suspicious behavior), they searched all three, and found a pistol in the pocket of the man wearing the plaid shirt.

The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a "stop and frisk" of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.

Unanimously the SCOTUS says this LEO doesn't know what he is talking about. No wonder he refused to provide an argument, facts or just go ask his magistrate.

lol its called articulation..... maybe the officers in that 1 particular case did not do a good job of that

oh and btw this is VERY different then someone who you see has a firearm in their possession..... we were talking open carry and now you jump to a concealed carry topic.... not to mention a 16 year old case

You missed the point. The SCOTUS said that an tip can not give RAS. Without RAS you have no authority for a Terry Stop. I wasn't aware that the law had changed in those 16 years concerning that point.

The whole discussion always has revolved around your ability to claim that OC and/or a tip was enough for RAS. It isn't. The case in question was initially about OC or some form of public viewing of a firearm. The SCOTUS ruled that a tip did not give the LEOs the ability to not observe a criminal act before performing a Terry Stop. OC isn't a crime so it stands to reason that it legal activity does count as RAS either.

You still don't have RAS for a Terry Stop. The call describing potential unlawful activity doesn't count, nor does the lawful activity of OCing. You can stop and identify me (which doesn't require my ID despite your insistence), but you can not detain.

sbcpd10 wrote:oh and btw this is VERY different then someone who you see has a firearm in their possession.....

Which potential crime are you going to claim because I have a firearm in my possession?

Out of curiosity, do you work for Sweet Briar College PD or South Boston PD (not sure what the C would be then, rank?). I'll put my money on the former since it is outside Lynchburg which has a history of such false arrests/stops concerning firearms as far as I know. I only ask so I make sure to avoid that area much like I avoid MD whenever possible.

As an interesting note, common law in VA allows a citizen to resist a false arrest. Here is one such case: http://www.robertslaw.org/false_arrest_ ... _force.htm

Roberts argued that Morris had a right to express his commentary on police conduct and argued that the arrest was unlawful and therefore under common law long recognized by the Supreme Court of Virginia, Morris had every right to use reasonable force to repel the unlawful arrest. The fact that the officers took Morris into custody demonstrates that he should have used more force, since he did not repel the officers. Witnesses to the event claim that Morris was beaten by the officers and that he did not resist or use any force and that any injuries to the officers were inflicted upon themselves as they beat Morris. The officers admitted that he was walking away from them when they attempted to arrest him and blinded him with pepper spray before striking him several times.

So if you jump me after I attempt to walk away from your unlawful attempt to detain me without RAS, run my serial numbers, etc...my peacefully walking away from your power trip is Constitutionally protected.

Edit: I want to thank you for teaching me something today. I need to do more research on SCOVA rulings concerning resisting an unlawful arrest, but I did not now that common law covered that in VA. Thanks.

OK you are right you are always right you know everythign everyone else is an idiot.....

read my very first post...... once again as i have said all along you did not bother to take the time to read a thing in the first post.... i am positive i said you do not have all the information available to law enforcement in every case, you have no idea what may be going on in an area at any given time because you do not have that information...... instead you are so sure that everyone who disagrees with you or maybe just all cops, want to take all your guns away and violate your rights....... get a life loser, had i realised there were eccentric and abrasive fools on this forum such as yourself then i woul not have wasted my time joining and trying to help some folks out........ i tried to be civil with you but you continued to claim i want to do nothign but violate your precious rights..... this is the communistwealth of virginia whether you like it or not and everythign is illegal so get over it...... i am sure i will see your picture in the paper someday with a set of irons on because so dumb cop "violated your rights"

zephyr or whatever your name is you can remove my account to this forum, i realize now its a waste of my time and energy. btw zephyr you were quick to jump down on me during this thread but not once have you asked gunderwear or whatever his name is to cease..... i stop and he starts right back in again and thats ok with you.... do your damn job then if you are going to come down on one then do so on both

I don't think anyone has attacked you personally, but I have seen you use the words stupid and idiot more than once. gunderwood wasn't trying to say that he knew every situation - he was speaking for himself and how he would handle his own situation.

This is the problem that he's pointing out - Let's insert me into the equation. I know that I stay on the right side of the law, especially with regard to firearms. I may speed or run through a yellow light every once in awhile (Hey, I swear it was yellow when I went through it!)

So, let's say some overzealous cop decides to harass me about my openly carried firearm, even though I know that I'm well within the law. Let's take it a step further and say that the cop decides he wants to write a summons and send me on my personal recognizance. Now, this summons that he wrote, after disarming me and harassing me in front of my family resulted in me having to go to court, only to have the CA throw the case out because she knew that she couldn't prosecute because I was on the right side of the law the entire time!

I tried to explain the law to the cop, but he didn't want to hear it. I complied with his orders when he asked for my firearm. I complied with everything he told me to do, but he still wrote me a summons based on his INCORRECT understanding of the law.

THIS is what gunderwood is talking about. There was no reason that I should have been disarmed. There was no reason that I should have gone home with a summons. There is no reason that I should have had to go to the evidence room at the local police station to retrieve my STOLEN firearm. BUT I DID!

He could have taken me to jail, which would have been even worse for me. For what? Because I was within the letter of the law?

SO DON'T COME IN HERE SPOUTING ON ABOUT HOW COPS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT AND CITIZENS DON'T UNDERSTAND OR HAVE A CLUE. I'M NOT HEARING IT ANYMORE.

YOU have a nice day.