VA-ALERT: Openly carried long arms - VCDL's position

[Taggure]

VA-ALERT: Openly carried long arms - VCDL's position
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me start with making the following key point: VCDL is NOT a gun-control organization. Period. We support the right of gun owners to do whatever they choose as long as they are not breaking the law. Keep that at the forefront of your thoughts as you read on.

A TALE OF THREE LOCALITIES

VCDL member Brandon Howard recently open carried an AR-15 at three different Tea Party protest events held at different locations and on different days. (The rifle was strapped on his back and had a loaded magazine in the gun, but did not have a round in the chamber.) At those events, Brandon and the other Tea Party members would simply hold signs on an overpass so that those on the expressway below could read them and honk in support of their message.

The police showed up at each of three locations, but at only one of those locations, Hopewell, was there any kind of issue over that rifle. What happened in Hopewell was inexcusable.

COLONIAL HEIGHTS

Brandon's first encounter with the police was on a bridge in Colonial Heights. In that encounter two Colonial Heights officers simply inquired what the group was doing. Once told it was a protest where everyone would be holding signs for those driving underneath to see, the officers told the protesters to have a good day and left. Hats off to the Colonial Heights PD. They did their job, followed the law, and acted professionally.

HOPEWELL

Brandon's second encounter was very different. There the police showed up - eight of them - lights flashing, guns drawn, and pointing at Brandon! Without any civil discourse, the police proceeded to do a "felony stop" having Brandon walk backwards towards an officer's voice and with his hands fully in the air. He was handcuffed, his rifle literally thrown into the trunk of one of the police cars, was taken to the PD headquarters, and "detained" for 2 hours! Let's be clear here - when a officer, or anyone else, points a gun at you, you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury. Police pointing guns at you should only occur if YOU are threatening THEM with death or grievous bodily injury. Brandon was NOT a threat at all. His guns were holstered and both of his hands were occupied holding a sign. He made no quick or sudden moves and complied with all commands. Yet the police intentionally put his life in grave danger. That was shameful behavior by those entru
d with public safety.

PRINCE GEORGE

Here is a video of the third encounter, this time with a solitary Prince George police officer. I really like this officer - he's incredibly patient, but professional at the same time. He is not concerned with the guns carried by Brandon and others at the protest. He had already summed up the situation and did not feel threatened, nor did he call for backup. No drawn gun, no felony stop. Instead he politely engaged the protesters in conversation at first, repeating his name so it can be recorded on the video. His sole concern is with the particular bridge they picked. He pointed out there was no sidewalk and, hence, no really safe place to stand on the two-lane bridge. In the video he tells the protesters that if they pick a different bridge that has a sidewalk, he wouldn't have any other issues with them and would be on his way.

One of areas where police have authority is in a situation where the general public is in danger. In this case, not only might the protesters be in danger from vehicles topping the bridge, but also the drivers of those vehicles might be in danger if they have to swerve away from a protester who might inadvertently be standing too close to the traffic lane. That could cause a car wreck, even a possible head-on collision with a car coming in the opposite direction.

In the video, one of the protesters decides to debate the officer's authority in asking that they move off the bridge, while still standing on the bridge! That is NOT a good idea. A lawful order was given to move off the bridge. MOVE OFF THE BRIDGE. Once you have complied with his order, then continue the debate, if you and the officer are so inclined. What's funny in the video is that Brandon had picked up on that very point and can be seen in the video (standing to the left of the officer) desperately trying to give the person holding the camera a "cut it" sign to stop arguing with the officer and just comply. (In the captions the protester put in the video, he said Brandon was making that sign because he was fed up with police abuse - not so. Brandon assured me on the phone that my interpretation is the correct one. This misinterpretation probably explains what happens next.)

But the protester either misunderstands the important signal from Brandon, or is too involved in arguing with the officer to notice or heed it. The officer repeatedly and calmly asks the protester to move off the bridge, but the protester continues his verbal barrage of questions. Finally the officer puts the protester (in the red shirt) in cuffs and places him in the police car under investigative detention. I think in this case it was more of a "time out" to get the protester to calm down and stop arguing and just comply. The officer is bending over backward not to arrest him. Based on that video, I believe he had the authority to do an arrest at that point for failure to obey a lawful order. Also the officer removed the protester's gun, which was in a paddle holster, holster and all and did not take the gun out of the holster, unloaded it, etc. More kudos to the officer for avoiding any unnecessary gun handling. I wish more of his colleagues would do the same.

In the end, the officer takes the handcuffs of the protester in the red shirt and returns his gun, ending the detention.

That is a top-notch officer in my books and speaks well for the Prince George police force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTzmrcrx ... ture=share

WRVA'S JIMMY BARRETT REDEEMS HIMSELF!

Jimmy Barrett had an excellent interview with Brandon on Friday morning. I was surprised earlier this week when Jimmy went on the attack without sufficient details on what happened in Hopewell. On Friday, Jimmy took the high road and did the interview. Hats off to Jimmy for giving Brandon a chance to give his side of what happened.

http://www.1140wrva.com/media/podcast-j ... -23653406/

FINAL THOUGHTS ON LIBERTY AND "BEING SMART"

I knew when I put the original story out on VA-ALERT that some readers would contact me, upset that I didn't condemn the open carry of rifles, especially on a bridge. Sure enough, I got somewhere around 15 such emails.

A common theme was "it may be legal, but it isn't smart!" or "it will be harmful to our efforts," or "not opposing it discredits VCDL."

We all see the world through our own eyes and sometimes forget that what is "reasonable" to one person, is totally unreasonable to another. Who should be the arbiter of "smart" or "reasonable?" Dick "Deliverance" Saslaw? Chuck Schumer? Michael Bloomberg? Sheila Jackson Lee?

Heck, I don't think sky diving is a good idea. But I'd never suggest that it be banned. I simply won't be participating.

Look at it this way: if we aren't free to do things that somebody, somewhere, thinks are "stupid," or "unreasonable," then we aren't free at all.

VCDL keeps it simple - we don't discourage LEGAL activities.

When handling firearms, VCDL *strongly* encourages everyone to follow firearm safety rules. Jeff Cooper's Rules of Gun Safety (thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html):

1. All guns are always loaded
2. NEVER let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target
4. Be sure of your target

*** Rule #2 can be much more challenging when carrying a long gun, especially in an urban setting. ***

Suggesting that VCDL discourage someone like Brandon from carrying his rifle openly is to ask VCDL to support gun control, for that's exactly what we would be doing! If you don't like how someone exercises a right, you don't have to do what they are doing. But don't draw some artificial limit on what other gun owners can **legally** do, or you are no better than Sarah Brady.



-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
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 Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
***************************************************************************

[OakRidgeStars]

Look at it this way: if we aren't free to do things that somebody, somewhere, thinks are "stupid," or "unreasonable," then we aren't free at all.

I agree, but this becomes a tad more complicated when the people that think it's "unreasonable" wear badges or black robes. If you want to embrace your inner activist, fine. Just be prepared to reap the results of your actions.

Oh, and thanks for making us all look like dangerous, gun-toting morons.

[MrJog]

Look at it this way: if we aren't free to do things that somebody, somewhere, thinks are "stupid," or "unreasonable," then we aren't free at all.

I agree, but this becomes a tad more complicated when the people that think it's "unreasonable" wear badges or black robes. If you want to embrace your inner activist, fine. Just be prepared to reap the results of your actions.

Oh, and thanks for making us all look like dangerous, gun-toting morons.

Are you saying that Tag making gun owners look bad?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

Are you saying that Tag making gun owners look bad?

I'm not sure I understand the question, but my rant was directed at those individuals who open carry an AR in public and then wonder why they catch grief from law enforcement. This is an activist move to provoke a reaction. It has nothing to do with carrying for self defense.

[FiremanBob]

Thanks, Taggure, for posting the true facts of the story.

My position is that merely because we have the right to do some things, and doing them is legal, does not mean that they are good things to do. I don't see how in normal circumstances, a long arm is going to be more useful in a defense situation than a concealed handgun.

If the goblins and zombies started rioting, or their recent rash of unprovoked assaults were to spread to areas I frequent, I would agree that more firepower, as well as communicating a strong message, would be entirely appropriate.

[trailrunner]

...my rant was directed at those individuals who open carry an AR in public and then wonder why they catch grief from law enforcement. This is an activist move to provoke a reaction. It has nothing to do with carrying for self defense.

Is it any different from this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_Four

[NovaHunter]

This is an activist move to provoke a reaction. It has nothing to do with carrying for self defense.

I don't think carrying for the sake of making a point helps our side at all.

Carry for self defense, and when carrying conduct yourself with the utmost professionalism. Carrying just to be an activist plays into the anti-gunners hands more often than not IMHO.

[OakRidgeStars]

Is it any different from this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_Four

Which one of the Greensboro Four were open carrying a rifle? Let's stick to the topic at hand.

[WRW]

Is it any different from this?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro ... ur</a><!-- m -->

Which one of the Greensboro Four were open carrying a rifle? Let's stick to the topic at hand.

Ok, 2-A is not confined to self defense.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Excelsior]

WRW wrote:
Ok, 2-A is not confined to self defense.

+1 to that

A common theme was "it may be legal, but it isn't smart!" or "it will be harmful to our efforts," or "not opposing it discredits VCDL."

We all see the world through our own eyes and sometimes forget that what is "reasonable" to one person, is totally unreasonable to another. Who should be the arbiter of "smart" or "reasonable?" Dick "Deliverance" Saslaw? Chuck Schumer? Michael Bloomberg? Sheila Jackson Lee?

Heck, I don't think sky diving is a good idea. But I'd never suggest that it be banned. I simply won't be participating.

Look at it this way: if we aren't free to do things that somebody, somewhere, thinks are "stupid," or "unreasonable," then we aren't free at all.

Just because he has the ability to harm, doesn't mean that he will. Taggure's post shows that only in one of the three instances officers took issue. And the guy who created problems the third time was the camera guy, not Mr. Howard.

[MrJog]

I can't talk bad about these people. They are doing more to protect my 2nd amendment rights than I am.

[trailrunner]

Is it any different from this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_Four

Which one of the Greensboro Four were open carrying a rifle? Let's stick to the topic at hand.

You really don't see the parallel?

[FiremanBob]

Here's another way to put my position on "assertive open carry": The sheepdogs don't snarl at the sheep.

[WRW]

Here's another way to put my position on "assertive open carry": The sheepdogs don't snarl at the sheep.

LOL, yeah, and the sheep don't rat on the sheepdogs.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Taggure]

Just so all know here I am a Strong advocate for Open Carry.
Now with that said the individual that had the AR strapped to his back was carrying in a safe and professional manner and 2 of the 3 LEO recognized this. Now would I have been standing on the overpass with a rifle strapped to my back the answer would be no, but I would have been carrying my pistol in open carry. Say what you want on the debate as to open carry or not, but if you are trying to make a point then that is your right and as long as you are professional in the way you handle yourself and the situations that are the result of you open carrying no matter the weapon then you will have the high ground. The problems start when folks don't understand when to shut up and listen and then try to assert thier rights without thinking about the results. I know this last statement is not only good for Open Carry but for life in general.

Just my .02 worth

[dorminWS]

There is a good point on both sides, here.

Yes, it probably does alienate some people when folks "open carry assertively". And yes, there is certainly a time and place NOT to do so.

On the other hand, these same people who through ignorance and narrow-mindedness take offense at open carry are in the process of shaping public opinion against Second Amendment rights. It's a little bit like smoking. Even though it was (when I was a lad) perfectly legal and almost universally done, the media and the doctors got on the bandwagon, and brought mothers and schools into the act; and then the trial lawyers swooped in and the predatory, punitive litigation started; and this same kind of gradual societal proscription has now rendered smoking ILLEGAL and absolutely unacceptable in almost any company except that of fellow practitioners and then only in seclusion.

That "absolutely unacceptable in almost any company except that of fellow practitioners and then only in seclusion" is something the anti-gunners have already made way to much progress toward, IMHO. And that media/doctors/mothers/schools/trial lawyers tactic is clearly already in process. So, while "open carrying assertively" should be done with some discretion, it seems to me that our pro-gun community absolutely should carefully pick its battles and push back some.

[WRW]

That all three instances of carry did not end up as it did in Hopewell may be an indication that progress is being made in desensitizing law enforcement alarm to MWAG calls. If so, that did not happen because of gun owners refusing to display (in a safe manner).

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

Consider the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. That Amendment was included because the Founding Fathers had just concluded a war for independence, in which they had overthrown a tyranical government.

I doubt that the right to hunt was even on their minds. ( Not that I'm suggesting that anyone here has said otherwise) I suspect that they didn't give much thought to the common criminal, either. They were thinking more in terms of defense against tyranical governments.

Given that, I am a 2A Absolutest. I draw no line when it comes to ownership and display of weaponry.

Also, to one who would tell me that I do not need to carry a rifle to the grocery store, to Walmart, to the hardware store, "And just who are you to tell me what I may or may not need".

And this next point, I shall point out with all due respect and Christian Love to my fellow VGOFers: How can you complain when our representatives tell us that we do not NEED more than a specific number of rounds in our magazines, then turn around and tell another that he does not NEED to carry a rifle? That is hypocritical.

If we are to defend ourselves from any invading entity, a rifle strikes me as a damned useful tool. And, if any of us are expecting an attack, are we really going to venture to far from home, to begin with? The idea is to have the ability to be prepared for the unexpected, should we so desire, and should we have the resources.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

Another thought; what if the best that I can afford is a secondhand, breakaction, single shot shotgun? Why should my neighbor with the fancy pistol get to arm himself publicly, yet I cannot?

Yes, I realize the difference between the hypothetical shotgun and the AR-15, but both are still long guns, so the question is still valid.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[FiremanBob]

Another thought; what if the best that I can afford is a secondhand, breakaction, single shot shotgun? Why should my neighbor with the fancy pistol get to arm himself publicly, yet I cannot?

Yes, I realize the difference between the hypothetical shotgun and the AR-15, but both are still long guns, so the question is still valid.

That's the answer - we need government-subsidized shotguns. I'm sure Joe Biden would support that.

I am not, and I don't think anyone else is, suggesting that you cannot open carry your long gun in accordance with your rights. To repeat, I'm not saying "You don't need that rifle." I am saying that it is the wise thing to use your discretion, and to match your armament to the situation; and there a number of factors in that analysis.