Guns Worn In Open Legal, But Alarm Va. (WaPost)
- Thread starter David Park
- Start date
I don't think it would be "legitimate", if the reporting witnesses didn't understand that what they saw was legal. Why would the officers validate the complaint, unless they enjoyed doing it or didn't know any better? I don't see any grounds for trying to justify it. The mention of "harassment" was right on the money, in my view.
Quote from Real Gun:
"Well, if having a beer was an option in that place, it would be a different story, wouldn't it? Was there a distinction at that time between "nice restaurants" and "bars/taverns"? Mentioning alcohol complicates the issue."
Sir:
The "incident" I made reference to, "Many years ago, when I lived for a time in Hopewell VA, I walked into a diner type place one Saturday afternoon, desirous of something to eat and a coffee, perhaps a bottle of beer. Anyhow, I sat at the counter, a stool away from an armed gentleman. He carried a small pistol in an open, belt holster", being that it took place in 1964, stretches my memory somewhat. Perhaps my intention was limited to coffee and a sandwich. Matter of fact, the laws in Virginia re sale of alcohol at that time being somewhat strange, quite possibly the place didn't even sell beer, I honestly cannot remember.
While I would not presume to speak for anyone else, the only types of "bars/taverns" that I frequented were "nice places". As to mention of alcohol "complicating the issue", I can't see why it would, and in any case, re Tamara's mention of not carrying concealed where alcohol is sold, the man's pistol was not concealed. It was carried, in plain sight, in a small belt holster.
"Well, if having a beer was an option in that place, it would be a different story, wouldn't it? Was there a distinction at that time between "nice restaurants" and "bars/taverns"? Mentioning alcohol complicates the issue."
Sir:
The "incident" I made reference to, "Many years ago, when I lived for a time in Hopewell VA, I walked into a diner type place one Saturday afternoon, desirous of something to eat and a coffee, perhaps a bottle of beer. Anyhow, I sat at the counter, a stool away from an armed gentleman. He carried a small pistol in an open, belt holster", being that it took place in 1964, stretches my memory somewhat. Perhaps my intention was limited to coffee and a sandwich. Matter of fact, the laws in Virginia re sale of alcohol at that time being somewhat strange, quite possibly the place didn't even sell beer, I honestly cannot remember.
While I would not presume to speak for anyone else, the only types of "bars/taverns" that I frequented were "nice places". As to mention of alcohol "complicating the issue", I can't see why it would, and in any case, re Tamara's mention of not carrying concealed where alcohol is sold, the man's pistol was not concealed. It was carried, in plain sight, in a small belt holster.
While VA has all kinds of restrictions related to "under the influence of [alcohol/drugs]", and denotes that "under the influence" also pertains to public locations other than ABC licensed entities, it does not specifically state in any statute that one shall not consume alcoholic beverages while carrying a firearm.
VCDL was willing to give "shall not consume alcoholic beverages" while carrying a concealed handgun in (facilities, above) in order to have the law be more equitable - and sane - although the striking of the entirety of J-3 of 18.2-308 is the most preferable course of action.
For reference:
VCDL was willing to give "shall not consume alcoholic beverages" while carrying a concealed handgun in (facilities, above) in order to have the law be more equitable - and sane - although the striking of the entirety of J-3 of 18.2-308 is the most preferable course of action.
For reference:
tallpine said:
Tamara said:
And not called for, in tcsd's case. Yes, he's out of line on this, but I remember him well from way back before TFL's hiatus, and he's a good guy.
This should tell us all something though - the constant outpouring of anti-gun propaganda has done a lot of damage to our country. Even the good guys like tcsd have been badly infected with this mentality.
That's Not Good.
Thanks..haven't spent enough time on this board since it came back up to play around with the controls. Every boards a bit different, and this version, as you have noted, is unique in its own ways.
It is not technically a crime, as you note. The fact that it is for all practical purposes so rare DOES make it suspicious.
Because its fine and dandy to discuss how things "oughtta be" from the comfort of your la-z-boy. I see it all the time on the net..people saying that LEOs are wrong in how we do our job, and we should just go the route of Andy Taylor and make believe that we all live in Mayberry. From the posts here, its obvious that some people think that we should now, if we are LEOs in the state in question, assume that a gangbanger lounging on the street corner with a gun tucked in his sagging pants is just a happy law abiding citizen unless we see him actually pulling the gun and shooting someone. After all, he's not actively commiting a crime, but we all know that such a person is not a law abiding citizen in possession of a gun.
We are still required to investigate every complaint that comes in to us. Our dispatchers USED to be able to simply nip some rather mundane calls in the bud and resolve the issue over the phone, but we must now respond to every complaint. That means identifying and documenting the situation, the people we have dealt with by pedigree information, etc. That does not constitute harassment.
Nothing I have described relating to standard law enforcement procedure should give you any reason to "fear" us, as you put it.
"After all, he's not actively commiting a crime, but we all know that such a person is not a law abiding citizen in possession of a gun."
I'm sorry, but that conclusion is just plain scary. You may suspect, but you don't KNOW. Might be an undercover officer. Or a Richmond City Council member.
Looks like probable cause for loitering at best.
John
I'm sorry, but that conclusion is just plain scary. You may suspect, but you don't KNOW. Might be an undercover officer. Or a Richmond City Council member.
Looks like probable cause for loitering at best.
John
What you have described is legalized harassment. The actual conduct of the officers, perhaps enjoying their power, determines whether it's actually deterring crime and doing their jobs or something to be feared or ridiculed by law abiding people. How much license an LEO takes from the law is the subject of controversy. I can quarrel with the actual law separately, understanding that LEOs are officers of the law in theory, not to be blamed for the laws themselves until they should know better than to try to enforce them to the letter. I believe the laws are there to provide grounds for prosecution of those who deserve it. I do not believe the laws are an excuse for harassment without probable cause. Police have been known to harass, exercise bigotry, or be corrupt for 150 years, so let's not say it doesn't happen.
My hat's off to the good cops and department policies that both make sense and pass constitutional scrutiny. Questioning is one thing, but confiscating a weapon without a crime is a big deal.