"Paper Protection" requests EXPLODE -- endangering gun rights

And don't be surprised in places like Richmond start to adopt NYC and Philly-style "stop and frisk" programs. After all, these programs have worked SOOOOO well in the Big Apple and Philly to deter crime...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/o...-frisked-by-the-nypd.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/29/2477196/stop-and-frisk-becomes-tactic.html

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-29/news/30456509_1_nyclu-violent-crime-frisking

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/nypd-stop-and-frisks-incr_n_1121595.html

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110906/FREE/110909963#

Dreamer said:

CCing wouldn't be an issue--when they serve you with the PO, they just confiscate all your firearms at the same time, and they also revoke (or suspend) your CHP for the duration of the PO.

And if you think they don't have a list of EVERY firearm you've ever bought where an FFL was involved in the transaction, you are sadly mistaken.

Private sales and "tragic boating accidents" are going to become VERY common in VA in the near future, I believe... ;-)

Click to expand...

But there is still the basic question:

How do you get an OP to prohibit someone who may lawfully engage in an activity from engaging in same?

What would be the basis for such an OP? Until you've done that, nothing else matters.

2a4all said:

But there is still the basic question:

How do you get an OP to prohibit someone who may lawfully engage in an activity from engaging in same?

What would be the basis for such an OP? Until you've done that, nothing else matters.

Click to expand...

"Apprehended threats or danger"...

Dreamer said:

"Apprehended threats or danger"...

Click to expand...

Cite, please?

2a4all said:

Cite, please?

Click to expand...

The part of VA Statute that defines "acts of violence" that qualify for obtaining a PO/RO states:

VA ST § 19.2-152.7:1

An act of violence, force or threat means an act that involves violence, force, or threat that results in injury to the body or causes you a reasonable fear of death, sexual assault, or injury to the body. These acts could include things like forceful detention, stalking, criminal sexual assault, or any criminal offense that causes injury to the body or causes you reasonable fear of death, sexual assault, or injury to the body.

Click to expand...

A squirrely lawyer could easily transform an "anti's" insane holophobia into "reasonable fear", for the right price...

Dreamer said:

The part of VA Statute that defines "acts of violence" that qualify for obtaining a PO/RO states:
VA ST § 19.2-152.7:1

An act of violence, force or threat means an act that involves violence, force, or threat that results in injury to the body or causes you a reasonable fear of death, sexual assault, or injury to the body. These acts could include things like forceful detention, stalking, criminal sexual assault, or any criminal offense that causes injury to the body or causes you reasonable fear of death, sexual assault, or injury to the body.

A squirrely lawyer could easily transform an "anti's" insane holophobia into "reasonable fear", for the right price...

Click to expand...

This seems a bit far-fetched to me. Paying a lawyer a fee doesn't guarantee anything, no matter how sly s/he may be. A judge would still have to sign off on any such attempt. Besides, the simple carry of a firearm is not an act of violence, force or threat, especially if it's concealed.

If there were enough real concern about such widespread paranoia, then these folks would be pushing for a legislative change in very large numbers way beyond what we see now.

2a4all said:

This seems a bit far-fetched to me. Paying a lawyer a fee doesn't guarantee anything, no matter how sly s/he may be. A judge would still have to sign off on any such attempt. Besides, the simple carry of a firearm is not an act of violence, force or threat, especially if it's concealed.

If there were enough real concern about such widespread paranoia, then these folks would be pushing for a legislative change in very large numbers way beyond what we see now.

Click to expand...

I think you give WAY too much credit to the DAs and Judges of VA, in assuming that some of them WOULDN'T go along with this sort of foolishness.

I also think that you give MUCH to much credit to the integrity and lawfullness of the anti's to think they wouldn't try to do ANYTHING they could to game the system into denying law-abiding citizens of their 2A rights.

And you DEFINITELY give too much credit to LEAs if you think they wouldn't carry out seizures and confiscations if ordered to do so under a Judge's order...

You aren't NEARLY devious enough to play the "activism game", bro...

user said:

And, in order to discourage such calls, the cops often arrest someone for no good reason, and tell everyone involved that they are legally required to make an arrest when there is such a call (total hogwash). Then, in some counties, the prosecutors tell the other spouse that she (almost always a "she") is required to testify exactly as they instruct her, or she will be charged with perjury, false report, and obstruction of justice, and she will go to jail. This is illegal (extortion, subornation of perjury), and I've brought the matter to the attention of the Virginia State Bar, and I've filed one case to have a conviction thrown out on the basis of fraud on the court. The answer I got was sort of, "Well, that's what prosecutors do. Live with it." This is particularly bad in Stafford County, but I've heard horror stories from other counties as well.

And, Peter Nap, if you'd eat only what Jane tells you to, she wouldn't have to strangle you!

Click to expand...

If the police are called to a domestic and they determine an assault took place, and determine the primary physical aggressor state code REQUIRES an arrest be made. Basically if you don't want your family member arrested, don't call the police.


§ 19.2-81.3. Arrest without a warrant authorized in cases of assault and battery against a family or household member and stalking and for violations of protective orders; procedure, etc.

A. Any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 19.2-81, may arrest without a warrant for an alleged violation of § 18.2-57.2, 18.2-60.4, or 16.1-253.2 regardless of whether such violation was committed in his presence, if such arrest is based on probable cause or upon personal observations or the reasonable complaint of a person who observed the alleged offense or upon personal investigation.

B. A law-enforcement officer having probable cause to believe that a violation of § 18.2-57.2 or 16.1-253.2 has occurred shall arrest and take into custody the person he has probable cause to believe, based on the totality of the circumstances, was the predominant physical aggressor unless there are special circumstances which would dictate a course of action other than an arrest. The standards for determining who is the predominant physical aggressor shall be based on the following considerations: (i) who was the first aggressor, (ii) the protection of the health and safety of family and household members, (iii) prior complaints of family abuse by the allegedly abusing person involving the family or household members, (iv) the relative severity of the injuries inflicted on persons involved in the incident, (v) whether any injuries were inflicted in self-defense, (vi) witness statements, and (vii) other observations.


I predicted this would happen when the protection order law came into effect. My wife is a civil clerk in the general district court and she tells me some crazy stories about people wanting protective orders over everything. It is quite sad and getting to the point of abuse. I'm sure the magistrates are fed up with it too.

Jon34511 said:

If the police are called to a domestic and they determine an assault took place, and determine the primary physical aggressor state code REQUIRES an arrest be made. Basically if you don't want your family member arrested, don't call the police.....

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right - but that dodges the issue - the police and sheriff's offices generally have a policy of responding to every complaint, even if it is clear to the dispatcher that it isn't about criminal misconduct. Then, if it's a "domestic" call, the police take the position that they MUST arrest someone, even in the absence of probable cause to believe that anyone is guilty of a crime. And the only question is which party is going to jail. The statute you cited does require probable cause to believe a crime was committed, and they are routinely arresting people in the absence of probable cause. And I know of a couple of cases where they invented bases of probable cause (and wrote up their notes to correspond to their concoction) just so as to be able to arrest SOMEONE. They are clearly doing this to punish people who call without adequate bases, as well as to force people who did make legitimate complaints follow through on the crime that actually did occur (since the co-dependent parties have generally "made up" by the time of the court date, and the wife knows the husband will beat the living crap out of her if he gets convicted, and doesn't want to have to testify).

Like it or not, arrests are mandatory

Jon34511 said:

If the police are called to a domestic and they determine an assault took place, and determine the primary physical aggressor state code REQUIRES an arrest be made. Basically if you don't want your family member arrested, don't call the police.

Click to expand...

That is correct. The chief culprit of this Due Process travesty is Janet Howell:

SB113 Family abuse; protective orders

Modifies and clarifies provisions governing the issuance of all types of protective orders in family and household member abuse cases. Current references in the Code to spouse abuse are changed to family abuse, including assault or assault and battery on family or household members. Provisions governing notice and the hearing on preliminary protective orders are clarified. The bill provides for issuance of protective orders in cases of family abuse to protect family members of the petitioner. Under current law, the petitioner himself or herself must be in danger in order that an officer petition for issuance of a protective order. This bill requires a law-enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that family member assault has been committed to make a custodial arrest unless there are special circumstances that would dictate another course of action and to petition for an emergency protective order if an arrest is made.

Click to expand...

This bill was part of a feminist crusade back in the 90's to require mandatory arrests in alleged cases of domestic violence. Why? Because women are assumed to be too stupid or scared to ask the cop to arrest her allegedly abusive boyfriend/husband or whatever. As explained in law journals at the time, in other states where this has been done, again at the demands of feminists, because the language needs to be sex-neutral, what has happened is there have been an increase in cross-complaints. This then results in the cop arresting EVERYBODY in what is known as Dual Arrests:

Dual arrests may occur for a variety of reasons. Police responding to domestic violence calls may be confronted with sharply conflicting accounts of what transpired, with each party claiming to be the victim. The victim may have used justifiable force against the abuser in self- defense. A false cross-complaint may be made by the abuser. Both parties may exhibit some injury. The police may fear that failure to arrest both parties may result in civil liability.

When dual arrests occur in domestic violence cases, the victim of domestic violence is re- victimized by the criminal justice system. It is likely that a victim who calls the police only to be arrested herself will avoid the criminal justice system the next time she is abused -- the exact opposite of the intention of the 1994 Domestic Violence Act.

Click to expand...

Gee, thanks a lot.

Oh, and read this study:
A Study of Domestic Violence Policies in Virginia’s Law Enforcement Agencies

2a4all said:

This seems a bit far-fetched to me. Paying a lawyer a fee doesn't guarantee anything, no matter how sly s/he may be. ....

Click to expand...

I love those "sly lawyers". I had a wonderful time in Fairfax Circuit yesterday slapping around some "sly lawyers" (figuratively speaking, but I whomped'em good). Unfortunately, the other side has new counsel, which while they're still "sly" (insurance company) lawyers, because the first lawyer they had got fired by his client because he was trying to be too "sly". Those guys ball themselves all up in trying to be tricky, and the reason they're "sly" is because they don't know the rules of evidence and procedure, so it's generally pretty easy to, well, slap'em silly (figuratively speaking). I wish the first guy was still in it, because he had so much confidence in being sneaky that it was a lot of fun. He didn't even know he was getting slapped. There's still an outstanding motion for sanctions pending against him, poor bastard. Heh, heh, heh.

People who hire those "tricky" lawyers are generally throwing money down a rat-hole, in my opinion. They tend to be people who admire the devious and dishonest attitudes those lawyers present because they're devious and dishonest themselves. It doesn't seem to occur to them that such lawyers will victimize their clients in a heartbeat. Both the lawyer and the client think they're manipulating the other, but only the lawyer is right. No more money in the client's checking account, and the home equity line of credit is maxed out? Easy solution: throw the client under the bus.

Unfortunately, domestic assault cases tend to be the tip of the domestic relations iceberg, and the slash-and-burn divorce lawyers often do the defense on the criminal charges as well.

There are good domestic relations attorneys, by the way, but there are also a lot of people who recognize the symptoms of disfunctional individuals who make up disfunctional families, and know how to ruthlessly exploit their clients' emotional instability for fun and profit. Such people charge as though they were going to prepare for trial, and then tell their clients they have to accept the plea bargain, without telling them that in doing so, they are pleading guilty to a crime, and that for some crimes in some courts, that may mean deportation, loss of civil rights including the right to self-defense by means of a weapon, etc.

Have I become cynical in my old age?

Repeater said:

That is correct. The chief culprit of this Due Process travesty is Janet Howell:

SB113 Family abuse; protective orders


This bill was part of a feminist crusade back in the 90's to require mandatory arrests in alleged cases of domestic violence. Why? Because women are assumed to be too stupid or scared to ask the cop to arrest her allegedly abusive boyfriend/husband or whatever. As explained in law journals at the time, in other states where this has been done, again at the demands of feminists, because the language needs to be sex-neutral, what has happened is there have been an increase in cross-complaints. This then results in the cop arresting EVERYBODY in what is known as Dual Arrests:


Gee, thanks a lot.

Oh, and read this study:
A Study of Domestic Violence Policies in Virginia’s Law Enforcement Agencies

Click to expand...

I dig that. But the operative phrase is still, "probable cause", as stated in the bold faced type you quoted. That means the arrest is discretionary, because the cop has to be persuaded, himself, that there's probable cause to make the arrest, and that's a matter of prosecutorial discretion. My point is that they're ignoring probable cause altogether and treating that statute as a basis for arresting someone, anyone, every time, regardless of whether a crime has been committed.


(Having just re-read what I wrote, it reminded me of an incident that occurred long ago and far away, when I was a manager of data processing on a contract with the Civil Division of the Justice Department. A young lady with a lovely cafe creme complexion had been hired as a programmer and was asking me how to do something or other. Without having consulted the documentation first, of course. Anyway, I explained it to her, and asked her, "do you dig it?" She looked up at me with these big brown doe-eyes and said, "Nobody says that anymore, Mr. Hawes." Well, if you can remember 1968, you weren't there, as they say.)

user said:

I dig that. But the operative phrase is still, "probable cause", as stated in the bold faced type you quoted. That means the arrest is discretionary, because the cop has to be persuaded, himself, that there's probable cause to make the arrest, and that's a matter of prosecutorial discretion. My point is that they're ignoring probable cause altogether and treating that statute as a basis for arresting someone, anyone, every time, regardless of whether a crime has been committed.


(Having just re-read what I wrote, it reminded me of an incident that occurred long ago and far away, when I was a manager of data processing on a contract with the Civil Division of the Justice Department. A young lady with a lovely cafe creme complexion had been hired as a programmer and was asking me how to do something or other. Without having consulted the documentation first, of course. Anyway, I explained it to her, and asked her, "do you dig it?" She looked up at me with these big brown doe-eyes and said, "Nobody says that anymore, Mr. Hawes." Well, if you can remember 1968, you weren't there, as they say.)

Click to expand...

I agree with you about "That means the arrest is discretionary" as a constitutional standard. Still, I imagine Janet Howell would be surprised to hear you say that.

user said:

You're absolutely right - but that dodges the issue - the police and sheriff's offices generally have a policy of responding to every complaint, even if it is clear to the dispatcher that it isn't about criminal misconduct. Then, if it's a "domestic" call, the police take the position that they MUST arrest someone, even in the absence of probable cause to believe that anyone is guilty of a crime. And the only question is which party is going to jail. The statute you cited does require probable cause to believe a crime was committed, and they are routinely arresting people in the absence of probable cause. And I know of a couple of cases where they invented bases of probable cause (and wrote up their notes to correspond to their concoction) just so as to be able to arrest SOMEONE. They are clearly doing this to punish people who call without adequate bases, as well as to force people who did make legitimate complaints follow through on the crime that actually did occur (since the co-dependent parties have generally "made up" by the time of the court date, and the wife knows the husband will beat the living crap out of her if he gets convicted, and doesn't want to have to testify).

Click to expand...

Well I'm outing myself but I'm a former open carrier turned Leo (for a hampton roads agency). I can't speak for all officers I work with, but i simply do not make arrests for domestic complaints. Me, and pretty much very officer I work with, hate making domestic arrests. They are a ton of paperwork, and jdr court is like hell on earth. If I made an arrest on every domestic I went to i would literally not do anything else.

Yes we do respond to a LOT of stupid calls. But the goal is to get there, make sure no crime took place, try to diffuse the situation, and leave. We respond to every domestic because the civil liability is so high and the one time we don't respond it would wind up a murder. We even respond for domestics involving 10 year olds.

And yes I agree the EPO PPO PO thing has gotten ridiculous. I even fear for my job because some wacko could claim I made them fearful and then I can't have my weapon and I'm on the desk or out of a job. Plus we spend a ton of man hours trying to serve the endless stream of epos flowing out of the Magistrate's office.

And finally how am I supposed to harass all you open carriers at Walmart when I'm busy at the jail!

Good observations, Jon34511 - besides you ought to be on the road: the real threat to national security is irresponsible use of dogs while hunting, and in your area, the irresponsible use of motor vehicles.

But you got me to thinking; I wonder why I don't get calls from people wanting to get protective orders quashed. Why is that? Are they unaware that there is a procedure for getting out from under them? And, while the first stage of the proceedings are done ex parte (only one side shows up and the other side doesn't even get notice of the hearing), there is a subsequent stage in which there's a full-due-process hearing in open court with opportunities for presentation of evidence by witnesses and cross-examination; so I know that people are going to these things without any clue about what's going on, what the consequences are, and what the procedure is. Or are we just picking on po'folks who can't afford lawyers?

user said:

Good observations, Jon34511 - besides you ought to be on the road: the real threat to national security is irresponsible use of dogs while hunting, and in your area, the irresponsible use of motor vehicles.

But you got me to thinking; I wonder why I don't get calls from people wanting to get protective orders quashed. Why is that? Are they unaware that there is a procedure for getting out from under them? And, while the first stage of the proceedings are done ex parte (only one side shows up and the other side doesn't even get notice of the hearing), there is a subsequent stage in which there's a full-due-process hearing in open court with opportunities for presentation of evidence by witnesses and cross-examination; so I know that people are going to these things without any clue about what's going on, what the consequences are, and what the procedure is. Or are we just picking on po'folks who can't afford lawyers?

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of reasons people don't fight protective orders. Some people view them for exactly what they are, a piece of paper. Why should they worry about this piece of paper when the already don't exercise their 2nd amendment rights? Why go through the process of hiring a lawyer, for a right they never exercise? There is also the possibility there is truth in what the other person said, and they figure why fight what's true?

I think part of it is also economics. They literally cannot afford the funds to get a lawyer to fight the PO so they accept it, or like you said, they don't know they can fight it. Also, almost every protective order I've heard in court is granted. The judges (at least from what I've witnessed) are much more likely to side with the "victim" and base their judgement on caution then on the reality of the fact its a piece of paper.

I'm lucky I was able to be an open carrier before I became a LEO. I feel I know gun laws much better than what I would have if I hadn't been on this forum. Every officer on my department was trained to know that OC isn't enough RAS for a stop, and quite a few of my co-workers are glad Virginia is gun friendly and that there are citizens who choose to arm themselves. I sometimes have to correct other officers who might be making a bad decision and possibly violating someones rights over guns because they are just not aware.