The Tale of Henrico - Chapter 2 in a Ferry Tale - Arrested for following the law

user said:

The only right answer to this problem, in my opinion, is to repeal the statute. Those who craft legislative agenda every year to promote the interests of gun owners need to stop trying to compromise and practice what's possible, and make a really big issue of getting that statute repealed.

[...]

If you don't like this state of affairs, I strongly suggest that you change it. If the state were a corporation, the stockholders could change the by-laws whether management likes it or not. Well, we're the stockholders in this Commonwealth, and we can act to change that law. But we need to get serious and stop wishing and hoping for things that may be possible. One of gun owners' biggest strengths is also their biggest weakness: self-reliance. They tend not be joiners, and tend to ignore things that don't affect them directly. We need to get organized and coherent on a serious legislative agenda. I've supported the VCDL because I see that as the best way to do so, but we need to get focused and stop frittering away our energy and resources on a shotgun approach to possibilities.

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying about coordinated action, but I don't know how to do what you've described. For one thing, I don't feel like I have a good handle on what are the priorities in VCDL's legislative agenda. At this moment, the second major section on the VCDL website is dedicated to last year's legislative session. There's nothing at all about the session starting a month from today, on January 13. I haven't seen anything in the VA-ALERT newsletter about the substance of VCDL's legislative agenda; only exhortations to show up to Lobby Day and support it, whatever it turns out to be. If previous years are any indication, I won't know what they're trying to accomplish this year until the bills are filed.

I haven't really understood why certain things are prioritized. Last year's lifetime permit bills, for example, seemed to come out of left field. When did that become an issue for the organization? Is that going to be pushed again this year? I'd be really interested in knowing that sort of thing; if I'm going to be supporting an organization with my time, money, advocacy, etc., then I'd like to have a good idea of what they intend to do with my support.

For another thing, I've already tried to get involved in crafting legislative agendas. I've written VCDL leadership pitching ideas for bills. Their reactions have been universally negative. I got some responses casually dismissing the problems I was trying to address as "not real problems" even after I explained how I've encountered them personally. I was sometimes told I was chiming in too late, or that they had enough ideas to keep themselves busy without adding mine, or sometimes I was simply ignored. They've clearly conveyed that my input isn't really welcome or wanted.

In short, I don't really know what the legislative agenda is well enough to influence it, and my efforts at doing so have already been rejected. I therefore ask you: You say that we need to get "organized", "coherent", and "focused" on addressing problems like the brandishing statute. I'm sold on the need for its repeal. What, specifically, can I do to accomplish that?

TFred said:

Just thinking ahead, how much room is there for the public to attend cases there?

TFred

Click to expand...

Plenty of room. Dress nicely, though, it's not as informal as a circuit court.

Tosta Dojen said:

... In short, I don't really know what the legislative agenda is well enough to influence it, and my efforts at doing so have already been rejected. I therefore ask you: You say that we need to get "organized", "coherent", and "focused" on addressing problems like the brandishing statute. I'm sold on the need for its repeal. What, specifically, can I do to accomplish that?

Click to expand...

A recurring problem that I've heard discussed is that the leadership of every organization involved in personal defense issues won't be open about their own agenda, summarily brush off suggestions, and induce people to work really hard and put in a lot of time and trouble developing solutions, only to say, "Oh, well, we're not doing that.", without any explanation for the change in strategy. They play their cards close to their chest and have small insular groups deciding policy. They seem to feel that the black art of lobbying requires secrecy and an understanding of compromise, and they play one thing off against another in order to be able to get something, anything done, so they can come back and justify their existence to the membership. There is also a sort of personality cult thing going on - where would the NRA be without Wayne LaPierre, for example.

On the other hand, the just-plain-folks tend to be opinionated and obtuse. I was talking with a guy in the post office last week who had trouble understanding why I'd let him go first while we were both driving in from opposite directions. I explained that it was because he had the right of way. He couldn't understand that, as he'd been coming from a direction controlled by a stop sign. But when I rolled up, he was ahead of the sign, already in the intersection. I told him I'd been an attorney here for 25 years or so, and litigated lots of cases involving right of way, and I was sure that he had the right of way. Nothing I said could shake his opinion on the subject, even though he had no basis for believing what he did other than the fact that he'd been driving since he was fifteen.

Here's another more pointed example. Va. Const. Art 5 and Section 2.2-103 of the Code tells what the Governor is allowed to do. The Governor has no powers other than those granted. But people keep telling me that he can enter an executive order to restrict possession of firearms in state agencies simply because he's the governor, on the theory that there's no code section that says he can't. I can't seem to get through to them, that we're not talking about criminal misconduct, for which a specific statute has to define what's prohibited, we're talking about governmental powers for which some specific grant has to be made, or the branch or agency can't act. Tyranny consists of "ultra vires" acts - things "beyond the power of the men". If the Governor has no power to do a thing, then his attempt to do it is unlawful and legally void. No one will believe me, because they've all got their opinions on the subject.

I don't know what to do, either.

USER, your perception of recurring problem is right on the mark and, with almost no exception is pervasive in every grass roots entity across the country. which is a shame as, IMHO is causing significant erosion of forward efforts on a whole lot of fronts.

thanks for your insight.

ipse

^ ^ That is a problem with all organizations. We'll never get all of the people to agree or be satisfied. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't try though.

user said:

Plenty of room. Dress nicely, though, it's not as informal as a circuit court.

Click to expand...

I must refresh my view of this process. Will comb my hair too.

user said:

No one will believe me

Click to expand...

I am sure that most people here believe you as I do. I also enjoy learning new facts from your posts.

Grapeshot said:

^ ^ That is a problem with all organizations. We'll never get all of the people to agree or be satisfied. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't try though.

Click to expand...

sorry, to quantify, the "WE" & "ALL" you are identifying are those state/national entities/individuals pushing firearm issues, right?

just clarifying, as has been mentioned previously, one organizational entity has managed to consistently & successfully push their state/national agenda over the the last 15 years against all odds ~ religious, legal, ad nauseam, to reach their stated goals.

so successful campaigns can be waged against those who stand in the way of ESTABLISHED goals...but as USER recently stated...those are essentially individually and personally established in secret.

ipse

Status update: no change. No date set for oral argument.

Oral arguments were heard at 1:00 pm today before the state Supreme Court.

I was unable to attend and have not heard how it went.

Well, I was there, and I thought it went very well. The justices were engaged in and appeared to be interested. I had the impression that they understood the problems. Whether or not they agree to permit the appeal will depend in part on the volume of cases on the docket and the relative importance (as they see it) of the cases. I'm optimistic - I think I got definite nibbles, and I'm waiting to see whether they'll take the bait.

Keep in mind that at this point all we're talking about is being allowed to appeal, not whether or not the appeal will be successful.

Just as well no one showed up - the room was so crowded with attorneys that I was excluded three times because of limited seating, and kept out in the hallway while they'd called the case.

I did have a court reporter there so a transcript should be available in a couple of weeks.

The Va. Sup. Ct. has issued an order denying the petition.
That fact has no precedential effect, because no opinion was issued.
All it does is reinstate the conviction.

This is a case in which one of us was stopped at a red-light, and, in the imaginary privacy bubble of his own vehicle, removed a gun from the glovebox, slipped a magazine into it, inserted it into a holster and put the holster into a slot in the dashboard. Someone else was on the road that day, and was angry at our friend because of a perceived refusal to "let him in" when trying to change lanes (due to his own failure to understand how to operate the vehicle he was not licensed to be driving as well as the law of right of way). Our friend wasn't paying any attention to the disgruntled driver, and had been singing along with a music CD. The disgruntled driver saw the gun, and the following day, said he "felt fear" and made a complaint to police.

So the lesson is, if you carry a gun, and someone else decides they don't like you for some reason, they can make a police report claiming they "felt fear" and have you arrested, and probably convicted, for crime of "brandishing a firearm", destroying your employment situation, your ability to carry concealed, and your pocketbook. So my question is, do we like this situation? Are we happy with the law as it is? I've been bitching and moaning about it for years, although it's against my financial interests to do so, but I seem to be the only person who thinks we need to take effective action to change the law.

It makes ME mad as old Billy Hell and I don't even live in VA anymore! :banghead: :cuss:

user said:

The Va. Sup. Ct. has issued an order denying the petition.
That fact has no precedential effect, because no opinion was issued.
All it does is reinstate the conviction.

This is a case in which one of us was stopped at a red-light, and, in the imaginary privacy bubble of his own vehicle, removed a gun from the glovebox, slipped a magazine into it, inserted it into a holster and put the holster into a slot in the dashboard. Someone else was on the road that day, and was angry at our friend because of a perceived refusal to "let him in" when trying to change lanes (due to his own failure to understand how to operate the vehicle he was not licensed to be driving as well as the law of right of way). Our friend wasn't paying any attention to the disgruntled driver, and had been singing along with a music CD. The disgruntled driver saw the gun, and the following day, said he "felt fear" and made a complaint to police.

So the lesson is, if you carry a gun, and someone else decides they don't like you for some reason, they can make a police report claiming they "felt fear" and have you arrested, and probably convicted, for crime of "brandishing a firearm", destroying your employment situation, your ability to carry concealed, and your pocketbook. So my question is, do we like this situation? Are we happy with the law as it is? I've been bitching and moaning about it for years, although it's against my financial interests to do so, but I seem to be the only person who thinks we need to take effective action to change the law.

Click to expand...

IMHO, the GA needs to abolish/revoke the "brandishing" statute totally and just let 18.2-57 stand on its own = no harm, no penalty.

If all of the planets were to align and that did happen, what would the net effect be on those already convicted as brandishing?

Unfortunately…,

user said:

The Va. Sup. Ct. has issued an order denying the petition.
That fact has no precedential effect, because no opinion was issued.
All it does is reinstate the conviction.

though there were many surprises during the sojourn of this case, this particular decision comes as no surprise to me.

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29:11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

Click to expand...

user said:

The Va. Sup. Ct. has issued an order denying the petition.
That fact has no precedential effect, because no opinion was issued.
All it does is reinstate the conviction. ...

Click to expand...

I'm so sickened, and of course sorry.

<shakes head>

I can't express my thoughts as the post will be deleted and I open myself up to arrest... :cuss:

This does not inspire confidence in the system to deliver justice. Is there any recourse left open. I have spoken with my delegate about this issue during our visit on Lobby Day (Glenn Davis) and he agreed the current law is too vague.

wrearick said:

This does not inspire confidence in the system to deliver justice. Is there any recourse left open. I have spoken with my delegate about this issue during our visit on Lobby Day (Glenn Davis) and he agreed the current law is too vague.

Click to expand...

If you want Justice, go to a ***** house. At least there, you get what you pay for.

The federal government is now so corrupt that the Dir. of the FBI can admit on national TV that the SecState can commit multiple felonies and not be charged as regular citizens are.

Your questions deserve answers...,

user said:

This is a case in which one of us was stopped at a red-light, and, in the imaginary privacy bubble of his own vehicle, removed a gun from the glovebox, slipped a magazine into it, inserted it into a holster and put the holster into a slot in the dashboard. Someone else was on the road that day, and was angry at our friend because of a perceived refusal to "let him in" when trying to change lanes (due to his own failure to understand how to operate the vehicle he was not licensed to be driving as well as the law of right of way). Our friend wasn't paying any attention to the disgruntled driver, and had been singing along with a music CD. The disgruntled driver saw the gun, and the following day, said he "felt fear" and made a complaint to police.

So the lesson is, if you carry a gun, and someone else decides they don't like you for some reason, they can make a police report claiming they "felt fear" and have you arrested, and probably convicted, for crime of "brandishing a firearm", destroying your employment situation, your ability to carry concealed, and your pocketbook. So my question is, do we like this situation? Are we happy with the law as it is? I've been bitching and moaning about it for years, although it's against my financial interests to do so, but I seem to be the only person who thinks we need to take effective action to change the law.

Click to expand...

so I'll give you mine. No, I don't like the situation, and no, I'm not happy with the law as it is. It seems once again you have grossly miscalculated, this time, the number of people that think that the law in question needs changing. I understand that many times the legislative process is slow and stubborn, witness the meaning in that part of my phrase "we must be relentless.", and never believed that changing the law would have ever affected any part of Scouser's trial.

I have many questions also, in fact, at a breakfast shortly after Scouser's "incident", I took a legal pad and pen in order to write down any pertinent items, information, ideas, suggestions, insights, etc., etc., that might have a positive influence on the case. Nothing was forthcoming. Talk was limited to what we knew at the time. It has been relatively the same with the "brandishing" law. As to taking effective action on changing that law, I will lend what I can to that effort.

Strange, you briefly summarized the case here fairly well, but you left out what you led with in court, that this "is a case of road rage". Damning words, sir, (among others that day) and should have never come from your mouth. When those words were uttered my, heart sank to my stomach, and the only saving grace might be that you had something magnificent on the horizon to wipe that term from the jury's mind. I was disappointed time and again that afternoon.

Before any such thing happens again, and I feel sure that it will, I would advise us all to become more effective managers of available resources.

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29:11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.