Am I the only person here who is livid after reading this outlandish statement?:cuss:2) "The right to carry openly has not been revoked by the General Assembly." Op Va. Att'y Gen. 05-078, (2006).
Well, no. But only because you read it before I did.Virginiaplanter wrote:Am I the only person here who is livid after reading this outlandish statement?:cuss:2) "The right to carry openly has not been revoked by the General Assembly." Op Va. Att'y Gen. 05-078, (2006).
This sentence describes OC correctly as a right, then goes on to reassure us that the legislature has been kind enough not to revoke said right. SINCE WHEN DOES ANY LEGISLATIVE BODY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE A RIGHT? My inherent rights are none of the government's damn business, and they don't have the power to cross them out at will. Its true that governments have a regrettable and predictable history of taking away people's freedom to exercise their rights, but as I recall, that's why we had the Bill of Rights appended to our Constitution.
I'm sure our Att'y General would say it was just a "slip of the pen", but I'd like to suggest this kind of "slip" still represents the natural tendency of power to corrupt.
I would agree.....
OC alone is not a valid reason to stop someone.
You need to be doing something else that is deemed suspicious requiring that you be checked out and contact made.
[ snip ]
If you work it right... it can be suspicious..LEO 229 wrote:I would agree.....
OC alone is not a valid reason to stop someone.
You need to be doing something else that is deemed suspicious requiring that you be checked out and contact made.
[ snip]
Like standing in the courtyard of a building containing a bank?
The cite that you might be interested is in Commonwealth v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990) which states:
"Therefore, a police officer's knowledge that a person is peacefully carrying a firearm, in and of itself, does not furnish probable cause to believe that the person is illegally carrying that firearm. The resultant stop is improper under Fourth Amendment principles.
No one specifically cited that exact case, so I thought I'd throw it out there.I know that just open carrying is not Reasonable Suspicion to make a Terry stop but could someone point me to the court case that upheld this? Thanks.
I thought he was referring to SWB*. Might have been the bank thing, though.LEO 229 wrote:Like standing in the courtyard of a building containing a bank?I would agree.....
OC alone is not a valid reason to stop someone.
You need to be doing something else that is deemed suspicious requiring that you be checked out and contact made.
[ snip]
Aight..... Kinda left the door open after my post.LEO, I was talking to the OP:
No one specifically cited that exact case, so I thought I'd throw it out there.I know that just open carrying is not Reasonable Suspicion to make a Terry stop but could someone point me to the court case that upheld this? Thanks.
Wynder wrote:No one specifically cited that exact case, so I thought I'd throw it out there.
[suP]5[/suP] More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.[suP]6[/suP] Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.[suP]7[/suP] In that case the Court ruled that it was irrelevant that the defendant fled when the officer got out of his car and ordered the defendant to approach him.[suP]8[/suP] The tipster need not deliver an ironclad case to the police to justify an investigatory stop; it suffices if a prudent law enforcement officer would reasonably conclude that the likelihood existed that criminal activities were afoot and that a particular suspect was probably engaged in them.[suP]9[/suP]
[suP]5[/suP] Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990).
[suP]6[/suP] Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
[suP]7[/suP] Pennsylvania v. D.M., U.S. 120 S. Ct. 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).
[suP]8[/suP] Id.
[suP]9[/suP] Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 1105 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); U.S. v. Diallo, 29 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Taylor, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998