-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Gun laws cops should know
- Thread starter LEO 229
- Start date
roscoe13
Campaign Veteran
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
The entire US constitution as posted here: http://www.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/constitution.pdf is only 19 pages, that should be more than manageable.
The VA constitution, as posted here: http://legis.state.va.us/Laws/search/constofva.pdf , is 56 pages.
As an absolute minimun, the bills of rights from both should be taught.
LEO 229 wrote:
The entire US constitution as posted here: http://www.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/constitution.pdf is only 19 pages, that should be more than manageable.
The VA constitution, as posted here: http://legis.state.va.us/Laws/search/constofva.pdf , is 56 pages.
As an absolute minimun, the bills of rights from both should be taught.
imported post
roscoe13 wrote:
I might as well just say... the entire Virginia code book too......
I cannot test people on the entire constitution.
roscoe13 wrote:
How about this... Pick out a few things you find MOST important. We are working with some constraints here...
I might as well just say... the entire Virginia code book too......
I cannot test people on the entire constitution.
roscoe13
Campaign Veteran
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Didn't you/don't all LEOs swear an oath to uphold the US & applicable state constitution when they get the job? If so, how can one properly fulfill an oath to uphold something when they don't know what it says? Do you sign contracts without reading them as well?
LEO 229 wrote:
Gee, I think I just did that above...
Didn't you/don't all LEOs swear an oath to uphold the US & applicable state constitution when they get the job? If so, how can one properly fulfill an oath to uphold something when they don't know what it says? Do you sign contracts without reading them as well?
sccrref
Regular Member
imported post
ama-gi wrote:
+1 along with open carry alone is not in and of itself reason for a Terry stop.
All journies begin with the first step. I truely hope that this will be a successful one! :celebrate
ama-gi wrote:
+1 along with open carry alone is not in and of itself reason for a Terry stop.
All journies begin with the first step. I truely hope that this will be a successful one! :celebrate
Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just not have so many useless laws in the first place?
I think the fact that the average police officer (and citizen, judge, attorney, etc) don't know what is and is not legal is very telling of the kind and amount of laws we have in place. If officers didn't have so many laws to keep track of it just might be a little easier for them to remember what is and is not legal, and to act within their authority.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just not have so many useless laws in the first place?
I think the fact that the average police officer (and citizen, judge, attorney, etc) don't know what is and is not legal is very telling of the kind and amount of laws we have in place. If officers didn't have so many laws to keep track of it just might be a little easier for them to remember what is and is not legal, and to act within their authority.
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
DreQo wrote:
lmao
Unfortunately in this day of out of control law-making, there are too damn many of them.
DreQo wrote:
lmao
Unfortunately in this day of out of control law-making, there are too damn many of them.
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I agree that there are waaaay too many laws for any one person to even familiarize themselves with, let alone memorize. The problem is, cops act like they HAVE memorized them all, which brings me to my point:Cops need to eitherknow every law there is, or stop acting like they do. They could also try the phrase "I don't know" on themselves.
LEO 229 wrote:
I know the ones that apply to me, and if I have to refer to one, I look it up. I sure as hell wouldn't just make something up, especially if someone trusted me to be right.
I agree that there are waaaay too many laws for any one person to even familiarize themselves with, let alone memorize. The problem is, cops act like they HAVE memorized them all, which brings me to my point:Cops need to eitherknow every law there is, or stop acting like they do. They could also try the phrase "I don't know" on themselves.
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
DreQo wrote:
Yeah, there is definitely a "Bush-syndrome" where cops refuse to admit they made a mistake. The thing is, in the cases where cops have made mistakes with me, I would understand why they made them...if they'd have just freaking admitted that they were wrong. It's not their fault that our legislature (and the people who vote them in) think their job is to make as many laws in as short a period of time as possible.
Now that there are alot of OCers and the problems are becoming more common with uneducated cops, I think the time has definitely come for cops to get more training on it...I'd especially like to see them get trained on the correct rules of detainment.
Fortunately, the work being done by OCers is going well...we've SHOWN the need. I think that the academy and local forces will train their officers...eventually. Who knows how long it will take.
DreQo wrote:
Yeah, there is definitely a "Bush-syndrome" where cops refuse to admit they made a mistake. The thing is, in the cases where cops have made mistakes with me, I would understand why they made them...if they'd have just freaking admitted that they were wrong. It's not their fault that our legislature (and the people who vote them in) think their job is to make as many laws in as short a period of time as possible.
Now that there are alot of OCers and the problems are becoming more common with uneducated cops, I think the time has definitely come for cops to get more training on it...I'd especially like to see them get trained on the correct rules of detainment.
Fortunately, the work being done by OCers is going well...we've SHOWN the need. I think that the academy and local forces will train their officers...eventually. Who knows how long it will take.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229,
If you want a manageable list, you're first goingto have put out some of the fire. You've got a buncha annoyed citizens on your hands. You just happened to ask a question that stirred up underlying embers.
You could try the over-the-top routine to let them get off enough steam:
(exercise, not advocacy):
"Lynch them! Every single one of those overbearing, control-freaking, SOB's who think they can #$@* with people and treat them like dog-#$@@! just because they wear a badge!!!"
After a few replies, they'll start to settle down, but only just a little bit. Then re-phrase the question.
LEO 229,
If you want a manageable list, you're first goingto have put out some of the fire. You've got a buncha annoyed citizens on your hands. You just happened to ask a question that stirred up underlying embers.
You could try the over-the-top routine to let them get off enough steam:
(exercise, not advocacy):
"Lynch them! Every single one of those overbearing, control-freaking, SOB's who think they can #$@* with people and treat them like dog-#$@@! just because they wear a badge!!!"
After a few replies, they'll start to settle down, but only just a little bit. Then re-phrase the question.
TEX1N
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
I would compare carry a gun to driving a car:
In VA it is not illegal to drive a car, while it is also not illegal to carry a gun. In some circumstances you need a license (or permit).
However, just because someone is driving a car (carrying a gun) it does not justify a investigatory stop to see if the person is legally driving the car (carrying the gun).
An officer must have some evidence that the driver (carrier) is committing a crime, has committed a crime, or is illegally driving the car (carrying the gun), before he is allow to stop the driver (carrier) and investigate.
Cities cannot prevent you from driving (carrying) into their city.
Officers are not allow to pull over a driver (carrier) just to make sure that they have a license (permit if CC'ing, over 18 if OC'ing).
Remember, the vast majority of people whom you see driving a car (carrying a gun) are not breaking any laws. Therefore without other evidence of a crime, you cannot involuntarily detain them!
And a few more that don't compare exactly, but I think you'll get the point:
Yes, you can drive on school property, just don't drive you car into the building itself.
You are allowed to drive your car into the capital city of Richmond.
You can drive anywhere on college campuses, although most colleges do not allow students to drive.
Contrary to popular belief, you are allowed to drive cars in the cities of Manassas, Hampton, Norfolk, and Alexandra!
You can drive with alcohol in the car, just don't drink while driving.
You can drive to church if you have a good reason to do so.
It is illegal to drive your car into a courthouse.
You cannot drive into an airport building, unless you plan to fly with your car!
You cannot drive onto private property if prohibited by the owner.
Tomahawk wrote:
+1 I agree with Tomohawk on this one.
I would compare carry a gun to driving a car:
In VA it is not illegal to drive a car, while it is also not illegal to carry a gun. In some circumstances you need a license (or permit).
However, just because someone is driving a car (carrying a gun) it does not justify a investigatory stop to see if the person is legally driving the car (carrying the gun).
An officer must have some evidence that the driver (carrier) is committing a crime, has committed a crime, or is illegally driving the car (carrying the gun), before he is allow to stop the driver (carrier) and investigate.
Cities cannot prevent you from driving (carrying) into their city.
Officers are not allow to pull over a driver (carrier) just to make sure that they have a license (permit if CC'ing, over 18 if OC'ing).
Remember, the vast majority of people whom you see driving a car (carrying a gun) are not breaking any laws. Therefore without other evidence of a crime, you cannot involuntarily detain them!
And a few more that don't compare exactly, but I think you'll get the point:
Yes, you can drive on school property, just don't drive you car into the building itself.
You are allowed to drive your car into the capital city of Richmond.
You can drive anywhere on college campuses, although most colleges do not allow students to drive.
Contrary to popular belief, you are allowed to drive cars in the cities of Manassas, Hampton, Norfolk, and Alexandra!
You can drive with alcohol in the car, just don't drink while driving.
You can drive to church if you have a good reason to do so.
It is illegal to drive your car into a courthouse.
You cannot drive into an airport building, unless you plan to fly with your car!
You cannot drive onto private property if prohibited by the owner.
kimbercarrier
Campaign Veteran
imported post
How about also teaching the dispatcher to ask more questions of the caller and relaying them to the officer, I believe this would be a big help as the officer would know more than just, man with a gun.
How about also teaching the dispatcher to ask more questions of the caller and relaying them to the officer, I believe this would be a big help as the officer would know more than just, man with a gun.
imported post
kimbercarrier wrote:
kimbercarrier wrote:
Good point. I suppose educating the general public could reduce the number of "man with a gun" calls, as well. It would be an interesting TV ad to post...30 seconds of a brief outline of applicable gun laws for that state, and what they mean, followed by a call to exercise your rights, and mention of which legislators to contact as far as changing things for the better. Oh, and the last part can be Danbus telling everyone who wants to call 911 and report a black man with a gun to shove it.
imported post
kimbercarrier wrote:
Only in the real small town departments do they have a person working the desk where they play call taker and dispatcher and get very few calls.
But we have to take it one step at a time.
kimbercarrier wrote:
Actually.... it is the call taker that asks the questions. They pass them along to the dispatcher.
Only in the real small town departments do they have a person working the desk where they play call taker and dispatcher and get very few calls.
But we have to take it one step at a time.
imported post
LEO,
Cudos, good question - and some decent responses too. Maybe some more civics lessons are in order, some training in how the laws are supposed to work in the first place. Reinforce the whole concept that the only things which require police intervention are the ones which are actually against a written law - no making it up as you go.
C.
LEO,
Cudos, good question - and some decent responses too. Maybe some more civics lessons are in order, some training in how the laws are supposed to work in the first place. Reinforce the whole concept that the only things which require police intervention are the ones which are actually against a written law - no making it up as you go.
C.
