Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Shirt proves poor place to hide a weapon

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Shirt proves poor place to hide a weapon


    Fairfax County police arrested a 37-year-old man during a traffic stop in Mount Vernon Woods after he allegedly tried to hide a gun in his shirt while stepping out of his car. Aaron Curtis, of no fixed address, was stopped for a traffic offense Thursday and “began showing signs of suspicious behavior,” according to a department news release. Police disarmed Curtis, who was apparently driving with the weapon in his lap, and took him into custody. He is facing felony drug and gun charges, as well as a charge of driving on a suspended license. – William C. Flook

    http://www.examiner.com/a-977356~D_C...e_Blotter.html


    Officer: STANFIELD, M W

    Defendant: CURTIS, AARON T


    Court Date: 12/12/07 02:00PM


    Charge: POSS W/INT MANUF


    Code Section:
    18.2-248

    Charge: POSSESS GUN W/ SCH


    Code Section:
    18.2-308.4

    Charge: NONVIOL FELON POSS


    Code Section:
    18.2-308.2

    Charge: DRUG SALE ON,NEAR


    Code Section:
    18.2-255.2



  2. #2
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Shirt proves poor place to hide a weapon


    Fairfax County police arrested a 37-year-old man during a traffic stop in Mount Vernon Woods after he allegedly tried to hide a gun in his shirt while stepping out of his car. Aaron Curtis, of no fixed address, was stopped for a traffic offense Thursday and “began showing signs of suspicious behavior,” according to a department news release. Police disarmed Curtis, who was apparently driving with the weapon in his lap, and took him into custody. He is facing felony drug and gun charges, as well as a charge of driving on a suspended license. – William C. Flook

    http://www.examiner.com/a-977356~D_C__Police_Blotter.html


    Officer: STANFIELD, M W

    Defendant: CURTIS, AARON T


    Court Date: 12/12/07 02:00PM


    Charge: POSS W/INT MANUF


    Code Section:
    18.2-248

    Charge: POSSESS GUN W/ SCH


    Code Section:
    18.2-308.4

    Charge: NONVIOL FELON POSS


    Code Section:
    18.2-308.2

    Charge: DRUG SALE ON,NEAR


    Code Section:
    18.2-255.2


    So what's your point? He's a scumbag with drugs and a gun he was was trying to hide because he had drugs and a prior record.
    Revelation 1911 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    mobeewan wrote:
    So what's your point? He's a scumbag with drugs and a gun he was was trying to hide because he had drugs and a prior record.
    Good question....

    Not all guys with a gun are innocent citizens..?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    And not all cops are perfect. (Tyler Peterson)

    I just wish you'd quit defending the bad eggs.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485

    Post imported post

    during a traffic stop in Mount Vernon Woods after he allegedly tried to hide a gun in his shirt while stepping out of his car
    as this is described the accused was being detained for a traffic infraction. He exited the vehicle, it is not stated whether or not he was ordered to, and was observed attempting to conceal. Like it or not, that is sufficient cause for a request to see a permit.
    “began showing signs of suspicious behavior,”
    Here's where things become.... well... subjective.

    The article quotes FCPD as saying he was stopped and showed signs of suspicious behavior, then exited and was observed trying to hide a weapon. Now, I don't have a crooked commonwealths attorney watching my back, but it's been my observation of the PD that they are reasonablyobservant of the vehicles stopped. Obviously I can't draw on enough observations to make a statistical finding of any significant validity (or I'd be in jail by now) but I'm curious how the gun materialized after the accused exited the vehicle if he was 'carrying it on his lap'...
    Not all guys with a gun are innocent citizens..?
    Not all LEOS want knuckle rubs either :P...

    So I've heard.








  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Obviously he doesn't read OCDO, or he'd know it's okay to have a gun in the car with you despite the lack of a permit (assumption on my part - he didn't have a permit). If he had a CHL, he's permitted to put it away, right?
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Alexandria (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/...100507pwid.htm



    Picture of the dude. Picture speaks a thousand words. Looks like an OCer to me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    "possession of a firearm by a convicted felon"

    Oops!!!

    He must not have access to the Internet... He could have read on here how OC is OK and not a reason to stop him.

    I did not see a charge for having a concealed weapon...!! Did I miss something?


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Alexandria (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    "possession of a firearm by a convicted felon"

    Oops!!!

    He must not have access to the Internet... He could have read on here how OC is OK and not a reason to stop him.

    I did not see a charge for having a concealed weapon...!! Did I miss something?
    I think in his case OC =Open Convict. Think he will have tad bit of trouble trying to get a CHP.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    "possession of a firearm by a convicted felon"

    Oops!!!

    He must not have access to the Internet... He could have read on here how OC is OK and not a reason to stop him.

    I did not see a charge for having a concealed weapon...!! Did I miss something?
    Nah, I didn't read carefully the charges. Just the headline ... shirt poor place to "hide" a weapon ... and carrying on his lap.

    Absent the "suspicious behavior" it could have been a non-issue. But the reason criminals get caught, often, is that they aren't MENSA candidates.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Home of the Heros, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    If you wana hide a weapon hide it while you are inside the car then step out. No one hides when out in public. You always go undercover whenever you are in public and go stealth. (NAVY SEALS). Police would always use the famous phrase, "suspicious behavior" If I see you with a gun on your hip and you scratch your belly, I am drawing my weapon cus its a suspicious behavior. Dude with a khaki shorts with no shirt with tatoos and a gun in his hip=suspicious. You and I may understand but they wont.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Yorktown, VA, ,
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    Try this on for size - I see no reason why a non-violent felon is prohibited from owning and carrying a firearm AFTER their punishment has been served.

    Any professionals out there feel free to correct me but why should a man be deprived of his God-given right to own and carry a firearm if he were convicted of:

    - 18.2-94 BUR-2206-F5 Possession of burglarious tools
    - 18.2-102 LAR-2412-F6 Unauthorized use of animal, auto, boat worth $200 or more
    - 18.2-103 LAR-2339-F6 Shoplift, alter price tags < $200 (third time)
    - 18.2-111 LAR-2707-F9 Embezzlement, $200 or more
    - 18.2-181 FRD-2624-F6 Bad checks, $200 or more
    - 18.2-200.1 FRD-2805-F9 Fail to perform construction in return for advances, > $200

    Yes, those are stupid examples but say you are young and dragged into a embezzlement scheme and do your time. Fast forward a decade or so - you have straightened yourself out, completed school, have a wife and children, own a house, pay taxes...but are still prohibited from lawfully owning or carrying a firearm? Give me a break!!! Your wife and children are now at risk since you can not lawfully protect THEM?

    I just don't agree with that line of thinking.

    I can agree that when the person is being punished for a felony they are prohibited. If it were a non-violent felony their rights should be immediately reinstated once they have served their time. If it were a violent felony maybe they should be required to show a decade worth of good behavior following their sentence and THEN their rights would be restored automatically.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Renegade wrote:
    Try this on for size - I see no reason why a non-violent felon is prohibited from owning and carrying a firearm AFTER their punishment has been served.

    Any professionals out there feel free to correct me but why should a man be deprived of his God-given right to own and carry a firearm if he were convicted of:

    - 18.2-94 BUR-2206-F5 Possession of burglarious tools
    - 18.2-102 LAR-2412-F6 Unauthorized use of animal, auto, boat worth $200 or more
    - 18.2-103 LAR-2339-F6 Shoplift, alter price tags < $200 (third time)
    - 18.2-111 LAR-2707-F9 Embezzlement, $200 or more
    - 18.2-181 FRD-2624-F6 Bad checks, $200 or more
    - 18.2-200.1 FRD-2805-F9 Fail to perform construction in return for advances, > $200

    Yes, those are stupid examples but say you are young and dragged into a embezzlement scheme and do your time. Fast forward a decade or so - you have straightened yourself out, completed school, have a wife and children, own a house, pay taxes...but are still prohibited from lawfully owning or carrying a firearm? Give me a break!!! Your wife and children are now at risk since you can not lawfully protect THEM?

    I just don't agree with that line of thinking.

    I can agree that when the person is being punished for a felony they are prohibited. If it were a non-violent felony their rights should be immediately reinstated once they have served their time. If it were a violent felony maybe they should be required to show a decade worth of good behavior following their sentence and THEN their rights would be restored automatically.
    You can disagree all you want, but our laws say when you've been convicted of a FELONY, you lose your rights.

    SOME can be restored.

    This is 7th grade Social Studies, IIRC. Nothing is stopping us - the people - from lobbying to have the law changed, but today it is the law.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    swatpro911 wrote:
    If you wana hide a weapon hide it while you are inside the car then step out. No one hides when out in public. You always go undercover whenever you are in public and go stealth. (NAVY SEALS). Police would always use the famous phrase, "suspicious behavior" If I see you with a gun on your hip and you scratch your belly, I am drawing my weapon cus its a suspicious behavior. Dude with a khaki shorts with no shirt with tatoos and a gun in his hip=suspicious. You and I may understand but they wont.
    Are you ever going to make a post that doesn't base someone's right to carry on what they look like?
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    Renegade wrote:
    Try this on for size - I see no reason why a non-violent felon is prohibited from owning and carrying a firearm AFTER their punishment has been served.

    Any professionals out there feel free to correct me but why should a man be deprived of his God-given right to own and carry a firearm if he were convicted of:

    - 18.2-94 BUR-2206-F5 Possession of burglarious tools
    - 18.2-102 LAR-2412-F6 Unauthorized use of animal, auto, boat worth $200 or more
    - 18.2-103 LAR-2339-F6 Shoplift, alter price tags < $200 (third time)
    - 18.2-111 LAR-2707-F9 Embezzlement, $200 or more
    - 18.2-181 FRD-2624-F6 Bad checks, $200 or more
    - 18.2-200.1 FRD-2805-F9 Fail to perform construction in return for advances, > $200

    Yes, those are stupid examples but say you are young and dragged into a embezzlement scheme and do your time. Fast forward a decade or so - you have straightened yourself out, completed school, have a wife and children, own a house, pay taxes...but are still prohibited from lawfully owning or carrying a firearm? Give me a break!!! Your wife and children are now at risk since you can not lawfully protect THEM?

    I just don't agree with that line of thinking.

    I can agree that when the person is being punished for a felony they are prohibited. If it were a non-violent felony their rights should be immediately reinstated once they have served their time. If it were a violent felony maybe they should be required to show a decade worth of good behavior following their sentence and THEN their rights would be restored automatically.
    You can disagree all you want, but our laws say when you've been convicted of a FELONY, you lose your rights.

    SOME can be restored.

    This is 7th grade Social Studies, IIRC. Nothing is stopping us - the people - from lobbying to have the law changed, but today it is the law.
    I think he's saying those laws should be changed. I tend to agree with him.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    I think he's saying those laws should be changed. I tend to agree with him.
    I don't necessarily disagree. The question was "why", though. That's the reason.


    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Alexandria (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    "possession of a firearm by a convicted felon"

    Oops!!!

    He must not have access to the Internet... He could have read on here how OC is OK and not a reason to stop him.

    I did not see a charge for having a concealed weapon...!! Did I miss something?
    LEO, What is "constructive possession" by a felon? He dosen't have to have gun on his body but be close to gun or near, like in a car

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    dichamw wrote:
    http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/...100507pwid.htm



    Picture of the dude. Picture speaks a thousand words. Looks like an OCer to me.
    Please expand on your statement. I'm not making out some of those thousand words so could you please explain what you mean?

    LoveMyCountry

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Alexandria (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    LoveMyCountry wrote:
    dichamw wrote:
    http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/...100507pwid.htm



    Picture of the dude. Picture speaks a thousand words. Looks like an OCer to me.
    Please expand on your statement. I'm not making out some of those thousand words so could you please explain what you mean?

    LoveMyCountry
    Why don't you tell me what you think I meant, not to argue with you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •