• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Shirt proves poor place to hide a weapon

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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__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


 

mobeewan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
652
Location
Hampton, Va, ,
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.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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..?
 

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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?
 

dichamw

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
137
Location
Alexandria (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA
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.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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.
 

swatpro911

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
418
Location
Home of the Heros, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Renegade

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
270
Location
Yorktown, VA, ,
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.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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?
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
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.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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.
 

dichamw

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
137
Location
Alexandria (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA
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
 

dichamw

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
137
Location
Alexandria (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA
Top