t33j
Regular Member
What's to say you didn't volunteer your CHP while not carrying?
Last edited:
-
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.
Carry on NOVA campus
- Thread starter richarcm
- Start date
What's to say you didn't volunteer your CHP while not carrying?
TFred
Regular Member
Nothing, but that's not what the issue was. I'm just saying, the current state of the law is in conflict. You are not required to display a CHP unless you are indeed carrying a concealed handgun. So legally, if a LEO asks or even demands it from you, and you are not carrying concealed, you can tell them to go pound sand. This may not yield pleasant results for you in the interim, but you might be exonerated in the long run.
And at the same time, there is no law in Virginia that requires you to divulge that you are carrying a concealed handgun. So if a LEO asks you for your CHP, and you decline to produce it for them, and you also decline to reveal whether or not you are carrying concealed, how can you be legally charged with a crime?
Every time I read these reports of OCers who get asked to produce their permits... I have a bit of a laugh to myself and wonder what would happen if I were a pilot and handed over my pilot's license in response to such a request. That would be just as relevant as handing over a CHP for open carrying, i.e. not at all. Somehow I suspect the ironic humor would be lost on the LEO...
TFred
One thing TFred, most cops don't expect you to just show them the gun, they ask where it is.
You have two choices then. Lie or refuse to tell.
If you lie, you can be charged.
If you refuse....I have a dash cam video of a man who refused and spent a good part of the afternoon in handcuffs...A story will come out about that soon.
Well I think one issue that hasn't been brought up is the circumstances of the encounter. Is it a legal detention? Casual encounter? Why would the LEO inquire about weapons or your permit? If it is a legal detention and you refuse to provide an answer about if you are carrying (if you are, or not), I believe you just rose suspicion enough for a legal Terry frisk.
This was due to a legal detention (Traffic stop).
If was was not, why would anyone even bother to talk to the Cop.
Casual Encounter:
"Good morning Citizen, do you have any weapons
?""None of your damn business :cuss:!"
TFred
Regular Member
From the cases we see reported here in the various state forums, it appears that there are still way too many LEOs who don't know the difference between a legal detention, a casual encounter and an illegal detention.
I don't have a cite, but I thought there have been cases that specifically ruled that remaining silent was not sufficient to invoke the RAS for a Terry Stop.
Where are the "citers" out there?
ETA: You do realize that what you just said can be restated as "a law-abiding citizen who chooses to exercise their rights may be treated as a criminal suspect for the sole reason that they have decided to exercise that right." Are you sure you don't want to re-think that one?
TFred
Last edited:
Well I agree with you that there are LEOs out there that confuse the legal detention vs casual encounter. The reason why I asked if it was a legal detention or casual encounter was because it makes a difference when it comes to Terry. You need the element of a legal detention (traffic stop, etc) with the element that the LEO (yes LEO, not the OCer or anyone else) reasonably believes they are armed. I could articulate that it was reasonable for me to pat someone down for weapons (Terry) if they refused to answer me when I asked if they had a gun. They aren't denying they have weapons, therefore, it would be reasonable to determine they are unarmed (until LEOs get x-ray vision). I can't see any court disagreeing, especially if it involves a traffic stop, which the courts have found are inherently dangerous (words thrown out there by the court).
What you said about treating someone like a criminal for exercising their rights is contradictory. You stated if someone is legally detained (ex: traffic stop, like you mentioned) they are reasonably suspected to have violated a law (ex: traffic offense). Asking someone if they are armed with a gun is not a violation of Miranda (unless they are being arrested for a gun offense) or imposing on their right to remain silent. A Terry pat is a search just for weapons and only needs reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
I understand most of you people on here are good people who abide by the laws and have good intentions. However, LEOs don't know who is a "good" person, and deal with dangerous people all the time. If a LEO is legally allowed to disarm someone, or make sure they don't have weapons (whether they are "good" people or not), the LEO will do so for safety reasons obviously. The courts have given enough power to do so.
Just like you, I can't find a case cite for the situation we speak of above (legal detention and refusal to answer if they have a weapon which resulted in a Terry pat).
And that boys and girls...is called, us vs them, in simplistic LEO terms. It's also why it's so important to carry a recorder and keep your mouth shut!
CHILINVLN
Regular Member
I was reading this thread and felt the urge to finally register and post. I've been a long time guest just reading threads on the forum as I OC/CC myself.
Yes, NVCC has that regulation regarding no firearms. My father-in-law is an Executive for the campus and him and I talk about this frequently. He has stated to me on several occassions that the fear the college campus has is not the weapon itself, but the training of those students/citizens that have one. He doesn't feel that it's in the best interest of the campus to allow that many students the opportunity to be a vigilante as the likeness of them having the proper training on when to draw, aim, fire - or even their accuracy in such case could potentially cause more harm than good.
As a USMC veteran myself, he feels comfortable with me carrying and has no issues. He just doesn't feel its appropriate for a college campus, he views its exclusion on the same level as a courthouse, school grounds, etc. I really have never had a good response on what to say to this and would be open to some suggestions.
Yes, NVCC has that regulation regarding no firearms. My father-in-law is an Executive for the campus and him and I talk about this frequently. He has stated to me on several occassions that the fear the college campus has is not the weapon itself, but the training of those students/citizens that have one. He doesn't feel that it's in the best interest of the campus to allow that many students the opportunity to be a vigilante as the likeness of them having the proper training on when to draw, aim, fire - or even their accuracy in such case could potentially cause more harm than good.
As a USMC veteran myself, he feels comfortable with me carrying and has no issues. He just doesn't feel its appropriate for a college campus, he views its exclusion on the same level as a courthouse, school grounds, etc. I really have never had a good response on what to say to this and would be open to some suggestions.
virginiatuck
Regular Member
I was reading this thread and felt the urge to finally register and post. I've been a long time guest just reading threads on the forum as I OC/CC myself.
Yes, NVCC has that regulation regarding no firearms. My father-in-law is an Executive for the campus and him and I talk about this frequently. He has stated to me on several occassions that the fear the college campus has is not the weapon itself, but the training of those students/citizens that have one. He doesn't feel that it's in the best interest of the campus to allow that many students the opportunity to be a vigilante as the likeness of them having the proper training on when to draw, aim, fire - or even their accuracy in such case could potentially cause more harm than good.
As a USMC veteran myself, he feels comfortable with me carrying and has no issues. He just doesn't feel its appropriate for a college campus, he views its exclusion on the same level as a courthouse, school grounds, etc. I really have never had a good response on what to say to this and would be open to some suggestions.
It is a school, isn't it? Aren't they supposed to teach people things they don't yet know? Why don't they teach these things there? How to handle an active murderer is something that should not only be taught to people training as police officers, but to everyone. Open up this training to everyone.
I know someone's going to bring up liability... well, screw liability; he's talking about letting people die because they don't have the right training, yet doesn't offer that training or any path to qualification for the "privilege" to carry a firearm on campus.
I was reading this thread and felt the urge to finally register and post. I've been a long time guest just reading threads on the forum as I OC/CC myself.
Yes, NVCC has that regulation regarding no firearms. My father-in-law is an Executive for the campus and him and I talk about this frequently. He has stated to me on several occassions that the fear the college campus has is not the weapon itself, but the training of those students/citizens that have one. He doesn't feel that it's in the best interest of the campus to allow that many students the opportunity to be a vigilante as the likeness of them having the proper training on when to draw, aim, fire - or even their accuracy in such case could potentially cause more harm than good.
As a USMC veteran myself, he feels comfortable with me carrying and has no issues. He just doesn't feel its appropriate for a college campus, he views its exclusion on the same level as a courthouse, school grounds, etc. I really have never had a good response on what to say to this and would be open to some suggestions.
Tell him to stop imagining and start dealing with facts. The victim rich zone thinking has been perpetuated again. Where guns have been available his fears have not materialized and have regularly been shown to be effective.
How can any responsible person believe that the truth changes when one simply steps foot on campus?
Oh and we are NOT vigilantes, we are honest, law abiding citizens.
Tell him to get universities added to places carry is prohibited. THEN it would be like courthouses and K-12 property. Until then, tell them to take their unconstitutional gun bans, that do nothing but provide a playground for mass murderers, and shove 'em.
Or, if you want to be nice, ask him what makes a university different from a movie theater, shopping mall, WalMart, Safeway, etc. where law abiding citizens already carry for self defense, where they aren't vigilantes.
And since when was defending one's own life been considered being a vigilante anyways?
wylde007
Regular Member
"Those" people just do not, and will never, get it.
richarcm
Regular Member
I'd rather have had one person with zero training in a chained shut room with me while Cho was shooting than to have nobody at all. I feel the odds would increase in my favor greatly.
And does your father carry this mentality outside of the college campus? That the 2nd Ammendment only applies to those who have the amount of training that he personally feels is adequate? Does he feel that having students with concealed permits carry a gun is acceptable?
And does your father carry this mentality outside of the college campus? That the 2nd Ammendment only applies to those who have the amount of training that he personally feels is adequate? Does he feel that having students with concealed permits carry a gun is acceptable?
CHILINVLN
Regular Member
Not my father, father-in-law. He carries this same opinion of campus as well.
Invite him to dinner with us sometime - no hard sell, just let him listen and observe.
Look for some good answers to come of this.
http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2010/...e-court-today/
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Monday-November-1-2010&p=1393312#post1393312
user
Accomplished Advocate
Vigilantes? Where did THAT word come from? In my experience, people with concealed carry permits who actually do carry are generally much better at handling firearms than cops, and probably campus police in particular. FBI statistics I read indicate that eighty per-cent of the rounds expended by law enforcement in emergency situations go unaccounted-for. That is to say, of the shots fired by cops, they know where twenty percent of the rounds ended up, whether in walls, cars, or innocent bystanders. Less than two per-cent actually hit the intended targets. That, in my estimation, is pretty abysmal. But then, cops are not hired because they like guns, and most of the cops I've known regard the gun as a tool of the trade, but they have no interest in cleaning the gun, practicing, and stuff like that. I've known some who are gun-people and whom I'd trust to put a bullet in the right place under almost any circumstances, but they're few and far between.
I'd feel a lot safer with lawfully-carrying students around, myself. And a big plus for preventing crime is enhancing uncertainty in the mind of the prospective perpetrator. If you don't know who, among the people around you, is carrying, you might be a lot less likely to open up and start trying to cause a panic.
I'd feel a lot safer with lawfully-carrying students around, myself. And a big plus for preventing crime is enhancing uncertainty in the mind of the prospective perpetrator. If you don't know who, among the people around you, is carrying, you might be a lot less likely to open up and start trying to cause a panic.