Thread: Open Carry and Photography
Bullet Item from the latest VCDL Update -
* If you see any of the following, immediately call the police at 911: a prowler; someone peeping into a residence; an individual watching, photographing or filming an area; or any other suspicious behavior.
Since when is photography a legally(?) suspicious activity? If I am OCing and taking pictures does that give RAS or PC?
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)
Oh, oh. Peter is screwed.
"When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."
That statement was issued by a University Chief of Police; a breed who also say things like "safety is a shared responsibility". Interpret its value accordingly.
A while ago, peter nap posted some links to videos of people getting harassed by police for taking video in public places. They were pretty depressing.
Last edited by t33j; 08-28-2011 at 04:23 PM.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
There was a video some where about this, I believe there was an armed guy taking pictures in a subway. Cops wouldn't get off him. I think it was a OC'er, I forget...
Last edited by ocholsteroc; 08-28-2011 at 09:16 PM.
How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?
I almost never have any trouble although others do on occasion. Just keep the camera going. I do not carry at time just because I don't want the extra weight. And no, it does not give them RAS.
Homeland security has been waging war on photography for some time. It has nothing to do with race or culture.
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
"Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
The ACLU successfully sued Homeland Security over this and I used that decree while videoing Skidmark's case.
Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Challenging government regulation restricting photography on federal property)
The Complaint (PDF)
The Final Settlement (PDF)
Instructions to Federal Officers (PDF) (Redacted)
S.D.N.Y., Index No. 10 CIV 3370 (direct)
This lawsuit challenges a government regulation that unconstitutionally restricts photography on federal property, including public plazas and sidewalks.
The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed on April 22, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a Libertarian activist who was unlawfully arrested by federal officers after exercising his First Amendment right to take photographs and digital videos in a public plaza outside of a federal building in lower Manhattan. The lawsuit seeks a court order barring federal officials from harassing or arresting people engaged in noncommercial photography while standing in outdoor public areas near federal buildings.
The complaint names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Protective Service, Inspector Clifford Barnes of the Federal Protective Service and an unnamed federal officer as defendants.
Plaintiff Antonio Musumeci was arrested on Nov. 9, 2009 after recording with a hand-held video camera a protestor in a public plaza outside the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Courthouse in Manhattan.
Musumeci, a 29-year-old resident of Edgewater, N.J. and member of the Manhattan Libertarian Party, was recording an interview in front of the courthouse steps with Julian Heicklen, a libertarian activist who was advocating for jury nullification. They were confronted by Inspector Barnes, who arrested Heicklen.
Musumeci, a software developer for an investment bank, stepped backward and recorded the arrest. Barnes told Musumeci he had violated a federal regulation governing photography and arrested him. Barnes and a second federal agent grabbed Musumeci by the arms and forced him to the pavement as they confiscated the video card from his camera. After being arrested, Musumeci was detained for about 20 minutes and issued a ticket for violating the photography regulation. That charge was later dismissed.
A week later, Musumeci was harassed and threatened with arrest after trying again to record Heicklen at the federal courthouse. Again this past Monday he was harassed by federal officers at the courthouse.
On Oct. 13, 2010, a federal judge signed a settlement in which the federal government agreed that no federal statutes or regulations bar photography of federal courthouses from publicly accessible property. It agreed to issue a nationwide directive to members of the Federal Protective Service (the agency responsible for all government buildings) instructing them about the rights of photographers. Since Musumeci had been charged with violating a regulation that applied to all federal property, not just courthouses, the NYCLU hold the position that the settlement in effect covers photography og all federal buildings.
In addition to NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn, New York University Civil Rights Clinic students Michael Schachter and David Wake are working on the case.