• 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.

Open Carry and Photography

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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?
 

hunter45

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
969
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
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?

Use discretion.

An OCer taking pictures in the park = normal.
A haji taking pictures of Metro = suspicious.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
Oh, oh. Peter is screwed.

Is Peter screwed because he is secretly a haji taking pictures of the metro or because he takes pictures while OCing? :D

I don't think photography on it's own is cause for suspicion. I think they are looking more at the totality of the circumstances.
 

t33j

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,384
Location
King George, VA
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:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
Use discretion.

An OCer taking pictures in the park = normal.
A haji taking pictures of Metro = suspicious.





Homeland security has been waging war on photography for some time. It has nothing to do with race or culture.

[video=youtube;_iMr76atjUA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iMr76atjUA[/video]



America's Waterway Watch

(Coast Guard)

What is "Suspicious Activity?"

PEOPLE TAKING STILL PHOTOGRAPHS OR VIDEO TAPING FROM THE SHORE

http://aww.aww-sp.com/what_is.htm
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Homeland security has been waging war on photography for some time. It has nothing to do with race or culture.

[video=youtube;_iMr76atjUA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iMr76atjUA[/video]

Know your rights and just tell them to FOff. Anyone can approach anyone else but that doesn't mean they have RAS, just the same right to ask what you're doing that everyone has.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

The ACLU successfully sued Homeland Security over this and I used that decree while videoing Skidmark's case.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Also read:
http://www.nyclu.org/case/musumeci-...lenging-government-regulation-restricting-pho

[h=2]Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Challenging government regulation restricting photography on federal property)[/h] [h=3]Court Filings[/h] 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.
 
Top