The Empire Strikes Back! "Localities" and "getting guns off the street"

The Empire Strikes Back! "Localities" and "getting guns off the street"

Should I be looking for this to become case law or is it already for the Commonwealth?

There is so much stuff flying around in this thread, Its hard to keep track of what is going on.

So it is legal for someone to have a handgun in a holster in a glove compartment, but this guy was arrested for it?

The Empire Strikes Back! "Localities" and "getting guns off the street"

Fenix said:

There is so much stuff flying around in this thread, Its hard to keep track of what is going on.

So it is legal for someone to have a handgun in a holster in a glove compartment, but this guy was arrested for it?

Click to expand...

It is legal. He was arrested for it anyway.

That's what I'm gleaning from the coded talk.

palerider116 said:

SCOTUS:
Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct 781 (2009)

"An officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop, this Court has made plain, do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.”

Click to expand...

You were on about this before, and I fail to see the relevance to the OP. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Thank you User for addressing my concerns. It is terrible that we are facing the full force of a tyrannic government weighing down on our rights. The last time I was pulled over I actually did notify the State Trooper of my firearm because it was with my registration, luckily I did not have an issue. I hope these incidents get resolved soon, I am sure when the law suits start coming in to these PD others will get wind and another "bulletin" will go out resolving the unnecessary misconduct. Even though I did say that this thread was scary, we are strong as a group and have amazing resources at our hands that reassures that we can continue to exercise our rights.

Fenix said:

There is so much stuff flying around in this thread, Its hard to keep track of what is going on.

So it is legal for someone to have a handgun in a holster in a glove compartment, but this guy was arrested for it?

Click to expand...

Short answer - Yes; however, the handgun does not have to be in a holster.

1)
Henrico event: VCDL member moved handgun from far right glove compartment to center of dash glove compartment in a safe manner w/o making any display. Was charged with Brandishing a firearm by LEO that neither witnessed nor investigated the act.

Trial date set in June. Attorney Dan Hawes representing.
2)
Colonial Heights event: VCDL member (no CHP) arrested for concealing a handgun w/o a permit. LEO searched his vehicle w/o consent or warrant and seized legally stored handgun from console - no permit required.

No trial date known. Attorney of record not confirmed.

3)
City of Richmond event: VCDL member standing in his yard smoking a cigarette, seized, groped by moonlighting officer of the opposite sex and handgun seized after refusal to provide driving license (papers please) as justification for standing in his yard.

Papers for civil suit being prepared. Attorney Dan Hawes representing.

The Empire Strikes Back! "Localities" and "getting guns off the street"

marshaul said:

You were on about this before, and I fail to see the relevance to the OP. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Click to expand...

It is fairly straightforward. The SCOTUS made a definite ruling where there were differing opinions from the circuit courts on this issue. For example:

US v. Hunnicutt, 97-5087 (10th Cir. 1997) - Lengthening the detention for further questioning beyond that related to the initial stop is permissible in two circumstances:

- The officer has an objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion illegal activity has occurred or is occurring.

- Further questioning unrelated to the initial stop is permissible if the initial detention has become a consensual encounter.

Other circuit courts said this was bad. SCOTUS steps in and delivers a ruling.

Now we can tie this together with the original post. The officer issued the summons, handed the person's OL back, and then asked about any firearms in the car. The driver answered to the affirmative. The officer responded in an illegal manner to the driver's answer. It is a consent encounter in the eyes of the court, but it is an unlawful arrest because 18.2-308 was not violated.

In short, don't play the fishing game. The officer is fishing with a SCOTUS fishing license. Lawful behavior can be unlawfully arrested by an ignorant or stupid or oppressive fisherman. The cop went on a fishing expedition and the unsuspecting citizen got reeled in improperly and illegally.

The Empire Strikes Back! "Localities" and "getting guns off the street"

Grapeshot said:

Short answer - Yes; however, the handgun does not have to be in a holster.

1)
Henrico event: VCDL member moved handgun from far right glove compartment to center of dash glove compartment in a safe manner w/o making any display. Was charged with Brandishing a firearm by LEO that neither witnessed nor investigated the act.

Trial date set in June. Attorney Dan Hawes representing.

2)
Colonial Heights event: VCDL member (no CHP) arrested for concealing a handgun w/o a permit. LEO searched his vehicle w/o consent or warrant and seized legally stored handgun from console - no permit required.

No trial date known. Attorney of record not confirmed.

3)
City of Richmond event: VCDL member standing in his yard smoking a cigarette, seized, groped by moonlighting officer of the opposite sex and handgun seized after refusal to provide driving license (papers please) as justification for standing in his yard.

Papers for civil suit being prepared. Attorney Dan Hawes representing.

Click to expand...

And I try to defend the profession but these morons make it difficult. Impossible really.

palerider116 said:

Now we can tie this together with the original post. The officer issued the summons, handed the person's OL back, and then asked about any firearms in the car. The driver answered to the affirmative. The officer responded in an illegal manner to the driver's answer. It is a consent encounter in the eyes of the court, but it is an unlawful arrest because 18.2-308 was not violated.

Click to expand...

Oh, ok, sure. I kind of figured this was implied all along though.

I really wonder if these LEOs have some sort of a ritual akin to the "Walmart walk" for first CC or OC like we've seen posted from time to time...

I can just imagine their return to the station, Hey Bubba, got my first legal gun off the street tonight! You were right, they didn't have a clue. Walked right into it. That'll teach 'em!

Infuriating.

TFred

palerider116 said:

Don't answer guilt seeking questions. That is the simplest recommendation I can offer.

Edited for grammar.

Click to expand...

people are stupid... ya cannot fix that

The Empire Strikes Back! "Localities" and "getting guns off the street"

TFred said:

I really wonder if these LEOs have some sort of a ritual akin to the "Walmart walk" for first CC or OC like we've seen posted from time to time...

I can just imagine their return to the station, Hey Bubba, got my first legal gun off the street tonight! You were right, they didn't have a clue. Walked right into it. That'll teach 'em!

Infuriating.

TFred

Click to expand...

TFred,

You'd be surprised, nay, appalled at the mindset of these officers. The word "legal" does not even escape their lips or compute in their mind. Guns and drugs - evil incarnate. It's not always a lack of education. It's an enforcement of a political view that is taught from kindergarten to the halls of higher academia.

Civil rights - euro style.

I encourage people to get involved in their local police departments. It's a public service, and the citizens should be involved in their local LE agencies. It is another way to address the problems. Attend city council meetings and contact local government officials - activism is best accomplished at the closest level. A courtroom may grant restitution - maybe! But getting in the organization itself is the best way to make the changes.

Fenix said:

There is so much stuff flying around in this thread, Its hard to keep track of what is going on.

So it is legal for someone to have a handgun in a holster in a glove compartment, but this guy was arrested for it?

Click to expand...

Correct.

palerider116 said:

Should I be looking for this to become case law or is it already for the Commonwealth?

Click to expand...

§ 46.2-937. Traffic infractions treated as misdemeanors for arrest purposes. —

For purposes of arrest, traffic infractions shall be treated as misdemeanors. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the authority and duties of arresting officers shall be the same for traffic infractions as for misdemeanors.

Click to expand...

=====

§ 46.2-936. Arrest for misdemeanor; release on summons and promise to appear; right to demand hearing immediately or within twenty-four hours; issuance of warrant on request of officer for violations of §§ 46.2-301 and 46.2-302; refusal to promise to appear; violations. —

Whenever any person is detained by or in the custody of an arresting officer, including an arrest on a warrant, for a violation of any provision of this title punishable as a misdemeanor, the arresting officer shall, except as otherwise provided in § 46.2-940, take the name and address of such person and the license number of his motor vehicle and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice. Such time shall be at least five days after such arrest unless the person arrested demands an earlier hearing. Such person shall, if he so desires, have a right to an immediate hearing, or a hearing within twenty-four hours at a convenient hour, before a court having jurisdiction under this title within the county, city, or town wherein such offense was committed. Upon the giving by such person of his written promise to appear at such time and place, the officer shall forthwith release him from custody.

...

Any officer violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of misconduct in office and subject to removal therefrom upon complaint filed by any person in a court of competent jurisdiction. This section shall not be construed to limit the removal of a law-enforcement officer for other misconduct in office.

Click to expand...

The Empire Strikes Back! "Localities" and "getting guns off the street"

user said:

§ 46.2-937. Traffic infractions treated as misdemeanors for arrest purposes. —

=====

§ 46.2-936. Arrest for misdemeanor; release on summons and promise to appear; right to demand hearing immediately or within twenty-four hours; issuance of warrant on request of officer for violations of §§ 46.2-301 and 46.2-302; refusal to promise to appear; violations. —

Click to expand...

User,

I was referring to the events and subsequent suits.

user said:

§ 46.2-937. Traffic infractions treated as misdemeanors for arrest purposes. —

=====

§ 46.2-936. Arrest for misdemeanor; release on summons and promise to appear; right to demand hearing immediately or within twenty-four hours; issuance of warrant on request of officer for violations of §§ 46.2-301 and 46.2-302; refusal to promise to appear; violations. —

Click to expand...

That brings up a question that I've always had -- how exactly and with whom do you request an immediate hearing? If immediate is taken to mean what it sounds like it is, I'm not sure how this would happen as at least here in VA BH as far as I'm aware no court is just sitting around 24/7 in case they need to hold an immediate traffic infraction hearing. And the VB GDC says that they are closed as of 4pm. I've not heard of a magistrate being able to hold that kind of a hearing, but I suppose that's a possibility (although I didn't think that a magistrate is technically a "court")?

But I've always wondered about this -- you get a ticket, and I assume that on the ticket you are signing to agree to appear in court? (I've never had a ticket so don't honestly know other than to guess from what I've heard) So if you sign that, how then do you get to request an immediate hearing? And if you don't, isn't the officer then supposed to not release you from custody? Perhaps that's the mechanism for requesting immediate hearing (you're still in custody and the officer takes you to where?).

nuc65 said:

User,

As it relates to filing this suit and knowing that all things cost money I am willing to pitch in a small donation to help some, it might be enough to buy a cup of coffee or make some copies, but I think what you are doing here is important and if you tell me how to I would help out.

Click to expand...

Thank you.*

A Pay-Pal account is being set up, and specific details will be announced as soon as possible. Please remember that if you do not mark your Pay-Pal transaction as a gift the farging bastiges skim a service charge off the top. So look for the little box that denotes you are sending a gift.

stay safe.

* - for some reason I was drafted to be part of the Central Committee dealing with one of these situations, which is why I know some stuff ahead of the official public announcement. Someone said I have "experience" dealing with stuff like this. I guess if being shafted and emotionally torn and tossed is "experience" I have some. Mostly what I have is gratitude to everyone who stepped up and to those who are going to step up once more.

Coming soon:


Among the Terabytes of video I have is VDL meeting where the Henrico PD did their best to convince everyone they were all for legal gun owners...

This is a frame grab to keep in mind :uhoh:



Somebody showed them this video which made them very unhappy and they claimed it didn't really happen or something like that.

[video=vimeo;24658229]http://vimeo.com/24658229[/video]

peter nap said:

Coming soon:


Among the Terabytes of video I have is VDL meeting where the Henrico PD did their best to convince everyone they were all for legal gun owners...

This is a frame grab to keep in mind :uhoh:



Somebody showed them this video which made them very unhappy and they claimed it didn't really happen or something like that.

[video=vimeo;24658229]http://vimeo.com/24658229[/video]

Click to expand...

I remember both events quite well.

In the first one, there was a whole lot of squirming going on.

In the 2nd incident, less deadly force was drawn when there was no threat at all.