-
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.
Stevenson v. (Roanoke City police officers) Kwiecinski
- Thread starter Tosta Dojen
- Start date
wylde007
Regular Member
To make sure you're not doing anything illegal, doncha see?
Lobby Day. January 17, 2011.
I'm planning to attend and hopefully will be able to make it again.
jmelvin
Founder's Club Member
Grapeshot and Wylde I'm not suggesting or supporting the idea that cops can or should go around willy nilly asking for a CHP. Look at my discussion in context. I was responding to 804emt who suggested that Mr. Stephenson should have simply told the LEOs about the gun. I was describing that there is no reason he should have told them other than perhaps out of his own desire. Further I was describing that the law doesn't even compel him to say anything about the gun at any time other than when a LEO demands to observe the permit. Sheesh! As far as the permitting system goes, we have it about as lax as it gets: No need to state anything regarding a permit when carrying concealed when dealing with a law enforcement officer, no legal requirement to state that you are carrying a firearm and a CHP holder may only be compelled to even show it along with proper ID when it is demanded and even then only when the CHP holder is carrying a firearm concealed when a CHP is needed. Remember this is a permit system, a permission slip per se' and nothing but. Thus is the system of permitting activity. For practicality's sake, if we don't want to have to show anything for carrying or mention that we are carrying under any circumstance we need to get rid of the permit requirement for carrying concealed.
TFred
Regular Member
We get on this same merry-go-round every few months. The law is very poorly written, no doubt.
Technically, as I read it, if a LEO asks you to see your CHP, and you are carrying concealed, you would have to display for to them. If you are not, then you are not required to display it for them.
There is no requirement that they have to know for sure that you are carrying concealed before they ask. But if you are, and they ask, then you have to display it for them.
If they start out by asking if you are carrying concealed or not, well then you have lots of "legal" options to not reply, but those paths usually get ugly.
I'm still hoping to eventually hear how someone makes out by replying "Sir, (or Ma'am), your safety is not at risk, I am not danger to you or anyone else."
That should remove their reason for asking, at least according to my understanding of the current status of case law. A verbal reply to that effect is no more or less reliable than a verbal response to "are you carrying a weapon?" Weather or not the LEO doing the asking can grasp that concept on the side of the road remains to be seen.
TFred
Technically, as I read it, if a LEO asks you to see your CHP, and you are carrying concealed, you would have to display for to them. If you are not, then you are not required to display it for them.
There is no requirement that they have to know for sure that you are carrying concealed before they ask. But if you are, and they ask, then you have to display it for them.
If they start out by asking if you are carrying concealed or not, well then you have lots of "legal" options to not reply, but those paths usually get ugly.
I'm still hoping to eventually hear how someone makes out by replying "Sir, (or Ma'am), your safety is not at risk, I am not danger to you or anyone else."
That should remove their reason for asking, at least according to my understanding of the current status of case law. A verbal reply to that effect is no more or less reliable than a verbal response to "are you carrying a weapon?" Weather or not the LEO doing the asking can grasp that concept on the side of the road remains to be seen.
TFred
No flame or personal attack was intended.
Constitutional Carry will resolve most of this.
wylde007
Regular Member
And neither are we.
still in agreement.
^^^ That.
As Grapeshot indicated, we are on your side. Constitutional carry is the only fair and just solution.
Until then the law is worded ambiguously and is too permissive of inquisition by law enforcement who would otherwise have no cause to inquire.
So, umm, relax.
I can't really express my feelings right now. Like many situations, I have to sit on my hands until a few things get sorted out. Then I can basically agree with Wylde with a warning about the harsh reality of real world Police corruption and or, downright stupidity.
Tosta Dojen
Regular Member
Tosta Dojen
Regular Member
jmelvin
Founder's Club Member
So this leaves you to appeal to US Supreme Court or do you even get that benefit having received no published opinion from the US 4th Circuit?
Last edited:
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
those communistsunofabishes...
nuc65
Activist Member
The Feds have been informed by DHS that it is NOT a crime to photograph a federal building. I'll try to dig up more info but I am sure that PeterNap probably has it closer at hand than I do.
nuc65
Activist Member
A couple of thoughts
It is a sad state of affairs, but concealed carry is a crime. Having a permit allows/lets(??) you to commit the crime in a legal manner (I think the legal people call it an affirmative defense) or maybe with impunity.
I think that this requires 'fixing' via a grass rootes legislative effort. Something along the line of making the government responsible as designed (the government is present to defend the "individuals" rights) therefore LEA and LEOs should be responsible for actions.
All things are appeal-able, but the Supreme Court may decide it does not have any reason (sneeze) that requires it to do so.
It is a sad state of affairs, but concealed carry is a crime. Having a permit allows/lets(??) you to commit the crime in a legal manner (I think the legal people call it an affirmative defense) or maybe with impunity.
I think that this requires 'fixing' via a grass rootes legislative effort. Something along the line of making the government responsible as designed (the government is present to defend the "individuals" rights) therefore LEA and LEOs should be responsible for actions.
All things are appeal-able, but the Supreme Court may decide it does not have any reason (sneeze) that requires it to do so.
This is the result of a settlement between the ACLU and DHS. I have the PDF of the directive DHS sent to all security personell and took a copy of it to operations manager at the Jamestown Ferry today. I expect Securiguard is mighty unhappy now:lol:
Here is a link to the actual settlement:
http://www.scribd.com/full/39623305?access_key=key-21nlcq8q54dwdoa8ofbr
The DHS Bulletin is here:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/567/567.pdf
Last edited:
"All contact with the public, including photographers, must be conducted in a professional and polite manner." :lol:
Gunslinger
Regular Member
http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/800/
I believe portions to be inter alia. Establishes the principal that if the reasonable man would think the action taken violates statutory or constitutional rights of he who was acted upon, qualified immunity is not granted. While many can't cite the 4th amendment, being free of unreasonable search and seizure, viz., false arrest, would be understood by the reasonable man--and therefore must be by a cop, to violate constitutional rights. Therefore, no qualified immunity should have been given. This decision is bs from start to per curiam opinion. The 4th CCA is comprised of jackasses.
Inter alia:
Qualified or "good faith" immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U. S. 635 (1980). [Footnote 24] Decisions of this Court have established that the "good faith" defense has both an "objective" and a "subjective" aspect. The objective element involves a presumptive knowledge of and respect for "basic, unquestioned constitutional rights." Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 420 U. S. 322 (1975). The subjective component refers to "permissible intentions." Ibid. Characteristically, the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official
"knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury. . . ."
I believe portions to be inter alia. Establishes the principal that if the reasonable man would think the action taken violates statutory or constitutional rights of he who was acted upon, qualified immunity is not granted. While many can't cite the 4th amendment, being free of unreasonable search and seizure, viz., false arrest, would be understood by the reasonable man--and therefore must be by a cop, to violate constitutional rights. Therefore, no qualified immunity should have been given. This decision is bs from start to per curiam opinion. The 4th CCA is comprised of jackasses.
Inter alia:
Qualified or "good faith" immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U. S. 635 (1980). [Footnote 24] Decisions of this Court have established that the "good faith" defense has both an "objective" and a "subjective" aspect. The objective element involves a presumptive knowledge of and respect for "basic, unquestioned constitutional rights." Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 420 U. S. 322 (1975). The subjective component refers to "permissible intentions." Ibid. Characteristically, the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official
"knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury. . . ."
Last edited:
nuc65
Activist Member
I finally found the stupid bulletin that says photographing a federal building is not a crime... handy to have a print out of at least the first page. I also have a bulletin about it not being illegal to photograph an airport security checkpoint.
View attachment 567
Last edited:
nuc65
Activist Member
I attached the file, but have no idea how to make the link appear in this thread...
Here is the link
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/567/567.pdf