Quoted: In case some of you haven't figured it out yet I'm going to help you.  Consider this a public service announcment.   First, avoid the attention of the police whenever possible. Second, when stopped by a cop there are a number of things you can do that will piss him off, let me list just four;   1.  Refuse to answer simple questions with a reasonable answer.   2.  Refuse to provide ID.   3.  Quote the state or federal constitution to him.   4.  Correct him when he tells you what the law is. Do you like being ruffed and cuffed?  If so, follow the steps above.  But remember, while you may win in court, you'll have no fun getting to that point and it still won't stop the cops from hassling you in the future.  In fact it will probably do the opposite.

If enough people do what the OP did, eventually the PD will leave us alone. They generally prey upon the weak and pliant, not those who tie up police resources.

Black people got sick of Jim Crow and of discrimination in general, and fought back, often by going to court and by being non-compliant. Eventually, they won, and the world is a better place because a few stood up, and then more, saying, "Never again".

Rights are like muscles. Use them, and you stay strong. Don't use them, they atrophy, become weak and you die.

Quoted: If enough people do what the OP did, eventually the PD will leave us alone. They generally prey upon the weak and pliant, not those who tie up police resources. Black people got sick of Jim Crow and of discrimination in general, and fought back, often by going to court and by being non-compliant. Eventually, they won, and the world is a better place because a few stood up, and then more, saying, "Never again". Rights are like muscles. Use them, and you stay strong. Don't use them, they atrophy, become weak and you die.

+1 This man is 100% correct!

Quoted: Quoted: If enough people do what the OP did, eventually the PD will leave us alone. They generally prey upon the weak and pliant, not those who tie up police resources. Black people got sick of Jim Crow and of discrimination in general, and fought back, often by going to court and by being non-compliant. Eventually, they won, and the world is a better place because a few stood up, and then more, saying, "Never again". Rights are like muscles. Use them, and you stay strong. Don't use them, they atrophy, become weak and you die. +1 This man is 100% correct!

It's about a 50/50 split with VA gun owners as to Open Carry being 1. - a good thing, or 2. being an attention whore looking to start something.

Quoted: It's about a 50/50 split with VA gun owners as to Open Carry being 1. - a good thing, or 2. being an attention whore looking to start something.

I'm definitely on the "good thing" side.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If enough people do what the OP did, eventually the PD will leave us alone. They generally prey upon the weak and pliant, not those who tie up police resources. Black people got sick of Jim Crow and of discrimination in general, and fought back, often by going to court and by being non-compliant. Eventually, they won, and the world is a better place because a few stood up, and then more, saying, "Never again". Rights are like muscles. Use them, and you stay strong. Don't use them, they atrophy, become weak and you die. +1 This man is 100% correct! It's about a 50/50 split with VA gun owners as to Open Carry being 1. - a good thing, or 2. being an attention whore looking to start something.

Sounds like the old Booker T Washington vs. WEB DuBois debate among black people. The former said black people should work quietly as domestics, staying in the background, not offending white people, and slowly working their way up the ladder to equality.

DuBois said that black people should fight, fight, fight like hell for their rights because all Americans should have the same rights now, no matter what color they are. He didn't give a damn what the people in charge thought of him, nor did he care what the cost was. The prize was freedom in fact, not just in name.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If enough people do what the OP did, eventually the PD will leave us alone. They generally prey upon the weak and pliant, not those who tie up police resources. Black people got sick of Jim Crow and of discrimination in general, and fought back, often by going to court and by being non-compliant. Eventually, they won, and the world is a better place because a few stood up, and then more, saying, "Never again". Rights are like muscles. Use them, and you stay strong. Don't use them, they atrophy, become weak and you die. +1 This man is 100% correct! It's about a 50/50 split with VA gun owners as to Open Carry being 1. - a good thing, or 2. being an attention whore looking to start something. Sounds like the old Booker T Washington vs. WEB DuBois debate among black people. The former said black people should work quietly as domestics, staying in the background, not offending white people, and slowly working their way up the ladder to equality. DuBois said that black people should fight, fight, fight like hell for their rights because all Americans should have the same rights now, no matter what color they are. He didn't give a damn what the people in charge thought of him, nor did he care what the cost was. The prize was freedom in fact, not just in name.

If you are going to fight, fight, fight be prepared for jail, jail, jail. It doesn't make it right, but it is so.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If enough people do what the OP did, eventually the PD will leave us alone. They generally prey upon the weak and pliant, not those who tie up police resources. Black people got sick of Jim Crow and of discrimination in general, and fought back, often by going to court and by being non-compliant. Eventually, they won, and the world is a better place because a few stood up, and then more, saying, "Never again". Rights are like muscles. Use them, and you stay strong. Don't use them, they atrophy, become weak and you die. +1 This man is 100% correct! It's about a 50/50 split with VA gun owners as to Open Carry being 1. - a good thing, or 2. being an attention whore looking to start something. Sounds like the old Booker T Washington vs. WEB DuBois debate among black people. The former said black people should work quietly as domestics, staying in the background, not offending white people, and slowly working their way up the ladder to equality. DuBois said that black people should fight, fight, fight like hell for their rights because all Americans should have the same rights now, no matter what color they are. He didn't give a damn what the people in charge thought of him, nor did he care what the cost was. The prize was freedom in fact, not just in name. If you are going to fight, fight, fight be prepared for jail, jail, jail. It doesn't make it right, but it is so.

It didn't stop our forefathers in 1775. They were willing to die to get back their civil rights. I can't see that much happening nowadays. You'll get yourself quite a reputation if you go around in public, advocating the same things they did in 1775.

Quoted: Good job standing up for your rights.  I hate it when people spout off crap like only a leo can carry one in the chamber.  Hampton is corrupt, better call the VCDL and your lawyer.

To be clear, it was not me this happened to, but a young man that goes by the screen name Danbus.  Danbus is a clean-cut, well-spoken young man.  Philip Van Cleave (VCDL Pres) knows Danbus, and I'm pretty sure Danbus has had the opportunity to talk to lawyers.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip  They started by disarming me (for officer safety).  Of course, I told them I didn't allow the seizure of my firearm, but was told "it's for officer safety".   snip Alright, you lost me here. Did you tell them they could not have it, and they didn't pursue it further, or did they disarm you despite of what you said?  If they did disarm you, did they return your weapon or not? Um... That is a post from a 3rd party. Not DrMark....

Quite right, it was not me.

I believe once Danbus was arrested and in handcuffs, the police took his gun and wallet (ID) as they pleased.  I also believe (I read that thread yesterday) that after they cited him, the police returned his gun and left, after which he got on the next bus, still open-carrying, without a problem.

Quoted: Maybe this has already been adressed and I missed it skimming the thread. If the author ultimately refused to identify himself, how, precisely, was he summonsed to court? Did they give him a "John Doe" summons If he fails to show for his appearance, how do they know who to issue a warrant for if the man has not been positively identified? Did they search this person and ultimately identify him prior to summonsing him? If so, what good reason is there to summons the guy? Is this really a productive use of law enforcement resources?

After he was arrested/cuffed, they searched him, and found his ID.

Are they allowed to run your name to insure that your not a felon illegally carrying?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought SCOTUS had ruled that you have to tell them your name, but you're not required to show any ID. They can pound sand regarding open carry, if it's legal in your state then that's it. They did in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177.  They can ask for a suspect to identify themselves during a criminal investigation. Don't they need reasonable suspicion of a crime to instigate a criminal investigation? Probable cause, baby.  The 911 call for "a man carrying a gun" is probably enough for that. Probable cause is the threshold required to make an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is the threshold to do a Terry stop. Like it or not, the mere fact that open carry is uncommon, coupled with a 911 call may very well rise to the level of reasonable suspicion in the eyes of the court.  It really all depends on how it is articulated to the judge.

What crime might one be reasonably suspected of committing merely by having a handgun in a holster?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought SCOTUS had ruled that you have to tell them your name, but you're not required to show any ID. They can pound sand regarding open carry, if it's legal in your state then that's it. They did in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177.  They can ask for a suspect to identify themselves during a criminal investigation. Don't they need reasonable suspicion of a crime to instigate a criminal investigation? Probable cause, baby.  The 911 call for "a man carrying a gun" is probably enough for that. Probable cause is the threshold required to make an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is the threshold to do a Terry stop. Like it or not, the mere fact that open carry is uncommon, coupled with a 911 call may very well rise to the level of reasonable suspicion in the eyes of the court.  It really all depends on how it is articulated to the judge. What crime might one be reasonably suspected of committing merely by having a handgun in a holster?

Civil disobedience?

Quoted: Are they allowed to run your name to insure that your not a felon illegally carrying?

As I understand it, no, not without some articulable reasonable suspicion that what you're doing is, in fact, illegal.

With some narrow exception, open carry is legal in Virginia.

Quoted: I thought SCOTUS had ruled that you have to tell them your name, but you're not required to show any ID. They can pound sand regarding open carry, if it's legal in your state then that's it.

The Supreme Court did in face find that you are required to accurately identify who you are to a police officer, upon demand

Virginians-

If you open carry can the officer ask to see your pistol permit (assuming you have to have one as with concealed carry. I don't know VA law).

thanks

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In case some of you haven't figured it out yet I'm going to help you.  Consider this a public service announcment.   First, avoid the attention of the police whenever possible. Second, when stopped by a cop there are a number of things you can do that will piss him off, let me list just four;   1.  Refuse to answer simple questions with a reasonable answer.   2.  Refuse to provide ID.   3.  Quote the state or federal constitution to him.   4.  Correct him when he tells you what the law is. Do you like being ruffed and cuffed?  If so, follow the steps above.  But remember, while you may win in court, you'll have no fun getting to that point and it still won't stop the cops from hassling you in the future.  In fact it will probably do the opposite. Then maybe just maybe the cop should learn the fucking law. They don't allow open carry here in FL but if they did or if I were in an OC state I would laminate a copy of the law carry that around with me and have my attorneys name printed on it as well. It is one thing to say a law, it is another to show them. And if arrested I would sue for harassment and false arrest. If a cop is going to enforce the law he damn well better KNOW it. I can understand not wanting to provide ID. I personally don't have a problem with it, but I can understand not wanting to. Maybe you should think about what you are saying before spouting off. It is impossible for all but an idiot savant to memorize the thousands of pages of VA statues. Just because open carry and gun right is your personal issue doesn't mean every police officer knows the precise laws. Do you know the precise laws regarding child custody enforcement, how about shop lifting, or anyone of the thousands of other laws a peace officer is expected to enforce? It is perfectly reasonable for the police to investigate and talk to a supervisor if they are unclear. All carrying a laminated card shows is that you laminated a card. It doesn't "prove" it is the law. Laws change frequently and there are lots and lots of them. Angrly arguing with the police isn't going to help the situation. No one was arrested. He was released on his own recog with a court summons/date. Much like a speeding ticket. If you are going to talk shit you better damn well think it through. I don't believe the police harrased him, I believe they didn't know the law. While it is not ideal, it is realistic. I totally support open carry, and open carry myself. I am not a LEO. Sorry guys I don't buy into the theory police have JBT anti-gun harassment agenda. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, it is no excuse for him.

+1000 Im supposed to know every stupid ass law that i might break. If i have to do, so to should the ones enforcing it.

Why don't y'all just have a "Open Carry Day"?

Advertise it on all of the gun boards on make it an annual event.

If the cops get 100,000 911 calls for people with a gun, they might get the message.


In fact someone should organize a National Open Carry day for all state where it is legal.


Just get this public fear of people open carrying over with.

I have no idea what the laws are in the state of VA or if what was posted even happened. But it sounds like the guy was taking the Bus while open carrying?  If so it looks like he was looking to be a test case.

Quoted: Virginians- If you open carry can the officer ask to see your pistol permit (assuming you have to have one as with concealed carry. I don't know VA law). thanks

In VA, you do not need a permit to open-carry.

Some folks you see in VA open-carrying may not have a CCW permit, and some may have one but unconcealed to comply with VA law in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

Quoted: Quoted: In case some of you haven't figured it out yet I'm going to help you.  Consider this a public service announcment.   First, avoid the attention of the police whenever possible. Second, when stopped by a cop there are a number of things you can do that will piss him off, let me list just four;   1.  Refuse to answer simple questions with a reasonable answer.   2.  Refuse to provide ID.   3.  Quote the state or federal constitution to him.   4.  Correct him when he tells you what the law is. Do you like being ruffed and cuffed?  If so, follow the steps above.  But remember, while you may win in court, you'll have no fun getting to that point and it still won't stop the cops from hassling you in the future.  In fact it will probably do the opposite. The REAL point here is that LE in Virginia has had AMPLE exposure to people open carrying and OUGHT to know better than to quote non-existent nonsense "precedent" when dealing with someone who is openly carrying a firearm LEGALLY and without threat to anyone. There have been enough of these stinking "man with a gun" calls by now and enough nonsense involving them that every agency in Virginia should have 2 and 2 put together by now. The cops here were dead wrong on the law. No, they may not like being told they are wrong, but that's the simple reality of it. We aren't dealing with some drug dealer who is giving them a lecture on civil rights here...we are dealing with a law abiding citizen who happens to know more about this area of the law than the guys showing up to "enforce" it. 3rdPig's advice is good and it has it's place.... But at the same time I'm getting a little bit tired of seeing this stuff happen over and over and over again in Virginia DESPITE our efforts to be really nice and humbly attempt to inform LE agencies in Virginia about the laws they are supposed to be enforcing. It's really not that hard. The obstruction charge is utter horse manure. The police had every right to check out what was going on based on a call for service. But to stack on a phony charge just because it didn't go their way is retarded.

Ok - if you really want to go to town on this try the following:

* Get a *good* lawyer.

* Get lawyer to draft letter to every precinct, sheriff and state AG - in this letter point out that there have been a sequence of documented cases of officers hassling people for ID beyond what is required by the law, of falsely quoting the law , and detaining people going about their lawful business while exercising their lawful right to openly carry a firearm. State that this must stop. The letter constituted notice that any future actions which cannot be defended on any other basis than that the person was excercising a lawful right will be considered police harassment and will result in civil proceedings being taken against the officers and departments involved. Ask that they so inform all of their officers, and ensure that those officers are fully conversant with the appropriate law before approaching anyone not committing any crime.

* Fire off a few civil actions when they ignore the letter.

* Send the dog to out of state relatives.

Quoted: ..... What crime might one be reasonably suspected of committing merely by having a handgun in a holster?

If the person looked under age then illegal possession.  Any other number of crimes depending on what was said in the 911 call and how much of that information actually made it from the dispatcher to the officer.

Quoted: Ok - if you really want to go to town on this try the following: * Get a *good* lawyer. * Get lawyer to draft letter to every precinct, sheriff and state AG - in this letter point out that there have been a sequence of documented cases of officers hassling people for ID beyond what is required by the law, of falsely quoting the law , and detaining people going about their lawful business while exercising their lawful right to openly carry a firearm. State that this must stop. The letter constituted notice that any future actions which cannot be defended on any other basis than that the person was excercising a lawful right will be considered police harassment and will result in civil proceedings being taken against the officers and departments involved. Ask that they so inform all of their officers, and ensure that those officers are fully conversant with the appropriate law before approaching anyone not committing any crime. * Fire off a few civil actions when they ignore the letter. * Send the dog to out of state relatives.

Actually we have a group called the VCDL that does a good job of jumping ugly on officials if it is necessary to do so.

Quoted: Why don't y'all just have a "Open Carry Day"? Advertise it on all of the gun boards on make it an annual event. If the cops get 100,000 911 calls for people with a gun, they might get the message. In fact someone should organize a National Open Carry day for all state where it is legal. Just get this public fear of people open carrying over with.

That's a great idea. It may even get media coverage and people may not be so damned scared. I definitely think you should continue to excercise your rights, and if you can do it while helping to educate others, all the better. Hell, mayne they won't call the cops on you next time, maybe they'll even be interested in owning a firearm. Great idea IMO.

Quoted: Quoted: Virginians- If you open carry can the officer ask to see your pistol permit (assuming you have to have one as with concealed carry. I don't know VA law). thanks In VA, you do not need a permit to open-carry. Some folks you see in VA open-carrying may not have a CCW permit, and some may have one but unconcealed to comply with VA law in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

Thank you. Were you involved in the pizza joint brouhaha a year or so ago (Terrys Pizza IIRC, which I probably don't). (VCDL)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Virginians- If you open carry can the officer ask to see your pistol permit (assuming you have to have one as with concealed carry. I don't know VA law). thanks In VA, you do not need a permit to open-carry. Some folks you see in VA open-carrying may not have a CCW permit, and some may have one but unconcealed to comply with VA law in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Thank you. Were you involved in the pizza joint brouhaha a year or so ago (Terrys Pizza IIRC, which I probably don't). (VCDL)

Which brouhaha was that?

Quoted: Which brouhaha was that?

Bunch of guys get together at a pizza joint for some food and fellowship. They uncover their weapons to comply with Virginia's idiotic law. Hysterical ninny calls 911. The cops show up. The cops develop a major 'tude during the encounter.

The same thing has happened several times in Virginia in the last few years.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Virginians- If you open carry can the officer ask to see your pistol permit (assuming you have to have one as with concealed carry. I don't know VA law). thanks In VA, you do not need a permit to open-carry. Some folks you see in VA open-carrying may not have a CCW permit, and some may have one but unconcealed to comply with VA law in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Thank you. Were you involved in the pizza joint brouhaha a year or so ago (Terrys Pizza IIRC, which I probably don't). (VCDL)

No, I was not involved with the Tony's Pizza incident, but at least one of the folks who was involved is a member here.  


Note:  This isn't directed at you or anyone in particular, but it's an interesting point.  You asked "...can the officer ask to see...?"  Officers are free to ask for many things, but the important question is what they are allowed to require, or what we are required to provide them.

That would be the Manassas Tony's Pizza 7 mess.  Also Hampton has a history of pulling these stunts on a somewhat regular basis like declaring city streets private property and off limits to firearms during some city sponsored festivals, etc.:

Complaint filed against city police officers
By ELISA A. GLUSHEFSKI
[email protected]
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

A Springfield man filed a complaint Friday against the Manassas Police Department, saying that an officer's ignorance of Virginia's open-carry weapons laws created an unnecessary and tense situation for him and six friends at a city pizza restaurant.

On Jan. 13, Russ Troxel said he and six other members of a Second Amendment rights Web site forum Opencarry.org met at Tony's New York Pizza for dinner.

According to Troxel, they walked in with their guns holstered at their sides and ordered their food.

Virginia is known as an open-carry state. While carrying a concealed weapon requires a court-issued permit, no permit is required to carry a gun in the open.

Around 8:11 p.m., a police officer responded to a call at the restaurant from an unnamed diner who reported that the men were not causing any trouble but their weapons made him uncomfortable.

Troxel said the man had approached two of his friends while they were ordering their food and called them "yahoos" and "dorks."

About 30 minutes later a Manassas police officer arrived and, Troxel said, "loudly and antagonistically" asked if the men were police officers and, after learning that none were, demanded to see their IDs.

Within nine minutes, six other officers came to the Mathis Avenue restaurant, according to the Manassas police department's call information log.

The men tried to explain that because Tony's serves alcohol they were required by law to openly carry their firearms, Troxel said, but the first responding officer refused to listen and eventually became hostile.

One of the officers helped to defuse the situation, Troxel said in a telephone interview Tuesday, but several others overstepped their authority and were unnecessarily rude in doing so.

"The actions and attitudes [of the officers] is intolerable in a free nation," Russ Troxel said in the complaint.

Police Chief John J. Skinner said he would like to comment publicly but can't because the complaint is part of an internal investigation. He would not release the names of the officers.

According to the department's call information log, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, Officer Chad Hyland was the first to respond, followed by Officers Joshua Thompson, Rickey Clodfelter, Sean Ellis, Marc Hittle, Tina Pannell and Carrie Sutton.

Troxel also accuses police of "suggesting or implying" something to the owner of Tony's to get him to ask Troxel and his friends to leave. The men hadn't been confronted about the weapons by any of the restaurant staff in the 45 minutes that they had been sitting there until after police arrived, he said.

Joe D'Agostino, manager of Tony's, said that the restaurant does not have a policy on openly carrying weapons.

But because they had received several complaints from regular customers, he and the owner told the men they would have to put their guns in their vehicles or leave, D'Agostino said.

Officers used derogatory terms to describe the men and their group in several e-mails and messages sent within the department following the incident, according to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by Mike Stollenwerk, one of the founders of Open carry.org.

Stollenwerk was not at the restaurant at the time of the incident.

In an e-mail Clodfelter sent five of the other officers the day after the incident, he copied the state code that prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons in any place that serves alcohol and concludes that they were legally allowed to carry their guns openly that night.

In the same e-mail, Clodfelter also wrote: "My guess is the over-compensating ass clowns at Tony's were hyper-aware of all this, and that's why they started crying like little babies when their event got spoiled by the whole 'lets get the owner to tell them to get the f-- out' thing."

A lieutenant in the department e-mailed other police departments in the state on Jan. 17 asking if similar incidents had happened in their jurisdictions, adding that his opinion "is that the group is probing local [police departments] in order to see how they will react" to those type of calls.

An hour later a captain of the Fredericksburg Police Department replied that a group of men had "attempted the same type of act" in the Fredericksburg area and that they were "lawsuit shopping."

Troxel said the group chose Tony's restaurant for its central location.

"We weren't lawsuit shopping," he said, adding that he also denies that the group was testing the department's knowledge of open-carry laws.

Use of vulgar or profane language is a violation of the department's computer and electronic messaging policy, Skinner said.

He began a supervisory review of the incident in early February after receiving the Freedom of Information Act request two weeks earlier. He said it could take up to 30 days to get the findings of the department's internal investigation.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought SCOTUS had ruled that you have to tell them your name, but you're not required to show any ID. They can pound sand regarding open carry, if it's legal in your state then that's it. The Supreme Court did in face find that you are required to accurately identify who you are to a police officer, upon demand However, Virginia law superceedes that.

That is patently incorrect...

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution specifically states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Put simply, if the SCOTUS says it is so, and Virginia says it isn't, Virginia can go "pound sand", as it were.....


No State law supercedes the laws of the United States....

Quoted:

FM18 has an average of 0.04 posts per day.

He's like the Bizzaro NapoleonTannerite.....

Quoted: That would be the Manassas Tony's Pizza 7 mess.  Also Hampton has a history of pulling these stunts on a somewhat regular basis like declaring city streets private property and off limits to firearms during some city sponsored festivals, etc.: Complaint filed against city police officers By ELISA A. GLUSHEFSKI [email protected] Wednesday, February 21, 2007 < snip >

What was the result of the investigation of this complaint?

Quoted: In case some of you haven't figured it out yet I'm going to help you.  Consider this a public service announcment.   First, avoid the attention of the police whenever possible. Second, when stopped by a cop there are a number of things you can do that will piss him off, let me list just four;   1.  Refuse to answer simple questions with a reasonable answer.   2.  Refuse to provide ID.   3.  Quote the state or federal constitution to him.   4.  Correct him when he tells you what the law is. Do you like being ruffed and cuffed?  If so, follow the steps above.  But remember, while you may win in court, you'll have no fun getting to that point and it still won't stop the cops from hassling you in the future.  In fact it will probably do the opposite.

The FBI has a term for such terrorists.  They call them "constitution worshippers".

Quoted: No State law supercedes the laws of the United States....

Interesting observation.

So how does your theory apply to things like high capacity magazines? Federal law no longer imposes a limit on the number of rounds that a magazine can hold. California limits the number to 10. Therefore, California state law is more restrictive than federal law. Is the California law invalid?

Further, even though the federal AWB expired in September 2004, some state law require the restrictions imposed by the ban to continue in effect. Are these state laws invalid?

Quoted: Quoted: No State law supercedes the laws of the United States.... Interesting observation. So how does your theory apply to things like high capacity magazines? Federal law no longer imposes a limit on the number of rounds that a magazine can hold. California limits the number to 10. Therefore, California state law is more restrictive than federal law. Is the California law invalid?

There is a difference between an absence of federal regulation in an area and contrary federal regulation.

If the AWB was still in place and limited magazine capacities to 10 rounds, any state law allowing 15 round magazines would be superceded because of the supremacy clause.  

However, if there is no federal law in place in regard to magazines (for example), that does not mean that the federal law allows unlimited capacity magazines.  It merely means that the federal government has not chosen to pass laws governing that particular aspect so there is nothing to supercede state law on the issue.

Quoted: Quoted: No State law supercedes the laws of the United States.... Interesting observation. So how does your theory apply to things like high capacity magazines? Federal law no longer imposes a limit on the number of rounds that a magazine can hold. California limits the number to 10. Therefore, California state law is more restrictive than federal law. Is the California law invalid? Further, even though the federal AWB expired in September 2004, some state law require the restrictions imposed by the ban to continue in effect. Are these state laws invalid?

There is no Federal law that limits or defines how many rounds may be in a handgun magazine...therefore the California law is not superceding any federal law....

Same goes for the AWB....there is no federal law that the states are contradicting since, as you pointed out, the federal law does not exist...now if Congress were to pass a law saying the parts of the AWB these states still have in effect were no longer allowed, then yes, these states would be violative of the US Constitution...

I should say that Federal jurisprudence and precedent has carved out one area where states may make more restrictive...and that is Environmental Protection and Regulation...

a perfect example is again California....if the US says emissions have to X, SCOTUS and the US Government has said it is alright for California to create emissions standards more restrictive....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In case some of you haven't figured it out yet I'm going to help you.  Consider this a public service announcment.   First, avoid the attention of the police whenever possible. Second, when stopped by a cop there are a number of things you can do that will piss him off, let me list just four;   1.  Refuse to answer simple questions with a reasonable answer.   2.  Refuse to provide ID.   3.  Quote the state or federal constitution to him.   4.  Correct him when he tells you what the law is. Do you like being ruffed and cuffed?  If so, follow the steps above.  But remember, while you may win in court, you'll have no fun getting to that point and it still won't stop the cops from hassling you in the future.  In fact it will probably do the opposite. The REAL point here is that LE in Virginia has had AMPLE exposure to people open carrying and OUGHT to know better than to quote non-existent nonsense "precedent" when dealing with someone who is openly carrying a firearm LEGALLY and without threat to anyone. There have been enough of these stinking "man with a gun" calls by now and enough nonsense involving them that every agency in Virginia should have 2 and 2 put together by now. The cops here were dead wrong on the law. No, they may not like being told they are wrong, but that's the simple reality of it. +1 Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

Wrong, ignorance of the law is only no excuse if you're a citizen.  If you're a LEO ignorance of the law is an excuse, which has been taken up to the Supreme Court IIRC, and upheld (it might only have made it to a circuit court).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No State law supercedes the laws of the United States.... Interesting observation. So how does your theory apply to things like high capacity magazines? Federal law no longer imposes a limit on the number of rounds that a magazine can hold. California limits the number to 10. Therefore, California state law is more restrictive than federal law. Is the California law invalid? Further, even though the federal AWB expired in September 2004, some state law require the restrictions imposed by the ban to continue in effect. Are these state laws invalid? There is no Federal law that limits or defines how many rounds may be in a handgun magazine...therefore the California law is not superceding any federal law.... Same goes for the AWB....there is no federal law that the states are contradicting since, as you pointed out, the federal law does not exist...now if Congress were to pass a law saying the parts of the AWB these states still have in effect were no longer allowed, then yes, these states would be violative of the US Constitution... I should say that Federal jurisprudence and precedent has carved out one area where states may make more restrictive...and that is Environmental Protection and Regulation... a perfect example is again California....if the US says emissions have to X, SCOTUS and the US Government has said it is alright for California to create emissions standards more restrictive.... And that is exactly what VA has done in regards to the ability of the LEO to demand ID. The Commonwealth of VA reserves the right to set higher standards of conduct for its police forces if they so wish.  And in this case, they have apparently done so.

Where have they done so?  I understand what you are saying but I am not familiar with any Virginia Code or case law that states you have absolutely no obligation to identify yourself to police officers (outside of the obvious exception of driving a car).

The guy ought to just wait till he's 21 and get a CCW permit so he can carry concealed.  This kind of JBT douchebaggery makes for a powerful argument against open carry (unfortunately).  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought SCOTUS had ruled that you have to tell them your name, but you're not required to show any ID. They can pound sand regarding open carry, if it's legal in your state then that's it. The Supreme Court did in face find that you are required to accurately identify who you are to a police officer, upon demand However, Virginia law superceedes that. That is patently incorrect... The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution specifically states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Put simply, if the SCOTUS says it is so, and Virginia says it isn't, Virginia can go "pound sand", as it were..... No State law supercedes the laws of the United States.... When it comes to Virginia police matters, it superceedes any Supreme Court opinion.  The state of Virginia is free to set a stricter standard than SCOTUS allows. If SCOTUS says ID must be presented and the VA says the individual does not, the code of the commonwealth of Virginia superceedes any SCOTUS decision regarding this. The Commonwealth of Virginia reserves the right to set whatever standards of conduct it wishers for its own police forces as long as they are not more strict regarding the rights of the public..

Part of this is you and I are talking about two different things.....

the most recent Supreme Court precedent (Hiibel) absolutely said states and jurisdictions could enact statues that required people to identify themselves when asked by police, with limits (this overruled a previous California case...name forgetting off the top of my head)....

It did NOT impose upon states the duty to adopt those "identification" laws....

Virginia does NOT have a statewide "produce" ID law...what you will find, however, is that most localties have ordinances that do mirror the Hiibel statute in their loitering or vagrancy laws, or just outright (as Manassas Park did during the Tony's 7 incident)....

So, if you are referring to Virginia's right to adopt the "identification" statutes, sure...

BUT...that isn't what you said....

what you said was Virginia law supercedes the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States...

and that is patently incorrect, again based upon the Supremacy Clause, and a number of cases (including one involving Virginia, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee)....

Anyway....so....part of it is likely the way each of us is wording what we are talking about...and the fact that you are talking about one thing....and i am talking about another...


EDIT:  Also, you should be careful about "stricter" standards....Virginia, for example, could NOT say that in order to satisfy the ID statute you have to produce a Driver's License and Voter Card....that would certainly be stricter, but would impose a greater Constitutional burden than is allowed by the SCOTUS decision (and was one of the issues California ran into in that damn case I cannot remember the name of....).....

Quoted: In case some of you haven't figured it out yet I'm going to help you.  Consider this a public service announcment.   First, avoid the attention of the police whenever possible. Second, when stopped by a cop there are a number of things you can do that will piss him off, let me list just four;   1.  Refuse to answer simple questions with a reasonable answer.   2.  Refuse to provide ID.   3.  Quote the state or federal constitution to him.   4.  Correct him when he tells you what the law is. Do you like being ruffed and cuffed?  If so, follow the steps above.  But remember, while you may win in court, you'll have no fun getting to that point and it still won't stop the cops from hassling you in the future.  In fact it will probably do the opposite.

WOW This is an excellent example of OBEY MY AUTHORITY....
I wear the badge so I am right and you are wrong......

I would call you a JBT but that would be against COC.....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No State law supercedes the laws of the United States.... Interesting observation. So how does your theory apply to things like high capacity magazines? Federal law no longer imposes a limit on the number of rounds that a magazine can hold. California limits the number to 10. Therefore, California state law is more restrictive than federal law. Is the California law invalid? Further, even though the federal AWB expired in September 2004, some state law require the restrictions imposed by the ban to continue in effect. Are these state laws invalid? There is no Federal law that limits or defines how many rounds may be in a handgun magazine...therefore the California law is not superceding any federal law.... Same goes for the AWB....there is no federal law that the states are contradicting since, as you pointed out, the federal law does not exist...now if Congress were to pass a law saying the parts of the AWB these states still have in effect were no longer allowed, then yes, these states would be violative of the US Constitution... I should say that Federal jurisprudence and precedent has carved out one area where states may make more restrictive...and that is Environmental Protection and Regulation... a perfect example is again California....if the US says emissions have to X, SCOTUS and the US Government has said it is alright for California to create emissions standards more restrictive.... And that is exactly what VA has done in regards to the ability of the LEO to demand ID. The Commonwealth of VA reserves the right to set higher standards of conduct for its police forces if they so wish.  And in this case, they have apparently done so. Where have they done so?  I understand what you are saying but I am not familiar with any Virginia Code or case law that states you have absolutely no obligation to identify yourself to police officers (outside of the obvious exception of driving a car). From page 2. This is why you should read the whole thread before you post: www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf snip

I have read the entire post so far.  I am aware of the Attorney General's opinion, but it is not binding upon the courts.  Also, the opinion addresses the likelihood of an obstruction of justice charge sticking, it does not address whether or not Virginia has said that there is no duty to identify yourself to a police officer.  As pointed out, localities can pass ordinances that can require identification if asked.

Just because the obstruction of justice charge is not likely to stick does not mean that Virginia has said that there is no obligation to identify yourself to LEO's when asked and that the LEO's don't have the right to demand ID.

ETA:  There has also been a major change in the federal law since this point.  The Hiibel decision where the Supreme Court upheld the identification requirement is from 2004.  The attorney general opinion is dated 2002 so some of the cases involved could have been overriden by Hiibel.  It is possible that the cases in the attorney general opinion are no longer good law.

He should have showed them his ID.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No State law supercedes the laws of the United States.... Interesting observation. So how does your theory apply to things like high capacity magazines? Federal law no longer imposes a limit on the number of rounds that a magazine can hold. California limits the number to 10. Therefore, California state law is more restrictive than federal law. Is the California law invalid? Further, even though the federal AWB expired in September 2004, some state law require the restrictions imposed by the ban to continue in effect. Are these state laws invalid? There is no Federal law that limits or defines how many rounds may be in a handgun magazine...therefore the California law is not superceding any federal law....

I'm not following your point. If federal law says you can legally own something, and state law directly contradicts federal law and says owning something is illegal, then state law is superseding federal law to use your words. For example, if there is no federal speed limit on interstates, but Virginia, for example, says the speed limit is 65 mph on interstates, state law is superseding federal law. The fact that there is no comparable federal restriction (e.g., if the federal speed limit were 75 mph, and Virginia was just less) does not change the fact that state law is in conflict with federal law.

Same goes for the AWB....there is no federal law that the states are contradicting since, as you pointed out, the federal law does not exist...now if Congress were to pass a law saying the parts of the AWB these states still have in effect were no longer allowed, then yes, these states would be violative of the US Constitution...

I'll make the same point. The federal law pertaining to assault weapons reverted back to its pre-9/13/94 state. So, you can legally buy an AR15 with a pistol grip, flash hider, bayo lug, detachable magazine and grenade launcher in most states. The states that continued the provisions of the AWB after 9/13/04 have provisions that are in direct conflict with federal law and (1) either supersede federal law, or (2) are unvalid due to the conflict with federal law.

Of course, we may have a different view of what "supersedes" means. I am viewing it a "more restrictive." You may have a different definition.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought SCOTUS had ruled that you have to tell them your name, but you're not required to show any ID. They can pound sand regarding open carry, if it's legal in your state then that's it. The Supreme Court did in face find that you are required to accurately identify who you are to a police officer, upon demand However, Virginia law superceedes that. That is patently incorrect... The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution specifically states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Put simply, if the SCOTUS says it is so, and Virginia says it isn't, Virginia can go "pound sand", as it were..... No State law supercedes the laws of the United States.... When it comes to Virginia police matters, it superceedes any Supreme Court opinion.  The state of Virginia is free to set a stricter standard than SCOTUS allows. If SCOTUS says ID must be presented and the VA says the individual does not, the code of the commonwealth of Virginia superceedes any SCOTUS decision regarding this. The Commonwealth of Virginia reserves the right to set whatever standards of conduct it wishers for its own police forces as long as they are not more strict regarding the rights of the public.. Part of this is you and I are talking about two different things..... the most recent Supreme Court precedent (Hiibel) absolutely said states and jurisdictions could enact statues that required people to identify themselves when asked by police, with limits (this overruled a previous California case...name forgetting off the top of my head).... It did NOT impose upon states the duty to adopt those "identification" laws.... Virginia does NOT have a statewide "produce" ID law...what you will find, however, is that most localties have ordinances that do mirror the Hiibel statute in their loitering or vagrancy laws, or just outright (as Manassas Park did during the Tony's 7 incident).... So, if you are referring to Virginia's right to adopt the "identification" statutes, sure... BUT...that isn't what you said.... what you said was Virginia law supercedes the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States... and that is patently incorrect, again based upon the Supremacy Clause, and a number of cases (including one involving Virginia, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee).... Anyway....so....part of it is likely the way each of us is wording what we are talking about...and the fact that you are talking about one thing....and i am talking about another... EDIT:  Also, you should be careful about "stricter" standards....Virginia, for example, could NOT say that in order to satisfy the ID statute you have to produce a Driver's License and Voter Card....that would certainly be stricter, but would impose a greater Constitutional burden than is allowed by the SCOTUS decision (and was one of the issues California ran into in that damn case I cannot remember the name of....)..... No, I said, to quote: Virginia law superceedes that That, as in the requirement to produce ID because as yus said, it allowed the states to do so but did not require them to do so.  You then went off on one gigantic strawman tangent.

The original poster you quoted was also incorrect in his statement of the SCOTUS opinion...

I should have been more specific in my original post...

I'm not sure that pointing out Federal Law is supreme to State Law is a tangent...but I do believe there has been some misunderstanding

at any rate....

as Civprod said, the AG opinion is just an opinion by the attorney that represents the Commonwealth.......I think it is also important to note that it is from 2002....and the most recent SCOTUS precedent is from 2004....so the AG Opinion is not even based on good law...


but...

I digress....