[This did not happen to me, DrMark.  It happened to a young man who goes by the screen name Danbus.]


Hampton, VA -

So, while I was getting on the HRT bus to Suffolk, the bus driver pulled back into the parking lot, step out for a minute, asked the previous bus driver to step out, and then I noticed the HPD.

They asked me to step of the bus so they could ask me some questions.  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".  First question always is, "why do you have a gun?".

I replied "It is allowed to be open carried".

Another officer asked me my name, and I refused to answer his question.  Then came the long period of time of jabbering about why I need to ID myself, and the reasons why I don't have to.

One officer said that I had to be 21 or older to carry a firearm.  Which I interrupted him and told him 18, however 21 to buy from a FFL.  That pissed him off and he began spouting that I know the law a little bit and he was telling me the correct law.

Even a Lt. came out to play.  He asked me a general question, if I was over 21, why I replied yes.

However more time passed and the Lt. was on the phone with a city attorney.  After speaking to them, he came back and one of the officers stated that there was precedent and that if I didn't provide ID, they would arrest me.

"Do what you have to do" - BMWAG

So they charged me with Obstruction of justice (what justice were they looking for?) and released me on summons.

That was yesterday..........

Today I went to see the Chief of Police, however he wasn't in.  I spoke to a Sgt who said he would look into the problem.  Another Sgt who is in Internal Affairs said she would look into it.

But before that, they were telling me that there was a case law stating that ONLY LEO could carry with 1 in the chamber, but of course he didn't know the exact code, but he said he would get back to me.

They also said that "man with a gun" is enough "reasonable suspicion" to preform a Terry stop.  I advised them other wise.  We debated for a few mins, and we agreed to disagree, however I know my shit, so it's all good.

And before you say it, I know that instead of being detained (illegally) for an hour, I could have provided my ID and taken the 5 mins to run my name, but WHY?

I shouldn't be forced to hand over my papers just because they want to know who I am, especially when I'm not doing anything illegal.  I am not a slave.


opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/5127.html

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?

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.

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. ETA preventative grammer nazi edit 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.

right, and identify yourself means tell me your name. what if you aren't driving and don't have your license/passport/military ID with you?

NAZI state is what we are becoming, you follow the law and get pawned.

All one has to do is give ones name. There is no requirement in this country to carry and present Identity papers to police officers.

tag for the downward turn this will take

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.

Gee, what a proposition. Sounds chock-full-o-free to me.

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. ETA preventative grammer nazi edit 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. right, and identify yourself means tell me your name. what if you aren't driving and don't have your license/passport/military ID with you?

You're not required to provide ID or even carry ID.
You must verbally ID yourself with accurate data.

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. Gee, what a proposition. Sounds chock-full-o-free to me.

He's just giving an honest answer on how to avoid unpleasant interactions with the po-po.
Someday, you're gonna wanna be someplace important and you won't want the po-po slowing you down.
Good advice for the taking.

"You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

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.

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.

awww nvm,,aint worth it,,good advice for the sheep

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...

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.

What you say may be often true.
However; that doesn't make it right, or even legal.

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.

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. What you say may be often true. However; that doesn't make it right, or even legal.

Nope, not right or legal.
But, any interaction with the po-po is another excuse for them to go fishing.

The only time I'm ready to make a principled stand is I'm squeaky clean and I've thoroughly checked my pockets and anal orifice.

Good for him, but he erred by not verbally identifying himself.
If he's gonna "take one for the team", he better have all his ducks in a row beforehand.

It is absolutely ridiculous that citizens are harrassed like this is a state where open carry is legal.

A good cop might need to visually inspect a "man with a gun" to see if he was acting inappropriately.  Other than that, maybe a quick hello and let him go about his business.

Quoted: It is absolutely ridiculous that citizens are harrassed like this is a state where open carry is legal.

Ya, well...such is life.

The cops are going to get "man with a gun" calls via 911. There's nothing we can legally do to hysterical ninnies who call 911 because they see a guy carrying a pistol in a holster and soak their knickers about it.

All that can be controlled is police reaction to those calls.

Hell, even having the 911 operator inform the person making the call that if the guy is carrying in a holster and not waving the weapon at anyone that he is within the bounds of the law would help somewhat.

Quoted: So long as I live, I will never understand why some people have such a fear of an inanimate object.

Because the only exposure they've had to this particular inanimate object is through TV, movies or the news.  Restrictive CCW and open carry laws have removed guns, other than the Po Po's, from everyday life.

If you only saw murders committed with hammers, you'd wonder what other uses a hammer could possibly have and might be concerned, as well.

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.

Quoted: So long as I live, I will never understand why some people have such a fear of an inanimate object.

Social conditioning. It is VERY real. This is just one example.

Virginia Office of the Attorney General - legal opinions - #02-082
Direct link to PDF file:
www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf

02-082 CRIMES AND OFFENSES GENERALLY: CRIMES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Law-enforcement officer conducting lawful stop to investigate alleged criminal activity may not arrest for obstruction of justice suspect who refuses to identify himself to officer. Depending on circumstances, suspect may be detained for purpose of determining his identity. The Honorable Marsha L. Garst Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Harrisonburg October 10, 2002 I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia. Issues Presented You ask whether a law-enforcement officer, who is engaged in a valid investigative stop of the kind permitted by Terry v. Ohio,1 may arrest a person for obstruction of justice under § 18.2-460(A), when such person refuses to provide information concerning his identity to the officer. Response It is my opinion, under the specific facts you have presented, that a law-enforcement officer conducting a lawful investigative stop may not arrest a suspect for obstruction of justice under § 18.2-460(A), when the suspect refuses to identify himself to the officer. Depending on the circumstances, however, there may be justification to detain a suspect for the purpose of determining his identity. Background You relate a situation where a law-enforcement officer in your jurisdiction lawfully stops an unidentified individual whom the officer reasonably suspects has committed a criminal offense. The individual refuses to provide identifying information, thereby frustrating the progress of the investigation. Applicable Law and Discussion Section 18.2-460(A) provides: If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a … law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such … law-enforcement officer, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In interpreting a former statute involving the obstruction of an officer performing his duty, the Supreme Court of Virginia has distinguished that which constitutes "obstruction": [T]here is a broad distinction between avoidance and resistance or obstruction.… "To constitute obstruction of an officer in the performance of his duty, it is not necessary that there be an actual or technical assault upon the officer, but there must be acts clearly indicating an intention on the part of the accused to prevent the officer from performing his duty, as to ‘obstruct’ ordinarily implies opposition or resistance by direct action.… It means to obstruct the officer himself not merely to oppose or impede the process with which the officer is armed."[2] Additionally, the Supreme Court held that an attempt to escape the custody of an officer by running away does not provide a basis for a conviction for obstruction under the former statute.3 The Court of Appeals of Virginia has held that "obstruction of justice does not occur when a person fails to cooperate fully with an officer or when the person’s conduct merely renders the officer’s task more difficult but does not impede or prevent the officer from performing that task."4 In applying § 18.2-460(A), the Court has also determined that providing inconsistent information, even if the information has the effect of frustrating the investigation, is not sufficient to warrant a conviction for obstructing justice.5 Similarly, the Court has held that providing false information is not grounds for a conviction for obstruction of justice.6 If providing inconsistent information that, in effect, frustrates an investigation is not sufficient for a conviction for obstruction of justice, then it would also appear that failing to provide any information would not provide a basis for an arrest for obstructing justice.7 Such a failure to respond does not constitute the requisite "opposition or resistance by direct action."8 Virginia courts have set a high threshold for a conviction under § 18.2-460(A). Given this precedent, I am compelled to conclude that a law-enforcement officer, even when armed with reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be occurring, may not arrest a suspect for obstruction of justice on the basis that the suspect refuses to identify himself. The officer may, of course, pursue any other lawful avenues of investigation to determine the individual’s identity. Those avenues, however, depend on the facts of each individual case.9 A suspect’s refusal or inability to provide his identification in some circumstances may prolong the justified period of detention. Reasonable suspicion about a suspect permits that he "be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, … while attempting to obtain additional information."10 If the suspect’s identity is material to confirming or dispelling the suspicion that led to the detention, depending upon the circumstances, the detention may be continued for a reasonable period to establish his identity.11 Additionally, an officer may, pursuant to § 46.2-104, demand identification of a motorist he stops for a traffic violation. Conclusion Accordingly, it is my opinion, under the specific facts you have presented, that a law-enforcement officer conducting a lawful investigative stop may not arrest a suspect for obstruction of justice under § 18.2-460(A), when the suspect refuses to identify himself to the officer. Depending on the circumstances, however, there may be justification to detain a suspect for the purpose of determining his identity. 1 392 U.S. 1 (1968). A Terry stop allows an officer to approach and briefly detain an individual that the officer has reason to suspect is engaging in criminal activity. Id. at 27-31. 2 Jones v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 471, 478-79, 126 S.E. 74, 77 (1925) (citation omitted). In Jones, the accused was charged with violating § 55-c, which provided that "[a]ny person who shall hinder or obstruct any officer of this State charged with the duty of inspecting baggage for ardent spirits … shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor." 1918 Va. Acts ch. 388, at 578, 611. 3 Jones, 141 Va. at 478, 126 S.E. at 76. The accused in Jones was transporting barley, sugar, hops and yeast, and fled when stopped by the police officer, because he believed he had violated former § 55-c, which made in unlawful to "‘hinder or obstruct any officer’" charged with inspecting any vehicle transporting ardent spirits. Id. at 477-78, 126 S.E. at 76 (quoting 1918 Va. Acts, supra, at 611). 4 Ruckman v. Com., 28 Va. App. 428, 429, 505 S.E.2d 388, 389 (1998). 5 Id. at 431, 505 S.E.2d at 390. 6 Dobson v. Commonwealth, No. 2802-97-2, 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 350, at *1 (June 15, 1999). 7 A concurring opinion in Terry v. Ohio notes that a person detained in a Terry stop "s not obligated to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." 392 U.S. at 34 (White, J., concurring) (emphasis added). Relying on this concurrence, several courts have held that to arrest someone for failure to identify himself during a Terry stop violates the Fourth Amendment. Accord Martinelli v. City of Beaumont, 820 F.2d 1491 (9th Cir. 1987); see, e.g., Timmons v. City of Montgomery, Ala., 658 F. Supp. 1086, 1092, 1093 (M.D. Ala. 1987) (vagrancy offense). 8 Jones, 141 Va. at 479, 126 S.E. at 77. 9 For example, the officer could approach others who are present and inquire about the suspect’s identity, provided those individuals consent to such questioning. Additionally, if appropriate, the officer could follow the suspect home and determine who lives at that address. The options available to a police officer depend on the circumstances of each case. Accordingly, these examples are offered only to demonstrate other ways in which an officer may obtain this information if a suspect refuses to provide his identity, upon request, during a Terry stop. 10 Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985). 11 See Washington v. Com., 29 Va. App. 5, 13-15, 509 S.E.2d 512, 516-17 (1999) (noting that officer could further detain person he reasonably suspected to be person named in capias, to establish his identity); see also United States v. Jones, 759 F.2d 633 (8th Cir. 1985) (holding that officers’ further detention of burglary suspect who refused to identify himself did not convert investigative stop into arrest); State v. Flynn; 285 N.W.2d 710, 717-18 (Wis. 1979) (holding that police officer with reasonable suspicion could remove and search wallet of verbally abusive robbery suspect who refused to identify himself).

Quoted: Hampton, VA - 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?

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.

more people need to do it.

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.

Err... don't they carry handbooks?

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.

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. ETA preventative grammer nazi edit 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. right, and identify yourself means tell me your name. what if you aren't driving and don't have your license/passport/military ID with you?

You don't have to have that anyways.  As long as you give them your name, youre fine.  Just make sure it really is your name.

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.

Quoted: If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, it is no excuse for him.

+1 million. Something tells me that if you or I were to violate a law, and upon entering court, our defense was: "There are too many laws, and they change all the time, there is no way I can be expected to remember them all" It wouldn't fly. We'd be convicted and sentenced.

That being said, everytime one of these threads comes up, everyone says call your lawyer, so, if a guy goes through something like this and does sue, what would he be suing for and who would he be suing? Just curious, I never understood this portion of it. PS. Good for you for standing up.

Quoted: A good cop might need to visually inspect a "man with a gun" to see if he was acting inappropriately.  Other than that, maybe a quick hello and let him go about his business.

Exactly.

I don't understand how someone could enforce the law if they don't know the law.  And if they don't know the law, how can they expect the rest of us to know it?  Ayn Rand had it right.

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. Perhaps Virginia gun owners should start calling 911 for "man with a gun" every time they see a cop.

Mac: Radio, we've got a speeder here... tag number andy one niner beer chicken hat, over.
Farva: That car belongs to to a local Spurbury Police Vechicle.
Mac: It does…Oh my god!
Farva: Very funny 91.
Mac: Thank you radio.

God I love that movie.

Quoted: So long as I live, I will never understand why some people have such a fear of an inanimate object.

+1. What really confuses me is how scared the sheeple can be of a civilian open carrying a weapon, but seem to have no fear whatsoever of an LEO open carrying the same weapon. Cops seem to have the same fear of open carrying (or oftentimes, of concealed carry). WTF?

Why does wearing a uniform and a badge automatically make you foolproof with a gun? Do cops ever have ADs or NDs? Hell yes they do. Remember the ATF asshole that literally shot himself in the foot with his Glock fo-tay? Many civilians have had much more training with safely carrying weapons that LEOs have. The public just doesn't seem to get this.

Quoted: So long as I live, I will never understand why some people have such a fear of an inanimate object.

It turned me into a newt.

Quoted: Quoted: So long as I live, I will never understand why some people have such a fear of an inanimate object. It turned me into a newt.

I got better...

Quoted: Quoted: So long as I live, I will never understand why some people have such a fear of an inanimate object. +1. What really confuses me is how scared the sheeple can be of a civilian open carrying a weapon, but seem to have no fear whatsoever of an LEO open carrying the same weapon. Cops seem to have the same fear of open carrying (or oftentimes, of concealed carry). WTF? Why does wearing a uniform and a badge automatically make you foolproof with a gun? Do cops ever have ADs or NDs? Hell yes they do. Remember the ATF asshole that literally shot himself in the foot with his Glock fo-tay? Many civilians have had much more training with safely carrying weapons that LEOs have. The public just doesn't seem to get this.

Recent events in Wisconsin reinforce this point.

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?

Quoted: Perhaps Virginia gun owners should start calling 911 for "man with a gun" every time they see a cop.

Then they would get charged with abusing 911.....

Funny how people who do that to law abiding gun owners don't qualify, isn't it?

Quoted: Quoted: So long as I live, I will never understand why some people have such a fear of an inanimate object. +1. What really confuses me is how scared the sheeple can be of a civilian open carrying a weapon, but seem to have no fear whatsoever of an LEO open carrying the same weapon. Cops seem to have the same fear of open carrying (or oftentimes, of concealed carry). WTF? Why does wearing a uniform and a badge automatically make you foolproof with a gun? Do cops ever have ADs or NDs? Hell yes they do. Remember the ATF DEA asshole that literally shot himself in the foot with his Glock fo-tay? Many civilians have had much more training with safely carrying weapons that LEOs have. The public just doesn't seem to get this.

Quoted: So long as I live, I will never understand why some people have such a fear of an inanimate object.

Don't you know...it's because only the police and military should have those dangerous things...

Quoted: Err... don't they carry handbooks?

Yes....a bunch of which had improper information in them regarding open carry in Virginia...which resulted in a lot of nonsense. The VCDL helped clear that up in a FRIENDLY and SUPPORTIVE way.

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.