Dr, Mark, I gave you an answer....I am sorry if you didnt see it...

given the way this is going, I am done banging my head into a tree....if you honestly want an answer to that question, feel free to PM me, and I would be happy to discuss...but I am getting off this merry-go-round now,

Quoted: "there is an armed man across the street from my bank that has been standing there for 5 minutes staring through the windows and my tellers have noticed him 3 times and are getting really nervous and I have now walked by him and he is definitely armed and I am worried he is getting ready to come in and rob the bank..." well, now that probably requires a bit of a different response dont you think?

NO! Again there has been no illegal activity. Here are two logical reactions to the security guards call:

Dispatch: OK sir, please calm down it is perfectly legal to have a gun while looking into the bank. If the situation changes please call back.

Responding officer: after watching unnoticed from a distance realizing there is nothing illegal going on might make his presence known or even engage the armed man in conversation; Nice 1911, is your car broke down? No, I'm just waiting on a friend to go get lunch. Well you might want to try the new chinese restaurant on waterside drive. Have a nice day.

I think any officer drawing his weapon needs to be in life threatening danger or witnessing something dangerously illegal (IE: A man running out of the bank gun in hand while hearing the terrified screams of bank patrons). Game Wardens ALL come in contact with armed people and don't come in aiming guns. I've seen Game Wardens approach numerous hunters with SHOTGUNS in hand and I have NEVER seen them draw a weapon. They will stand around while there are multiple armed people with weapons in hand without freaking out so it must be that Norfolk PD needs better training. I think if this guy pushes this issue hard enough the end result will be a huge harassment settlement followed by much needed training for the Norfolk PD.

EDIT:  nevermind...at this point I am forgetting that regardless, we are all supposed to be friends here...and that wasnt very friendly...

everyone have a good evening...

height=8

I fully support what the LEO's did and don't believe that they did anything wrong. There is an easy justification for what they did: officer safety.

If officers need to harass, intimidate, humiliate, and threaten citizens who are breaking no laws to feel "safe" - then I think they need to look for a new line of work.

What about ME feeling safe? No, I don't feel safe at all when officers are pulling guns on citizens for no reason other than to make themselves feel safe. Cops should be putting the safety of citizens above their own. "To serve and protect" - right? It's on the car for God's sake.

This incident, if true as desribed, is crap. Anyone defending the cops is IMO either a cop themselves or a pansy unwilling or unable to stick up for their rights. (Yes, I am fully aware that there are many cops who are "gun folks" like many of us and do not agree with these actions. I have met some myself. I thank those officers every chance I get.)

The issue of whether open carry is "smart" or not is 100% nor relevant. Is it a good idea for an attractive 20 year old woman to wear revealing clothing and walk the streets alone at night? Certainly not. But it IS her right to do so. Are the officers defending these cops and their thuggish actions going to walk up to a rape victim, see what she's wearing, and say "Well, you shouldn't have been here. And wear more responsible clothing next time. Have a nice day." If they did, the next question asked them would be "Do you own your home, officer? Not for long."

height=8

I don't think that the LEO's really did anything wrong with the investigation of this call. They were doing their job. They stayed within the law. Once they determined that he was not doing anything illegal, they let him go. I do not think that the police doing their job is harrasment. Again, this is not a situation where they just stopped some guy on the street. They were responding to a citizen complaint.

Really? Telling the guy to "not come back on this street" is part of their job? A public street where the guy has EVERY right to be. What's next? Gotta be out of town by sundown? I really think they could have approached the man in a responsible manner and determined rather quickly that he was not a threat. How do I know this? Because responsible, lawbiding officers do it all the time.

Give me a break.  Some of you need to grow a backbone. Afraid to do something perfectly legal ... you ought to be ashamed.

Ok, I thought that this thread was dead, but I am going to make one final response.

Quoted: I fully support what the LEO's did and don't believe that they did anything wrong. There is an easy justification for what they did: officer safety. If officers need to harass, intimidate, humiliate, and threaten citizens who are breaking no laws to feel "safe" - then I think they need to look for a new line of work. What about ME feeling safe? No, I don't feel safe at all when officers are pulling guns on citizens for no reason other than to make themselves feel safe. Cops should be putting the safety of citizens above their own. "To serve and protect" - right? It's on the car for God's sake.

Their actions could also be construed as protecting the safety of the citizens.  If the call was really that there is an armed person about to rob the bank, then the public at large could be in danger because of the potential armed robbery.  So the goal of officer safety and the goal of protecting the public in this case both could have had the same response.  Drawing a gun could have been necessary in the eyes of the officers to protect the public from the potential crime that had been reported and also necessary to protect themselves.

Also, once again I emphasize this point, we have no idea what the officers were told.  I am under the firm belief that they were not told "there is a man with a gun standing outside a bank but he isn't doing anything."  Unless that is what the call was, the officers had no way of knowing that the person was not breaking the law and were justified in performing an investigation based upon the citizen complaint.  I don't see this as a case where the officers are harassing this individual to make themselves feel safe.  Once they concluded that the man was not breaking any laws they released him and let him go on his way.  

They are following established procedure.  It is not harassing him to put him in cuffs while they are performing the investigation because he was armed.  They could have disarmed him but then we would have a bunch of people jumping up and down about how the police officers disarmed him without cause so there is no solution that would not have involved controversy on this board.  However, they did nothing wrong legally with that.

In regard to the officers putting the safety of the citizens above their own, that is true.  Officers should also place importance on the safety of the citizens.  However, being concerned about the safety of the citizens does not mean that the police officers should be required to wait for a deadly threat against them or the public before they can take actions to protect their safety and the safety of the public.  I am not advocating that officers should have the ability to draw down on anyone they feel like, but if the officers receive information about a potential threat to either themselves or the public, they should be able to act upon that information and take appropriate steps to ensure everyone's safety.

This incident, if true as desribed, is crap. Anyone defending the cops is IMO either a cop themselves or a pansy unwilling or unable to stick up for their rights. (Yes, I am fully aware that there are many cops who are "gun folks" like many of us and do not agree with these actions. I have met some myself. I thank those officers every chance I get.)

For the record, I am neither a cop, nor a pansy that is unwilling to stick up for my rights.  But feel free to continue to just assume away.

There is too much information missing from the description of the incident to determine whether the response was unwarranted.  Mainly we are missing the 911 call and the dispatch call.  I think it is a stretch to call this incident "crap" when there is so much that depends on the information that the other party had at the time of the incident.  We only have one side of the story here and some people are assuming that this guy is telling everything completely accurately and is relating everything that happened.  

The issue of whether open carry is "smart" or not is 100% nor relevant. Is it a good idea for an attractive 20 year old woman to wear revealing clothing and walk the streets alone at night? Certainly not. But it IS her right to do so. Are the officers defending these cops and their thuggish actions going to walk up to a rape victim, see what she's wearing, and say "Well, you shouldn't have been here. And wear more responsible clothing next time. Have a nice day." If they did, the next question asked them would be "Do you own your home, officer? Not for long."

I think that this statement and this line of thinking is just complete bullshit.  I had a longer response here, but I will leave it at that.

Really? Telling the guy to "not come back on this street" is part of their job? A public street where the guy has EVERY right to be. What's next? Gotta be out of town by sundown? I really think they could have approached the man in a responsible manner and determined rather quickly that he was not a threat. How do I know this? Because responsible, lawbiding officers do it all the time. Give me a break.  Some of you need to grow a backbone. Afraid to do something perfectly legal ... you ought to be ashamed.

I guess you also missed the point where once this mistake was pointed out to the officers that they changed their statement.  In the end the only thing that the ofifcers told the person that he could not trespass on the private property of the bank.  That is completely within their job description if the bank told the officers that they no longer wanted the person on their property.

How do you know that the officers knew that they could have approached the man in a different manner?  Do you know what the dispatch call told them?  It seems to me that the manner in which they would have responded to the man depends on what they were told by dispatch, which officers are entitled to rely upon when they are deciding how to deal with a potential crime.  In cases where officers respond to a call about a possible crime, should they go up to the person and ask whether or not he is committing the crime before they decide how they are going to handle it or should they be able to decide on an initial course of action prior to arriving on the scene?  What if it is a case where it is an urgent call and they might not have the time to formulate a response once they are there.

People should not be afraid to do something perfectly legal.  However, you just have to realize that in this case the actions of the officers were also perfectly legal.


ETA: Please just let this thread die.  I don't think that anyone is convincing anyone else of anything at this point and it is unlikely that anything constructive will come out of this thread continuing.  I will admit that I probably should not have even responded even with the incorrect assumptions about me.

Quoted: Quoted: They probably should have just called the SWAT team in.... better yet, how about an air strike?  Norfolk is close to Langley and Oceana....even better, why not a Ballistic Missile Strike...I am sure there are some Subs that come in and out of the Naval Base!.....continue to argue ad absurdum and all you do is come off as absurd... Give me a break...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out...they had a citizen complaint, and they responded to investigate it, with two officers responding with their weapons drawn for a report of a complaint involving one armed man...

Fucking waahhh... if a person, WHO CARRIES A GUN IN THE PREFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES IS SO FUCKING SCARED OF A GUY WITH A GUN IN A HOLSTER< MAYBE THEY SHOULD GET ANOTHER JOB!

Once again, office safety, regardless of what the courts say, doesn't trump GOD GIVEN rights.

We, as a society, have let the libs define what we do, and find acceptable. Fuck them.

Wait until you read the VA-Alert that just came out.

VA-ALERT: Norfolk illegally arrests VCDL member! And a lawsuit is being prepared. Norfolk passed an ILLEGAL 'no guns' ordinance a few months ago (no, I am NOT kidding) and ENFORCED that illegal ordinance against a VCDL member! Bad, bad, bad mistake. New firearms ordinances, other than those to control discharge or hunting, have been illegal in the Commonwealth since 1987!  But Norfolk appears to have been passing a series of gun banning ordinances pertaining to various festivals that the City has put on over the years! Unbelievable.  And Norfolk, of all places, KNOWS better than to do that.  (VCDL has had TWO large turnouts at City Council meetings a few years ago to make sure that City Council was aware of Virginia's preemption laws.) But, Norfolk did it anyway and now it's time to pay the piper. Worse, within the last month, Norfolk police have also harassed two other gun owners who were lawfully carrying openly, one black and one white - each was accosted on TWO separate occasions!  More on those incidents later in the alert. Here's the story of the false arrest under an illegal ordinance (if you take blood pressure medicine, now is the time to take it for this is going to be very unsettling).  Sorry for the length, but it will read quickly: Chet Szymecki arrived at Sail Virginia 2007, a tall ship festival in Norfolk, with his family (wife, their three children, and two other children from other families [all 13 and under]) around 2:30 PM on Sunday, June 10th, 2007. As luck would have it, Dennis O'Connor and I were also at that same festival about the same time - but Chet didn't know that we were there and vice versa!  Damn, I wish I had known what was about to transpire! Chet, who was open carrying on that beautiful day, crossed paths with dozens of officers, with many being cognizant of the fact that he was openly carrying. At 4:30 Chet and family had just ordered some waffle cakes and returned to a music area for an upcoming show. Chet was approached by a black female Norfolk Sheriff's officer and was asked if he was a police officer. Chet responded, "No." The officer then stated that Chet must leave the festival area immediately since he was not permitted to carry a firearm there. At the same time another Sheriff's deputy closed in, and one more hung back a few feet. The officer began communicating on her radio and Chet was expecting the situation to totally dissolve within minutes and he could then continue to enjoy the rest of the show with no further interruption. Within a few seconds two groups of officers from the Norfolk Police Department approached from two different directions. The primary group had 5-6 officers, and from the look on a Lieutenant's face Chet could tell that things were quickly becoming exponentially worse. The Lieutenant came within inches of Chet and in a very condescending tone of voice stated that Chet had two choices: leave the park or go to jail. While appearing to be as non-confrontational as possible (one hand holding his waffle cake and the other feeding his mouth) Chet began to reply that this must be a simple misunderstanding since he is permitted to carry. Chet was cut off and, as the Lieutenant leaned in to intimidate him, the Lieutenant raised his voice and just about shouted that Chet had only two choices: leave immediately or be arrested. Chet was still in shock and once again began to speak.  Not waiting to hear what Chet had to say, the Lieutenant immediately told the other officers to arrest Chet! In the following seconds Chet had hands all over him. One officer was tugging at Chet's pistol, having much difficulty removing it.  Chet was worried about an accidental discharge with his family being literally feet away. Other officers were pulling Chet's arms around his back and cuffing him.  Chet offered no resistance. Chet's wife began to speak and she was immediately pushed back by a black female Sheriff's deputy! Chet's children were just about panicking watching their law-abiding father being stripped of his dignity while their mother was being forced back and being told that she may be arrested if she failed to comply. Chet's wife attempted to record the scene on her cellular phone and was told she would be arrested if she did not secure her phone immediately!!! The police then forcibly escorted Ms. Szymecki and her children off the property and left them standing on a street corner in Norfolk, all alone and without car keys (Chet had them and the police would not retrieve them).  How very shameful. A totally unnecessary use of force by the police on someone who was not threatening anyone, leaving a wife and young children on a street corner, totally unprotected. Congratulations, Norfolk, those police-state tactics would have made Stalin smile warmly at you. While being whisked away, Chet stated that he was aware that he was being unlawfully disarmed and detained and he demanded to be released immediately. That didn't draw any response. After a few minutes when Chet and the police were in a clear area where an Explosive Ordinance Disposal van was parked, along with many other police vehicles, Chet was instructed to face a wall. Chet informed the officers that the handcuffs were agonizingly tight and repeated that he was not a threat to any of them and asked that the handcuffs be loosened. Two officers were behind Chet holding him - one officer replied while squeezing the cuffs tighter that "they were not meant to feel comfortable."  Nothing like having a sadist on the police payroll.  I knew a couple of officers like this who worked the jail in San Antonio. Chet was just sickened by the lack of professionalism and, as an ex-law enforcement officer and law abiding citizen, SO AM I! After a half hour or so, and asking a few more times to have his cuffs be loosened, Chet was placed in the rear of a squad car. At that time Chet's left hand was totally numb and his right shoulder was aching. Chet informed the officer in the police car that Chet was a veteran retired from active service and had sustained injuries in the line of duty - Chet's right arm being one of the injured areas. Chet informed him that his right Brachial Plexus nerve group was torn from his spine and he had limited use and mobility of his right arm. Chet stated again that he simply wanted the cuffs behind his back to be readjusted. The most the officer could offer was a suggestion on how to sit back in the squad car in a comfortable way. Needless to say - Chet, who had done nothing wrong, was very uncomfortable. Several times one officer approached Chet and stated that "in a town of 200,000 or more like ours you cannot carry around a gun like you can in other places." Chet told the officer that that law did not apply since: (1) the gun Chet was carrying was not classified as a "firearm" in that code section and (2) Chet had a concealed carry permit which rendered the entire section inapplicable to him. Chet was told he did not know what he was talking about and Chet had no business carrying a gun while in Norfolk. Speaking of being ignorant of Virginia gun laws, that officer needs remedial training.  What a disgrace. While in the cruiser an officer approached Chet and once again Chet was offered a choice: sign a summons or go visit the magistrate. Being unfamiliar with the entire process and not understanding the gravity of the decision, Chet asked for additional clarification. The officer was polite and informed Chet that signing a summons was not an admission of guilt and he was simply promising to show up at a future court date. By not signing the summons Chet would go in front of a magistrate and this, along with the associated processing, would take many hours.  Signing the summons would only take a few minutes and then Chet could be released. DOES EVERYONE NOW UNDERSTAND WHY VCDL FOUGHT A BILL EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED OFFICERS TO THROW SOMEONE IN JAIL FOR ANY CLASS 1 OR CLASS 2 MISDEAMEANOR AT WILL?  Any doubts in your mind that these officers would have done so to further humiliate and intimidate Chet if they were given the option? Chet asked what would happen if the magistrate realized that this was all a simple mistake. The officer informed Chet that even if the magistrate released him, the police could issue a bench warrant and keep Chet in jail until his court date!!!  Any doubt that these officers would have done so? It seemed that signing the summons was the proper choice and Chet signed it. I agree. Chet asked for his pistol to be returned and one of the officers stated that it was being held as evidence. Chet asked him for a receipt for his confiscated property. The officer stated that he had a pistol, one magazine, nine rounds of ammunition, and a holster. The officer said his verbal receipt was sufficient! Like hell! Chet was also forced to provide his Social Security Number - Chet asked if this were voluntary or mandatory - Chet was told it was mandatory. WRONG again, Norfolk Police!  Chet was also forced to fingerprint his summons papers in four areas. Arriving home almost two hours later, Chet was forced to skip a previously planned dinner engagement with another family and seek treatment at a local medical facility. Chet said he has a high tolerance for pain and discomfort but his right arm/shoulder and the back of his neck was just killing him. Chet was examined by the doctor and prescribed medications. The doctor stated that since his arm has limited movement and the officers forced it into this unnatural position for over an hour, muscles and ligaments were probably strained. Chet contacted me that evening and related the above story.  The next morning I was on the phone to Norfolk City Attorney, Bernard Pishko. Mr. Pishko proceeded to tell me that the public streets for the event were considered private property and thus guns could be banned.  I told him that the "Festevents" organization that was running the festival was nothing but an arm of the City and could NOT ban guns. I also said that if the private property part were true, why had Chet not been arrested for trespass, but was instead charged under a City ordinance? Mr. Pishko said I wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what I was talking about.  He suggested that he could drop the charges against Chet, but said that perhaps this issue should be settled in court.  Mr. Pishko said he was comfortable that the City would win. Dream on, sir. However, Mr. Pishko said the charges would be dropped and he kept his word.  The charges were "Nollo Prossed" at Chet's court hearing on June 22nd and Chet is now in the process of getting his record expunged. Chet was charged under City Code 42660 Section 3c (weapon/firearm in festival area). In order to gather information the City may have on this incident, VCDL has already sent Freedom of Information Act requests to the * Norfolk Sheriff, to find out which officer started this whole thing, along with any supporting information * Norfolk Police, to get a copy of ALL radio traffic and other documents relating to Chet's arrest. * Norfolk City Attorney, on the City's relationship with "Festevents" and to get a copy of the offending ordinance The dollar amount of the lawsuit has not as yet been set, but I hope it is enough to get the City's attention. -- Two other law-abiding gun owners, one black and one white, were each harassed TWICE by the Norfolk Police recently.  Both were simply open carrying. The black gun owner, an articulate, polite, 23 year-old who has helped at VCDL tables at various gun shows in the Tidewater area, had guns drawn and pointed at him by the police on the first occasion. On the second occasion, he was handcuffed, even after complying with police demands to keep both hands on a nearby wall. Both times the gun owner was released at the scene.  But not after being unnecessarily humiliated and manhandled. On the second occasion, the police officers told him that if they saw him open carrying again, they would handcuff him, run his gun for stolen, and then release him again!!! Forget looking for real criminals, just harass the good guys, Norfolk.  Unbelievable. The white gun owner (Norfolk seems to be an equal opportunity harasser) was also detained and then released. -- VCDL has been sitting quietly on this until Chet's charges were dropped.  But these events cannot go unchallenged. In addition to the lawsuit, VCDL will be attending a future Norfolk City Council meeting to denounce the oppressive harassment of Virginia's gun owners and demand an end to it. The City of Norfolk and their police agents have a pattern of abusing the law and law abiding gun owners.  If you or I violate the law, we risk fines and/or jail time.  Why should local government officials be immune from punishment for passing and enforcing an ordinance in violation of state law?  How long will the General Assembly let these rogue officials get away with this abuse of the law? WE NEED A **HUGE** TURNOUT TO MAKE SURE CITY COUNCIL GETS THE MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR I will advise when we have picked a date. Tidewater - time to step up to the plate again.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They probably should have just called the SWAT team in.... better yet, how about an air strike?  Norfolk is close to Langley and Oceana....even better, why not a Ballistic Missile Strike...I am sure there are some Subs that come in and out of the Naval Base!.....continue to argue ad absurdum and all you do is come off as absurd... Give me a break...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out...they had a citizen complaint, and they responded to investigate it, with two officers responding with their weapons drawn for a report of a complaint involving one armed man... Fucking waahhh... if a person, WHO CARRIES A GUN IN THE PREFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES IS SO FUCKING SCARED OF A GUY WITH A GUN IN A HOLSTER< MAYBE THEY SHOULD GET ANOTHER JOB! Once again, office safety, regardless of what the courts say, doesn't trump GOD GIVEN rights. We, as a society, have let the libs define what we do, and find acceptable. Fuck them.

IRONY:

the "libs" actually fought AGAINST Terry v. Ohio...in fact, the main counsel in the case...the ones that argued YOUR side, hydguy, was the ACLU...they argued that there should be no exception to the Fourth Amendment for public or officer safety....it was the "conservatives" that argued in favor of the "Terry Stop" and won in a 8-1 decision that saw all of the courts traditionalists and conservatives vote in favor of allowing officers to violate your so called "God given" rights (curious, what happens if an athiest, agnostic, buddhist, or hindu is open carrying?..you know what, thats for another time) in favor of public safety...

So, the irony here is that the side many are arguing is the SAME side the ACLU took...


I'll end there in the hope that a moderator or two will lock this thread, because I find it increasingly hard to break away from it, and I am of a firm belief that although we may not see eye to eye on the methodology, everyone that posts here likely has common goals as to the Second Amendment, its application, and the rights of Virginians.  Having said that, speaking passionately about rights without taking the time to know how they are defined, limited, and by whom (because they all are, legally, under the Constitution) doesn't really help anything or anyone.

Furthermore, attempting to belittle or insult the people who post on this board that either 1) don't agree with you or 2) actually possess some sort of specialized knowledge that they are trying to share bespeaks of cowardice and ignorance.  If you don't like the law, fine.  Gain standing, file a suit, and try and change it.  Or better yet, go to law school and work to change it from the inside out.  Otherwise, you can talk about your "God given" rights until you are blue in the face, but you will not actually have a clue as to what they are...

As George Washington said:  "Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest..."

And, whether you like it or not, you are a participant (willing or unwilling) in this Republic created through the social contract of the Constitution that attempts to define some of these "inalienable" (I think I prefer that to God-given) rights, and also provides a structure for how they flow and operate in our society....you can ignore it all you want, but in so doing you breach this social contract and cast disdain upon all that the Founding Fathers created....have fun with that...

Quoted: As George Washington said:  "Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest..."

Yes, I know all about not yelling 'Fire' in a theater, and such, but carrying a gun in a holster is NOT akin to that. If you cannot grasp that, then maybe you should take a refresher in what rights are.

YOur rights end where mine begin. If what you are doing doesn't endanger me, or doesn't keep me from enjoying my rights, then you are fine. However, once you start to infring upon MY rights, then you are clearly outside of your rights.

People do not have a right to not be offended. Nor do they have the right to use their unexplainable fear of an inanimate object as a basis to restrict my rights.

And if you have a problem staying out of this thread, why should a Mod have to lock it? Take responsibility for yourself and stay out if you feel that you are getting too wrapped around the axles about it for Christ's sake!!

And for the record, I disagree with Terry, as the basis of it, subjective probable cause, is just that: very SUBJECTIVE.

Quoted: As George Washington said:  "Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest..."

I think it's inappropriate to use a quote like that in an instance like this. Washington lived in a time when the writings of Locke and Hobbs were still fresh in the minds of many. He surely wasn't suggesting that one had to permit something like say, roving wiretaps to live in a society. He was differentiating between libertarianism and libertinism, not between anarchy and police statism. A society can be extremely, though not completely, lawless and still be society. Anarchy by iteself is not inherently bad, people just use the word today as if it were. But it just refers to a society without government. Freedom terrifies people, so to some, any freedom must be bad, especially those freedoms you aren't using. Granted, total freedom, libertinism, does represent something bad, because it is a concept that doesn't recognize privacy or property rights. It is the unacceptable zone where libertarianism (what's mine is mine) and communism (what's yours is mine) meet, and the only equilibrium that could be achieved is through force. Surely that is what Washington saw as being without society, not a country with a lot of petty rules and limits on personal behavior or appearance. If he wanted that, he already had it before the Revolution. We should recognize that we're being granted a glimpse into what could be. The left wants your property rights, the right wants your privacy rights, and the only way they can take them is through force. We already have so many law enforcement agencies whose entire purpose is to enforce unnatural law, that I'm sure you can find one whose mission you hate.

Hydguy's mistake here was applying a label to the wrong crowd. So remember: use "liberals" (in the American sense, which is completely inaccurate,) when talking about socialists. Use "conservatives" when talking about police statists. Of course, their views don't always match up. To borrow an expressed view from another thread and combine it with this one, how are we supposed to shoot Latino gang members on sight if when called by a concerned citizen, the cops don't first show up to investigate to ensure it isn't just a day laborer wearing the wrong color t-shirt?

"Mr. Pishko said I wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what I was talking about.  He suggested that he could drop the charges against Chet, but said that perhaps this issue should be settled in court.  Mr. Pishko said he was comfortable that the City would win."... However, Mr. Pishko said the charges would be dropped and he kept his word.  The charges were "Nollo Prossed" at Chet's court hearing on June 22nd and Chet is now in the process of getting his record expunged. Chet was charged under City Code 42660 Section 3c (weapon/firearm in festival area).

Two other law-abiding gun owners, one black and one white, were each harassed TWICE by the Norfolk Police recently.  Both were simply open carrying. The black gun owner, an articulate, polite, 23 year-old who has helped at VCDL tables at various gun shows in the Tidewater area, had guns drawn and pointed at him by the police on the first occasion. On the second occasion, he was handcuffed, even after complying with police demands to keep both hands on a nearby wall.

So it looks like a systemic problem.  I suspect the Norfolk PD is not going to fare well here.

It pains me to think that these officers are being instructed to enforce laws that likely violate Virginia's preemption laws.  Whicn means that someone in a position of authority over the officers is telling them to break the law and compromise citizen's rights, as a matter of standard operating procedure.

I'm sure that many would agree, a "mistake" arrest is somewhat tolerable, but a willful persistence to circumvent state law is deplorable.

In all of the "citizen complaint" stories I've read lately it seems that if the 911 call went something like this, then there wouldn't be a problem:

Caller: I see a man with a gun.
Dispatch: What's he doing with it?
Caller: Standing/sitting/leaning against something and the gun is in a holster.
Dispatch: That's not illegal sir.
Caller: But I'm scared!
Dispatch: It's still not illegal.

Case closed! I also agree that the police taking the call should certainly know the laws that pertain to carrying firearms but what I can't understand is why a dispatcher would send them. If someone called 911 and said "Oh my god there's a twelve year old outside the DQ eating ice cream!!!" would an officer be sent?

Personally, from the information gleaned from all sources I have access to I have the conclusion that Norfolk is being particulary hard on people carrying.  Also, I think they are profiling certain people so as NOT to seem racist.  
I think the "up in your face LT should be fired and ALL the other cops severly disciplined.  I also think the lawsuits should painfully large and very public.  My case for punishing the police, look at the Military and the UCMJ to understand that people with positions of responsibility must be held accountable.  I am not anti-cop, but it seems that whenever a bully cop does something stupid everybody whines about how tough their job is.  I dont think it as tough as many military jobs where being late can cost half a months pay and 30 of restriction.

My 2 cents on this matter.  The anti-gunner ny wannabes can hold up "black rifle assault weapons" to further their agenda, it is time to expose them as 2nd Amendment hating single minded self promoting people they are.