Virginia Citizens Defense League newsletter lashes out at Fairfax Police.

**********************************************************
2. Three Fairfax County police officers prove the Keystone Kops are
alive and well
**********************************************************

We haven't had any issues with the Fairfax County police in quite a
while now. I have found them to be one of the best run police
agencies in Virginia.

However, three officers tarnished that image last week when they
unlawfully arrested a North Carolina resident who was legally carrying
a handgun and had a North Carolina CHP.

Hold on tight - this is a weird story.

The gun owner was pulled over for running through a red light, a
charge which the gun owner disputes.

The gun owner, believing that he had to disclose he was lawfully armed
as they do in North Carolina, dutifully told the officer he had a NC
CHP and was indeed armed.

The officer seemed to ignore the statement, but very shortly two more
patrol units pulled up. The next thing the gun owner knew he is in a
"felony stop" mode. He was asked to walk backwards towards the
officers, who then disarmed and handcuffed him.

While trying to unloaded his gun, THEY DROPPED IT ONTO THE ROAD!

The two officers and a SERGEANT then proceeded to tell him that he was
under arrested for:

1. Having hollow point bullets, which they claimed were illegal in
Virginia (!)
2. Taking a loaded gun across the state line, which the gun owner
was told was a FELONY (!)
3. Having a concealed gun that the police said he couldn't have since
he was from North Carolina (!!)

His car and gun were impounded and he was taken off to a magistrate.

The magistrate looked at the charges and told the police officers that
they had just made a false arrest.

The officers pointed out the possession of hollow point bullets. The
magistrate asked, "are they teflon coated?"

"No," replied on of the officers.

"Then they are legal."

Trying to find something that would stick and justify the false
arrest, one of the officers said, "We couldn't verify that his North
Carolina permit is valid."

The magistrate looked at the permit, noticed the phone number on the
back where one can call to verify the permit, called the number, and
within a few minutes found out the permit was indeed valid.

The gun owner was ordered to be released.

After being released from custody, the gun owner was given a hard time
by another officer about getting his gun back, but he did finally get
it back.

If all of that isn't bad enough, the arresting officer went ahead and
gave the gun owner a ticket for the alleged offense of running a red
light!

In essence, with that brilliant move, the officer was practically
BEGGING the gun owner to PLEASE sue Fairfax Count for the false arrest!

I have already talked to my high-level contact with the Fairfax County
PD about this entire situation and the gun owner has filed a formal
complaint.

In the past, Fairfax County PD has been very good when such internal
investigations are required. Now we will wait and see what happens.

What is clear is that Fairfax County PD needs to educate its officers
on:

1. Possession of hollow point bullets
2. Reciprocity laws
3. Lawful carriage of firearms across state lines
4. Safe gun handling (a few years ago unsafe gun handling by an
officer cause a gun to discharge, killing an unarmed, handcuffed man)

This is starting to sound familiar. I remember when Virginia passed its
"open carry" laws, it seems like the FFX County Police were the last
to hear about it. Perhaps intentional or are they just in denial?

This is a FCPD problem but is more a 911 operator problem. When the operator gets a call about a "man with a gun" they are supposed to ask if the person is holding the gun or if it is holstered, if the person is acting odd like shouting or that kind of thing, etc. It's like a 911 operator sending cops to a restaurant because some idiot said a cook had a knife. Ah well, more false arrest money for people I guess.

Uhhhh this was a traffic stop. No 911 call involved.

True, my bad. I had this story confused with the guy they followed around on a bus recently because some woman called in a "main with a gun on a bus" complaint. And that story may not have been in Fairfax County anyway.

Wonderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is starting to sound familiar. I remember
> when Virginia passed its
> "open carry" laws, it seems like the FFX County
> Police were the last
> to hear about it. Perhaps intentional or are they
> just in denial?


What "open carry laws"? No such thing in VA.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wonderer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is starting to sound familiar. I remember
> > when Virginia passed its
> > "open carry" laws, it seems like the FFX County
> > Police were the last
> > to hear about it. Perhaps intentional or are
> they
> > just in denial?
>
>
> What "open carry laws"? No such thing in VA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50416-2004Jul14.html

That's an interesting Post article, but there is no law in the code of Virginia that prohibits "open carry", nor is there a law which authorizes it. It simply isn't mentioned. There is a law which prohibits concealed carry and then makes an exception for permit-holders, but carrying unconcealed is not prohibited and is therefore lawful. Brandishing, carrying while intoxicated, and other stupid behavior involving firearms is illegal, but just possesing one in a holster is not.

When the Post calls it "the law of the land" they are being accurate, but perhaps not in the way they intended. Anything which isn't illegal is considered legal until a law is passed, and even then the law may be challenged in court if it is believed to violate someone's rights. That has been the "law of the land" since the birth of the U.S.

Please tell my 3 dead friends how well theirs guns protected them

Lurker. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please tell my 3 dead friends how well theirs guns
> protected them


guns arent a shield of invincibility, like everything else, they are a tool. tools only work if they are used correctly.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

So, what you are saying is that you work if used effectively?

I guess in a way this points out the accidents..misunderstanding...confusion that can result when carrying a gun. I say the gun owner got what he deserved.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, what you are saying is that you work if used
> effectively?

LOL! good one.



Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess in a way this points out the
> accidents..misunderstanding...confusion that can
> result when carrying a gun. I say the gun owner
> got what he deserved.

you do realize you are promoting that it's ok to violate citizens' rights. of all the political hissyfits you've thrown about rights, you are support this clear abuse of the law? you're more of a retard then ever.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Few of Vince(1)'s posts are compatible with the Constitution in general... I think he might have a badly-forged copy of it or something.

Speaking of forgeries, remember that you can never know if what he posts is his or plagiarized as he did here http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/103841/104207.html#msg-104137. So in a sense when you criticize Vince(1), you don't really know for sure who you are criticizing.

Yes Vince, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment
as an individual right. Get over it. Get used to it. Fortunately, here
in the Old Dominion we have all the gun laws on the books that we will
ever need. If you dont like it here, they get yer ass out. I would like
to thank the Violence Policy Center and the DC City officials for taking
the Heller case all the way to the Supremes. The NRA couldnt have hoped
for anything better.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess in a way this points out the
> accidents..misunderstanding...confusion that can
> result when carrying a gun. I say the gun owner
> got what he deserved.


So, Vince, I take it that it is okay with you for cops to make up laws that do not exist, as long as they are laws that you like?

How is your statement any different than when a conservative says, "Those < insert leftist victim group > deserved what the cops did to them, even though the cops broke the law!"

Either you believe in the rule of law and respect for rights, or you believe in rule by raw force.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2008 11:42AM by tomahawk.

Posted by: Vince(1) (IP Logged)
Date: July 06, 2008 06:57AM


I guess in a way this points out the accidents..misunderstanding...confusion that can result when carrying a gun. I say the gun owner got what he deserved.

---------------------------------------------------------

Wow, so Vince(1) thinks gun owners deserve death? Makes me wonder what punishment he thinks criminals should recv.

Ya.... the guy did nothing wrong.. everything reported was true and the guy did NOT run the red light either!

Sure!!!!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess in a way this points out the
> accidents..misunderstanding...confusion that can
> result when carrying a gun. I say the gun owner
> got what he deserved.


When you say he got what he deserved, I guess you mean that he got a well-justified legal claim against Fairfax County and will clean up financially, and deserved that?

Well, I might agree, but as a Fairfax County taxpayer, I hate to pay for mistakes made by poorly trained police officers!

Anyone carrying a gun in his/her vehicle is an idiot..and any police officer has the right to proceed based upon that conclusion.

I so can't wait to take down the crazed mall bomber lunatic AFTER he takes care of Vince. That way he'll get the level of protection from the law-abiding armed populace he craves, and the rest of us benefit from the Founder-given right to defend ourselves.

US Citizen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
and the rest
> of us benefit from the Founder-given right to
> defend ourselves.

That was how many years ago? Are you still hunting every day for food like our Founders and their guns? Are we still occupied by the British military?

I don't recall reading the words "hunting" or "British military" in the Constitution... maybe there is something wrong with my copy. The whole freedom of speech thing was many years ago too, let's revise the whole thing and dump that too.

The VCDL is almost an organization I could get behind.
Almost.

The way they list and berate businesses who don't allow firearms really turns me off.
The law that allows open carry is the same one that allows property owners to decide whether others are able to carry there.
The VCDL likes to ignore the second half in a militantly self righteous manner.
Every time I think about joining I just can't get over that stupid list on their site.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't recall reading the words "hunting" or
> "British military" in the Constitution... maybe
> there is something wrong with my copy. The whole
> freedom of speech thing was many years ago too,
> let's revise the whole thing and dump that too.

The Virginia State Constitution was amended to include the right
to hunt, trap, and fish. Get over it or move to Boston where
they only eat beansprouts and tofu.

Hide E. Prescott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Virginia State Constitution was amended to
> include the right
> to hunt, trap, and fish. Get over it or move to
> Boston where
> they only eat beansprouts and tofu.

The Supreme Court recently settled this but I guess some DC government workers who still don't understand it frequent the forums.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2008 08:53AM by pgens.

These VA cdl needs to get together with the citizens DWI patrol. What a party that would be.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hide E. Prescott Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Virginia State Constitution was amended to
> > include the right
> > to hunt, trap, and fish. Get over it or move to
> > Boston where
> > they only eat beansprouts and tofu.
>
> That's a fine addition and I'm all for it, but I'm
> not seeing the relevance of your comment to my
> post. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify that
> hunting shall not be infringed, it says bearing
> arms shall not be infringed. The Supreme Court
> recently settled this but I guess some DC
> government workers who still don't understand it
> frequent the forums.


In Heller vs. DC, the ruling stated that firearms were covered under
the 2nd Amendment for self defense and hunting purposes. By doing
so, the Supremes have affirmed a right to hunt too. I dont have
the info handy right now and believe it or not, some of us have
to work. Will dig up the exact words later.

Hide E. Prescott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hide E. Prescott Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Virginia State Constitution was amended
> to
> > > include the right
> > > to hunt, trap, and fish. Get over it or move
> to
> > > Boston where
> > > they only eat beansprouts and tofu.
> >
> > That's a fine addition and I'm all for it, but
> I'm
> > not seeing the relevance of your comment to my
> > post. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify that
> > hunting shall not be infringed, it says bearing
> > arms shall not be infringed. The Supreme Court
> > recently settled this but I guess some DC
> > government workers who still don't understand
> it
> > frequent the forums.
>
>
> In Heller vs. DC, the ruling stated that firearms
> were covered under
> the 2nd Amendment for self defense and hunting
> purposes. By doing
> so, the Supremes have affirmed a right to hunt
> too. I dont have
> the info handy right now and believe it or not,
> some of us have
> to work. Will dig up the exact words later.


From Fox News:

Scalia's opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting.

The brevity of Scalia's treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds.

That list is on the site to let gun owners know where not to go so as to NOT violate private property rights. Also it serves the purpose to inform gun owners where NOT to spend money.

Perhaps if you attended one, just one meeting they have in Annandale you could form a better opinion of the group. Until then, I'd say you are not as informed as you think you are.

------------------------------------------------------

Re: Virginia Citizens Defense League News Email new
Posted by: someguy2 ()

The VCDL is almost an organization I could get behind.
Almost.

The way they list and berate businesses who don't allow firearms really turns me off.
The law that allows open carry is the same one that allows property owners to decide whether others are able to carry there.
The VCDL likes to ignore the second half in a militantly self righteous manner.
Every time I think about joining I just can't get over that stupid list on their site.

From the site:

Quote

We maintain the Gun Owner Unfriendly Business List primarily of Virginia oriented and based Gun Unfriendly Businesses. Of course, there is a long list of national companies who want to take away our gun rights. They include:

That is my beef with the organization. I am a gun owner. I also have the right to not allow you to carry a gun on my property. Not allowing you to carry gun on my property is not "taking away your gun rights" it is the exercise of a separate but equal right to private property.

If the list was just a list of businesses, great.
Instead the page reads like a blog of some rambling lunatic that I in no way want to be associated.

The list in question:
http://www.vcdl.org/static/gue.html

someguy2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the site:
>
> We maintain the Gun Owner Unfriendly Business List
> primarily of Virginia oriented and based Gun
> Unfriendly Businesses. Of course, there is a long
> list of national companies who want to take away
> our gun rights. They include:
>
>
> That is my beef with the organization. I am a gun
> owner. I also have the right to not allow you to
> carry a gun on my property. Not allowing you to
> carry gun on my property is not "taking away your
> gun rights" it is the exercise of a separate but
> equal right to private property.

***

If the restaurants took away your right to free speech at the door ("You may not talk about Obama! Or McCain!", would that be the exercise of a separate but equal right to private property too? Is that OK with you?

If not, why do you find it OK for them to remove your 2nd Amendment rights but not your 1st Amendment rights?

Frank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> someguy2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > From the site:
> >
> > We maintain the Gun Owner Unfriendly Business
> List
> > primarily of Virginia oriented and based Gun
> > Unfriendly Businesses. Of course, there is a
> long
> > list of national companies who want to take
> away
> > our gun rights. They include:
> >
> >
> > That is my beef with the organization. I am a
> gun
> > owner. I also have the right to not allow you
> to
> > carry a gun on my property. Not allowing you to
> > carry gun on my property is not "taking away
> your
> > gun rights" it is the exercise of a separate
> but
> > equal right to private property.
>
> ***
>
> If the restaurants took away your right to free
> speech at the door ("You may not talk about Obama!
> Or McCain!", would that be the exercise of a
> separate but equal right to private property too?
> Is that OK with you?
>
> If not, why do you find it OK for them to remove
> your 2nd Amendment rights but not your 1st
> Amendment rights?


Well said! +1
Why is the 2nd Amendment always trashed by the liberal media,
but they are the first ones to scream and throw a tantrum
if somebody steps on the 1st? Perhaps its because Journalism
majors arent required to take Government 101. Or, perhaps they
only want Constitutional Rights to apply selectively and at
their discretion. Elitists make me want to throw up.

INstead of qualifying it as "liberal" media, please refer to it as media. I'm a liberal and whoa....I believe in both amendments, EQUALLY. I open carry. and I talk about politics...

but I also try not to judge and group people together as conservative or liberal and calling the media "liberal" speaks more of ignorance.

May you have access to all of your amendments as I do mine.

Quote

If the restaurants took away your right to free speech at the door ...

The above example would actually be legal, although incredibly odd.
Also, they aren't taking away your 1st amendment rights.
Some more examples:
Are you trying to "take away" my right to free speech by not letting me into your house so I can talk to you about obama/mccain?
If I am thrown out of your office for walking in and randomly talking to people through a bull horn are you infringing my right to free speech?
If I won't let you have a political rally on my lawn, am I infringing your right to free assembly?
Of course not.
The bill of rights protects you from the government, not other people.
The first amendment does not give you the right to speak in my living room.

Think about it this way, do you think it is illegal that certain restaurants have dress codes? (Jacket/tie, no hats, etc...)
Probably not.
Some places just prefer that part of the dress code is no gun, and that's fine.
I would find it equally ridiculous if some guy started a rant about restaurants that won't let him wear hats and how stupid the management there was, blah, blah, right to free expression, blah, blah.

Like I said, I own a gun and appreciate the second amendment.
I also appreciate that I can stop you from entering my property with your gun.
Both are equally important to me.

If you don't let me enter your house/business/car with a gun, do you really think you are limiting my right to bear arms?

Like I said, I'm cool with list if the intent is information. It clearly isn't. It's meant in a "boycott these assholes" kind of way, and I'm not down with that. It reflects poorly on the whole organization.

I knew there were guns owners with brains out there. Well said.

(I finally got unlazy and logged back in, been so long I even mixed up my handle with a friend of mine's)

Thanks 4wheeler

Gun ownership is relatively new to me so lets hope it lasts.
I see the vcdl will be at the gun show this weekend and so will I so I'm going to stop by and see what they have to say.

The only reason it really bugs me is that I was looking for an organization to support, but can't find one that comes close.

The NRA just seems like an arm of the republican party, a bridge to far for a lib like me.
The VCDL is a cult of personality.
The JFPO seems interesting, but alas, I am not jewish and it just seems weird.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2008 10:44PM by Somebody.

someguy2 Wrote:
> The way they list and berate businesses who don't allow firearms really turns me off. The law that allows open carry is the same one that allows property owners to decide whether others are able to carry there.

You're opposed to informing people which restaurants are hostile to gun owners?
I don't understand what the problem is.

Quote

You're opposed to informing people which restaurants are hostile to gun owners?

You are putting words in people's mouths. Read my previous posts where I say I actually like the list, not the insane commentaries that go along with them.

Not wanting guns in your place is different than being hostile to gun owners.
Most restaurants don't allow you to bring dogs either. Would you phrase this as "being hostile to dog owner's"

Even the name of the list "Gun owner unfriendly" is odd.
I own a gun, and none of those places are unfriendly to me.

some choice quotes from the list:

Quote

... has decided to ban all guns in his restaurant. One has to wonder how many people have been harmed at his restaurant, and on the way home by firearms, as contrasted with the number harmed as a result of the alcohol he serves?

Way to win friends and influence people guy.

Quote

... has taken the unfortunate decision to ban legally carried handguns. They, like so many other people who lack the ability to use logic at all

Ah yes, insult people, that will change their minds.

Quote

Still, now that I know they don't like us, I will be voting with my feet and not patronizing their restaurants, with gun or without.

Don't like us? Starting to get into cult indoctrination techniques here.

There is even contact info for property owner's posted with the not so subtle invitation to harass them into changing policies.

Any place that doesn't allow guns is considered anti 2nd amendment, or gun hating, or hostile to gun owner's to the head of the vcdl and this has apparently filtered down to its members. Its a very strange leap of logic and comes across like an extremist group.

I can't go into most of those places barefoot either.
Maybe I should start a list of places I can't enter barefoot. For each establishment I'll call them foot haters, or anti pedestrian or something and write them angry letters to post online saying they don't want my footed brother's business.
Now if really wanted to do this I'd post a simple list saying "Barefoot Not Allowed Here" and list the places. Short and sweet. No need for petty bickering.

As far as I can tell the vcdl puts their right to firearms above above the rights of other property owner's and until I see proof to the contrary I just won't be joining. No biggie. Not a loss to them or me, although respecting property owner's rights might just land the vcdl more members.
In its current state its just not a group I want to be associated with.

Somebody Wrote:
> As far as I can tell the vcdl puts their right to
> firearms above above the rights of other property owner's

I don't understand what "right" of the restaurant owner
you think is being violated. They have the right to make
a restaurant that people don't like, and VCDL members have
a right to tell each other not to go there because they
wouldn't like it. What is the problem that you see with that?

If you don't like the VCDL newsletter, why don't you either
unsubscribe from it, or join VCDL and convince the other
members that the newsletter needs adjusting? I think that
the members like the newsletters and agree with the sentiments
expressed there. Your characterizations of "odd", "cult",
and "extremists" suggests that VCDL is not the group for you.

You say that you can't find a gun rights organization
that you want to support. I think you should create
your own, and if there are people who think like you do,
you'll find plenty of people to help you do so.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2008 06:13AM by Spacy.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn't say the vcdl violates property owner's rights.
I said it disrespects them by ridiculing them when they request no firearms on their property.

My language was a bit harsh with the descriptions, but such is life when discussing things on them there interwebs.

Let me sum it up since I'm off to the gun show:

I really respect what the vcdl has accomplished, especially in regards to CCW and open carry.
I was so impressed that several months ago I went to the website to join/donate.
I found the attitude of the site towards certain people disappointing and not representative of my views.
I decided to put my wallet away.

My donation won't make or break the organization.
My lack of donation isn't a protest against the organization.
My lack of donation isn't meant to change the organization.

Many organizations would love to see honest feedback like this to judge how it is viewed by potential dues paying members, that's all this is.
As (I'm assuming) a member of the vcdl you are free to do with this what you want. Ignore it. Burn it. Think about it. Whatever.