OUTRAGE in Virginia!

[drjoker]

I invite y'all to stop disagreeing and start donating to this dude's legal defense fund. Keith B is right. This dude will probably get convicted IF he is defended by a public defender. Remember, together we stand, divided we fall. If YOU were arrested on a bogus charge by a bully cop, wouldn't you like your fellow man to help you out?

P.S. I do not mean that all cops are bullies, but the cop who arrested this brave 2nd A protester IS a bully.

[Purplehood]

Just out of curiosity (because I honestly don't know), how has the public and most especially LEO's reacted in Constitutional-carry states?

C-dub,

think a decent lawyer should be able to get him acquitted if it even goes to trial.

The problem I have is that it even had to go to trial in the first place. It is "legal" to OC in VA but you get this kind of garbage from the law?

[Bullwhip]

I invite y'all to stop disagreeing and start donating to this dude's legal defense fund.

I don't know him, never met him, never even knew his real name until I saw it in the news, only knew his comments and research on the internet. But Skidmark is a good guy, knows the law, and insists on his rights.

More Texans should insist on their rights.

[C-dub]

Just out of curiosity (because I honestly don't know), how has the public and most especially LEO's reacted in Constitutional-carry states?

C-dub,

think a decent lawyer should be able to get him acquitted if it even goes to trial.

The problem I have is that it even had to go to trial in the first place. It is "legal" to OC in VA but you get this kind of garbage from the law?

From reading accounts on OCDO it seems like the general public is more curious that upset. Many calls to the police are asking if it is illegal more than telling them they are scared and to come get this guy. It is the reaction of the police that seem to cause the most problems. Maybe those that react badly see it is a threat to their authority or maybe they are just worried about their own safety. In reality I don't think that either of those two things are credible or real threats from the people that are openly carrying.

If the police would just not respond or at least over-react to people acting lawfully those actors would stop getting in the police's faces. By this I mean that the person openly carrying and putting themselves in LE face they are acting like bullies and LE are just validating the bully's issues. If LE would stop trying to find something to arrest these people they would just fade away. LE is giving them way too much attention that they are not worthy of and they feed on that. When someone calls and says there is some guy walking his dog with a gun on his hip and just asks if this is legal the police should simply respond, yes, and leave it at that.

[chartreuse]

When Skidmark asked him what authority the first guy had to order him out of the car, the supervisor basically called Skidmark a liar and told him that what had just happened never did happen. Skidmark pointed his finger at the supervisor, punctuating the word, "you", and said, "You don't know, you weren't there."

The supervisor took the finger-pointing as "a threat" and ended up calling the Sheriff's office.

Sure smells like a railroading to me.

"Feeling threatened" isn't the same as "actually was threatened".

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... d+18.2-282" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMHO, if the prosecution go this route, it will come down to arguments over "hold" and "brandish" (which have already been discussed) and over "reasonably", which AndyC raises here. Did the man's actions induce fear in the mind of the supervisor and were those feelings reasonable? In English law the stated case is "Wednesbury Reasonableness" - I have no idea what the equivalent is in VA law, or if one exists.

[Keith B]

You assume that Skidmark had an "attitude," but I can't find any time during this incident where Skidmark would have lost his professionalism. In fact, reading throughout the Open Carry forum and other members' description of Skidmark, he's a pretty stand-up guy. In your interpretation, merely having a civil disagreement with any authority figure (No, you can't see my drivers license, or No, you may not search my vehicle, or No, I was not speeding) can be viewed as arguing and lead to an arrest if a firearm is in sight. Ridiculous. Brandishing is unconstitutionally vague if it allows for the latter.

Was Skidmark within his rights to open carry and refuse searches? Yes. Did he violate the law? No. This is obviously a malicious charge against a man who stood up for his rights.

Instead of viewing this as a reason to not open carry, lets use this time to educate others on how our rights are constantly under attack.

You are just going on 'friends' statements at Open Carry. If I knew the guy, I might back him up too if I felt he was wronged, but I don't know him or his friends. And I don't take the word of 'friends' or Internet acquaintances as gospel. Remember, a fellow gang member will tell you another member of their gang is a 'stand up guy'. And, as they say, there are three sides to every story: His side, the other side , and the truth. The truth lies in the middle somewhere.

As for his attitude, it was stated he was pointing fingers, and challenging the security person and supervisor. Physical finger pointing during a disagreement is generally interpreted as a threatening gesture by most people. Psychology will tell you that.

As for what he HAD to do, he HAD to submit to a search if he wanted to board the ferry. Their rules state you must consent to a search if requested. He HAD the option to refuse, turn around and leave. He didn't and went in to challenge the supervisor on the rules. And, apparently there was enough of an issue that they felt they had to call in the Sheriff's department to settle the issue. That would have happened if he had just been calmly discussing the rules with the supervisor. So, the guy was mad that he had to submit to a search or couldn't go on the ferry, argued with the attendant, supervisor and apparently the deputy about the rules. I call that an attitude. Was it bad enough to be arrested for it? Apprently, but that will come out in court.

Here is a picture of one of the signs and their FAQ's for a ferry in Virginia that is ran by the VDOT.



http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/ferry ... n-faqs.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Oldgringo]

Aha! I kinda' figgered there was more to the story than what had leaked out. Yepper, it sure looks like 'ol Skidmark done fouled his nest.

Several years ago, Mrs. Oldgringo and I had our 5th wheel RV and truck searched inside and out before we could proceed across Hoover Dam. We had the choice of turning around but we allowed the search and went merrily on our way.

Isn't this basically the choice that airline travelers have today - get searched or stay home?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I invite y'all to stop disagreeing and start donating to this dude's legal defense fund.

Don't you think whether to donate is an individual decision? As Keith pointed out, no one knows what happened except the people who were involved and any eye/ear witnesses. I read the thread in the OP's link and I don't even see Skidmarks' version of the events. (I presume his attorney told him not to talk about it; I certainly would.) All I see are comments from his friends and supporters. I'm not saying they're wrong, but I don't know them or Skidmark and we all know how much we can trust the media's initial reports. I'm not discouraging anyone from donating if they want to do so, but your invitation to stop discussing the issue and pony up money is rather heavy-handed.

The Virginia brandishing statute is overly broad in my view and the law should be repealed or at least narrowed. (Are either OCDO or VCDL working on this?) It appears that just wearing a visible handgun during an argument could violate the statute, so I suspect that arguing with someone and wagging your finger in their face would be pretty strong evidence. I can only imagine what the court would do if someone doing this also rested their hand on their handgun! The VA law is terrible.

There are different ways to "stand up for your rights." You can argue with ferry security personal and their supervisors, then argue with a deputy sheriff, then state your position in court when you go to trial. That's one way to do it. Or you could go to your state senator or representative and present them with evidence of the event, the absurdity of the law, and respectfully ask him/her to change the law. I think I know which approach has a better chance of changing a very bad law.

Chas.

[ScottDLS]

You assume that Skidmark had an "attitude," but I can't find any time during this incident where Skidmark would have lost his professionalism. In fact, reading throughout the Open Carry forum and other members' description of Skidmark, he's a pretty stand-up guy. In your interpretation, merely having a civil disagreement with any authority figure (No, you can't see my drivers license, or No, you may not search my vehicle, or No, I was not speeding) can be viewed as arguing and lead to an arrest if a firearm is in sight. Ridiculous. Brandishing is unconstitutionally vague if it allows for the latter.

Was Skidmark within his rights to open carry and refuse searches? Yes. Did he violate the law? No. This is obviously a malicious charge against a man who stood up for his rights.

Instead of viewing this as a reason to not open carry, lets use this time to educate others on how our rights are constantly under attack.

You are just going on 'friends' statements at Open Carry. If I knew the guy, I might back him up too if I felt he was wronged, but I don't know him or his friends. And I don't take the word of 'friends' or Internet acquaintances as gospel. Remember, a fellow gang member will tell you another member of their gang is a 'stand up guy'. And, as they say, there are three sides to every story: His side, the other side , and the truth. The truth lies in the middle somewhere.

As for his attitude, it was stated he was pointing fingers, and challenging the security person and supervisor. Physical finger pointing during a disagreement is generally interpreted as a threatening gesture by most people. Psychology will tell you that.

As for what he HAD to do, he HAD to submit to a search if he wanted to board the ferry. Their rules state you must consent to a search if requested. He HAD the option to refuse, turn around and leave. He didn't and went in to challenge the supervisor on the rules. And, apparently there was enough of an issue that they felt they had to call in the Sheriff's department to settle the issue. That would have happened if he had just been calmly discussing the rules with the supervisor. So, the guy was mad that he had to submit to a search or couldn't go on the ferry, argued with the attendant, supervisor and apparently the deputy about the rules. I call that an attitude. Was it bad enough to be arrested for it? Apprently, but that will come out in court.

Here is a picture of one of the signs and their FAQ's for a ferry in Virginia that is ran by the VDOT.



http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/ferry ... n-faqs.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What if the Texas State Fair said you couldn't carry after their search revealed your concealed handgun? VDOT is a state agency and Virginia has pre-emption. He was arguing that he couldn't be denied entry while carrying, not against being searched. Would you feel any differently if he was concealed and the search revealed his gun?

[Keith B]

What if the Texas State Fair said you couldn't carry after their search revealed your concealed handgun? VDOT is a state agency and Virginia has pre-emption. He was arguing that he couldn't be denied entry while carrying, not against being searched. Would you feel any differently if he was concealed and the search revealed his gun?

Uh, no, he was arguing about having to get out of his car for a search. He was trying to state that he didn't have to get out of the car, but if him being in the car prevented the proper search of the car, then they had the right to deny him access. If the rules say you must consent to a search, then you do that and if they deny you access because of your gun and the law states they can't do that, THEN you deal with it in a manner conducive to working within the system not fighting with the guys at the bottom. That will usually get you nowhere unfortunately.

[Keith B]

The Virginia brandishing statute is overly broad in my view and the law should be repealed or at least narrowed. (Are either OCDO or VCDL working on this?) It appears that just wearing a visible handgun during an argument could violate the statute, so I suspect that arguing with someone and wagging your finger in their face would be pretty strong evidence. I can only imagine what the court would do if someone doing this also rested their hand on their handgun! The VA law is terrible.

All of the brandishing laws I have seen are painted with a pretty wide brush. Here is California and Missouri's laws, to name two. Bottom line, they are a real potential trap for anyone carrying and getting into an argument or fight.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/417.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

The Virginia brandishing statute is overly broad in my view and the law should be repealed or at least narrowed. (Are either OCDO or VCDL working on this?) It appears that just wearing a visible handgun during an argument could violate the statute, so I suspect that arguing with someone and wagging your finger in their face would be pretty strong evidence. I can only imagine what the court would do if someone doing this also rested their hand on their handgun! The VA law is terrible.

All of the brandishing laws I have seen are painted with a pretty wide brush. Here is California and Missouri's laws, to name two. Bottom line, they are a real potential trap for anyone carrying and getting into an argument or fight.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/417.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, they are terrible also! I don't like the concept of "brandishing" precisely for the reasons you bring up; the statutes are grossly over-broad. They are also unnecessary, since the assault statutes of most states are sufficient to deal with people who wrongfully use weapons to threaten or intimidate people. Brandishing statues are even more problematic in states in which it is supposedly legal to openly carry a handgun. If the mere presence of a handgun in a holster will support a brandishing charge when a disagreement occurs, then an otherwise legal act becomes illegal simply due to one's tone of voice. Again, that's absurd.

Chas.

[Fangs]

I'm thinking anyone who would name himself "Skidmark" has already got a couple of strikes against him.

You went there didn't ya? I wasn't going to, but you did.

Honestly, something similar crossed my mind as well at first. Then I followed this link on the OC forum: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/list/gotc ... 0/gallery/

Click over 'til you get to Paul Henick. Not sure why, but I'd trust that guy with a gun.

[Keith B]

I'm thinking anyone who would name himself "Skidmark" has already got a couple of strikes against him.

You went there didn't ya? I wasn't going to, but you did.

Honestly, something similar crossed my mind as well at first. Then I followed this link on the OC forum: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/list/gotc ... 0/gallery/

Click over 'til you get to Paul Henick. Not sure why, but I'd trust that guy with a gun.

Apprently skidmark (Paul Henick) is a very vocal gun rights activist in Virginia. Makes me wonder if he was not looking to push the issue and it went too far.

See
http://www.dof.virginia.gov/stforest/am ... ndguns.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www2.nelsoncountytimes.com/news/ ... ar-553223/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2007 ... ar-153500/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[steveincowtown]

You assume that Skidmark had an "attitude," but I can't find any time during this incident where Skidmark would have lost his professionalism. In fact, reading throughout the Open Carry forum and other members' description of Skidmark, he's a pretty stand-up guy. In your interpretation, merely having a civil disagreement with any authority figure (No, you can't see my drivers license, or No, you may not search my vehicle, or No, I was not speeding) can be viewed as arguing and lead to an arrest if a firearm is in sight. Ridiculous. Brandishing is unconstitutionally vague if it allows for the latter.

Was Skidmark within his rights to open carry and refuse searches? Yes. Did he violate the law? No. This is obviously a malicious charge against a man who stood up for his rights.

Instead of viewing this as a reason to not open carry, lets use this time to educate others on how our rights are constantly under attack.

You are just going on 'friends' statements at Open Carry. If I knew the guy, I might back him up too if I felt he was wronged, but I don't know him or his friends. And I don't take the word of 'friends' or Internet acquaintances as gospel. Remember, a fellow gang member will tell you another member of their gang is a 'stand up guy'. And, as they say, there are three sides to every story: His side, the other side , and the truth. The truth lies in the middle somewhere.

As for his attitude, it was stated he was pointing fingers, and challenging the security person and supervisor. Physical finger pointing during a disagreement is generally interpreted as a threatening gesture by most people. Psychology will tell you that.

As for what he HAD to do, he HAD to submit to a search if he wanted to board the ferry. Their rules state you must consent to a search if requested. He HAD the option to refuse, turn around and leave. He didn't and went in to challenge the supervisor on the rules. And, apparently there was enough of an issue that they felt they had to call in the Sheriff's department to settle the issue. That would have happened if he had just been calmly discussing the rules with the supervisor. So, the guy was mad that he had to submit to a search or couldn't go on the ferry, argued with the attendant, supervisor and apparently the deputy about the rules. I call that an attitude. Was it bad enough to be arrested for it? Apprently, but that will come out in court.

Here is a picture of one of the signs and their FAQ's for a ferry in Virginia that is ran by the VDOT.



http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/ferry ... n-faqs.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't post alot, so I can't tell if Keith if is being "tongue in cheek" here. Just because someone post a sign does not make it consitutional, legal, moral, or even right. I do agree with the truth being someone in the middle. Not that I know the cop, or know Skidmark, but I lived 5 miles from that ferry for 15 years and OC'd over 7 of it without an incident in VA at anytime or anywhere. I suspect the truth lies in the middle as well.