TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:Yikes, sounds like a good argument against OC.

Good eye!

Let me see if I understand this. The thing that meets the definition of "brandishing" in this case is that he started the argument? Otherwise, it would not? I'm not sure I'm convinced he started the argument, but more on that in a minute.

Unless he did something to the deputy, I also don't see how the security person or supervisor meets the criteria as either a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer. If he had done something to make the deputy feel threatened he would have been arrested on the spot.

If he had not gone to the supervisor probably nothing would have happened. I also don't look at is though this guy started the argument. Depending on how the "conversation" began I think the supervisor started the argument by telling him what happened didn't happen when he wasn't even there.

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

Is the obstruction of justice part about refusing to give the deputy a DL? He might think that because he wasn't in or operating his car that he didn't have to, but if that is how he got there and how he left I think he's going to have a hard time with this part.

OC of a Rohrbaugh?

Purplehood wrote:Yikes, sounds like a good argument against OC.

Sounds like a good argument for rewriting their brandishing laws. You can't have a law that makes you get in trouble for someone else picking an argument with you while you're taking a walk in the park.

Sounds like a good argument for rewriting their brandishing laws. You can't have a law that makes you get in trouble for someone else picking an argument with you while you're taking a walk in the park.

Yes.

I find it disturbing that some of you are using this against Open Carry.

I find it more disturbing that simply arguing with a weapon in sight is being a reason for arrest. Disgusting.

McKnife wrote:

Sounds like a good argument for rewriting their brandishing laws. You can't have a law that makes you get in trouble for someone else picking an argument with you while you're taking a walk in the park.

Yes.

I find it disturbing that some of you are using this against Open Carry.

I find it more disturbing that simply arguing with a weapon in sight is being a reason for arrest. Disgusting.

Carrying a gun, OC or CC, is serious business and demands that one be on one's best non-confrontational behavior. One can be right and still be wrong...even after lots of money has changed hands. A gun, even if holstered, in full view is not going to help diffuse the situation.

Just sayin...

McKnife wrote:

Sounds like a good argument for rewriting their brandishing laws. You can't have a law that makes you get in trouble for someone else picking an argument with you while you're taking a walk in the park.

Yes.

I find it disturbing that some of you are using this against Open Carry.

I find it more disturbing that simply arguing with a weapon in sight is being a reason for arrest. Disgusting.

The true fact of the matter is that a weapon in sight of some people causes emotions to run high. It isn't like you are now wearing a John Deere hat instead of bare headed. It is a GUN! There are many who DON'T think non-LEO or Military should be carrying weapons. That includes some LEO, LEO-wanna-be's (security guards, etc.) and just some general public. Right, wrong or otherwise with Open Carry you will find those that just don't like it or don't understand and will call because they can now see it and know you have it.

And, brandishing is a pretty wide open for interpretation as a law. In this case, the guy's attitude and arguing escalated the case. Trying to prove a point and argue with anyone in a actual or assumed role of authority usually gets you in hot water. Try it at work, when you get stopped for a traffic violation, or even with the wife; it gets you in trouble every time. And, while this guy may eventually get exonerated, he is having to pay for a lawyer (or hope others collect enough to pay his legal fees) and deal with the hassle and headaches of fighting this.

So, if you want to be test cases for something, that is your right, and you can fight it. If you are in the right, you MAY win, or you will have to appeal it if you don't, and spend more money. Otherwise, a cool head and trying to work the system is IMO a much better method of getting things accomplished instead of trying to bully your way through the china shop.

Keith B wrote:

McKnife wrote:

Sounds like a good argument for rewriting their brandishing laws. You can't have a law that makes you get in trouble for someone else picking an argument with you while you're taking a walk in the park.

Yes.

I find it disturbing that some of you are using this against Open Carry.

I find it more disturbing that simply arguing with a weapon in sight is being a reason for arrest. Disgusting.

The true fact of the matter is that a weapon in sight of some people causes emotions to run high. It isn't like you are now wearing a John Deere hat instead of bare headed. It is a GUN! There are many who DON'T think non-LEO or Military should be carrying weapons. That includes some LEO, LEO-wanna-be's (security guards, etc.) and just some general public. Right, wrong or otherwise with Open Carry you will find those that just don't like it or don't understand and will call because they can now see it and know you have it.

And, brandishing is a pretty wide open for interpretation as a law. In this case, the guy's attitude and arguing escalated the case. Trying to prove a point and argue with anyone in a actual or assumed role of authority usually gets you in hot water. Try it at work, when you get stopped for a traffic violation, or even with the wife; it gets you in trouble every time. And, while this guy may eventually get exonerated, he is having to pay for a lawyer (or hope others collect enough to pay his legal fees) and deal with the hassle and headaches of fighting this.

So, if you want to be test cases for something, that is your right, and you can fight it. If you are in the right, you MAY win, or you will have to appeal it if you don't, and spend more money. Otherwise, a cool head and trying to work the system is IMO a much better method of getting things accomplished instead of trying to bully your way through the china shop.

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.

McKnife wrote: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.

It appears that the definition of brandishing under Virginia law is very broad. Whether or not it is unconstitutionally vague may or may not have already been answered by a court challenge. This case is a great example why Texas doesn't have a brandishing statute.

You argue that this case should not be used as a reason not to open carry. It's up to each individual to make this decision. I do find it interesting, and I think illustrative of the fact that open-carry in states where it is technically legal is not necessarily without headaches. And this event occurred in Virginia, the home of OCDO and VCDL.

I'm not saying Skidmark was wrong or that he violated Virginia's brandishing statute. I don't know what happened, but neither do the folks at OCDO. I am saying that what is legal is not necessarily done. As I've noted before, if open-carry was truly a carefree exercise in the states where it is technically legal, then OCDO would have no reason to exist. Even a cursory review of the site including the state forums makes it clear that open-carry often results in problems for the carrier, whether justified or not. To deny this fact is to deny reality.

Chas.

McKnife wrote:

Sounds like a good argument for rewriting their brandishing laws. You can't have a law that makes you get in trouble for someone else picking an argument with you while you're taking a walk in the park.

Yes.

I find it disturbing that some of you are using this against Open Carry.

I find it more disturbing that simply arguing with a weapon in sight is being a reason for arrest. Disgusting.

Then I guess I'm disgusting.

On the other hand, if you can't see how a person in authority who is NOT a gun enthusiast and who does NOT support the RKBA might see an openly carried gun and might (irrationally) feel threatened by that gun, then you're not very observant of human nature.

On the whole, I'd rather be disgusting than blind to the obvious.

Have a good day.

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

JNMAR wrote: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.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

McKnife wrote:

Sounds like a good argument for rewriting their brandishing laws. You can't have a law that makes you get in trouble for someone else picking an argument with you while you're taking a walk in the park.

Yes.

I find it disturbing that some of you are using this against Open Carry.

I find it more disturbing that simply arguing with a weapon in sight is being a reason for arrest. Disgusting.

Then I guess I'm disgusting.

On the other hand, if you can't see how a person in authority who is NOT a gun enthusiast and who does NOT support the RKBA might see an openly carried gun and might (irrationally) feel threatened by that gun, then you're not very observant of human nature.

On the whole, I'd rather be disgusting than blind to the obvious.

Have a good day.

TAM... you're not disgusting and you're not blind either.

I think we should adopt Constitutional Carry similar to Arizona... or Vermont. Of course it should be a personal choice whether to carry openly or concealed, or both. My beef with this issue is that this choice should be a standard in all states. We should all be in support of the 2nd amendment regardless of how we bear arms, so using Skidmark's incident as an example of why open carry is bad doesn't help our 2nd amendment battle.

I don't expect change to happen overnight... maybe in this upcoming session??? I expect us to gain these carrying standards back as slowly as they were taken away.

I am not blind to the fact that there are many Feds and Locals who don't agree with me. I am fully aware that they'll openly disregard it and proactively fight it. (i.e. Chuck Rosenthal and my personal run-in with Big Bend Park Rangers)

Picking and choosing you battles are important, and I think Open Carry is close to #1. Force the public to become accustomed and comfortable seeing guns on people's hips, and the other battles become much easier.