Virginia man arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon

[Edwardteach72]

No. What happened was that I was in the checkout line at the supermarket last summer in my hometown in Orange County. I was wearing an almost tight t-shirt that I threw on real quick just to go and was printing.

The lady behind me kept watching me as I was loading groceries onto the belt. When I finished loading the groceries on the belt she asked me where did I work? I looked at her dumbfoundead and said, "in the city." She said, " What precinct? I said, "I don't work in a precinct." She said, "It shows." I was still confused so I said, "What that I work in the city?" She said, "No. Your sidearm."I said. Ok. I waited to get rung up and left.

She thought that I must have been a cop or some federal officer or something. I believe she was too by the lingo she was using.

I hated that. Some think it's funny and cool like a badge of honor. I look at it as sloppiness. It's being piss-poor at your your craft. She made me out. A criminal could make me out too. No one needs to know that I'm carrying but myself and the guy who means me harm.

That must have been horrible, I cant believe how violated you were by road pirates depriving you of your civil liberties and turning that store into Nazi occupied German... man as I was reading that story I just kept having to remind myself you were the one telling it and you infect are still alive after that experience

 

[nortatoga]

Some just want to keep ignoring the the SCOTUS long ago rule that concealed weapons can be prohibited (1897) FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion

Which Heller v DC reaffirmed!

 

[Marine Cpl]

That must have been horrible, I cant believe how violated you were by road pirates depriving you of your civil liberties and turning that store into Nazi occupied German... man as I was reading that story I just kept having to remind myself you were the one telling it and you infect are still alive after that experience

No. But she could have stepped out of line and called the police like in the OP article and then....


1. I would be hassled.

Or

2. I would be on the ground fearing for my life for their safety for the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Some just want to keep ignoring the the SCOTUS long ago rule that concealed weapons can be prohibited (1897) FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion

Which Heller v DC reaffirmed!

Not this shit again. We get it. You like 2A restrictions. You support Justices ruling impartially and gathering conjecture to get those restrictions.

 

[nortatoga]

Not this shit again. We get it. You like 2A restrictions. You support Justices ruling impartially and gathering conjecture to get those restrictions.

No the shit is from you! You don't decide what is or isn't Constitutional the SCOTUS does and has final word! Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so!

 

[Marine Cpl]

No the shit is from you! You don't decide what is or isn't Constitutional the SCOTUS does and has final word! Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so!

I destroyed your argument in previous threads. Sorry. Quotes from the founders themselves are proof that the judges pick and choose and use conjecture as ways to limit our rights. And the fact that you have to sell it a certain way so that the Democrat judges can vote on it or put it off because there are too many Democrat judges proves the court's corruption and impartiality.

You'll take their decisions all the way to the slaughterhouse.

 

[nortatoga]

I destroyed your argument in previous threads. Sorry. Quotes from the founders themselves are proof that the judges pick and choose and use conjecture as ways to limit our rights. And the fact that you have to sell it a certain way so that the Democrat judges can vote on it or put it off because there are too many Democrat judges proves the court's corruption and impartiality.

You'll take their decisions all the way to the slaughterhouse.

No Will you have never destroyed or won on this topic!

 

[Marine Cpl]

No Will you have never destroyed or won on this topic!

I beg to differ. Facts are facts.

 

[@thewheels]

You don't decide what is or isn't Constitutional the SCOTUS does and has final word!

Final word indeed. Even when they've screwed the pooch.

They had the final word in Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board of education which essentially overturned Plessy.

Which of those was the CORRECT final word? Constitutionally speaking?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Or Korematsu v. United States.

Or Kelo v. City of New London.

Or Dred Scott v. Sanford.

And many others where the judges used politics instead of inpartiality or the Constitution itself.

 

[nortatoga]

Final word indeed. Even when they've screwed the pooch.

They had the final word in Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board of education which essentially overturned Plessy.

Which of those was the CORRECT final word? Constitutionally speaking?

Yes they did overturn that ruling!

Now maybe you and Will could get the to overturn Heller V DC?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yes they did overturn that ruling!

Now maybe you and Will could get the to overturn Heller V DC?

I would need to wait until there is a full 100% conservative judge panel because moderate and liberal judges can't rule impartially or as per the Constitution itself. Proof of corruption right there.

 

[@thewheels]

Yes they did overturn that ruling!

Now maybe you and Will could get the to overturn Heller V DC?

I'm simply pointing out that they've gotten it wrong and everyone should slow their roll and consider that when it comes to putting stock in their past rulings.

 

[Edwardteach72]

No. But she could have stepped out of line and called the police like in the OP article and then....


1. I would be hassled.

Or

2. I would be on the ground fearing for my life for their safety for the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.

Did she? No she didnt. Nazi SS troopers did not come storming after you.

It's funny how originally you talked about how you were "made" and and then talk about papers and cops being called, then the actual story was some chick saw you were carrying at a store and was like oh sorry though you were a cop but you arent, see you later.

Only people that are worried about "printing" are those who are themselves not comfortable carrying to begin with.


But hey will I get why you would he scared. As a middle class white guy that will go south super fast

 

[Toecutter]

As much as I'd like to see cops upholding their oath. This situation is difficult . Call come in a guy has a gun. Police dispatched, what is the officer going to report ? There was no gun? He had an out of state permit and I let him go? Once the call goes in there isn't much he can do, if a cop saw him printing or even open carrying aproched him off the book sort of speak he has some discretion ..... Until all cops have cameras strapped to their chests.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Did she? No she didnt. Nazi SS troopers did not come storming after you.

It's funny how originally you talked about how you were "made" and and then talk about papers and cops being called, then the actual story was some chick saw you were carrying at a store and was like oh sorry though you were a cop but you arent, see you later.

Only people that are worried about "printing" are those who are themselves not comfortable carrying to begin with.


But hey will I get why you would he scared. As a middle class white guy that will go south super fast

I guess you refuse to see the point for the sake of argument. Okay. That Virginian guy had nothing to be scared of too or the countless others throughout the country that have been disarmed for officer safety when having their papers checked.

Yes I'm petrified. I cower in corners. Or maybe I don't want to be put in that situation at all and just go about my business without interruption or possible disarmament. Who knows? But in the interest of the Edwardteach argument, I'll just say that I cower in corners so that you can feel better about trying to win an argument with your countless ridiculous posts in this thread.

 

[Airborneguy]

Until all cops have cameras strapped to their chests.

The camera takes discretion away in these cases.

When cameras were the hot topic on this forum, I brought this up numerous times. Body cameras are mostly a bad thing for the citizens, but 100% a good thing for the cops. That's my assessment. The idea that rampant abuses were happening and body cameras would stop them was false, agenda driven propaganda.

Absent a camera, there are innumerable ways I can think of to settle a situation like this, even with him actually carrying, easily and without worry. Once the body camera comes in, that's no longer possible and I'm going to do what I have to.

 

[Phauxtoe]

Point One, Printing is very bad if you are illegally caring a gun!

 

[Edwardteach72]

I guess you refuse to see the point for the sake of argument. Okay. That Virginian guy had nothing to be scared of too or the countless others throughout the country that have been disarmed for officer safety when having their papers checked.

Yes I'm petrified. I cower in corners. Or maybe I don't want to be put in that situation at all and just go about my business without interruption or possible disarmament. Who knows? But in the interest of the Edwardteach argument, I'll just say that I cower in corners so that you can feel better about trying to win an argument with your countless ridiculous posts in this thread.

I mean I get why you are afraid, especially after that terrifying encounter with an oath breaker you had. It's ok you are safe now

 

[Marine Cpl]

I mean I get why you are afraid, especially after that terrifying encounter with an oath breaker you had. It's ok you are safe now

Here Edward. You can post amongst your people that are okay with being disarmed and praise the officers on that forum for doing so. At this point it's not worth arguing with you anymore on this subject. You've clearly shown that it's all about winning a fight for you with nonsense posts.

Disarming CCW carriers. - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

 

[Edwardteach72]

Here Edward. You can post amongst your people that are okay with being disarmed and praise the officers on that forum for doing so. At this point it's not worth arguing with you anymore on this subject. You've clearly shown that it's all about winning a fight for you with nonsense posts.

Disarming CCW carriers. - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

When did you get disarmed?

 

[Marine Cpl]

When did you get disarmed?

Dumbass. I guess all encounters are the exact same each and every time.

 

[Acer-m14]

SCOTUS was wrong on all gun cases .. period!!!! .. the bloods , MS13 , ect ect .. still carry concealed weapons

so what was prohibited ?? "concealed weapons can be prohibited "

2A is the red headed step child from all the other amendments



PS .. your pocket knife is a CCW

 

[Rocpo]

No. But she could have stepped out of line and called the police like in the OP article and then....


1. I would be hassled.

Or

2. I would be on the ground fearing for my life for their safety for the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.

You mean like when you hassled all those innocent Iraqis at Abu Gharib? All you military guys violated your oath when you invaded Iraq. That's.... like.. really nazi shit.

I always fear for my safety around military guys. I read online that you guys all have PTSD and are gun crazed.

So yeah... guns.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You mean like when you hassled all those innocent Iraqis at Abu Gharib? All you military guys violated your oath when you invaded Iraq. That's.... like.. really nazi shit.

I always fear for my safety around military guys. I read online that you guys all have PTSD and are gun crazed.

So yeah... guns.

I never went to Abu Gharib. And what oath would that be that was violated?

And don't act like nobody ever got shot when trying to obey commands.

 

[Rocpo]

I never went to Abu Gharib. And what oath would that be that was violated?

And don't act like nobody ever got shot when trying to obey commands.

Doesn't matter. YOU were military. THEY were military. Same cloth.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
True fath and allegiance to the same... and according to regulations of the UCMJ.

So you're just as a big an offender as those personnel were.
If I'm accountable for EVERY cops actions as you believe, then you my friend get to be accountable for all military actions.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Doesn't matter. YOU were military. THEY were military. Same cloth.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
True fath and allegiance to the same... and according to regulations of the UCMJ.

So you're just as a big an offender as those personnel were.

So what was the exact oath violation there?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Haha. The thin blue line is strong with this clown.

 

[Rocpo]

I'll put it in bold for you this time.

True fath and allegiance to the same... and according to regulations of the UCMJ.

Only clown here is you son.

 

[Acer-m14]

@Rocpo .. when over seas the oath to the Constitution of the United States has no bearing there