You could be falsley arrested for invalid or expired permit

[Grapeshot]

Bad information from VSP.

"
The Virginia State Police are way, way behind on entering CHP holder information into the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN).

What that means is that if you are stopped by law enforcement, who for some reason doesn't trust the validity of your CHP, and the officer queries VCIN, he might be told incorrectly that your permit doesn't exist (if new) or has expired!

Supposedly the VCIN system puts up a message warning officer's that it's data is not to be blindly trusted, but I'm hearing some officers are doing so anyway and there have been arrests. If the VCIN information isn't 100% accurate, why are the State Police even providing it? That's a recipe for disaster.

IF YOU HAVE BEEN **FALSELY** ARRESTED FOR AN INVALID OR EXPIRED CHP, OR KNOW SOMEONE WHO HAS, VCDL NEEDS THE DETAILS!

We need to get to the bottom of this situation. Like I said, publishing incorrect information on VCIN is worse than not publishing any information at all.

Please spread this message on any chat groups where Virginia gun owners are likely to see it.

They can contact me, Philip Van Cleave, at president@vcdl.org or by calling 804-639-0600.

 

[FBrinson]

Thanks

Bad information from VSP.

"
The Virginia State Police are way, way behind on entering CHP holder information into the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN).

What that means is that if you are stopped by law enforcement, who for some reason doesn't trust the validity of your CHP, and the officer queries VCIN, he might be told incorrectly that your permit doesn't exist (if new) or has expired!

.....

Good to know. I let mine expire but I will need it again for hunting season. Thanks!

 

[Maverick9]

In my experience the VSP can not even be trusted to follow their own protocols. The one stop I had (only one in my lifetime of six decades) was for an expired inspection sticker (the car had been in a garage for 6 months), and he said he did NOT want to see my permit because he checks his screen instead, and he wanted to ask questions about the location of any firearm and wanted me to get into his cruiser (over an equipment issue, no less) and all sorts of foolishness

I maintained a jovial attitude which he seemed to appreciate and kept saying 'I'd rather not' and it went without incident. But jeeze you'd think the just make it all up on the fly instead of following SOP and their Oath.

I talked to another VSP at a gun show and he said the cop stopping me must have been new (he wasn't) b/c that is not the way they are supposed to do nominal traffic stops.

 

[OC for ME]

Let me get this straight, you have a valid permit in your hand yet the cop will trust a e-database that he knows, or should know, is not current? What about those folks from one of the other several states?

 

[user]

If you have a valid permit in your possession, and you tell the cop that you do, and offer to show it to him, that's actual notice to the cop that you do have a valid permit. Given that his "screen" is telling him something different, his only rational conclusion would be that he doesn't know which is true. That creates a duty to investigate and find out for sure, which would require consultation with the clerk of the court that issued the permit. If, having actual notice of the valid permit, the cop proceeds to make an arrest (and here's the critical part) HAVING ACTUAL NOTICE THAT HE LACKS PROBABLE CAUSE, OR IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE FACTS SUPPORTING ANY ASSERTION OF PROBABLE CAUSE, that's "legal malice". When you're found not-guilty (or the case ends in a way that is not unfavorable to you, e.g., by nolle pros., etc.), then you can file suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution against the cop and the county/city (if there's a police department) or against the deputy and the sheriff (personally) for both general (inconvenience, outrage, emotional distress, etc.) and special (quantifiable in money, e.g., legal fees, parking costs, bondsman's fees, etc.) damages; you probably will not recover punitive damages (and I wouldn't even ask) unless you can show "actual malice". (Actual malice can be shown by the use of racial epithets, foul language, unnecessarily abusive physical behavior, etc.)

 

[color of law]

By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

This looks like NOTICE.

 

[user]

This looks like NOTICE.

The Virginia State Bar calls it a "disclaimer" - a guy in Richmond got into ethics trouble because he'd been operating a "blog" posting his political opinions, completely independently of any legal issues that he was working on, without the required "disclaimer". Besides, I'm now retired, and although I'm still an attorney in good standing with the VSB, I'm prohibited from practicing law or giving legal advice. I can, however, pontificate about my own personal opinions about legal stuff, just can't tell anyone how the law may apply to their particular circumstances.

 

[color of law]

The Virginia State Bar calls it a "disclaimer" - a guy in Richmond got into ethics trouble because he'd been operating a "blog" posting his political opinions, completely independently of any legal issues that he was working on, without the required "disclaimer". Besides, I'm now retired, and although I'm still an attorney in good standing with the VSB, I'm prohibited from practicing law or giving legal advice. I can, however, pontificate about my own personal opinions about legal stuff, just can't tell anyone how the law may apply to their particular circumstances.

Surrender your license. Once surrendered you are no longer an attorney. Then the bar association ceases to have jurisdiction.

I know a judge who was retired and would on occasion write an op-ed. The bar attacked him. He sent them his bar card, in effect, forfeiting his license. In a second op-ed he made it clear he would write and say whatever we wanted and the bar as well as court lacked any jurisdiction over his free speech right.

Just say'n.

 

[user]

Surrender your license. Once surrendered you are no longer an attorney. Then the bar association ceases to have jurisdiction.

I know a judge who was retired and would on occasion write an op-ed. The bar attacked him. He sent them his bar card, in effect, forfeiting his license. In a second op-ed he made it clear he would write and say whatever we wanted and the bar as well as court lacked any jurisdiction over his free speech right.

Just say'n.

I get it - but a surrender of license is what people do when they can't fight an ethics complaint and know they're going down anyway. I would prefer not to be assumed to have been among that crowd. I can say whatever I want to, anyway, I just have to inform people that it's not "legal advice" and that they ought to ask someone licensed to practice where they live.

But as to the main issue, it seems to me that there was a proposed bill defeated last year that would have prevented the VSP from giving out that information (which I think they're prohibited from doing, anyway, except in the case of a genuine criminal investigation, which routinely "running plates" is not). But the VCDL's big push right now appears to be the repeal of the "no guns in the church service" statute.

I still think and maintain that the biggest threat to law-abiding, socially responsible gun owners is the brandishing statute. It's been warped out of recognizable sense by appellate opinions and can't be said to mean what the plain language of the statute would suggest. What it means now is that if you are in possession of a firearm, and some bozo sees it and says to a cop, "I felt fear", and you've got a gun-hostile sheriff or prosecutor, you're going to be convicted of brandishing a firearm. Not for anything you've done, but because of the subjective response of a bozo and the political agenda of the local law enforcement machine.

 

[Grapeshot]

I get it - but a surrender of license is what people do when they can't fight an ethics complaint and know they're going down anyway. I would prefer not to be assumed to have been among that crowd. I can say whatever I want to, anyway, I just have to inform people that it's not "legal advice" and that they ought to ask someone licensed to practice where they live.

But as to the main issue, it seems to me that there was a proposed bill defeated last year that would have prevented the VSP from giving out that information (which I think they're prohibited from doing, anyway, except in the case of a genuine criminal investigation, which routinely "running plates" is not). But the VCDL's big push right now appears to be the repeal of the "no guns in the church service" statute.

I still think and maintain that the biggest threat to law-abiding, socially responsible gun owners is the brandishing statute. It's been warped out of recognizable sense by appellate opinions and can't be said to mean what the plain language of the statute would suggest. What it means now is that if you are in possession of a firearm, and some bozo sees it and says to a cop, "I felt fear", and you've got a gun-hostile sheriff or prosecutor, you're going to be convicted of brandishing a firearm. Not for anything you've done, but because of the subjective response of a bozo and the political agenda of the local law enforcement machine.

News flash: Brandish is an inactive verb..

Therefore "brandishing" as a gerund requires no action to be legitimate.

 

[color of law]

News flash: Brandish is an inactive verb..

Therefore "brandishing" as a gerund requires no action to be legitimate.

Disagree. To be a gerund the verb must be used as a noun. Adding "ing" to a verb is nothing more than adding a suffix. "Brandish" and "brandishing" are action words.

 

[color of law]

I get it - but a surrender of license is what people do when they can't fight an ethics complaint and know they're going down anyway. I would prefer not to be assumed to have been among that crowd. I can say whatever I want to, anyway, I just have to inform people that it's not "legal advice" and that they ought to ask someone licensed to practice where they live....

I amend my statement; from "surrender" to "resign": to give up deliberately, especially to renounce, such as a right or position.

 

[Grapeshot]

News flash: Brandish is an inactive verb..

Therefore "brandishing" as a gerund requires no action to be legitimate.

Disagree. To be a gerund the verb must be used as a noun. Adding "ing" to a verb is nothing more than adding a suffix. "Brandish" and "brandishing" are action words.

Perfectly aware.

It was obviously tongue-in-cheek.

 

[color of law]

Perfectly aware.

It was obviously tongue-in-cheek.

WOW!!! It just so happens my daughter gave me a get out of "tongue-in-cheek" free jail pass today for fathers day.:banana:

 

[Grapeshot]

WOW!!! It just so happens my daughter gave me a get out of "tongue-in-cheek" free jail pass today for fathers day.:banana:

Hope it works better than mine did.

 

[Maverick9]

To me the two stupid and bad things are yes, brandishing, partly b/c people could lie about it, and 'duty to inform', also, b/c people, LEO could lie and say you did not declare.

There's no point for either of these to exist, imo. It's just to punish and suppress the Law Abiding Citizen.