Yeah, Winchester has McMansions AND a Cracker Barrel. It’s a confused place.
2 Likes
“You wanna know how I got these scars? Well, it started with a massage that went terribly wrong…”
5 Likes
While the operative word there is “should,” you do of course realize that police arrest people ALL THE TIME for making them/other people nervous. They don’t necessarily charge them with anything. But this is hardly an uncommon thing.
Here is the full section of the Virginia code in question:
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter9/section18.2-422/
It does not specifically reference religious face coverings, but I’m actually more troubled that it mentions osteopaths in the same breaths as other medical professionals. Remember that just because religious face coverings are not specifically called out here, that doesn’t mean that someone wearing a niqab is violating the code—because the code doesn’t trump someone’s First Amendment rights. If someone wearing a religious face covering were arrested under this code, it would be easily tossed out in court. A no-brainer.
1 Like
Obviously! If you type 9-1-1 on the pad, your popcorn gets burned!
1 Like
this requires our well-regulated militia brings guns to a knife fight.
32 children were killed today in a horrifying massacre when the lunch lady went berserk with her shoe.
-said no headline, ever.
1 Like
Because “finding inner peace” is in an out-of-vogue cycle, and priests don’t carry tasers.
About all those anti-knife/sword laws in the US:
So the public recognizes that knifes are bad because they could be used as dangerous weapons … and guns are ok because that’s how it always was?
“Hey dude put your sword away … here take this assault rifle.”
The conscious disconnect is unbelievable.
12 Likes
Consider yourself lucky. Some of us have to live here. (DIsclaimer: I live in Eastern MA, where it’s well known that They Are Coming to Take Our Guns Away. )
1 Like
o_0 guns are way more restricted. Until ~15 years ago when states started issuing CCW licenses, you could never even carry a gun, much less concealed (depending on state).
Any state with a restrictive knife laws will also have restrictive gun laws. And no state requires any ID nor I believe even proof of age to buy a knife. And many places that don’t allow guns still allow pocket knives. Heck before 9/11 you could fly with one.
And there are thousands of gun laws on the books. So no, your snarky assumption that knife laws are more restrictive than gun laws is false. I mean where in the world did you get the idea that “guns are ok”. Had he had a rifle strapped to his back he would have had calls and probably an even more severe police response.
ETA - and the point of outrage should be wearing a mask is a felony. Unless you’re a cop wearing a balaclava, I assume.
1 Like
Of course! Profiling!
2 Likes
It’s like the police just make-up these laws on the fly.
2 Likes
But, what about the drag queens ??
1 Like
But an arrest under this code that entangles religion or free speech is unconstitutional, not just the charge. That’s what’s wrong. Without providing specific exclusions for constitutionally-covered rights, this law is enabling police to harass people by arresting them on a charge that should get thrown out.
If this man had walked into a daycare center and started stabbing people then everyone would be asking “why didn’t any of the dozens of people who saw him walking down the street this way alert the authorities about an obviously armed and unhinged-looking man?”
The arrest may have been dubious but the concern wasn’t entirely unreasonable.
1 Like
But a butterfly knife could reasonably be classified as a “concealed” weapon, which usually requires a license. A sword is more analogous to a rifle, only less lethal (under most circumstances).
Virginia’s concealed-carry licenses only apply to handguns. So you can have a concealed pistol (with license), but not a concealed razor. Also, the Harbormaster of the City of Hopewell is allowed to carry on-duty without a permit, even though nobody knows who that is or what (s)he does.
Depends which bathroom they go in…
It’s noteworthy that this statute applies specifically to “masks…and other devices.” This man was wearing makeup, which is not a mask or device. Therefore one would think this charge would be dismissed for …
wait for it…
…lack of prima facie evidence.
15 Likes
