Open Carry is illegal at a polling place according to State Board of Elections?

grylnsmn · Oct 22, 2012

Tess said:
Oh, kay ...
A privately held event that deprives me of the ability to use a park for which I pay tax dollars???? I didn't know in what universe a City choosing to give up my rights for a few dollars was "...not violating rights..." -- but sounds like you and the AG are on the same page.

If I reserve a baseball field in a public park for a game between my company's team and another company's team, then that also deprives you of the ability to use that field for which you pay tax dollars while we are using it. How is this any different? Such reservations are open to everyone on a first-come-first-served basis.

By your argument, if we reserved a picnic area at Burke Lake Park for an Open Carry picnic, a group of antis could arrive there earlier in the day to block us from using it, because our reservation would be "depriv[ing] [them] of the ability to use a park for which [they] pay tax dollars." It really does cut both ways.

As much as we dislike the result in that use case, it has a solid legal basis.

skidmark · Oct 22, 2012

grylnsmn said:
If I reserve a baseball field in a public park for a game between my company's team and another company's team, then that also deprives you of the ability to use that field for which you pay tax dollars while we are using it. How is this any different? Such reservations are open to everyone on a first-come-first-served basis.

By your argument, if we reserved a picnic area at Burke Lake Park for an Open Carry picnic, a group of antis could arrive there earlier in the day to block us from using it, because our reservation would be "depriv[ing] [them] of the ability to use a park for which [they] pay tax dollars." It really does cut both ways.

As much as we dislike the result in that use case, it has a solid legal basis.

There is a huge differnce between limiting the use of a facility to a certain group and allowing that group to establish "rules" for the adjoining areas as well. If your company reserves a ballfield then I should not be allowed to bring my kids there for a game of catch in the middle of your league play-offs. But I should be allowed to use the rest of the park without having my rights stripped away by the rules of the company/league. If we reserve a picnic area at Burke Lake Park we are not depriving the antis of the use of the rest of the park.

The government should not have the ability to abbrogate cirtizens' rights in the process of issuing a limited license for the use of public space by a non-government entity. The park that is the center of this discussion was rented by the Red Cross for a fund-raising event, but entry into the area was not limited by some sort of barrier or by the display of a ticket granting access. The Red Cross invited "the public" to come and enjoy the activities they had scheduled. If the Red cross had wanted to admit only those who agreed to the philosophy of the Red Cross, then they should have enclosed the area so that they could both announce and control access. The AG's Opinion http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions and Legal Resources/Opinions/2010opns/10-009-Greason.pdf really does not address a space that is not fairly well demarked for access limitation, as opposed to the examples of a school or library meeting area that the AG used to try and support his position. Heck, I would have been satisfied with signs on sticks around the perimeter of the park that said something to the effect that the whole park was rented and only those coming to participate in the event could enter the park.

stay safe.

grylnsmn · Oct 22, 2012

skidmark said:
There is a huge differnce between limiting the use of a facility to a certain group and allowing that group to establish "rules" for the adjoining areas as well. If your company reserves a ballfield then I should not be allowed to bring my kids there for a game of catch in the middle of your league play-offs. But I should be allowed to use the rest of the park without having my rights stripped away by the rules of the company/league. If we reserve a picnic area at Burke Lake Park we are not depriving the antis of the use of the rest of the park.

The government should not have the ability to abbrogate cirtizens' rights in the process of issuing a limited license for the use of public space by a non-government entity. The park that is the center of this discussion was rented by the Red Cross for a fund-raising event, but entry into the area was not limited by some sort of barrier or by the display of a ticket granting access. The Red Cross invited "the public" to come and enjoy the activities they had scheduled. If the Red cross had wanted to admit only those who agreed to the philosophy of the Red Cross, then they should have enclosed the area so that they could both announce and control access. The AG's Opinion http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions and Legal Resources/Opinions/2010opns/10-009-Greason.pdf really does not address a space that is not fairly well demarked for access limitation, as opposed to the examples of a school or library meeting area that the AG used to try and support his position. Heck, I would have been satisfied with signs on sticks around the perimeter of the park that said something to the effect that the whole park was rented and only those coming to participate in the event could enter the park.

stay safe.

Except, that access control restriction isn't in place for other reservations. When we reserve a picnic area, at most they put up a sign saying that it has been reserved for that time period. The same goes if you reserve a baseball field. If someone outside the intended party wanders into the area, the organizers of the event have every right to ask them to leave, for any reason. I don't see what that would change depending on whether you reserve a part of the park or the entire park.

MAC702 · Oct 22, 2012

Tess said:
Oh, kay ...
A privately held event that deprives me of the ability to use a park for which I pay tax dollars???? I didn't know in what universe a City choosing to give up my rights for a few dollars was "...not violating rights..." -- but sounds like you and the AG are on the same page.

I side with the City and AG on this as well. As the taxpayer, I should be in favor of the City leasing some of our property at some times. This means that the City is getting rental fees in exchange for its limited time as a private function. They are, in essence, selling the land to a private enterprise, just for a limited amount of time. It should be treated as private property during this time. You would certainly appreciate the same "rights" if you were the leaseholder, during the time your lease was in effect. You PAID for this to be your private property during this time.

Is the City allowed to sell land? Look at this the same way.

This would be better if the City had sufficient property that leasing some of it for periods of time does not adversely affect the citizenry. Your taxes can be lower if the City augments its budget intake through such methods.

davidmcbeth · Oct 22, 2012

I guess poll watchers are outta luck in the state.

So, the only way to challenge this at this point in time is to carry openly and see what happens or call the guy and have him change his mind.

The guy's phone # is 748-1475 (area code anyone?)

davidmcbeth · Oct 22, 2012

MAC702 said:
I side with the City and AG on this as well. As the taxpayer, I should be in favor of the City leasing some of our property at some times. .

Well then how about leasing a bldg for town meetings, or leasing a bldg for other open meetings...so the gov't can simply do a run around via leasing/renting? I don't think so.

Its not an embassy .. its a polling place.

Grapeshot · Oct 22, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
Well then how about leasing a bldg for town meetings, or leasing a bldg for other open meetings...so the gov't can simply do a run around via leasing/renting? I don't think so.

--snip--

Similar argument I've presented several times before.

Make public property private through leasing it to a 3rd party........... or passing regulations.:uhoh:

I don't like it, but it is so until we get it changed.

skidmark · Oct 22, 2012

grylnsmn said:
Except, that access control restriction isn't in place for other reservations. When we reserve a picnic area, at most they put up a sign saying that it has been reserved for that time period. The same goes if you reserve a baseball field. If someone outside the intended party wanders into the area, the organizers of the event have every right to ask them to leave, for any reason. I don't see what that would change depending on whether you reserve a part of the park or the entire park.

But access control is in fact in place in your examples. The reservation notice announces that the space is not available to just anybody who happens by.

In the case we are discussing, neither the City of Alexandria nor the Red Cross posted any sort of notice that the entire park was reserved for the use of the Red Cross - nor that only certain sections of the park were reserved, for that matter. I have mentioned several times that something as simple as barrier tape strung between trees, light poles or whatever to mark out the area, with designated entrace/exit points, would not have caused my feathers to be ruffled. What happened, to use your ballfield example, is that the whole park was claimed by the party renting the ballfield - including the swing sets and monkey bars all the way on the other side of the parking lot. They imposed their rules/policies on everyone - even those not participating in their event and not entering the space they had rented.

Does that change your thinking in any way?

stay safe.

aadvark · Oct 22, 2012

To ALL Whom are Concerned:

The Virginia Legislature Continued Senate Bill 324, until The 2013 Legislative Session.

Senate Bill 324 Creates Chapter 41.2 in Exsisting Title 2.2 which Creates 4 New Code Sections, 2.2-4120 through 2.2-4123, that Work to Preempt State Authorites, such as The Virginia State Elections Board, from Regualting in The Manner of Firearm and Firearm-related Affairs.

Consequently, however, under Exsisting State Law, Virginia Code 15.2-915 does NOT Preempt The Virginia State Elections Board from Regualting Firearms. This Conclusion can be Reached as The Virginia State Elections Board is NOT an Agency, Authority, Entity, or Instrumentality of a Local Governemntal Unit.

This Matter was Voted on by The Virginia Legislature Courts of Justice Committee on January. 30, 2012 by a Vote of: 15Y-0N, with NO Abstentions.

aadvark

*** However, there is NO Federal Law Governing Firearms and Elections together, so The Matter can be Fixed ONLY by Oversight from The Virginia Legislature. ***

Grapeshot · Oct 22, 2012

aadvark said:
To ALL Whom are Concerned:

The Virginia Legislature Continued Senate Bill 324, until The 2013 Legislative Session.

Senate Bill 324 Creates Chapter 41.2 in Exsisting Title 2.2 which Creates 4 New Code Sections, 2.2-4120 through 2.2-4123, that Work to Preempt State Authorites, such as The Virginia State Elections Board, from Regualting in The Manner of Firearm and Firearm-related Affairs.

Consequently, however, under Exsisting State Law, Virginia Code 15.2-915 does NOT Preempt The Virginia State Elections Board from Regualting Firearms. This Conclusion can be Reached as The Virginia State Elections Board is NOT an Agency, Authority, Entity, or Instrumentality of a Local Governemntal Unit.

This Matter was Voted on by The Virginia Legislature Courts of Justice Committee on January. 30, 2012 by a Vote of: 15Y-0N, with NO Abstentions.

aadvark

*** However, there is NO Federal Law Governing Firearms and Elections together, so The Matter can be Fixed ONLY by Oversight from The Virginia Legislature. ***

Fixing state preemption to include such would fix that however.

peter nap · Oct 22, 2012

aadvark said:
To ALL Whom are Concerned:

The Virginia Legislature Continued Senate Bill 324, until The 2013 Legislative Session.

Senate Bill 324 Creates Chapter 41.2 in Exsisting Title 2.2 which Creates 4 New Code Sections, 2.2-4120 through 2.2-4123, that Work to Preempt State Authorites, such as The Virginia State Elections Board, from Regualting in The Manner of Firearm and Firearm-related Affairs.

Consequently, however, under Exsisting State Law, Virginia Code 15.2-915 does NOT Preempt The Virginia State Elections Board from Regualting Firearms. This Conclusion can be Reached as The Virginia State Elections Board is NOT an Agency, Authority, Entity, or Instrumentality of a Local Governemntal Unit.

This Matter was Voted on by The Virginia Legislature Courts of Justice Committee on January. 30, 2012 by a Vote of: 15Y-0N, with NO Abstentions.

aadvark

*** However, there is NO Federal Law Governing Firearms and Elections together, so The Matter can be Fixed ONLY by Oversight from The Virginia Legislature. ***

Preemption was never an issue with me. The question is where do they get the authority to regulate firearms in the polling place?

TFred · Oct 22, 2012

aadvark said:
The Virginia Legislature Continued Senate Bill 324, until The 2013 Legislative Session.

Refresh my memory, was there any particular reason the bill was continued?

2013 will be an election year session, the legislators tend to try harder to avoid controversial bills during an election year session.

TFred

peter nap · Oct 22, 2012

TFred said:
Refresh my memory, was there any particular reason the bill was continued?

2013 will be an election year session, the legislators tend to try harder to avoid controversial bills during an election year session.

TFred

It was one they didn't want to deal with TFred. It's dead, Carrying over just sounds better.

MAC702 · Oct 22, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
Well then how about leasing a bldg for town meetings, or leasing a bldg for other open meetings...so the gov't can simply do a run around via leasing/renting? I don't think so.

Its not an embassy .. its a polling place.

I do not understand your questions or your point. The "polling place" had nothing to do with what we were discussing at the moment.

MAC702 · Oct 22, 2012

gutshot said:
Please explain to me how a lessor can give a lesee powers and authorities over leased property, when the lessor himself does not possess those powers and authorities.

After you explain to me how big bold print (that makes your question more difficult to read) was necessary.

grylnsmn · Oct 23, 2012

skidmark said:
But access control is in fact in place in your examples. The reservation notice announces that the space is not available to just anybody who happens by.

In the case we are discussing, neither the City of Alexandria nor the Red Cross posted any sort of notice that the entire park was reserved for the use of the Red Cross - nor that only certain sections of the park were reserved, for that matter. I have mentioned several times that something as simple as barrier tape strung between trees, light poles or whatever to mark out the area, with designated entrace/exit points, would not have caused my feathers to be ruffled. What happened, to use your ballfield example, is that the whole park was claimed by the party renting the ballfield - including the swing sets and monkey bars all the way on the other side of the parking lot. They imposed their rules/policies on everyone - even those not participating in their event and not entering the space they had rented.

Does that change your thinking in any way?

stay safe.

A reservation is valid even without such notice. (Note that I said "at most" they put out a notice that the place is reserved.) When I reserved a picnic shelter at Nottoway Park in Vienna three years ago, they didn't put any notice out. Instead, I was required to have the permit that they issued to me on my person while we were using the shelter. The lack of such a sign didn't make me reservation any less valid.

The answer there is to look at what the actual reservation was. If they were allowed to reserve the entire park (including the swing set on the other side of the parking lot), then that reservation is valid and they can impose their rules on everyone in the park regardless of what parts they are actually using. If I reserve the large picnic shelter, I have control over the entire shelter, even if I'm only actually using half of it.

On the other hand, if their reservation only included certain sections of the park, then their authority only extend to those areas that they reserved. That's all that the AG opinion stated about the Red Cross case. Nothing in there said that they can control property other than what they leased.

FFchris · Oct 24, 2012

Voted while OC

I voted yesterday (Tuesday) by in person absentee ballot, at the local senior citizens center while OCing. It was nice being able to vote early and not having to disarm while doing so. Plus it was less than half the distance to my polling/disarming place. I may have to do absentee ballot again next time.

EMNofSeattle · Oct 24, 2012

Well.....

They no longer have polling places in my state, it's all mail in, so I guess disarming while voting is not required.

but if I were in your case, legally able to carry and the voting place made a policy with no legal basis like this... Well I may head in anyway

Me: Yes I'm here to vote, he's my VR card
poll worker: YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT IN HERE
Me: I'm here to vote, I'd like a ballot please
PW: I'm going to have to call 911
Me: Great, call them, and while you're waiting for them to show up, may I have a ballot please?
Me: Are you REFUSING TO ALLOW ME TO VOTE?

Don't say anything about guns, record the covno and turn it against the poll workers, you're not standing up for your 2A rights (because that's not sexy in the mass media) INSTEAD the whole case is about them refusing to allow you to vote.

Things may work differently in Virginia, well they obviously do, but I think that would be a way to handle it that might get more likely to be aired on mass media if you can get them to suppress your vote and have it all recorded....

although Virginia is a complete toss up and I'd rather not waste my vote and give obama an edge either...

va_tazdad · Jul 28, 2013

I will be at Chesterfield County Monday

to see if the registrar has changed HIS opinion.

peter nap · Jul 28, 2013

va_tazdad said:
to see if the registrar has changed HIS opinion.

Looking forward to that Taz!

Open Carry is illegal at a polling place according to State Board of Elections?

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate