• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Recorders required

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I'm extremely concerned about the protocol for handling people with CHP's on Lobby Day.

More so than anyone else, the Chief answers to the Governor. Hopefully I don't have to go into his mentality.

In addition to that, the Chief has consulted in depth with Delegate Hope that's putting in bills with intended but hidden consequences and he's putting them in with both the GA and the Joint Rules.

Add information from an undisclosed source about carry in the building to the Chief, and I suspect they will be bustin a few rules/laws.

I strongly recommend recorders at the least...and video cameras will be helpful.
 
Last edited:

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
Add TD's inflammatory letter to the Chief and I suspect they will be bustin a few rules/laws.

I don't think it was inflammatory. Matter of fact the Chief's staff agreed with me and thanked me. Say Peter, I thought we collectively agreed to move on.


(I keep writing the same thing, my transmissions are hiccuping for some reason)
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Joint rules actually mean little ~ they can break them at will ~ the breaking of the rule itself indicates an approval of the breaking the rule.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I don't think it was inflammatory. Matter of fact the Chief's staff agreed with me and thanked me. Say Peter, I thought we collectively agreed to move on.

(I keep writing the same thing, my transmissions are hiccuping for some reason)
Not sure to whom "we collectively" refers, but neither Chief Pike nor his staff have any authority to establish policy or rules beyond their specific authorization. It is not for them to determine with whom they agree or disagree in the performance of their duty.

I had a few "interesting" reactions/responses to my completely legal and proper carry where there was an attempt to require me go through extra-legal steps today at the GAB. It ended well enough though - think they saw my recorder. No I won't go into details now.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
TD. perhaps inflammatory was the wrong word and we have moved on....but, spending some time there recently, they have gone into a heightened security status and from the few details I can eek out it's because of information they received concerning carry in the building.

We may have a Government in the Sunshine but that makes a lot of shadows. The Shadows are where the planning between the Capitol Police and Hope is being done. The two pronged attack on carry in the building is serious matter. The next step will be to have General Services extend it to the grounds.

But again, you're right and I have edited my post.
 
Last edited:

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
TD. perhaps inflammatory was the wrong word and we have moved on....but, spending some time there recently, they have gone into a heightened security status and from the few details I can eek out it's because of information they received concerning carry in the building.

We may have a Government in the Sunshine but that makes a lot of shadows. The Shadows are where the planning between the Capitol Police and Hope is being done. The two pronged attack on carry in the building is serious matter. The next step will be to have General Services extend it to the grounds.

But again, you're right and I have edited my post.

Actually, I think 'inflammatory' was a good word considering the circumstances.

Just sayin... :eek:
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Re: Grapeshot's incident - among other things it involved several supervisory personnel, up to and including the then-Chief of Capitol Police, being asked publically and repeatedly to produce something (anything, actually) in writing to support their claim that the extra-legal [sic] activity was permissable. After repeated requests to read the "policy" they said was behind the activity were denied on the grounds they "could not lay their hands on it" they were repeatedly questions as to whether it is "official policy" or just their opinion that it should be done.

Gathering a polite crowd and making them deal publically with the issue, as opposed to giving in to their request of "Why don't we step over here and discuss it?" (meaning leave the GAB lobby) resulted in capitulation regarding making anybody else submit to the extra-legal [sic] activity. It was the best result available at the time.

To those for whom subtle hints do not work - if you think you are being "asked" to do/submit to something inappropriate, speak up before you submit. It is easier to stop them from making you do it than getting it corrected/deleted/expunged afterwards. Keep your voice moderate and your words soft. Do not give them the opportunity to accuse you of or charge you with some criminal violation. Have witnesses - which means using a buddy system or better yet a triad. One stay with you while the other summons spectators/supporters or even The Press.

Full disclosure - sticking a recorder up to the Chief's face (not agressively or close enough to be worthy of an accusation of assault) every time every time a question was asked may have been a tad over the top. Perhaps just holding the recorder out there might have been more appropriate?

stay safe.

PS - Having a concealed recorder as a backup is not paranoia. Having more than three backups might be.:D
 

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,215
Location
Accomac, Virginia, USA
What was the original extra legal request. As I am not sure what they can and can't request when we enter.

Sent from my PantechP9070 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
What was the original extra legal request. As I am not sure what they can and can't request when we enter.

Sent from my PantechP9070 using Tapatalk
Original demand = those entering the GAB while carry were directed to "sign in" at the security desk w/name, address, make & model gun + where on your body it was carried - ALL extra legal.

They can request/ask anything they want, but you do not need to comply. The only thing the can properly demand is that you show them your valid permit together w/approved photo ID + wanding for counterband & checking purses and packages for same.

Note that I said "show", not hand them your permit & ID unless you are willing to be tied up for 5,10,15 minutes while they discuss you.
Have had my BUG "fondled" by an aggressive officer :uhoh: - that resulted in some fine words re unsafe conduct.

Generally the security check is a no touch situation and should not be problematic.

Recorder (w/constant on) are highly recommended and digital video cams will be very much in evidence. Smile a lot and speak in even tones.

Because of my hearing and speech impediments, I do not attend the lobby groups making the rounds - tend to stay near the west (gun permit) entrance until just before the Bell Tower Rally - look for the skinny ol' phart w/the purdy 1911 :)
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
Original demand = those entering the GAB while carry were directed to "sign in" at the security desk w/name, address, make & model gun + where on your body it was carried - ALL extra legal.

They can request/ask anything they want, but you do not need to comply.

I gotta tell you, I don't envy them, they got a tough job. They're getting it from all sides. They have target hazards not just for the protection of lawmakers, but for the protection of the large amount of people going in and out of there. The name and address is overly excessive, but whether I do not agree, I do sympathize.

One scenario I think is not out of the realm of possibilities is for the gun-grabbers to find a nut within their ranks (not at all hard to do) one that is really down for the struggle to go off and purposefully pop a round to discredit gun owners. That would automatically put us on the defense. If I made the rules, here goes....... I would make some form of retention holster for pistols mandatory with all barrels facing the floor, that'd go for LEO too. I was in the elevator several years ago and some nut pulled a single action pistol out of his holster to show someone. I think it was a black powder showpiece. There were others not with us that were in the elevator, I cringed. I regret not saying anything.

I have kind of digressed a little bit, but whether I may not agree, I do sympathize with them.

In related news, there is an article today about a Kentucky Lawmaker and a negligent discharge.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I gotta tell you, I don't envy them, they got a tough job. They're getting it from all sides. They have target hazards not just for the protection of lawmakers, but for the protection of the large amount of people going in and out of there. The name and address is overly excessive, but whether I do not agree, I do sympathize.

One scenario I think is not out of the realm of possibilities is for the gun-grabbers to find a nut within their ranks (not at all hard to do) one that is really down for the struggle to go off and purposefully pop a round to discredit gun owners. That would automatically put us on the defense. If I made the rules, here goes....... I would make some form of retention holster for pistols mandatory with all barrels facing the floor, that'd go for LEO too. I was in the elevator several years ago and some nut pulled a single action pistol out of his holster to show someone. I think it was a black powder showpiece. There were others not with us that were in the elevator, I cringed. I regret not saying anything.

I have kind of digressed a little bit, but whether I may not agree, I do sympathize with them.

In related news, there is an article today about a Kentucky Lawmaker and a negligent discharge.
If SCOTUS says that LEOs do NOT have a duty to protect, why would you think differently?

If SCOTUS says that how you carry your gun does NOT give RAS of a crime, why would you think differently?

I do not sympathize with their plight. I can well empythize though - there are rules for both made by the General Assembly only.

BTW - overly excessive is by any definition possible...............still excessive.

Unsafe handling/AD/ND can only be eliminated by eliminating guns - an idea to which you are unfortunately contributing in a high profile way. The "Kentuky Lawmaker" and others in that group (legislators) would seem to belong to a group more prone to incidents than the general population, yet no one is suggesting that they be disarmed; I do not suggest that either.

The GAB has been described as "the people's house"...........not that person's house.....no one can claim ownership authority....it is not private property. We all know (or should know) what gun free zones do. Adding to that helps none of us - it is the big lie.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Shut up David!

It looks like your frontal assault on the "engage keyboard before engaging brain" poster actually worked. Props to you, Peter! Three dancing bananas :banana::banana::banana:
After careful and due deliberation, I have seriously concluded that there has been no personal attack made upon David, but rather an expression of frustration at his posts making light of situations considered important by others - to be point of being frivilous, demeaning, and insulting.

While exceptions may be made, particularly by the participants, he has quite an extensive history of such. That needs to stop.
 

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,215
Location
Accomac, Virginia, USA
After careful and due deliberation, I have seriously concluded that there has been no personal attack made upon David, but rather an expression of frustration at his posts making light of situations considered important by others - to be point of being frivilous, demeaning, and insulting.

While exceptions may be made, particularly by the participants, he has quite an extensive history of such. That needs to stop.

+1

Sent from my PantechP9070 using Tapatalk
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
TD. perhaps inflammatory was the wrong word and we have moved on....but, spending some time there recently, they have gone into a heightened security status and from the few details I can eek out it's because of information they received concerning carry in the building.

We may have a Government in the Sunshine but that makes a lot of shadows. The Shadows are where the planning between the Capitol Police and Hope is being done. The two pronged attack on carry in the building is serious matter. The next step will be to have General Services extend it to the grounds.
And my first thought upon reading this (bolded quote) is that one of the Haas/Goddard flunkies dropped a dime and said, "Those crazy gun carriers are up to something this year, you better watch out!"

I'm hard pressed to believe it was anything more substantial than that.

:(

TFred
 

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
Original demand = those entering the GAB while carry were directed to "sign in" at the security desk w/name, address, make & model gun + where on your body it was carried - ALL extra legal.

They can request/ask anything they want, but you do not need to comply.
I gotta tell you, I don't envy them, they got a tough job. They're getting it from all sides. They have target hazards not just for the protection of lawmakers, but for the protection of the large amount of people going in and out of there. The name and address is overly excessive, but whether I do not agree, I do sympathize.

One scenario I think is not out of the realm of possibilities is for the gun-grabbers to find a nut within their ranks (not at all hard to do) one that is really down for the struggle to go off and purposefully pop a round to discredit gun owners. That would automatically put us on the defense. If I made the rules, here goes....... I would make some form of retention holster for pistols mandatory with all barrels facing the floor, that'd go for LEO too. I was in the elevator several years ago and some nut pulled a single action pistol out of his holster to show someone. I think it was a black powder showpiece. There were others not with us that were in the elevator, I cringed. I regret not saying anything.

I have kind of digressed a little bit, but whether I may not agree, I do sympathize with them.

In related news, there is an article today about a Kentucky Lawmaker and a negligent discharge.

I don't sympathize with them one bit. They knew what their job entailed when they applied and/or when they accepted the position. If they don't like having to play by the rules then they shouldn't have taken the job in the first place. It should never be about making things easier for them, in fact things should be as difficult as possible for them to force them to behave themselves. They need to earn sympathy and respect, NOT demand it.

Isn't one of the rules at OCDO that we do not advocate breaking the law? If we disagree with something we fight to get it corrected but we don't say "oh well we don't like that so we're just going to ignore it". Just because Capitol police might not like a law does not give them an excuse to ignore it
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
If they bother you for open carry send them to foia hell

Not sure to whom "we collectively" refers, but neither Chief Pike nor his staff have any authority to establish policy or rules beyond their specific authorization. It is not for them to determine with whom they agree or disagree in the performance of their duty.

I had a few "interesting" reactions/responses to my completely legal and proper carry where there was an attempt to require me go through extra-legal steps today at the GAB. It ended well enough though - think they saw my recorder. No I won't go into details now.

If you have concerns about what Chief Pike and his staff are doing to gun owners you should send them a nice FOIA request. They LOVE FOIA requests. You can also FOIA their reaction to TDubya's "input" and any support or information that the Chief has given to the writing of the Capitol's anti carry bills/rules.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Speaking of FOIA....The log in book is FOIAable, so any news organization or anti group that feels like publishing a who's who at the General Assembly....can publish name, address, make and model of the gun and where you carry it.

This ties in very well with HB102.

Welcome to 1984 Gentlemen.
 
Top