Richmond breaks the law again (Long)

T Dubya said:

The anti's being the opportunists they are, are flooding the comments section of the Richmond Times Dispatch. As usual they're blaming the gun. Skinner was the aggressor, Dorsey didn't really make a scene and become disruptive till he was outside of council chambers, at that point he was screaming so loud that his screams bled through the heavy wood doors and was a huge distraction.

My opinion is this, as much of a gaping a** as Dorsey is, Skinner was the aggressor and Skinner knew he could manipulate the fact that Dorsey was open-carrying and use it against him and as a result we're all victims cause the antis have capitalized on the incident to attack our rights.

Should OCDO members get involved and rush to his defense? I don't know. Dorsey is a nut, I personally wouldn't want to associate with him, but I will concede he was wronged. I was at the meeting and I watched the video.

In the grand scheme of things Dorsey and Skinner's shenanigans hurt police and fire by taking up the media coverage. So neither one are in my good graces. The hearing on the budget was that night and Dwight Jones has proposed an ordinance to further suspend the career development of police and fire. I would have rather seen police and fire as the top story.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Indeed soon.
Must remember to thank them too for the many contributions

Click to expand...

It’s unclear exactly what precipitated the dustup with armed activist Chris Dorsey at Monday’s City Council meeting, but the incident has prompted at least one official to call for better security at council meetings.

Councilwoman Reva M. Trammell, the chairwoman of the council’s Public Safety Committee, said Tuesday that the council should consider a stronger police presence near the front of the room and stricter credentialing rules governing access to the media gallery on the council dais.

“We’re right there,” Trammell, 8th District, said of herself and her fellow council members whose backs are turned to the media gallery where the confrontation unfolded. “Sitting ducks.”

One thing the council can’t do is ban guns at City Hall, which is impermissible under state law, according to city officials.

Click to expand...

Council President Charles R. Samuels, 2nd District, said the U.S. Constitution is the highest law and it would be “very difficult to argue that City Council has the authority to trump that.”

“It’s just, sometimes there are people with guns that are more concerning than others,” Samuels said.

Click to expand...

Trammell said she intends to bring the incident up for discussion at the next meeting of the Public Safety Committee.

Asked if he feels any changes are warranted, Samuels was noncommittal.

“I’ll leave it up to council to decide what actions they want to take, if any,” Samuels said.

Click to expand...

peter nap said:

I asked for a cite and got an opinion. Skinner isn't a cite either

Anyone that reports news is the media in Virginia. Thus the move to alter the shield laws which didn't go far.

There is a conflict between the Va. Open Meeting statute and the procedures in some legislative bodies, including the General Assembly.

While anyone can record the meetings, some areas are designated "Credentialed Media". That's the difference. The almighty press pass. In order to get mine with the state,I had to show the following and I have to give it up on the years I lobby.

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

Well, its the best I could do; this isn't the Lindberg baby case. And it appears as if the information I provided was accurate, as always.:dude:

If Skinner is a tool or not (and he may be a source for a cite~hence I provided it), if he is the one authorized to make such determinations then that's that (I doubt that any appeal would be successful for the guy in this respect ~ although I do not see any evidence that he even applied for a press pass).

Usually the press area is located such that it does not obstruct the view of the gen. public's seating .. so there is good and bad with this.

I think folks are attacking windmills here.

Click to expand...

peter nap said:

I'm not sure when your information started being accurate and if you think we're attacking windmills.....you're more than welcome to go over to the Connecticut forum.

Click to expand...

Repeater said:

So, when is the date of that PSC meeting and is it open to the public?

Click to expand...

Reporters are not provided with credentials that would give them sole access to the media area. How are city officials to know who belongs or doesn’t? In an era in which bloggers with cameras and laptops can claim turf in the Fourth Estate, what criteria exist to weed out watchdogs from hot dogs? The city is on shaky grounds in removing Dorsey from the meeting.

But the encounter shows how the presence of a gun can escalate matters.

I’ve experienced this firsthand during the gun lobby’s annual pilgrimage to the state Capitol, where I was the subject of unsought attention from armed demonstrators. A simple difference in opinion regarding the Second Amendment becomes something potentially more explosive when one of the folks in the debate wears a scowl and a sidearm.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, the First and Second Amendments are not always compatible. Firearms have the potential to stifle free speech, or even snuff out lives.

...

A firearm in someone’s possession in a public setting forces people to attempt the impossible: to divine the intentions of the carrier. If that individual becomes argumentative or belligerent, or even merely defensive, the gun raises stakes real and imagined.

City officials say they are handcuffed on this issue, since banning firearms from meetings is impermissible under state law. But allowing gun-toting in public meetings is such a remarkably bad idea that the status quo shouldn’t go unchallenged.

Yes, our elected officials have been known to infuriate us. But we shouldn’t ask them, or a lot of innocent people, to be sitting ducks.

Click to expand...

The pro-gun crowd wants everyone to believe that gun owners are "responsible" precisely because they are gun owners--and thus no violence could possible occur, even in tense situations.

This is the craziness that we get from the gun crowd. The fact is, most gun owners are not well trained or well adjusted; if they were, they wouldn't feel the need to walk around with a loaded weapon. And even if they were ostensibly "normal," the gun crowd never acknowledges that people blow their tops all the time--and if somebody with a gun blows his top, there is shooting. And we see violence of that kind every day in America--how about the guy who shot and killed another man in a movie theater because he wouldn't stop texting? Yes, another responsible gun owner. And, please, can we stop with the nonsense that people can get killed in all sorts of different ways; therefore, a gun is no different than a chair or a car or a baseball bat? It's an idiotic argument: A gun is a weapon; almost everything else is not.

Click to expand...

Boy, you'll have Phillip Van Cleve and Wayne LaPierre all over you shortly with views like these. Common sense, yep. The right wing fringe wackos will oppose it to their very core...after all, their solution to gun violence is more guns. Rights, rights, rights...try calling it a prejudicial view in the intellectual sense of that aspect of the meaning of the word. Ignorance is the other way to say it.

Click to expand...

Repeater said:

“We had very heated issues. We had arguments. People would come to council and get excited. And we had to have police to remove people if they were causing distractions. Local government is particularly a place where there’s a lot of interest and a lot of anger. We’ve had shouting matches when it was hard to maintain order. … I would almost break the gavel, I would slam it down so hard.”

Sounds like the guy does not know how to run a meeting .... lets them get out of control ... then blames others.

Click to expand...

T Dubya said:

I said something to Michael Paul Williams at the Capitol several years ago. I said something about my distaste for how he used to interject race into his columns, nothing about 2nd Amendment. Grape was there. You gotta consider the source.

Click to expand...

Seven months after a chaotic City Council meeting from which police carried an armed resident out of City Hall, private security guards and two police agencies are providing security during meetings in council chambers.

Two officers from the Richmond Sheriff's Office joined two police officers in chambers at last week's meeting. Security guards hired by the city also attend meetings.

Sheriff C.T. Woody says he provided the officers at the request of Police Chief Ray Tarasovic.

"Sheriff Woody has provided two deputies along with our two officers at council meetings to help ensure the safety for those attending and as well as our City Council representatives," Deputy Police Chief Eric English says. "Any time we are afforded the opportunity to provide a safer environment for our citizens, in this case for those attending council meetings, we believe is a bonus."

...

Anyone who can legally carry a gun or other weapon is allowed to do so in City Council chambers.

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

So, there is a "media section". Who decides who is media? Someone does. This guy may not have been designated "media" and hence not allowed in the area.

Just being a blogger does not make you a "media" for these areas. Usually a person in the agency accepts a request to be designated a member of the media. I think that this is Mr. Skinner (ph: 804-646-6052), public relations dept.

Usually, "media" for these purposes are defined as brick and mortar establishments (newspaper, TV, etc.) and even some bloggers with well known blogging sites.

Sounds like he was told to leave the media section; refused, and was carted off. This is what happens.

Now if there is not a procedure for designating who is and is not "media" then Richmond was wrong but if there is and he isn't on the approved list then Richmond was right.

One has to do better than just provide conclusionary statements IMO ...

Click to expand...

peter nap said:

--snipped--
No public body shall conduct a meeting required to be open in any building or facility where such recording devices are prohibited.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Puts Richmond City Council between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Click to expand...