Firearms prohibited on Roanoke buses

BB62 said:

I've always found VCDL, at least in the form of Mr. Van Cleave, to be interested in ALL gun matters...?

Click to expand...

scooter348 said:

Hold on, Hold on.........................................
OK. I got my popcorn and am settled into my Lazy-boy. Proceed with the show. Yee-Haw!

Click to expand...

skidmark said:

Rule # Whatever. stay safe.

Click to expand...

Two (2) rules apply here:

(9) HATE IS NOT WELCOME HERE: Any posts attacking others based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity, or anything other than opposition to gun rights is NOT WELCOME HERE! We reserve the right to impose immediate bans for such behavior.

(12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

VCDL is hardly in opposition to RKBA and is definitely not against open carry.

Suggest that the popcorn be saved for another place and time.

And i didn't even get mine popped!

rightwinglibertarian said:

because the ignoramuses we have to deal with don't know it

Click to expand...

And what would possibly give you any indication to think that a LEO who does not know the law would be willing to believe you based on a piece of paper you pull out of your pocket?

TFred

Okay, thanks RWL…,

rightwinglibertarian said:

because the ignoramuses we have to deal with don't know it

Click to expand...

I pretty much thought that's what you meant. That's great if it works for you, I have to say that just as TFred pointed out, around here I haven't seen, and can't remember hearing of any incident where a LEO would even acknowledge the written law on paper, much less actually read it, especially from one of us, you know, the peasants.

I can sort of understand it too. My take is that acting as if they really don't know or actually thinking that the law means something other than what it says is their biggest chip in the game, Qualified Immunity, dontcha' know. Although I think we can agree that there are still some cave men running around in uniforms with badges (I've happened on a few), I'm pretty convinced that the rest of them are "dumb like a fox."

The officer will not read it, mainly because he doesn't have to, they do not need to, and you cannot make them read it. If they read it and actually understand it, and if they suddenly realize that they are wrong, they can end the encounter and/or admit that they are wrong (now, I've only heard one officer say "If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but I haven't apologized to anyone in a long, long time"), or they can continue and risk pushing a bad point, and hope that if worse comes to worse that some sympathetic judge will see them as either a total dumbass and truly ignorant, or as one of the "good guys" that strayed over the line a little bit and has their ass about to be handed to them unless they can help'em out a little bit.

So imagine that an officer actually reads the "relevant law" on a piece of paper that you just gave him (given that they can actually read and/or comprehend), he cannot let you have the upper hand, and nobody likes looking stupid, and he wouldn't if it weren't for you and your stupid piece of paper, no matter what it says. You cannot know more than them, unless you are in the legal profession, and sometimes even that will not help.

Again, if it works for you, I'm really glad. I actually considered that (carrying the actual codes) for a little while, but for me there are too many "relevant laws" to warrant carrying all that paper that they'll just laugh at and hold in a particular/peculiar contempt anyway.

YMMV

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29:11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

sidestreet said:

, Qualified Immunity, dontcha' know.

sidestreet

Click to expand...

I've always seen two problems with claims of qualified immunity -

1 -it's based on what a "reasonable" officer should have known.

2 - there is hardly ever any push to establish what the officer in question should have known based on academy and in-service training received.

(DOC grievances decided in favor of the inmate always included the instruction that "the involved officer/employee receive the education and training necessary to properly apply relevant law, policy and procedure." Might not have fixed the instant problem but set it up for any "next time".)

stay safe.

Whats in a name?

gutshot said:

"private" and "owned by the City of Roanoke"? How does that work?

Click to expand...

What they mean is they are just like Lynchburg. GLTC is a private company with 2 employees (the general manager and assistant) from First Transit. GLTC has exactly one stock owner , The city. GLTC contracts to a third party company that actually employs all of the drivers etc. It is just a shell game. When you peel all of the layers back it is still the city. They are governed by the same rules as the city and they know it. I remember when the issue came up in Lynchburg. The GM and the board were both very much aware that their "policy" was illegal. They kept it in place to discourage those that weren't sure.

half_life1052 said:

What they mean is they are just like Lynchburg. GLTC is a private company with 2 employees (the general manager and assistant) from First Transit. GLTC has exactly one stock owner , The city. GLTC contracts to a third party company that actually employs all of the drivers etc. It is just a shell game. When you peel all of the layers back it is still the city. They are governed by the same rules as the city and they know it. I remember when the issue came up in Lynchburg. The GM and the board were both very much aware that their "policy" was illegal. They kept it in place to discourage those that weren't sure.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that they defied 15.2-915, even after being made aware that they were in violation? If so, it appears that they have either changed the policy, or are keeping if off the public web page:

Sharing Your Ride and Showing Consideration for Other Passengers on GLTC Buses

No mention of any weapons policy.

TFred

Using the same type of mirror that GLTC uses to make their point........only they hide it better:

Firearms-prohibited

Exactly, Skid…,

skidmark said:

I've always seen two problems with claims of qualified immunity -

1 -it's based on what a "reasonable" officer should have known.

2 - there is hardly ever any push to establish what the officer in question should have known based on academy and in-service training received.

(DOC grievances decided in favor of the inmate always included the instruction that "the involved officer/employee receive the education and training necessary to properly apply relevant law, policy and procedure." Might not have fixed the instant problem but set it up for any "next time".)

stay safe.

Click to expand...

that's it in a nutshell!!!

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29:11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

TFred said:

Are you saying that they defied 15.2-915, even after being made aware that they were in violation? If so, it appears that they have either changed the policy, or are keeping if off the public web page:

Sharing Your Ride and Showing Consideration for Other Passengers on GLTC Buses

No mention of any weapons policy.

TFred

Click to expand...

I think he meant they knew it was illegal up until the point someone (Jero1987) made it an issue for them. We discussed it here a few years back and GLTC quickly made the change to get rid of the prohibition.

Edit: Looks like Ed reached them first: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...urg-Transit-Company-No-Weapons&highlight=GLTC

jmelvin said:

I think he meant they knew it was illegal up until the point someone (Jero1987) made it an issue for them. We discussed it here a few years back and GLTC quickly made the change to get rid of the prohibition.

Edit: Looks like Ed reached them first: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...urg-Transit-Company-No-Weapons&highlight=GLTC

Click to expand...

Hard to say that is much of a surprise!

Any update on the current situation in Roanoke?

TFred

The first e-mails I sent to Valley Metro inquiring about their policy got bounced back undeliverable. I've put in a couple of calls and left messages. Possibly somebody got the message, as the Valley Metro website no longer lists firearms as prohibited items.

I also have an e-mail in with the Times reporter who did the original story, asking him for a copy of the policy that was supplied to him, and I'm composing a letter to the Greater Roanoke Transit Company Board of Directors.

Compare snapshot from May 10, 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150510002521/http://valleymetro.com/riding.htm

Too snapshot from September 8, 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150908190845/http://www.valleymetro.com/riding.htm

Woot!

Tosta Dojen said:

The first e-mails I sent to Valley Metro inquiring about their policy got bounced back undeliverable. I've put in a couple of calls and left messages. Possibly somebody got the message, as the Valley Metro website no longer lists firearms as prohibited items.

I also have an e-mail in with the Times reporter who did the original story, asking him for a copy of the policy that was supplied to him, and I'm composing a letter to the Greater Roanoke Transit Company Board of Directors.

Click to expand...

That's awesome! Clearly a sign that you reached the right folks.

I am not generally a vengeful person, I take satisfaction when the wrongs become right. But I have to admit in this case, I am most interested in making sure it becomes known that it was the Roanoke Times that directly caused this corrective action to be taken! Some very small atonement for their many past sins in the area of gun rights!

TFred

We're not done yet.

Roanoke Times, "Gun rights group argues Valley Metro can't restrict guns"

Valley Metro officials declined to discuss Van Cleave’s position, saying they first needed legal advice. They said all policies would remain unchanged for the time being. However, Valley Metro’s website — which on Friday listed “firearms” as a banned item on board buses — no longer listed guns as prohibited.

Daniel Callaghan, the city attorney, said Wednesday he wanted to study the matter. He declined to comment at length on the issues raised by Van Cleave’s complaint or on Valley Metro gun restrictions, saying, “It’s a complicated question.”

Click to expand...

Tosta Dojen said:

We're not done yet.

Roanoke Times, "Gun rights group argues Valley Metro can't restrict guns"

Click to expand...

So if Mr. Lee's handgun was concealed when he boarded the bus, they'd be OK with that? They'd only complain if he boarded while OCing? Is it up to the bus driver to enforce this policy? I guess they think that they don't need a policy prohibiting (attempting) to shoot someone while aboard their buses? Oh, wait; we already have actual laws against that sort of thing:banghead:

Liberty-or-Death said:

http://wsls.com/2015/09/12/valley-metro-reverses-gun-policy/

Click to expand...

After the incident happened they tried to put a policy in place to prevent open carry of guns on the bus. But that was disputed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

President of the VCDL Phillip Van Cleave says criminals wouldn’t obey those rules anyway.

“What they are doing is blocking good people, law abiding people from being able to protect themselves,” Van Cleave said.

After Palmer had discussions with Roanoke City’s Attorney, the policy was reversed.

http://wsls.com/2015/09/12/valley-metro-reverses-gun-policy/

My experience with municipal public transportation is extremely limited, but there is enough information in the public record for me to ask an impertinant question:

Are there two-way radios or emergency alarms on the buses? If not, why not.

Heck, most of the public school buses have alarms that include 2-way communication.

The bus drivers can just untwist their panties and save their hysteria for those that do pull their guns and/or start shooting.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

My experience with municipal public transportation is extremely limited, but there is enough information in the public record for me to ask an impertinant question:

Are there two-way radios or emergency alarms on the buses? If not, why not.

Heck, most of the public school buses have alarms that include 2-way communication.

The bus drivers can just untwist their panties and save their hysteria for those that do pull their guns and/or start shooting.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

What? and put technology to good use?

Next you'll be suggesting GPS locators, flight recording black boxes and on board video cams. Those things would make it much more difficult for liars to lie - can't have that