Interesting thing happened while OC'ing at the Capitol today.....

Glad all went well. Always a good thing.

I am, however, disturbed regarding the policy changing "in the next few weeks". If I am not mistaken, the only way that firearms could be banned from the state Capitol would be by a legislative bill being introduced in the General Assembly. Since the next session doesn't start until January, any policy that they put in place would be unlawful.

Maybe a memo explaining things was not concise. Perhaps the officer's understanding of a memo was innaccurate. Maybe it's just rumors ruing in the grapevine. Who knows? However, if this talk keeps continuing, we may want to look out for a bill like this being introduced.

Am I mistaken?

Click to expand...

It's not that the policy would be changed about carrying, with a CHP. Apparently, the Capitol Police's SOP was written that if you have a CHP you may carry CONCEALED in the Capitol (and/or GAB - I was only advised about the GAB on Tuesday).

Capitol Police Chief Kim Lettner agreed to look at the matter. I have written her separately, as I was the only one asked to conceal, and the only woman open carrying. In the interest of full disclosure, though, one of our members challenged the officer's request immediately, so perhaps he just didn't want to make the request of those who came in after me.

I am awaiting a response from Chief Lettner. Should it set out different rules for carry inside the capitol building from outside, I will determine a course of action at that time.

Click to expand...

Also wrote a letter to Chief Lettner requesting cites for authorization for "signing in" when attending public meetings and for request/requirement to only CC in the GA Bldg.

Skidmark and I tried to find the Joint Resolution werein this handgun policy was delineated. Even after checking with the Archive Library and the Print Shop, we came away empty handed. However, after I got home I was able to download a copy of the original clerks note and the record of the commitee's vote! The effective date of this resolution was 4/1/04 and nothing restricts open carry. Unfortunately, I am not home right now and will not be until Sunday evening so I cannot post this copy.

Someone else may be able to track it down with the effective date - I believe I picked up the initial reference from VCDL archives.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

I open carried at the Virginia Capitol today (Sig .40). Completely uneventful. Apparently Ispoke withthe same capitol police officer who had to call to get instructions when ProShooter visited a few weeks back. I only know that because the officer smiled and ASKED ME what the rules were at the xray machine and when I told him he said "oh yah, that's what I thought, we had a guy a few weeks ago in here open carrying and I was pretty sure that's right. You just can't carry in the Senate room". The officer was extremely non-chalant and positive. He then turned to the (non-officer) guy who actually looks at the xray images on the conveyer belt and said "right?" and that guy said he had no idea.

The restored Capitol is GORGEOUS and they allow you to take pictures. I really enjoyed my tour, and encourage others to check it out. The grounds were also beautiful, and the day couldn't have been more perfect.

I also open carried at the Virginia State Library today - no big deal as usual.


PS - Unusually for me, I was NOT wearing a dress shirt and tie today. Just blue jeans and a casual collared shirt and two days stubble (95% of the time I open carry I happen to be coming to or from work and I have a tie on, which I thinkmakes a difference inothers perceptions of any open carrier).

Click to expand...

Decided to meet the wife downtown today for lunch and she suggested a little cafe inside the Capitol building called Meriweathers....(The roast beef and carmelized onion sandwich was outstanding!) Not having OC'ed in the Cap before, I decided to give it a try.....

We entered the Capitol from the Bank St. entrance. I approached the magno and handed my CHP and DL to the officer. He asked me to hold on for a moment because he said that he had to check to see if the policy had changed yet. It seems that this is the same officer that was working the GAB on the 9th when a group went for the Crime Commission hearing.

He contacted his supervisor by phone who told him (apparently) that everything was fine and nothing had changed. The officer then apologized for the delay and said that he just wanted to double check because he had heard that there was going to be some kind of policy change coming in the "next few weeks" and he didnt want to proceed on the wrong information. He was extremely professional and polite the entire time and thewhole encounter took maybe 2-3 minutes. I appreciated his position, professionalism and desire to make sure that he was doing things correctly.

We ate in Meriweathers and walked around the Capitol buiding a bit and not a word was said or shocked look received. At one point we were in a glass elevator with a group of foreign tourists. I expected some shock and awe but they either didnt notice or didnt care. All in all, it was fairly uneventful as it should be.

Click to expand...

ProShooter wrote:

Decided to meet the wife downtown today for lunch and she suggested a little cafe inside the Capitol building called Meriweathers....(The roast beef and carmelized onion sandwich was outstanding!) Not having OC'ed in the Cap before, I decided to give it a try.....

We entered the Capitol from the Bank St. entrance. I approached the magno and handed my CHP and DL to the officer. He asked me to hold on for a moment because he said that he had to check to see if the policy had changed yet. It seems that this is the same officer that was working the GAB on the 9th when a group went for the Crime Commission hearing.

He contacted his supervisor by phone who told him (apparently) that everything was fine and nothing had changed. The officer then apologized for the delay and said that he just wanted to double check because he had heard that there was going to be some kind of policy change coming in the "next few weeks" and he didnt want to proceed on the wrong information. He was extremely professional and polite the entire time and thewhole encounter took maybe 2-3 minutes. I appreciated his position, professionalism and desire to make sure that he was doing things correctly.

We ate in Meriweathers and walked around the Capitol buiding a bit and not a word was said or shocked look received. At one point we were in a glass elevator with a group of foreign tourists. I expected some shock and awe but they either didnt notice or didnt care. All in all, it was fairly uneventful as it should be.

Click to expand...

Slight memory of a possible policy change is very slim reason to detain a valid permit holderfor 2 or 3 minutes. When gun policy changes occur, they occur with great formality and fanfare so that they are widely and thoroghly understood. But in a fascisty world, we can never be too safe.

Monday I rode at 17 mph behind a school bus in a 25 zone for quite some distance. 25 is safe by law, but 17 is 8 mph safer, and safer is better, isn't it? (Never stopped once.)

You're used to seeing the "We card under 25" sign in the local convenience store? I saw a "We card under 40" sign once. The law says 21 for purchase of alcohol, but safer is better, and we can't chance it that a 20 year old who looks 40 might try to buy alcohol illegally.

:dude:

Click to expand...

matt605 wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

Decided to meet the wife downtown today for lunch and she suggested a little cafe inside the Capitol building called Meriweathers....(The roast beef and carmelized onion sandwich was outstanding!) Not having OC'ed in the Cap before, I decided to give it a try.....

We entered the Capitol from the Bank St. entrance. I approached the magno and handed my CHP and DL to the officer. He asked me to hold on for a moment because he said that he had to check to see if the policy had changed yet. It seems that this is the same officer that was working the GAB on the 9th when a group went for the Crime Commission hearing.

He contacted his supervisor by phone who told him (apparently) that everything was fine and nothing had changed. The officer then apologized for the delay and said that he just wanted to double check because he had heard that there was going to be some kind of policy change coming in the "next few weeks" and he didnt want to proceed on the wrong information. He was extremely professional and polite the entire time and thewhole encounter took maybe 2-3 minutes. I appreciated his position, professionalism and desire to make sure that he was doing things correctly.

We ate in Meriweathers and walked around the Capitol buiding a bit and not a word was said or shocked look received. At one point we were in a glass elevator with a group of foreign tourists. I expected some shock and awe but they either didnt notice or didnt care. All in all, it was fairly uneventful as it should be.

Click to expand...

Slight memory of a possible policy change is very slim reason to detain a valid permit holderfor 2 or 3 minutes. When gun policy changes occur, they occur with great formality and fanfare so that they are widely and thoroghly understood. But in a fascisty world, we can never be too safe.

Monday I rode at 17 mph behind a school bus in a 25 zone for quite some distance. 25 is safe by law, but 17 is 8 mph safer, and safer is better, isn't it? (Never stopped once.)

You're used to seeing the "We card under 25" sign in the local convenience store? I saw a "We card under 40" sign once. The law says 21 for purchase of alcohol, but safer is better, and we can't chance it that a 20 year old who looks 40 might try to buy alcohol illegally.

:dude:

Click to expand...

I didnt view it as being detained....so no harm, no foul.

Click to expand...

ProShooter wrote:

I didnt view it as being detained....so no harm, no foul.

Click to expand...

No offense intended, and none taken as you say. But were you free to leave while he had your identificationand handgun permit? Were you free to proceed to see your representative while he had your identity and handgunpermit? An officer does something to restrict your going or coming, then that's being detained. In this case, it is doing his job as set forth by the Joint Rules Committee.

Maybe he just intended to mess with you a little because he doesn't like the law that protects your 2nd Amendment freedoms. Or because he didn't like your looks.

:dude:

Click to expand...

matt605 wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

I didnt view it as being detained....so no harm, no foul.

Click to expand...

No offense intended, and none taken as you say. But were you free to leave while he had your identificationand handgun permit? Were you free to proceed to see your representative while he had your identity and handgunpermit? An officer does something to restrict your going or coming, then that's being detained. In this case, it is doing his job as set forth by the Joint Rules Committee.

Maybe he just intended to mess with you a little because he doesn't like the law that protects your 2nd Amendment freedoms. Or because he didn't like your looks.

:dude:

Click to expand...

You are required to show CHP - is this being detained - No

Officer wanted to get clarification - is this being detained - No

I do not subscribe to manufacturing problems not in evidence - are we mind readers: "maybe - intended to mess with you, doesn't like the law, didn't like your looks." IMO - statements like this do nothing for seeking cooperation.

ProShooter didn't view it as being detained, why would anybody else? He is no neophyte.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

matt605 wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

I didnt view it as being detained....so no harm, no foul.

Click to expand...

No offense intended, and none taken as you say. But were you free to leave while he had your identificationand handgun permit? Were you free to proceed to see your representative while he had your identity and handgunpermit? An officer does something to restrict your going or coming, then that's being detained. In this case, it is doing his job as set forth by the Joint Rules Committee.

Maybe he just intended to mess with you a little because he doesn't like the law that protects your 2nd Amendment freedoms. Or because he didn't like your looks.

:dude:

Click to expand...

You are required to show CHP - is this being detained - No

Officer wanted to get clarification - is this being detained - No

I do not subscribe to manufacturing problems not in evidence - are we mind readers: "maybe - intended to mess with you, doesn't like the law, didn't like your looks." IMO - statements like this do nothing for seeking cooperation.

ProShooter didn't view it as being detained, why would anybody else? He is no neophyte.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Think about it. Since when doesalaw enforcement agency have ambiguous policies on who can carry a gun into a building?

Click to expand...

Grapeshot wrote:

matt605 wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

I didnt view it as being detained....so no harm, no foul.

Click to expand...

No offense intended, and none taken as you say. But were you free to leave while he had your identificationand handgun permit? Were you free to proceed to see your representative while he had your identity and handgunpermit? An officer does something to restrict your going or coming, then that's being detained. In this case, it is doing his job as set forth by the Joint Rules Committee.

Maybe he just intended to mess with you a little because he doesn't like the law that protects your 2nd Amendment freedoms. Or because he didn't like your looks.

:dude:

Click to expand...

You are required to show CHP - is this being detained - No

Officer wanted to get clarification - is this being detained - No

I do not subscribe to manufacturing problems not in evidence - are we mind readers: "maybe - intended to mess with you, doesn't like the law, didn't like your looks." IMO - statements like this do nothing for seeking cooperation.

ProShooter didn't view it as being detained, why would anybody else? He is no neophyte.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said it better than I could. There is a fineline between someone getting clarification on a policyand actually being detained. I know the difference because I have done both. This in no way was a case of being detained.



You also said.....

"I view it as being detained because the person produced his identification and his permit but was not given them back until the security guard messed aroundwith him some. It is not the role of security professionals to hem and haw about what policy states while holding a person's credentials and preventing him or her from leaving the building or proceeding ahead.

It is a form of harassment that attempts to fly below the radar.If the officer had cocked his head back and waved the ID and permit in his hand as an inquisitor? We'd know that to be harassment. He didn't do that, but he also didn't respect the permit holder by feining ignorance ofa policy that is well understood by all.

Think about it. Since when doesalaw enforcement agency have ambiguous policies on who can carry a gun into a building?

The guard wrongly detained and harassed ProShooter, and ProShooter isn't aware of it.


The "security guard" that you spoke of is a Capitol Police Officer. As a former LEO andalso a taxpayer, I congratulate him for taking a moment to ensure that he was proceeding in the correct manner. Havent we read ad nauseum here about LEO's making a rash and incorrect decision/statement? Wouldnt we all like it better if they took a moment to be sure of their actions/response? The police cannot possibly be able to recite every single law and/or policy off the top of their heads. Its expected that if he was unsure, he should ask a supervisor. No one "hemmed and hawed" about policy. He immediately picked up the phone and made a call. He did not prevent me from leaving if I chose to. For you to assume that the officer was "feining ignorance ofa policy that is well understood by all" is EXTREMELY presumptuous on your part, because you weren't there!

Believe me, after 12 years in law enforcement, I've been harassed by the best, from petty thief to mass murderer. I know it when I see it, and this wasnt even close.....

Click to expand...

snipped all - as not worth repeating

Click to expand...

OK, cops aren't expected toknow the rules on who can carry a gun into a building with a magnotometer. If you cannot leave without your permit and your ID in hand, then you are detained.

You were harassed and didn't even know it. Petty theives and mass murderers don't understand how to harass, condescend, and intimidate people without acting in blatantly anti-social,overtly hostile and astonishingly aggressive ways. Maybe that's how they became criminals in the first place. To the contrary, no one is better skilled at manipulating average citizenswithin the bounds of polite behavior than the police man.

I'm not saying criminals and cops are flip sides of the same coin. I'mjust saying you're not aware how some members of your ownguild practice their trade.

:dude:

Click to expand...