• 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.

Citizens searched at Gloucester supervisors meeting

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,215
Location
Accomac, Virginia, USA
imported post

Are the Supervisors so afraid of their constituents they want to exclude all guns and weapons from the meeting?

http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-gl-search-court,0,2327040.story

GLOUCESTER — Citizens attending tonight's Board of Supervisors meeting at the Colonial Courthouse will be subject to a security search similar to entering the Gloucester County Courthouse.

Sheriff Steve Gentry instituted the search for tonight's meeting to "ensure the safety of all those in attendance," according to a county press release.

Visitors must pass through a metal detection device and have their belongings searched to enter the courthouse where court hearings are held and where the Commonwealth's Attorney, Circuit Court Clerk and other offices are located. But searching citizens prior to public meetings at the Colonial Courthouse hasn't been a practice in Gloucester.

All purses, briefcases and other items will be searched. A list of prohibited items ranges from weapons of any kind, including firearms, knives, mace, pepper spray and Tasers, and all food and drinks. All cell phones must be turned off or in the silent mode.

The security measures were implemented following heightened citizens' interest in the meeting after the supervisors Teresa Altemus, Michelle Ressler, Bobby Crewe and Gregory Woodard voted Nov. 4 to spend $343,000 in taxpayer money to pay their legal bills. The four supervisors ran up the legal bills in successfully defending themselves against misdemeanor charges and an effort by citizens to remove them from office through petitions.

Gloucester would be the only locality to implement this kind of security measure at a public meeting. The Gloucester Sheriff's Office posts two armed deputies at the meeting, but searches of citizens haven't been conducted in the past.

Attempts to reach Gentry for comment were unsuccessful.
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
imported post

It might not be legal. I think it is only considered a court if court is in session. We carried in Falls Church at the city council meeting. We passed right through the metal detectors and into the room that they used for court hearings.



It might be legal for them to search, but it probably is not legal for them to exclude gun-owners excercising their rights.
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
imported post

Skidmark replied on another thread about multi-use facilities that hold court among other things. I think PVC will be onto this if it is what I think it is.
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

Wow... they are really working hard at getting themselves sued out ofoffice aren't they?

Here I thought Norfolk City Council was a bunch of crooks. These guys could teach Norfolk a few things.
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
imported post

Bill in Va, I'm nota legal expert, but I can give you an example as to why it may be lawful to carry at the Gloucester City Council meeting. We went to Falls Church to protest the mayor's membership in Bloomerberg's anti-gun group.

The building they used is a courthouse during the day. We all carried in that same building when court was out of session and the city council used it.
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

I want to say there's something about multi-use facilities such that the designated area where court is held is the 'courthouse' while the rest of the facility is NOT.

I know that one point I used to be able to go the Norfolk Clerk of Courts office without ever stepping through metal detectors and what not. The detectors used to be placed right outside the court rooms. They also had their signs posted such that firearms, weapons, etc were prohibited in the court. Noticeably, they were NOT prohibited elsewhere in the building.

Now, to step into that building you must pass through the detectors and they've extended the prohibition against weapons of all kinds to the entire facility despite only part of it being the court house.
 

VAopencarry

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
2,151
Location
Berryville-ish, VA
imported post

Is anybody familiar with this Courthouse? Is it a Historical place and not currently used as a real courthouse? I can't verify this.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:
It's no longer a real courthouse:

Colonial Courthouse


Here is a story about the meeting. If they denied entry upon an anonymous tip that armed people might be wanting to shoot the Board of Supervisors, then it was probably illegal.

Gazette Article
From the Gazette article:

He (Sheriff Steve Gentry) said tips to the Crime Line are anonymous and cannot be traced. Gentry said such security measures will remain in place at future meetings until the individual who made the threat is apprehended or until the sheriff deems there is no longer a safety issue.
Sounds like someone needs to contact the sheriff and let him know about § 15.2-915.

TFred
 

MSC 45ACP

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,840
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

How sooncan the people of Gloucestervote this Board of Criminals out of officeand prosecute them for wrongdoing? Is there any way they can have a "recall vote" to get rid of these felons before the next scheduled election before they do any more damage?

These folks make Nixon, Clintoon (and her husband), the current Felon in Chief and most of the current Congresslook likeCub Scouts and Girl Guides!

They really gotta go!
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:
How sooncan the people of Gloucestervote this Board of Criminals out of officeand prosecute them for wrongdoing? Is there any way they can have a "recall vote" to get rid of these felons before the next scheduled election before they do any more damage?

These folks make Nixon, Clintoon (and her husband), the current Felon in Chief and most of the current Congresslook likeCub Scouts and Girl Guides!

They really gotta go!

The only people who would disagree are the Gang of Four

If you're unfamilar with this issue, search www.dailypress.com for altemus
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

the sheriff cannot use an anonymous tip to keep OCers out of the meeting. WHY? because of TERRY vs OHIO. It's called REASONABLE SUSPICION. and its not legally possible to have it against the general public. The Sheriff is confused in his duties. OCing is not just a LAWFUL act, its a protected one. that means simple possession of a firearm does not(and CAN NOT) in and of itself SEPERATE us from the GENERAL PUBLIC. It doesn't matter if an anonymous person called in and said someone or themselves was gonna show up and shoot someone.

Legally, this is the EXACT SAME as an anonymous tip/threat that a man wearing glasses is going to shoot someone at the meeting. So you disallow Glasses at the meeting.

With glasses, you are violating someones incorporated 4th amendment rights.
With pistol carriers, you are violating thier unincorporated 2nd amendment rights, thier incorporated 4th amendment rights, thier incorporated 1st amendment rights (twice, once for peacebly assembling and once for freedom of speech if OCing) and state law because OCing does not meet the requirements for the "execution of thier duties" section of the PREEMPTION LAW. Why? it is NOT within the execution of thier duties to act upon an individual without reasonable suspicion.

As for the courthouse restriction of the preemption law. Their is no exception written into the law because 'courthouse' is DEFINED BY LAW. There is some case law and AG opinions that make it seem that legally, anything defined by law must be being used for that purpose IN THAT INSTANT. This is so that persons cannot ABUSE the intent or spirit of a law.

for instance, opinion that VCU law banning students from having firearms is only enforcable WHILE THE STUDENT IS INVOLVED IN CLASS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRED FOR SCHOOL.
Also note the case where a parent pulled a gun(empty) and started waving it around at a PTA meeting AT A SCHOOL (after hours) and only got charged with brandishing. She DID NOT get charged with with mandatory 10year sentance for carrying a gun to a school event.

Please see the VCDL website about the RICHMOND CITY HALL gun ban. They also had metal detectors and not only did they have to remove the no guns sign they removed the detectors as well. Why? because not only didn't they have the authority to ban guns, they didn't have the authority to search you in any way either.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

In my opinion, no. It's not a "courthouse" if it's "council meeting chambers". And, by the way, an opinion of the Attorney General is merely a lawyer's opinion.
 
Top