Is anyone packing ?

imported post

We went to Sine Irish Pub for a late lunch or early dinner (Lunner) after the Va march yesterday.

Grapeshot and I were standing next to the table waiting fot my wife and a couple others to come up when the waiter came by. Now BOTH Grapeshot and myself were wearing VERY OPEN 1911's.

The waiter saw our Guns Save Lives stickers and said "Are any of you packing". I about busted a gut. At least 4 other OC'ers had already talked to him and here we both were with full sized handguns on and he hadn't seen them.

I just pointed at it and he said "Oh, no alcohol".
I didn't plan on drinking anyway, so I didn't say anything but still think it's interesting he didn't notice anything but the stickers.

It was really an interesting OC day anyway.

When my wife and I got to Capitol Square it was early. There were a couple of people there already and we decided to go in the GA building for a snack.

Two of us had CHP's and two (Including me) didn't. I'll confess this now but since I knew I may have to go in the building, I had unloaded my gun before I had gotten out of the car. I don't like the idea of removing a loaded gun in public unless I plan on shooting something.

Anyway....my wife got the job of taking the guns in so she had three guns stuffed in a little purse and a file folder one of the others had.:lol:

I just showed my Lobbyist ID and bypassed the metal detector. The wife had to go through the detector, and get wanded but the officer forgot to look at her CHP until she reminded him.

After we left, everyone took their gun back and went to the rally.

There really isn't much sense in all that.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

I just pointed at it and he said "Oh, no alcohol".

Click to expand...

Even though you weren't planning on drinking, you should have informed him that he has no legal (or lawful) obligation to refuse to serve.

It's a matter of principle.

There really isn't much sense in all that.

Click to expand...

No more sense than it is to wand someone who openly displays a firearm. What are they looking for beyond that?

File under: exercises in the uselessness of government.

imported post

No more sense than it is to wand someone who openly displays a firearm. What are they looking for beyond that?

Click to expand...

The answer I got from the guard when having to put the contents of my pockets through the machine after being waved though when showing my CHP was, "you might have a knife". /facepalm....

imported post

zoom6zoom wrote:

No more sense than it is to wand someone who openly displays a firearm. What are they looking for beyond that?

Click to expand...

The answer I got from the guard when having to put the contents of my pockets through the machine after being waved though when showing my CHP was, "you might have a knife". /facepalm....

Click to expand...

If it weren't so plainly stupid, it would be funny.

imported post

As much as I enjoy Sine, for some reason I thoughtthat I read somewhere that the owner was anti-gun.

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

Even though you weren't planning on drinking, you should have informed him that he has no legal (or lawful) obligation to refuse to serve.

It's a matter of principle.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is not entirely true. A restaurant owner can refuse to serve ANYONE alcohol for ANY or NO reason whatsoever.

If they don't want to serve alcohol to a particular person who exhibiting particular behavior, they have no obligation to serve you. It's private property, and besides, you do not have a right to purchase or drink alcohol. They can actually bar your entrance, or refuse to seat you or serve you food if they want.

State Preemption does not extend to private property, and private property owners (or their legal representatives) can legally and lawfully bar you from their property for any or no reason whatsoever, just like you can do with your own house.

imported post

They can't selectively serve customers. At least, not lawfully.

They would immediately lose my business. I know it doesn't matter to some, but I don't like to play the "small victories" game. Either I am welcome in the establishment or I am not.

I'm not sure I completely agree with your take on the "right to refuse service" and what it entails.

imported post

its called a "Right to refuse service"

it is very legal... you just cant say "Im not going to serve you because you are <insert racial something or other here>"

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

Even though you weren't planning on drinking, you should have informed him that he has no legal (or lawful) obligation to refuse to serve.

It's a matter of principle.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is not entirely true. A restaurant owner can refuse to serve ANYONE alcohol for ANY or NO reason whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Actually READ what wylde007 wrote. It's 100% correct. The server had No OBLIGATION to refuse to serve. They did, of course, have to CHOICE to refuse to serve.

imported post

I hate askingstupid questions, but I'll do it anyway. The last time I was up at the GA, I walked in the front door, right through the middle between the metal detectors and on to the elevator. The guard didn't stop me or ask me to go through the metal detector. I didn't see any instructions posted, although I wasn't really looking so I might have missed them.

Due to some other factors that day, I did not have a gun in my possession. If I had, and had my CHP with me, how would they nowthat I was supposed togo through the metal detectors?

imported post

DJEEPER wrote:

It is very legal... you just can't say "I'm not going to serve you because you are <insert racial something or other here>"

Click to expand...

I'm not going to serve you because you are <lawfully carrying a firearm>.

Read that a few times and decide if it doesn't sound discriminatory to you.

imported post

DJEEPER wrote:

its called a "Right to refuse service"

it is very legal... you just cant say "Im not going to serve you because you are <insert racial something or other here>"

Click to expand...

Cite please - particularly on the racial issue.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

DJEEPER wrote:

its called a "Right to refuse service"

it is very legal... you just cant say "Im not going to serve you because you are <insert racial something or other here>"

Click to expand...

Cite please - particularly on the racial issue.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

In your case Grape, the royalty must sit and eat with the rest of uscommon folk!

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

............ must sit and eat with the rest of uscommon folk!

Click to expand...

More likely allowed to or tolerated...... if I mind my manners.

Don has his Jane to help him keep his hands on the table. DoubleTap isn't always there to remind me.

Yata hey

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

private property owners (or their legal representatives) can legally and lawfully bar you from their property for any or no reason whatsoever, just like you can do with your own house.

Click to expand...

That is not entirely true.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to refuse entry or service at "any place of public accommodation" (including hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc.) on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

The constitutional justification (as students of federal usurpation might expect) is that such facilities are engaged in "interstate commerce" -- therefore Congress has the right to regulate who may enter -- as well as anything else that goes on there.

(If we accept this, then theoretically, Congress can also prohibt certain persons from these facilities, such as "terrorists" or people on a secret government watch list. Something to think about.)

Unfortunately, people carrying arms are not one of the special federally protected classes, so business owners are still free to discriminate against them.

Wylde007 wrote:

No more sense than it is to wand someone who openly displays a firearm. What are they looking for beyond that?

Click to expand...

The Virginia CHP says "Permit to carry a concealed handgun."

This grants you the privilege of concealing "a handgun". (Emphasis on "a") It does not permit you to carry a concealed rifle, shotgun, machine gun, bowie knife, switchblade, nunchucku, ninja star, pipe bomb, RPG, or nuclear weapon.

By the letter of the law, you also cannot conceal multiple handguns, although one would hope a judge would rule that was not the legislative intent.

So I would say the Capitol Police are simply doing their job by screening CHP holders. It's the jackasses inside that are responsible.

We need a concealed weapons permit because I agree, if you can carry a handgun what is point of being subjected to all the other asinine and outright laughable restrictions of the concealed weapons statute?

From what I have heard back when VA was "may issue" it said "concealed weapons permit." It makes absolutely no logical sense why it was changed but there's the wonders of government for you.

imported post

Virginian683 wrote:

The Virginia CHP says "Permit to carry a concealed handgun."

This grants you the privilege of concealing "a handgun". (Emphasis on "a") It does not permit you to carry a concealed rifle, shotgun, machine gun, bowie knife, switchblade, nunchucku, ninja star, pipe bomb, RPG, or nuclear weapon.

By the letter of the law, you also cannot conceal multiple handguns, although one would hope a judge would rule that was not the legislative intent.



We need a concealed weapons permit because I agree, if you can carry a handgun what is point of being subjected to all the other asinine and outright laughable restrictions of the concealed weapons statute?

From what I have heard back when VA was "may issue" it said "concealed weapons permit." It makes absolutely no logical sense why it was changed but there's the wonders of government for you.

Click to expand...

While I understand the singular application of the article "a" as you apply it to the number of handguns one is permitted to CC, I must respectfully disagree.

Since each and every such handgun is "a" handgun, they are each individually and severally permitted. Further, in the absence of any specific statutory limitation, I conclude that carrying more than one such is in fact legal. Generally in law where the singular form is written, the plural is also the accepted norm.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

Should you have a statutory cite or court of record decision that would indicate differently in Va., please share it.

BTW - I used to have one of those magic CWP back before 1995.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

While I understand the singular application of the article "a" as you apply it to the number of handguns one is permitted to CC, I must respectfully disagree.

Since each and every such handgun is "a" handgun, they are each individually and severally permitted. Further, in the absence of any specific statutory limitation, I conclude that carrying more than one such is in fact legal. Generally in law where the singular form is written, the plural is also the accepted norm.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

Should you have a statutory cite or court of record decision that would indicate differently in Va., please share it.

BTW - I used to have one of those magic CWP back before 1995.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Back when I took my CHP class (2007) at Dominion Shooting Range in Richmond, they had a lawyer who taught part of the class. This was his specific warning to us; that both the permit and the statute concerned specified "a" handgun, and if police or a prosecutor wanted to be an A-hole about it, it could result in a concealed weapons charge for carrying more than one gun concealed.

No, I don't know of any case law to support such an interpretation. That is simply one possible reading of the law which, in the absence of a court precedent, he thought to convey to us, and which I am conveying here (in case no one had considered it).

I think his point was just to emphasize that the CHP is only get out of jail free card for a very limited part of the concealed weapons statute.

BTW, I think your point that each handgun is individually and severally "a handgun" does hold more merit.

imported post

Virginian683 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

While I understand the singular application of the article "a" as you apply it to the number of handguns one is permitted to CC, I must respectfully disagree.

Since each and every such handgun is "a" handgun, they are each individually and severally permitted. Further, in the absence of any specific statutory limitation, I conclude that carrying more than one such is in fact legal. Generally in law where the singular form is written, the plural is also the accepted norm.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

Should you have a statutory cite or court of record decision that would indicate differently in Va., please share it.

BTW - I used to have one of those magic CWP back before 1995.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Back when I took my CHP class (2007) at Dominion Shooting Range in Richmond, they had a lawyer who taught part of the class. This was his specific warning to us; that both the permit and the statute concerned specified "a" handgun, and if police or a prosecutor wanted to be an A-hole about it, it could result in a concealed weapons charge for carrying more than one gun concealed.

No, I don't know of any case law to support such an interpretation. That is simply one possible reading of the law which, in the absence of a court precedent, he thought to convey to us, and which I am conveying here (in case no one had considered it).

I think his point was just to emphasize that the CHP is only get out of jail free card for a very limited part of the concealed weapons statute.

BTW, I think your point that each handgun is individually and severally "a handgun" does hold more merit.

Click to expand...

I concur with Grapeshot on this one. The phrasing "a" is simply used as a grammatic carryover betweencarry and concealed. If the General Assembly wanted to limit you to one, they would say so.