Lobby Day 2009 Photos

[nova]

imported post

tsannicolas wrote:

nova wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

nova wrote:

If the person in question has a CHP there is no issue then.

I don't have a CHP. So the rules are different for me. But thanks to the ruling cited above I *can* conceal as long as I'm not *in* the vehicle. but while traveling I would have to either OC or follow the transport laws.

I'm in the same boat...I don't have a CHP either.

if you can apply for one, fairfax takes exactly 45 days

Looking forward to it when I can, though for me today my wait time will be around 500 days (a year and three months, plus 45 days )

 

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

WVCDL wrote:

The case is Pruitt v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 382, 650 S.E.2d 684 (2007) (slip opinion available here).

Thanks again WV and Nova! What a rollercoaster ride of a read that was but the right decision was made! I have a gunvault (highly recommeded product) in my truck under the rear seat. So I actually have to "exit" my vehicle in order to stow the gun and it's even "less" accessible than a center console.... So it looks like I'm good to go.

Yeah, baby. Great to know. I think I'll call the VSP and let them know the poop since they informed me wrongly :^).

I must say I got a little lost. The circuit court found him guilty, the appeals court refused to hear it, a three judge panel also refused, who then overturned the decision (pages 5 & 6)? It wasn't the Supreme Court of VA. Who was it?

Pruitt v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 382, 650 S.E.2d 684 (2007),was decided by a unanimous Supreme Court of Virginia. Bear in mind that it does not reverse prior cases upholding convictions where a person remained in the vehicle after a weapon was stored in a concealed manner. Pruitt only allows a person without a CHP to store a weapon in a concealed location if he or she immediately leaves and closes the vehicle and thereby places enough disatance between him or her and the weapon so as to render it no longer "about the person."

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

WVCDL wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

WVCDL wrote:

The case is Pruitt v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 382, 650 S.E.2d 684 (2007) (slip opinion available here).

Thanks again WV and Nova! What a rollercoaster ride of a read that was but the right decision was made! I have a gunvault (highly recommeded product) in my truck under the rear seat. So I actually have to "exit" my vehicle in order to stow the gun and it's even "less" accessible than a center console.... So it looks like I'm good to go.

Yeah, baby. Great to know. I think I'll call the VSP and let them know the poop since they informed me wrongly :^).

I must say I got a little lost. The circuit court found him guilty, the appeals court refused to hear it, a three judge panel also refused, who then overturned the decision (pages 5 & 6)? It wasn't the Supreme Court of VA. Who was it?

Pruitt v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 382, 650 S.E.2d 684 (2007),was decided by a unanimous Supreme Court of Virginia. Bear in mind that it does not reverse prior cases upholding convictions where a person remained in the vehicle after a weapon was stored in a concealed manner. Pruitt only allows a person without a CHP to store a weapon in a concealed location if he or she immediately leaves and closes the vehicle and thereby places enough disatance between him or her and the weapon so as to render it no longer "about the person."

I've saved the pdf file and put it in my gun related folder just in case I need it later on. I do believe I will be calling the VSP about it since the decision was made long before they gave me the wrong information about leaving a loaded gun in the truck.

Thanks again! Unanimous huh!

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

bnkrazy wrote:

Here are some pics I got today. Let's see yours.

Entire Gallery: http://bnkrazy.smugmug.com/gallery/7138723_pMbN9/1/457909145_3QDyV

A few from the gallery:


The Antis:

Hey, is this one of the VA Tech victim's parents? A woman who looks just like her is in the video clip below from last year. Did anyone talk to her and find out who she was?

She appears a few moments into the start of the video, she's on the left of three women in one scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc97OUyMkQA

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Could very well be the same women - my best judgment is that it is.

It is really a shame that she still does not get it.

Yata hey

 

[Marco]

imported post

How did I end up in so many pic's?

I'm glad my few minutes didn't include the part when my gum was trying to escape from under my tongue.

And for all those that tell me I speak to fast, I now agree.

Oh, for the record I changed back into shorts when I got home,I hate wearing long pants.

 

[Virginiaplanter]

imported post

You will notice the poster that the pacifists are holding don't include the picture of President William McKinley who was assassinated. Why is that? I guess only some people's lives are important to them. McKinley must have been a Republican.

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:

You will notice the poster that the pacifists are holding don't include the picture of President William McKinley who was assassinated. Why is that? I guess only some people's lives are important to them. McKinley must have been a Republican.

I'd love to ask them - what if a CHP holder was present and saw the sniper setting up to shoot MLK and stopped him....what are your thoughts on that?

What if the Board at VT allowed students with permits to carry, as they had asked for years...

 

[Marco]

imported post

Those shirts/poster make as much sense as showing peoplewho tragically died in a fire and then saying Fire extinguishers didn't save them.

Ban fire extingusher, close the loop hole.:banghead:

 

[GWRedDragon]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

GWRedDragon wrote:

ed wrote:

If you have your gun in the parking lot at a post office are you not ALREADY on Federal Property?

Property yes but you are not inside a federal facility...

OK, which is it?? "On" Fed property or "In" Fed building?

Well, if I understand things correctly there are two things at work here: federal law, and federal regulations which for some crazy reason seem to have the force of law even though they are not approved by an elected body.

According to federal law, you may not carry in a building owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees regularly work as a part of their official duties. Under this law, a valid affirmative defense is that the building was not posted and you did not receive notice that guns were not allowed there.

Federal regulations, on the other hand (such as the former national park ban), usually have the force of law, are not as easy to research, can say pretty much anything they want, are open to more interpretation by the enforcers, and differ for every agency. Basically federal regulations are tyrannical rule :lol:

But yes, some agencies may not have a 'owned land' prohibition, while others may.

 

[riverrat10k]

imported post

"Hey, is this one of the VA Tech victim's parents? A woman who looks just like her is in the video clip below from last year. Did anyone talk to her and find out who she was?"

I believe it is. See my post about "Richmond Columnist". He identifies the anti protesters.

 

[riverrat10k]

imported post

And I think the guy talking to her in your photois the columnist, Michal Paul Williams.

 

[bnkrazy]

imported post

riverrat10k wrote:

And I think the guy talking to her in your photo is the columnist, Michal Paul Williams.

Yeah, I noticed that. If I had known, I would've walked over and tried to balance out the report with a few quotes of my own. Futile effort, to be sure, but there's no harm in trying.