VA-ALERT: Guns/weapons/helmets/shields banned on ENTIRE Capitol buildings AND grounds!

Somebody help me out. I read a news report that only one person was arrested for a serious felony crime: A 21 year old woman for wearing a mask (bandanna covering her face) in public and refusing to lower it.

Since when is wearing a mask a felony? So, by extension, all the anti-fa and the police in storm trooper garb are felons at these things?

fireside44 said:

I guess the 2A movement needs to consult Vogue magazine for our fashion directives. I think frilly chartreuse plate carriers are a great idea honestly. Satin mag pouches. Much softer image. Tender heartfelt assault rifle gentle Ben's fighting valiantly in the trenches for our rights.

Click to expand...

Sarcasm?

Look you and I just have different views how to present ourselves as gun owners to the public. That doesn't mean at the end of the day I don't stand with you, at most it is inter differences.

But my goal is to intimidate by vocal and visual turn out by using our 1st amendment rights to sway elections and politicians, while gathering support from those that are on the fence. You may have a different tactic I don't know only you can clarify it, it may be though to intimidate through visual show of potential FORCE which I can say many Americans wouldn't warm up to.

lionking said:

You may have a different tactic I don't know only you can clarify it, it may be though to intimidate through visual show of potential FORCE which I can say many Americans wouldn't warm up to.

Click to expand...

I believe intimidation needs to be part of the strategy now. It's a tool. People who watch the view won't warm up to your presentation any more than mine. Goody two shoes look is dated and looks staged anyhow. Soccer moms will still want your guns taken away they'll just say you look better getting yours taken away than I do.

berettaprofessor said:

Since when is wearing a mask a felony?

Click to expand...

I suppose it might depend on when and where. Some of the no-mask laws go back to the days of the KKK and were put in place to help combat that problem. But the usual illegal part is that you must remove it if asked to do so by a cop. Refusing to do so will be a problem.

Perhaps one of our resident lawyers can chime in on what is what...

fireside44 said:

I believe intimidation needs to be part of the strategy now. It's a tool. People who watch the view won't warm up to your presentation any more than mine. Goody two shoes look is dated and looks staged anyhow. Soccer moms will still want your guns taken away they'll just say you look better getting yours taken away than I do.

Click to expand...

Then on this part we fundamentally disagree.
We aren't trying to change those that watch the view show as die hard fans, we aren't trying to change the view of us toward the established left. But we should be considering the moderates and the independent voters, the ones who support the 2nd generally, that own guns themselves but it isn't their first most important subject, as compared to health care or education as a example. To make them realize that yes their guns are in jeopardy also, BUT NO we the 2nd amendment activists are not looking to start violence because we don't get our way at the moment, and we respect the free elections as anyone else. And most Americans love the fact that we have free elections with peaceful transition of power after a election before loving the fact that we have a 2nd. They also respect the fact that we have a judicial system that can overturn unconstitutional laws.

And if you say elections and the courts don't work anymore because sometimes we have a setback, I can post numerous wins we have been having since Clinton administration be it the president, the congress the courts , state and federal, that worked or overturned in our favor.

lionking said:

Then on this part we fundamentally disagree.
We aren't trying to change those that watch the view show as die hard fans, we aren't trying to change the view of us toward the established left. But we should be considering the moderates and the independent voters, the ones who support the 2nd generally, that own guns themselves but it isn't their first most important subject, as compared to health care or education as a example. To make them realize that yes their guns are in jeopardy also, BUT NO we the 2nd amendment activists are not looking to start violence because we don't get our way at the moment, and we respect the free elections as anyone else. And most Americans love the fact that we have free elections with peaceful transition of power after a election before loving the fact that we have a 2nd. They also respect the fact that we have a judicial system that can overturn unconstitutional laws.

And if you say elections and the courts don't work anymore because sometimes we have a setback, I can post numerous wins we have been having since Clinton administration be it the president, the congress the courts , state and federal, that worked or overturned in our favor.

Click to expand...

Liberals think it’s fine when the Constitution protects minorities from the majority and yet it’s not fine to protect our Second Amendment minority folks from the majority. Our courts have screwed us over time and time again concerning our 2nd amendment rights. I personally like the idea of those in power fearing those of us who exercise our right to keep and bear arms. We have waited way too long to use intimidation. Do you think the police do not use intimidation when they show up in swat gear and storm someone’s house which by the way is usually not necessary. It’s the very definition of intimidation. BTW I support the police.

lionking said:

But we should be considering the moderates and the independent voters, the ones who support the 2nd generally, that own guns themselves but it isn't their first most important subject, as compared to health care or education as a example.

Click to expand...

If you put social medicine and public education before gun rights (and a couple other conservative causes) you are already lost. Sorry those aren't issues of the day for on the fence voters with a heart, brain, or love of country. I think the days of winning huge numbers of converts have dwindled and lines are much more clearly drawn now. People have already taken sides, by and large. Either you love baby killing gun grabbers or you don't. Wearing Gucci won't do anything more or less effective than an obese person in a plate carrier. I think we saw the future of gun rights demonstrations today. Plan accordingly.

fireside44 said:

If you put social medicine and public education before gun rights (and a couple other conservative causes) you are already lost. Sorry those aren't issues of the day for on the fence voters with a heart, brain, or love of country. I think the days of winning huge numbers of converts have dwindled and lines are much more clearly drawn now. People have already taken sides, by and large. Either you love baby killing gun grabbers or you don't. Wearing Gucci won't do anything more or less effective than an obese person in a plate carrier. I think we saw the future of gun rights demonstrations today. Plan accordingly.

Click to expand...

Definently really hard to change any stranger's mind. I focus on trying to educate friends and family and encourage them to vote. We have to educate our own before the brainwashers get ahold of them and that happens when a kid gets their first cell phone. I've seen it happen. We have to be on top of things.


Kids need to be shown examples of what happens when people lose their freedom.

Everything else falls into place when that kid understands what freedom means.

lionking said:

Then on this part we fundamentally disagree.
We aren't trying to change those that watch the view show as die hard fans, we aren't trying to change the view of us toward the established left. But we should be considering the moderates and the independent voters, the ones who support the 2nd generally, that own guns themselves but it isn't their first most important subject, as compared to health care or education as a example. To make them realize that yes their guns are in jeopardy also, BUT NO we the 2nd amendment activists are not looking to start violence because we don't get our way at the moment, and we respect the free elections as anyone else. And most Americans love the fact that we have free elections with peaceful transition of power after a election before loving the fact that we have a 2nd. They also respect the fact that we have a judicial system that can overturn unconstitutional laws.

And if you say elections and the courts don't work anymore because sometimes we have a setback, I can post numerous wins we have been having since Clinton administration be it the president, the congress the courts , state and federal, that worked or overturned in our favor.

Click to expand...

I think the image of the Pro-2A to the public is less important than some make it out to be. What is important is for elected officials to see that those interested in preserving their rights fall across the spectrum: LGBTQ, soccer moms, professionals, blue collar workers, young men and women, senior citizens, Proud Boys and ANTIFA. That "gun-nuts" aren't 8 hyper-tactical guys living in Ted Kaczynski's cabin, but instead are numerous socially and politically active voters.

The voters who don't care, don't matter in this issue. If abortion, social security, health care, or the environment are the key issues for a voter, a legislator's position on guns won't move the needle for that voter. Politicians need to see, that of the voters who care passionately about firearms, there are significantly more who want tp preserve their rights, than there are of those who want to eliminate those rights.

great turn out. its a shame that the bills will get passed anyway. elections do have consequences.

climbnjump said:

I suppose it might depend on when and where. Some of the no-mask laws go back to the days of the KKK and were put in place to help combat that problem. But the usual illegal part is that you must remove it if asked to do so by a cop. Refusing to do so will be a problem.

Perhaps one of our resident lawyers can chime in on what is what...

Click to expand...

So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on this but generally speaking the courts addressing the issue have not discovered a "right" to conceal one's identity in public via a mask. The Supremes have ruled that if stopped by law enforcement, states can require require a person in public to identify themself in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). So currently, states and localities in most places are free to pass laws that forbid being masked so as to conceal one's identity in public or to restrict the time, manner, and place of wearing such. There has been some arguments that doing so prevents symbolic speech or burdens free speech rights in protests but so far, by and large, courts have not accepted such (California was an exception). If the law is carefully drafted to allow law enforcement after observing what may be criminal activity afoot under the reasonable suspicion std. (as used in Hiibel), then probably it will be held constitutional on its face.

Under common law, the old std. was that during the hours of mischief (aka dark), it was legitimate for town watchmen to stop and demand the identity and their state business of all those going about under the cover of darkness. The idea is that those with legitimate business will have no problem identifying themselves and stating their business--those who intend bad things will balk. Anyone wearing a mask outside of festivals like Carnival would be automatically suspect and required to stop and be identified. You see a brief example of the town watch in Shakespeare's play, Much Ado about Nothing where the leader of the watch Sgt. Dogberry is the comic relief.

It is similar in one sense to many states forbidding carrying locksmith tools or implements of burglary under specified conditions. Concealing one's identity, carrying tools that help burglary or violence, etc. during a demonstration or at night has generally been within the powers of government to curtail. Actions+speech make the constitutional analysis more complicated than a simple free speech case.

Regarding mask laws
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/protests-masks-laws.html

JERRY said:

great turn out. its a shame that the bills will get passed anyway. elections do have consequences.

Click to expand...

In the minds of officeholders, future elections are more important than past elections. That's why events like yesterday's are not ignored by them. A smart politician is always reading the tea leaves.

Further, it's not a foregone conclusion that all the antigun bills will be passed. Part of the purpose of introducing the more draconian bills, such as the AWB, was to make the "low hanging fruit" (UBCs, "red flag" laws,etc.) seem more palatable by comparison. I frankly don't believe we're going to see an AWB in Virginia this year. But keep lobbying.

Does that also pertain to women of Islam? Just curious.

boom boom said:

So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on this but generally speaking the courts addressing the issue have not discovered a "right" to conceal one's identity in public via a mask. The Supremes have ruled that if stopped by law enforcement, states can require require a person in public to identify themself in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). So currently, states and localities in most places are free to pass laws that forbid being masked so as to conceal one's identity in public or to restrict the time, manner, and place of wearing such. There has been some arguments that doing so prevents symbolic speech or burdens free speech rights in protests but so far, by and large, courts have not accepted such (California was an exception). If the law is carefully drafted to allow law enforcement after observing what may be criminal activity afoot under the reasonable suspicion std. (as used in Hiibel), then probably it will be held constitutional on its face.

Under common law, the old std. was that during the hours of mischief (aka dark), it was legitimate for town watchmen to stop and demand the identity and their state business of all those going about under the cover of darkness. The idea is that those with legitimate business will have no problem identifying themselves and stating their business--those who intend bad things will balk. Anyone wearing a mask outside of festivals like Carnival would be automatically suspect and required to stop and be identified. You see a brief example of the town watch in Shakespeare's play, Much Ado about Nothing where the leader of the watch Sgt. Dogberry is the comic relief.

It is similar in one sense to many states forbidding carrying locksmith tools or implements of burglary under specified conditions. Concealing one's identity, carrying tools that help burglary or violence, etc. during a demonstration or at night has generally been within the powers of government to curtail. Actions+speech make the constitutional analysis more complicated than a simple free speech case.

Regarding mask laws
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/protests-masks-laws.html

Click to expand...

LNK said:

Does that also pertain to women of Islam? Just curious.

Click to expand...

There was a Florida case where a women claimed that the Florida Driver's License requirement that the applicant must show their face was unconstitutional. The court disagreed in the case and held that the Florida requirement was based on secular considerations that required people to be readily identifiable for driving purposes. Apparently similar regulations exist for U.S. passports. https://www.learnreligions.com/is-it-allowed-to-wear-islamic-clothing-in-an-id-photo-2004250

The Court's free exercise and establishment clause jurisprudence is basically a trainwreck but Smith v. Oregon is the relevant constitutional law case for the free exercise clause. Given that a person is trying to be exempt from a generally applicable law for religious reasons, this is not generally an establishment clause but rather a free exercise clause. Generally speaking, the court has disfavored challenges to laws that everyone else has to obey under the free exercise clause. However, at the federal level, and some states, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (and similar laws at the state level) compels the government and courts to a higher level of protection than did Smith v. Oregon.

The arrest had nothing to do with the gun rally as it happened almost 2 hours after the rally ended.

“Way to keep our city safe guys while there’s f*ckin’ Nazis and terrorists around here,” the man says. “Way to ****in’ keep our city safe. We’re from Richmond.”

Click to expand...

https://www.virginiamercury.com/blo...oman-for-wearing-bandanna-near-pro-gun-rally/

So zero gun rights supporters or rally goers arrested despite the far left media, Democrats, and the Governor's fear mongering.

And, taking a selfie with the police in the background, tells me that she WANTED to make a scene, for nothing more than internet fandom.

badkarmamib said:

And, taking a selfie with the police in the background, tells me that she WANTED to make a scene, for nothing more than internet fandom.

Click to expand...

Took a selfie and a video of the entire ordeal. Posted it on her Instagram account... She definitely had zero to do with the rally, and the media should not even have attributed her arrest to the rally.

lionking said:

I'm glad all went well, really am. However while there isn't a dress code there is public image, some may have different ideas about that, in my mind sending image that smashes the anti's propaganda is the most beneficial.

So let me ask, you are on a jury, honestly what is going to go through your mind looking at a defendant that, A - has a coat and tie or otherwise dressed for success look, or B- is dressed in a tank top with pants hanging down past his underwear with tattoos covering his face? Right off the bat no matter how of a nice guy or innocent he really is you have made a instant biased judgement in your mind more than likely.

Let say something about myself, I am NOT a clean cut kind by nature I have hair down to my chest and would be happy if all I had to wear was a t-shirt and jeans all the time. But I know impressions matter, I remember once the old lady at a gas station in her car look at me with wide eyes and lock her door as I was walking by. There are times depending it's time to tie my hair back, put on some more fancy clothes if going to certain places and events because after a person talks to me they may get a real impression but their eyes will judge first, it's human nature.

Click to expand...

When I moved to Co I gave up on suites and ties. Jeans and a causal shirt or t shirt mostly to cover my carry weapon. I wear cowboy hats and ball caps. Would you say that is not proper attire? I do shower every day.

AlexanderA said:

In the minds of officeholders, future elections are more important than past elections. That's why events like yesterday's are not ignored by them. A smart politician is always reading the tea leaves.

Further, it's not a foregone conclusion that all the antigun bills will be passed. Part of the purpose of introducing the more draconian bills, such as the AWB, was to make the "low hanging fruit" (UBCs, "red flag" laws,etc.) seem more palatable by comparison. I frankly don't believe we're going to see an AWB in Virginia this year. But keep lobbying.

Click to expand...

no, I don't think all the anti gun bills will be enacted (at one time), but once again, some anti gun bills are going to be enacted and the gun rights side gets nothing in return. its death by a thousand cuts..... little by little the rights are being taken away by the government and our side always has to say well at least its not as bad as it could have been.... never a victory just being grateful the beating wasn't as severe, all the while knowing the beatings will continue.

Yes, we will definitely get some bad this round. We need to keep at it. And, when the legislature turns, STAY ACTIVE !!! Write letters, make calls, send emails, arrange meetings, show up to council, and donate to groups. Get the bad overturned, and start taking some ground back!

Caveat: I will admit, I was asleep until about 18 months ago. I won't fall asleep again.

phonesysphonesys said:

When I moved to Co I gave up on suites and ties. Jeans and a causal shirt or t shirt mostly to cover my carry weapon. I wear cowboy hats and ball caps. Would you say that is not proper attire? I do shower every day.

Click to expand...

Which image do you think makes gun owners appear more reasonable?

Those who say how people dress at a public rally makes no difference in public perception are either extremely ignorant or in extreme denial.