I told ya so! I get frustrated when people say cops are basically pro gun

[Repeater]

So what you're saying is that if he was there on his own time, and used his position by showing up in uniform and identifying himself by his rank, he was himself in violation of the Hatch Act. And if he was there representing the RPD, both he and possibly the department may be in violation?

Well, no, What the Hatch Act seems to prohibit are LEOs who lobby on legislation in their Official Capacity -- so what matters is what constitutes 'Official Capacity' and how that applies to lobbying before committees at the Virginia General Assembly.

This of course assumes that various Virginia PD's receive federal grants.

 

[Repeater]

TFred pointed this out

In addition the city of Lynchburg had a paid lobbyist there to also speak about how wonderful this bill would be! I hope others from Lynchburg write to express their disgust as I am doing.

I will also launch a complaint in regards to the Hatch Act violation.

This odious bill would have made 'Sterile Carry' illegal:

Panel kills bill requiring suspects to identify themselves

Lynchburg Police Chief Parks Snead joined Del. Scott Garrett on Wednesday in trying to convince a subcommittee that Virginia should pass a law requiring people to give their names to police officers who question them on the street.

Snead told a House Courts of Justice subcommittee that a bill proposed by Garrett, R-Lynchburg, was “common sense and good law” because it would give police officers an investigative tool that 24 states have given their police officers.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the panel said they feared such a law could be unconstitutional in certain situations, and HB1574 came out on the short side of a 5-2 vote, for the second year in a row.

But wait, there's more -- they also used a PAID lobbyist:

Lynchburg officials had made a strong effort to support Garrett’s bill. Linda McMinimy, the city’s lobbyist in Richmond, contacted several legislators trying to line up their support.

Garrett’s original bill would have allowed officers to demand someone’s name if they stop “a person under circumstances that reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and explains to the person the reason why he is being detained and questioned.”

Isn't OC a 'behavior' -- see what the Police Chief has to say:

Snead replied that “In Lynchburg there are no particular places where people are supposed to be, or are presumed to belong, and not in other places. I don’t find that to be conducive to a vibrant community and we don’t do that,” Snead said.

Instead, “We look for behaviors,” Snead said.

Del. David Albo, R-Fairfax County, said it was possible that by simply giving one’s name to a police officer, a person could be implicated in a crime. The example Albo cited would apply to a person who has been deported and has returned to a community illegally, he said. In that scenario, revealing a name could incriminate a person and violate his Fifth Amendment rights, Albo said.

Your Papers please! Or Else!

 

[kimbercarrier]

Sure it can!!! posted by you # 12!

That is not correct. I am very pro 2A and the Constitution as you can see by previous posts. I support open carry and concealed carry, although I agree with some gun control. I started posting because I saw some posts with incorrect legal points (from my formal education and experience). I was actually surprised with the overall theme of this VA forum. I thought the members would be patriotic individuals, pro-government, looking to exercise the rights the government has allowed them to have (open carry, etc.). I was surprised to see the overall theme of this site to be somewhat anti-government and anti-LEO. For example, just this past week, I have seen LEOs described as gang members, ignorant, uneducated, and taught to lie. Rarely is there a pro-LEO post, even though LEOs are the ones enforcing the legal system that supports your open carry and there are numerous posts of positive LEO contact. I am against corrupt, and misguided LEOs as much as anyone on this site, however, it seems that LEOs are stereotyped on this site very negatively. I must state that it seems that there is only a small group of posters (bullies if you will) that seem to gang up on anyone who attempts to post on this forum with any viewpoint they disagree with. It has been pointed out numerous times, and has hurt the credibility of the VA forum and site overall. Everyone should be entitled to their own opinion.

You really are defending your post that someone should obtain legal information on this site? You shouldn't be afraid or mad at those who have other viewpoints than your own. You should embrace the opportunity to change their opinion with your posts. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...n-to-a-class-meeting-not-held-on-campus-a-gym

The government does not grant rights. They are supposed to protect our rights. The government may grant you a privilege but not a right. And as someone else has stated other places on the forum, I'm not anti government I'm pro citizen.

 

[KBCraig]

But there's more to it than that.

As I read the OSC web site explaining the Hatch Act, it says that Local employees (including LEOs) can "campaign" or lobby for or against issues and legislation provided they do so in their 'Personal Capacity' -- if cops show up in full uniform and are On-Duty, then they are acting in their 'Official Capacity' -- and that appears to be a Hatch Act violation.

Yes, that is listed as example of what they may do.

However, the converse is not listed as a prohibited activity, and unless it's prohibited, it's legal.

 

[KBCraig]

I am very pro 2A and the Constitution...
...I agree with some gun control.
...the rights the government has allowed them to have...

There's a problem or two with consistency there.

 

[nuc65]

Yes, that is listed as example of what they may do.

However, the converse is not listed as a prohibited activity, and unless it's prohibited, it's legal.

As you point out, the stipulation in the word 'provided' states the method by which they may perform the activity. It does not require more clarification to state the doing otherwise is not as 'provided'.

 

[papa bear]

to novacop10 and xdm, i don't think this forum is anti gov. nor anti cop, i have read several post where the LE's has gotten praise for thier professional conduct and most here would not hesitate to come to the aide of a police officer.
just because they are pointing out bad behavior of someone who happens to be a cop doesn't mean they are anti police. we do have a wariness of people that have the power to take our rights away from us
i had first hand experience with a high ranking policeman telling me that he supported the 2A, but no one should have a gun. he felt that the police is all the protection we needed
i have noticed that it seems sheriff dept. seem to support citizens right more than police depts. does anyone else see that?

 

[t33j]

i have noticed that it seems sheriff dept. seem to support citizens right more than police depts. does anyone else see that?

That has been an observation of mine as well. Not exactly sure why that would be the case.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by papa bear
i have noticed that it seems sheriff dept. seem to support citizens right more than police depts. does anyone else see that?

That has been an observation of mine as well. Not exactly sure why that would be the case.

Maybe because they (sheriffs) are elected by the people, not hired by the local government entity. Ya think maybe?

 

[nova]

That has been an observation of mine as well. Not exactly sure why that would be the case.

Sheriffs are elected by the people and is an office set out in the Constitution of Virginia.
Police chiefs are appointed.

eta: beat by Grapeshot by 0 seconds :lol:

 

[Grapeshot]

Sheriffs are elected by the people and is an office set out in the Constitution of Virginia.
Police chiefs are appointed.

eta: beat by Grapeshot by 0 seconds :lol:

Dare I say I was quicker 'n you, just this once? :uhoh: :lol:

Edited: Is that better?

 

[Citizen]

You know that last humor item was bad enough for thread readers, but anytime anybody googles that term, its gonna lead back here and make even more people groan.

 

[slowfiveoh]

One officer? ONE?!?! Guess that one officer's viewpoint represents every LEO in VA. I think everyone on the forum is smart enough to realize that one person can't represent such a large group. It's like saying one OCer represents the entire VCDL. You told us so? HAha, comedy. Nice effort to start a LEO bashing thread.

Agreed.

This was kind of off the deep end I think.

 

[Grapeshot]

Agreed.

This was kind of off the deep end I think.

I fix it - better?

 

[Citizen]

Rules Violation!!

deleted by Citizen. I thought I caught Grapeshot violating a forum rule. But, he didn't. (dammit!)

 

[Grapeshot]

deleted by Citizen. I thought I caught Grapeshot violating a forum rule. But, he didn't. (dammit!)

????

Edited to add "Your right, you didn't." :lol:

 

[Citizen]

????

I thought you changed the quoted text. You know. Like we used to do playfully, "There, fixed it for you." But, then I looked again carefully, and saw your "quote" to be the same as the original post.

Dammit! I thought I had you good, but no. Rackfrackspitgrumblegnash!

Muhahahahaha. Until we meet again, Grapeshot.

 

[All American Nightmare]

to novacop10 and xdm, i don't think this forum is anti gov. nor anti cop, i have read several post where the LE's has gotten praise for thier professional conduct and most here would not hesitate to come to the aide of a police officer.
just because they are pointing out bad behavior of someone who happens to be a cop doesn't mean they are anti police. we do have a wariness of people that have the power to take our rights away from us
i had first hand experience with a high ranking policeman telling me that he supported the 2A, but no one should have a gun. he felt that the police is all the protection we needed
i have noticed that it seems sheriff dept. seem to support citizens right more than police depts. does anyone else see that?

Please do not put my name it the same post as novacop.

 

[peter nap]

Please do not put my name it the same post as novacop.

Yeah...you'll get cooties:uhoh:

 

[nemo]

to novacop10 and xdm, i don't think this forum is anti gov. nor anti cop, i have read several post where the LE's has gotten praise for thier professional conduct and most here would not hesitate to come to the aide of a police officer.
just because they are pointing out bad behavior of someone who happens to be a cop doesn't mean they are anti police. we do have a wariness of people that have the power to take our rights away from us
i had first hand experience with a high ranking policeman telling me that he supported the 2A, but no one should have a gun. he felt that the police is all the protection we needed
i have noticed that it seems sheriff dept. seem to support citizens right more than police depts. does anyone else see that?

The "cop-bashing" smear gets thrown around here, on occasion (I also read, lately, in the lame-stream media, about some imagined "war-on-cops", too). But, DAMN, there seems to be a whole lotta cops who NEED bashing, very badly. It would be one thing if there were just one standard (are there ANY gun laws, at state or federal level, that do not have an exclusion for cops, who are our "public servants"?) for all civilians, cop and non-cop alike, and if cops policed their "bad apples" instead of protecting them. But, there isn't, and they don't.