FatherTed wrote: » Actually Boebert refused to have her bag searched by Capitol police going into the House Chambers and she has said he carries her precious glock with her into the Capitol. She's the darling of the folks who caused the destruction and killed a Capitol police officer last week. I just wonder if she had been with Pelosi and the hehaws confronted them, would she have pulled her glock out to protect Pelosi or helped them?
Manic Moran wrote: » At the entrance to the gallery? Possibly, I'm unaware of the regulatory/legal environment once actually inside the building. Good luck getting past the metal detector at the entrance to the building, though. Metal detectors have been there for us non-Congressional-types for about 50 years, and that is non-discretionary. One may 'back the blue' whilst still retaining your fourth amendment rights.
FatherTed wrote: » The photo in the tweet is from last year.
aloyisious wrote: » If so, is it truly an image of her leading a tour around the Capitol way before she was elected and sworn in at the Congress Capitol very recently with the other green congresspersons? Her job was as owner & manager of a rifle-friendly restaurant before her election.
FatherTed wrote: » Praying its Rudy. Here he is on Bannon's podcast saying it was all Antifa. And says it was a group of Antifa guys who pushed Ashli Babbitt through the door and was promptly shot by SS/Capitol Police. Even Bannon thinks he's crazy.https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-653-pandemic-stand-freedom-w-raheem-kassam-rudy/id1485351658?i=1000505247881
FatherTed wrote: » The Sargent at arms said guns are only allowed in representatives offices, not for carrying around Willy nilly,
And please spare us the fourth amendment and second amendment crap. Blue lives matter only matter when it’s POC are being asked to comply by the police. If a black kid refuses to open his bag for the police and he goes on about the fourth amendment, he’d last about 5 seconds.
Manic Moran wrote: » It seems the regulations may state otherwise.
aloyisious wrote: » Personally, given the events in that building over the past two weeks and the actions of some of the elected tenants, if I was the new serjeant-at-arms I'd be inclined to do several sweeps of it for improperly located weapons and for the items to be destroyed after photo-messages were sent to the elected tenants letting them know of the discoveries and the date for the destruction of the items. But that's getting away from the excitements of Trump.
Edit: It seems Speaker Pelosi has stepped into the breech...’
I mean, even your responses above MM, about "individual rights" being the primary motivator is just bizarre.
aloyisious wrote: » Personally, given the events in that building over the past two weeks and the actions of some of the elected tenants, if I was the new serjeant-at-arms I'd be inclined to do several sweeps of it for improperly located weapons and for the items to be destroyed after photo-messages were sent to the elected tenants letting them know of the discoveries and the date for the destruction of the items. But that's getting away from the excitements of Trump. Edit: It seems Speaker Pelosi has stepped into the breech. From MSN. Speaker Pelosi said the metal detectors were necessary after the recent insurrection. She has since informed all politicians that entering the building without using the metal detectors will lead to a $5,000 fine, which will rise if offences mount. In a statement she confirmed that the new rules will kick on from January 21, which is one day after the inauguration of US President-elect Joe Biden. Ms Pelosi said: ‘On behalf of the House, I express my deepest gratitude to the U.S. Capitol Police for the valor that they showed during the deadly insurrection on the Capitol, as they protected the lives of the staff and the Congress. ‘Sadly, just days later, many House Republicans have disrespected our heroes by verbally abusing them and refusing to adhere to basic precautions keeping members of our Congressional community, including the Capitol Police, safe. ‘The House will soon move forward with a rule change imposing fines on those who refuse to abide by these protections. ‘The fine for the first offence will be $5,000 and $10,000 for the second offence. The fines will be deducted directly from Members’ salaries by the Chief Administrative Officer. ‘It is tragic that this step is necessary, but the Chamber of the People’s House must and will be safe.’
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » If kids have to pass through metal detectors to get into school then it makes sense for the leaders of the country to have to do the same.
VinLieger wrote: » And what are the consequences of kids refusing to pass through? They should be the same.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I can't believe you actually had to make that point. Kids passing through metal detectors to get into school. America needs to take a long hard look at itself in the mirror.
The attack on the Capitol is a stark warning to those who have peddled conspiracy theories and fallacies surrounding the 2020 presidential election results: If they continue to incite this behavior and refuse to condemn the president’s false allegations about the election, they are threatening our very system of government and its constitutional foundation. As members of both the Democratic and Republican parties, we are obligated to speak out against the acts of domestic terrorism committed on Jan. 6. We are calling on every lawmaker to join us because there can be no equivocation on where this legislative body stands on threats to our democratic republic.
We are encouraged by the bipartisan group of lawmakers who have been fighting to stop this dangerous, political endeavor, but those who continue to reinforce the president’s false narrative deepen the divisions in our country and undermine public confidence in our government.
Leroy42 wrote: » Jebus, you can't put any store on anything Susan Collins says. She will um, and ahm and be scathing about everythiuung right up to the point where she has to actually vote and then she will fall in line. It is actually a very clever political ploy, although I think it could only work long term in places like the US.
Manic Moran wrote: » ... "It's the principle of the thing" is by no means an uncommon hill to die on, as it were. Yet American jurisprudence is extremely clear that there are defined limits beyond which, even if they make 'make sense' to some people, are not permitted. Example, if I'm visibly wearing a gun, the police are not permitted to stop me and ask if I have a license. They are not permitted to pull me over when driving to see if I have a driver's license and insurance. That sort of thing. The default position is that I am a law-abiding citizen unless I do something which indicates otherwise. If you think about it, "because I can" is an extremely common excuse for all sorts of activities which are unremarkable in their commonplaceness, but have no 'rational' reason for being done, all that matters are their legality. With respect to police interaction, saying as little as possible is recommended because there is no good which can come of doing anything other than the minimum. If the cop asks "Do you mind if I look in your vehicle?" (It's always phrased to the default of denial, because there's more chance of saying "no" meaning 'no I don't want that' before you realise what you said), your options are to permit it, in which case you have no better legal position than you were before (and who knows what might turn up that you didn't know about), or to deny it, in which case you are still in the exact same legal position as you were before. Immediately follow with "am I free to go". If you believe you are being unlawfully searched/detained/etc, the recommended course of action is to say something like "I do not consent, but shall not resist". Then find a lawyer after the fact. Actively resisting an officer, even if he's wrong, is highly discouraged on practical grounds.
But the law over your way has been on the side of the ordinary, god-fearing citizens for 250 years now. So why the disconnect between the police and policed that you've described above?
Manic Moran wrote: » Carriage of firearms in the Capitol Building is authorised. Carriage in the legislative chambers themselves is not authorised. There has thus far been no indication that any legislators have either carried, or attempted to carry, in the chambers. A number of Congressmen are armed outside the chambers. (Rules for thee but not for me, again. Average citizens may not be. Too many politicians forget that they are part of the citizenry)
looksee wrote: » Would those 'ordinary god-fearing citizens' be just White people or are you including Black people?
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Except this isn't true is it?https://www.uscp.gov/visiting-capitol-hill/regulations-prohibitions/prohibited-items
josip wrote: » But there's also a general feeling here that the police are on our side and we don't do stuff that's going to make their jobs more difficult to do.
Manic Moran wrote: » "It's the principle of the thing" is by no means an uncommon hill to die on, as it were. Yet American jurisprudence is extremely clear that there are defined limits beyond which, even if they make 'make sense' to some people, are not permitted. Example, if I'm visibly wearing a gun, the police are not permitted to stop me and ask if I have a license. They are not permitted to pull me over when driving to see if I have a driver's license and insurance. That sort of thing. The default position is that I am a law-abiding citizen unless I do something which indicates otherwise.
