Loudoun Country ordinance - 684.01 SHOTGUNS OR RIFLES IN VEHICLES.

Doesn't § 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies. apply to all firearms, rifles and shotguns included? Loudoun County has an ordinance on the books that states:


684.01 SHOTGUNS OR RIFLES IN VEHICLES.
(a) No person shall transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle
on any public street, road or highway within the County.

followed by:

(b) Subsection (a) hereof shall not apply to duly authorized law enforcement officers or
military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, or to any person who reasonably
believes that a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun is necessary for his personal safety in the course of his
employment or business.

Also appear that the are in violation with ordinance 684.02

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide against the shooting of air-operated,
carbon dioxide gas-operated and spring-operated weapons in heavily populated areas of the County,
under authority granted the County in Section 15.2-1209 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended.

Code of VA supersedes that:

§ 15.2-915.4. Counties, cities and towns authorized to regulate use of pneumatic guns.
B. No such ordinance authorized by subsection A shall prohibit the use of pneumatic guns at facilities approved for shooting ranges, on other property where firearms may be discharged, or on or within private property with permission of the owner or legal possessor thereof when conducted with reasonable care to prevent a projectile from crossing the bounds of the property.

That's the same as Richmond's.
I guess we should bring it to their attention. I just hate dealing with those idiots. Richmond that is. NOVA is north of Ashland..

peter nap said:

That's the same as Richmond's.
I guess we should bring it to their attention. I just hate dealing with those idiots. Richmond that is. NOVA is north of Ashland..

Click to expand...

Yep - we need to make a list of things to do in Richmond :lol:

Grapeshot said:

Yep - we need to make a list of things to do in Richmond :lol:

Click to expand...

And that list should include the aquisition of several railroad ties, a big pot of tar, and several dozen down-filled pillows, just for general principal...

Dreamer said:

And that list should include the aquisition of several railroad ties, a big pot of tar, and several dozen down-filled pillows, just for general principal...

Click to expand...

Don't think there is a pot big enough to hold that much tar

I guess counties and towns may pass the above language...


§ 15.2-915.2. Regulation of transportation of a loaded rifle or shotgun.

The governing body of any county or city may by ordinance make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within such locality. Any violation of such ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $100. Conservation police officers, sheriffs and all other law-enforcement officers shall enforce the provisions of this section. No ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall be enforceable unless the governing body adopting such ordinance so notifies the Director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries by registered mail prior to May 1 of the year in which such ordinance is to take effect.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to duly authorized law-enforcement officers or military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, nor to any person who reasonably believes that a loaded rifle or shotgun is necessary for his personal safety in the course of his employment or business.

(1976, c. 506, § 18.2-287.1; 1977, c. 377; 1989, c. 50; 2004, c. 462.)

makes no sense to me. How do we go about getting this removed?

cyras21 said:

I guess counties and towns may pass the above language...

§ 15.2-915.2. Regulation of transportation of a loaded rifle or shotgun.

The governing body of any county or city may by ordinance make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within such locality. Any violation of such ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $100. Conservation police officers, sheriffs and all other law-enforcement officers shall enforce the provisions of this section. No ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall be enforceable unless the governing body adopting such ordinance so notifies the Director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries by registered mail prior to May 1 of the year in which such ordinance is to take effect.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to duly authorized law-enforcement officers or military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, nor to any person who reasonably believes that a loaded rifle or shotgun is necessary for his personal safety in the course of his employment or business.

(1976, c. 506, § 18.2-287.1; 1977, c. 377; 1989, c. 50; 2004, c. 462.)

Click to expand...

makes no sense to me. How do we go about getting this removed?

Click to expand...

State law is superior.

We get it fixed by contacting the county attorney and/or the Board of Supervisors, pointing out the errors and quoting Code of Virginia
§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

Particularly nice is the last paragraph:
C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915

Why not try your hand at it? Many hands make light work,

Grapeshot said:

Why not try your hand at it? Many hands make light work,

Click to expand...

Yes it does. Our power is in our numbers!

The ordinance in the first post is not in violation of the Code of Virginia. The applicable statute reads as follows (emphasis supplied):

§15.2-915(A) No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.

Click to expand...

The statute expressly authorizing that ordinance is §15.2-915.2, as noted by cyras21 (emphasis again supplied):

The governing body of any county or city may by ordinance make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within such locality.

Click to expand...

In short, localities may generally prohibit the possession of a loaded shotgun or rifle in a vehicle on a public street. This is an exception to the preemption statute.

Grapeshot said:

State law is superior.

We get it fixed by contacting the county attorney and/or the Board of Supervisors, pointing out the errors and quoting Code of Virginia
§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

Particularly nice is the last paragraph:
C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915

Why not try your hand at it? Many hands make light work,

Click to expand...

The section I posted is State law.

§ 15.2-915.2. Regulation of transportation of a loaded rifle or shotgun.

The governing body of any county or city may by ordinance make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within such locality. Any violation of such ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $100. Conservation police officers, sheriffs and all other law-enforcement officers shall enforce the provisions of this section. No ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall be enforceable unless the governing body adopting such ordinance so notifies the Director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries by registered mail prior to May 1 of the year in which such ordinance is to take effect.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to duly authorized law-enforcement officers or military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, nor to any person who reasonably believes that a loaded rifle or shotgun is necessary for his personal safety in the course of his employment or business.

(1976, c. 506, § 18.2-287.1; 1977, c. 377; 1989, c. 50; 2004, c. 462.)

We need to get the above removed from the State code.

As noted, this is NOT a violation of 15.2-915, and to call up a locality and complain about it would be detrimental. It would hurt your personal reputation, as well as that of all pro-self-defense people.

This section of code is clearly addressing hunters, as evidenced by the requirement to notify DGIF in time to update the fall's hunting regulations, as well as the (in my opinion) outdated and insufficient reference to other legitimate purposes (self defense for a business owner or job).

Given recent high court cases, this law has probably seen the end of it's useful days, since self-defense is no longer required to be demonstrated as a legitimate reason to carry a firearm.

I suspect the original purpose of the law was to help localities enforce the laws against hunters from shooting from their trucks, something that would be very difficult to enforce in the field. Requiring them to keep their gun unloaded while in the truck makes it easier to enforce while en route to and from the hunting area. (At least in places where you have to "go" to and from your hunting area...) Just my guess.

TFred

Where's Ed Levine? Isn't he from Loudoun County and available to expound upon what the county had in mind when this was written?

TFred said:

As noted, this is NOT a violation of 15.2-915, and to call up a locality and complain about it would be detrimental. It would hurt your personal reputation, as well as that of all pro-self-defense people.

This section of code is clearly addressing hunters, as evidenced by the requirement to notify DGIF in time to update the fall's hunting regulations, as well as the (in my opinion) outdated and insufficient reference to other legitimate purposes (self defense for a business owner or job).

Given recent high court cases, this law has probably seen the end of it's useful days, since self-defense is no longer required to be demonstrated as a legitimate reason to carry a firearm.

I suspect the original purpose of the law was to help localities enforce the laws against hunters from shooting from their trucks, something that would be very difficult to enforce in the field. Requiring them to keep their gun unloaded while in the truck makes it easier to enforce while en route to and from the hunting area. (At least in places where you have to "go" to and from your hunting area...) Just my guess.

TFred

Click to expand...

Where do you get hunting from? The section is titled weapons and explosives and there is no mentioning of hunting anywhere. I agree that the code is sanctioned by the State but it needs to be repealed. It's outdated and conflicts with 15.2-915.

1911 Enthusiast said:

Where's Ed Levine? Isn't he from Loudoun County and available to expound upon what the county had in mind when this was written?

Click to expand...

ha.. I do my share of call-outs.. never saw this one before and can no way explain why Loudoun or others do what they do.. I can certainly ask tho..

Ed

Grapeshot said:

We get it fixed by contacting the county attorney and/or the Board of Supervisors, pointing out the errors and quoting Code of Virginia

Click to expand...

Sent tonight.

Ed

cyras21 said:

Where do you get hunting from? The section is titled weapons and explosives and there is no mentioning of hunting anywhere. I agree that the code is sanctioned by the State but it needs to be repealed. It's outdated and conflicts with 15.2-915.

Click to expand...

I explained why I believe the law is meant primarily to address hunting. I'll try again:

"No ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall be enforceable unless the governing body adopting such ordinance so notifies the Director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries by registered mail prior to May 1 of the year in which such ordinance is to take effect."

This allows the DGIF to have time to update the document they publish each fall containing the hunting seasons, rules and regulations for each locality in the state. (See pages 21-23 of the linked document.) If this law were unrelated to hunting, why would it also require the locality to notify DGIF? [The answer is that it would be unfair to pass a law, but NOT update the handbook on hunting regulations, where everyone looks to see what the laws are for their particular locality.] Now this does not mean that there are no "spillover consequences" which should obviously be addressed, but not by the locality, by the General Assembly.

It is impossible for any state law to conflict with 15.2-915 by simply regulating firearms. 15.2-915 applies only to local laws. Any other state law is just as valid as 15.2-915 is. 15.2-915 is not a "special" law, it's just "a" law. A very good law, yes, but it does not have any more power than any other law. If we find laws that are in conflict, then yes we need to address them, but it has to be on the merit of each inidividual case, not simply because "it conflicts with 15.2-915." The response to "it conflicts with 15.2-915" is just as likely to be "well let's change 15.2-915!" Not the desired outcome.

TFred