• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Chesterfield Parks Wording

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
It's interesting that the largest segment of licensed gun owners (many people own guns but do not have a CHP or hunt) in Virginia, have just been told to fight our own fights.

772,864 hunting licenses sold in our state in 2007

314,456 concealed-handgun permits issued in our state, 2007
In full disclosire mode: CHPs run for 5 years and a Hunting permit runs one. CHPs win since most hunters propably renewed several times more often during the test period.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
It's interesting that the largest segment of licensed gun owners (many people own guns but do not have a CHP or hunt) in Virginia, have just been told to fight our own fights.

772,864 hunting licenses sold in our state in 2007

314,456 concealed-handgun permits issued in our state, 2007
In full disclosire mode: CHPs run for 5 years and a Hunting permit runs one. CHPs win since most hunters propably renewed several times more often during the test period.

Nope, the CHP number is total CHP's to that date.
The hunting license is for that year only.
You really have to be kidding to say that you think there are more CHP's issued than hunting licenses!
 

67GT390FB

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
860
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
VCDL has never had hunting as part of its mission. We stepped into it a little bit if it dealt with hunting with firearms. We pushed and got a change to the law to allow CHP holders to carry for self-defense while hunting years ago.

VCDL spent time and energy on the Sunday hunting issue two years ago figuring that hunters would want the freedom of choice as to whether they could hunt in Sundays or not. Boy, oh boy, did we find out that that isn't true! We caught flack from some hunting organizations, one quite big, who liked the Sunday ban and we were told to mind our own business. You could have pushed me over with a feather, but I learned a lesson from it.

Since I don't hunt (haven't since I was around 18) and, to my knowledge, neither does anyone else on the Board, we really don't keep our finger on the pulse of hunters like we do the other aspect of gun ownership. Had I been a hunter I would probably have been aware of the conflict over Sunday hunting. It is just too easy to misread hunting issues when you are not immersed in it. For example, I could see fighting to get the Chesterfield provision removed only to find out that hunting organizations like the ordinance the way it is. You might say, "nah," but that's what I thought about Sunday hunting. If it is a big issue for hunters, why haven't they tried to get this ordinance removed before? Why haven't they tried to get the underlying enabling statute removed at the General Assembly?

We are hardly throwing anyone to the wolves or leaving them to fend for themselves. There are a lot of hunting organizations out there and they can fight out these issues amongst themselves and earn their keep ;-) Meanwhile VCDL will watch all the other aspects of gun ownership.

All that said, should the hunting organizations try to fix a firearms-related hunting law while speaking in one voice, VCDL would most likely add its voice to such a chorus.

i'll address this one since i'm the one who leases land next to chesterfiled county land. I'll tell you why i've never spoken against this ordinance before because to be quite honest i never knew it existed as it is not listed in the Game regs. I knew about the no discharge of a firearm ordinance within 200yds of an occupied dwelling and i knew about no hunting with a bow closer than 100yds of an occupied dwelling w/o the owners permission, i know i can have a loaded rifle or shotgun on a public highway in chesterfield on one of my properties only because i lease property on both sides of the road(we used to have to unload to cross the road) all of these regs and more i know. I did not however know that it is illegal to merely be in possession of a firearm while hunting within 100yds of a county property line. what is hunting is it as peter says the possession of both a firearm and a hunting license? i'll back peter on this and say that its foolish to tell hunters that VCDL supports gun rights just not your gun rights.

I can understand a no discharge ordinance IN the park. Why is it illegal to merely possess a firearm within 100yds of a park if i am hunting. I don't understand is the double speak about hunting vs carrying. Oh i understand that the county is allowed to pass this ordinance because it deals with hunting per se. What i really don't understand is the reluctance to oppose this issue as it still boils down to a firearms carry issue. It doesn't matter in the real world whether I am hunting or merely walking my dog. I can bow hunt within that 100yds just not have a firearm. So this issue is strictly a firearms issue not a hunting issue. To say that this is an issue for the hunters to take care of if they wan't it changed is the type of bullsh!t NRA double speak i'm not used to hearing from VCDL. I understand that opposing this ordinance may be a loser and nothing can be done. But i don't understand why it should not be opposed unless we are afraid of losing and are willing to sidestep issues based on whether they are winnable or not. It also shouldn't matter whether there are any hunters on the board of VCDL, i'd be more concerned over the number of hunters who are members of VCDL.

I'll explain the Sunday hunting thing, self proclaimed(i have a witness) VCDL founder and protector Kirby Burch(you know he handed the orginization over to you and wrote the whole concealed carry ordinance and made it happen all by himself again i have a witness, he also created the internet not really but my witness is of the same opinion) is against sunday hunting because he wants dog hunting to remain untouched. He realizes that the chances of this drop dramatically if dog hunters are running their idiot hounds around the meeting house while church is in session.

"No HUNTER shall transport, possess or carry a loaded firearm within 100 yards of any property line of any county public school or county park, except as otherwise permitted by state law." my first question is does the state give the county the power to erect this mythincal 100yd barrier to guns around the park. i understand if it is within the park. i'm wondering do they actually have the power to encroach on my land. i mean state law allows me to hunt my land right?

edit: never mind they do have the authority § 29.1-527. Counties, cities or towns may prohibit hunting near public schools and county, city, town or regional parks.

The governing body of any county, city or town may prohibit by ordinance, shooting or hunting with a firearm, or prohibit hunters from traversing an area while in possession of a loaded firearm, within 100 yards of any property line of a public school or a county, city, town or regional park. The governing body may, in such ordinance, provide that any violation thereof shall be a Class 4 misdemeanor. Nothing in this section shall give any county, city or town the authority to enforce such an ordinance on lands within a national or state park or forest, or wildlife management area.

(1985, c. 485, § 29-144.5:1; 1987, c. 488.)
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I'm with 67GT390FB and Peter Nap on his, and I have never hunted.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the air/bb gun law amended to allow shooting closer than X distance so long as reasonable steps were taken to prevent the projectile from crossing the shooter's property line?

There is no reason why a magical GFZ needs to be erected around the counties of Chesterfield and Goochland - which by the way smacks of de facto annexation and taking. Go ahead, try to convince me it's really not, I dare you!

stay safe.

PS - Marco, yes I recognized the reference. TFred, otoh, has his tin foil hat wrapped too tightly.:p
 

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
If it weren't for me seeing this thread, all I would have heard from is one or two people on this issue. Even on this thread there aren't very many speaking up. Where are all the hunters that are concerned with this issue?

My plan is to tell the Board of Supervisors that the proposed change (with the wording change of "hunter" to "No person while hunting shall transport...") is acceptable to VCDL. I'll step out on the hunting limb, hoping for no repeat of the Hunting on Sunday debacle, and say that it would be better, however, if the restriction is removed entirely, leaving state law to control. I can ask how many gun owners attending agree by show of hands with the new wording I proposed (changing "hunter" with "No person while hunting.."). Then I will say something like, "However, how many think the best course is to remove the restriction completely and let state law prevail?"

If hunters really want this law repealed, then they need to show up in numbers and say so to the Board of Supervisors during the comment period. Perhaps if enough of them step up, then the Board of Supervisors will relent. Those in hunting clubs/groups, notify your members to show up.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the air/bb gun law amended to allow shooting closer than X distance so long as reasonable steps were taken to prevent the projectile from crossing the shooter's property line?
BB gun law has no distance requirements. Just says that localities may not restrict property owners from shooting bb guns as long as "reasonable care" is taken to keep them on the property.

TFred
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
BB gun law has no distance requirements. Just says that localities may not restrict property owners from shooting bb guns as long as "reasonable care" is taken to keep them on the property.

TFred

My question was regarding the old law. But maybe my memory-er isn't that good.

And yes, the point is that so long as reasonable care is taken there is no need for the government to intervene "for our safety". Works for keeping projectiles out of places as well as keeping them inside places.

stay safe.
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Public Notice
TAKE NOTICE​
Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold a public hearing where persons may appear and present their views concerning:​
An Ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, by amending and re-enacting Section 14-11 related to hunters possessing loaded firearms near public schools or parks and providing for a penalty.​
The proposed ordinance amendment is available for examination by the public in the County Administrator’s Office and the Clerk to the Board’s Office (Room 504) at the Lane B. Ramsey Administration Building, 9901 Lori Road, Chesterfield Virginia. If further information is desired, please contact the County Attorney’s Office at 748-1491, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday​
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
My question was regarding the old law. But maybe my memory-er isn't that good.

And yes, the point is that so long as reasonable care is taken there is no need for the government to intervene "for our safety". Works for keeping projectiles out of places as well as keeping them inside places.

stay safe.
Ah, I see. I don't think there was any prior state law on BB guns. I know that the City of Fredericksburg had a 100% total ban on BB guns within the city limits until this change came along. I suppose some localities might have had some distance requirements as a part of their own BB gun laws, but it seems that they would be superseded by the new state law. Or maybe not... doesn't fall under 15.2-915 since a BB gun is not a firearm... if the locality does allow BB guns, can they impose additional restrictions, such as distances from property lines? But if the property is not large enough to accommodate the restriction (say the local requirement was 25 feet from a property line, but the property was not 50 feet wide - common in an old town or city), then it would seem the ordinance would be unenforceable.

TFred
 

67GT390FB

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
860
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
If it weren't for me seeing this thread, all I would have heard from is one or two people on this issue. Even on this thread there aren't very many speaking up. Where are all the hunters that are concerned with this issue?

My plan is to tell the Board of Supervisors that the proposed change (with the wording change of "hunter" to "No person while hunting shall transport...") is acceptable to VCDL. I'll step out on the hunting limb, hoping for no repeat of the Hunting on Sunday debacle, and say that it would be better, however, if the restriction is removed entirely, leaving state law to control. I can ask how many gun owners attending agree by show of hands with the new wording I proposed (changing "hunter" with "No person while hunting.."). Then I will say something like, "However, how many think the best course is to remove the restriction completely and let state law prevail?"

If hunters really want this law repealed, then they need to show up in numbers and say so to the Board of Supervisors during the comment period. Perhaps if enough of them step up, then the Board of Supervisors will relent. Those in hunting clubs/groups, notify your members to show up.

Philip,

Again I believe hunters are unaware this ordinance even exists. Or they are like us and have leased the property for 30 years and only in the last few has the county purchased the bordering property and labeled it a park so again its never been an issue until now. It is funny all of their no trespassing signs are facing the wrong side of the line. You would have to be trespassing to read them. I do believe this is a gun issue and not a hunting issue as the hunting part is only applied to firearms not bows. If it was a strict hunting issue the ordinance would say no hunting within 100yds of the property line this would cover all forms of hunting. Their goal is a firearms ban but because you succesfully lobbied for preemption they can only ban guns in the hands of hunters. that is why i think it is silly to call this a hunting issue when it is clearly a firearms issue and is the only firearms issue the county can still legally control.

Joe
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Philip,
--snip-- Their goal is a firearms ban but because you succesfully lobbied for preemption they can only ban guns in the hands of hunters. that is why i think it is silly to call this a hunting issue when it is clearly a firearms issue and is the only firearms issue the county can still legally control.

Joe

They can still ban discharge.

Think that to ban discharging a firearm in a park except for self- defense would cover the bases.
 
Last edited:

67GT390FB

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
860
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Silly me! I see the word "hunter" in the ordinance and for some reason I keep thinking "hunting"! Strange.... ;-)

philip, why not skip a few words ahead where it says "shall transport, possess or carry a loaded firearm". I guess it's equally "silly me" to see the word "firearm" and think its a "firearm" issue particularly when they are not banning the possession of any other type of hunting equipment beyond a firearm.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
They can still ban discharge.

Think that to ban discharging a firearm in a park except for self- defense would cover the bases.

They already have that covered.

This has nothing to do with discharging a firearm within the boundary of a park. It has everything to do with the county trying to regulate behavior on private property adjoining/abutting a park - but only the behavior of hunters who use FIREARMS. Hunters using implements other than FIREARMS have no restrictions on their behavior outside of the park imposed on them.

The point here is that hunters are not allowed to have FIREARMS within 100 yards of the park boundary line, but bow hunters and those using other implements (slingshot, blowgun, atalatl, etc.) can hunt with their implements right up to the park boundary line. (OK, they are nor restricted from entering the magical 100-yard buffer zone like hunters using FIREARMS are. Picky, picky!)

The restriction is, IMO, a "taking" within the meaning of the 5th Amendment. It does NOT match the completely bass-ackwards Kelso ruling of SCOTUS.

stay safe.
 
Top