• 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.

Stafford firearm ordinance violating pre-emption?

ChristCrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
199
Location
Virginia, US
Well, no, I think you are probably the only person in the state who sees it this way. There are no localities that I know of who have managed to circumvent the clearly stated requirements of 15.2-915.4.
As you pointed out in another thread, Chesapeake, for example, has added to their ordinance

"(h)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, it shall be permissible to discharge pneumatic guns (air-propelled rifles and pistols) at facilities approved for shooting ranges, on other property where firearms may be lawfully 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..."

making it clear... -ish

except they finish it with, "in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-915.4.B." which to me makes it subservient and limited to only (A)'s limited restriction.

thanks for the analyzing and new info along the way,
thanks for your support on Stafford's handgun carrying ordinance :D

Duh-afterthought:
add the word, "only" into,

A. A locality may -->ONLY<-- prohibit, by ordinance, the shooting of pneumatic guns in any areas of the locality that are in the opinion of the governing body so heavily populated...

and suddenly most of it makes more sense to me :D

except (B) still only applies to (A), but now only (A) can exist in the realm of pneumatic prohibitions.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
As you pointed out in another thread, Chesapeake, for example, has added to their ordinance

"(h)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, it shall be permissible to discharge pneumatic guns (air-propelled rifles and pistols) at facilities approved for shooting ranges, on other property where firearms may be lawfully 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..."

making it clear... -ish

except they finish it with, "in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-915.4.B." which to me makes it subservient and limited to only (A)'s limited restriction.

thanks for the analyzing and new info along the way,
thanks for your support on Stafford's handgun carrying ordinance :D

Duh-afterthought:
add the word, "only" into,

A. A locality may -->ONLY<-- prohibit, by ordinance, the shooting of pneumatic guns in any areas of the locality that are in the opinion of the governing body so heavily populated...

and suddenly most of it makes more sense to me :D

except (B) still only applies to (A), but now only (A) can exist in the realm of pneumatic prohibitions.
Do you know what the word "notwithstanding" means?

[ETA: And again, because of the Dillon Rule, I think it's safe to say that one may infer "only", if there are no other sections of code that specifically grant that same, or contradicting authority.]

TFred
 
Last edited:

ChristCrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
199
Location
Virginia, US
Do you know what the word "notwithstanding" means?
I thought I did: 'Unless specifically stated otherwise in this section...', but with the caveat that the 'section' to which it's referring is just the Chesapeake ordinance Sec. 46-42. Discharging firearms, so it's not cross applicable to other jurisdictions, unless of course they reference it.

[ETA: And again, because of the Dillon Rule, I think it's safe to say that one may infer "only", if there are no other sections of code that specifically grant that same, or contradicting authority.]


§ 15.2-1425 Actions by localities, is what specifically allows them to prohibit everything they want, unless specifically stopped elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I thought I did: 'Unless specifically stated otherwise in this section...', but with the caveat that the 'section' to which it's referring is just the Chesapeake ordinance Sec. 46-42. Discharging firearms, so it's not cross applicable to other jurisdictions, unless of course they reference it.

§ 15.2-1425 Actions by localities, is what specifically allows them to prohibit everything they want, unless specifically stopped elsewhere.
You missed my point. Notwithstanding means "in spite of", which in this context means that no matter what it says elsewhere within the specified scope, this is the code you follow.

You're still stuck on that other section, and all I can offer you is this: Since 2011, other than the handful of stragglers who now have invalid ordinances on their books, every other jurisdiction has complied with the new law, including several jurisdictions that were beyond angry about it. I assure you, if your interpretation were correct, then those angry jurisdictions would have ignored the law, rather than obeyed it.

To be frank, if you still think you're correct, then you must believe your legal skillz are greater than the jurisdictional attorneys of about a half-dozen cities and counties who hate the fact that they have to allow their citizens to shoot BB guns and paintball guns in their back yards. Maybe you think highly of yourself, and that's fine and dandy, but in the face of incontrovertible evidence... I'm just sayin...

TFred
 

ChristCrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
199
Location
Virginia, US
To be frank, if you still think you're correct, then you must believe your legal skillz are greater than the jurisdictional attorneys of about a half-dozen cities and counties who hate the fact that they have to allow their citizens to shoot BB guns and paintball guns in their back yards. Maybe you think highly of yourself, and that's fine and dandy, but in the face of incontrovertible evidence... I'm just sayin...
I understand how it looks, but the numbers or caliber of people who apply or interpret it one way does not in and of itself convince or sway me.
It makes me wonder if I see it wrong, but it does not make me see it their way.
I'm not being stubborn, I'm truly not seeing it. I appreciate your effort, rolling it around and giving it your best shot.
I might be wrong, but I don't understand yet WHY I'd be wrong ;)
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Stafford Sheriff is ANTI-GUN!

I think we're starting to get a clearer picture on why Stafford County has STILL NOT YET updated their air-gun ordinances as REQUIRED by the General Assembly some years ago.

See this current notice from VA-ALERT about Tuesday's National Night Out. Not only is the Sheriff anti-gun, he's apparently a bold-faced liar as well. Always what you want from your top law-enforcement officer. [/sarcasm] It absolutely astounds me that people of this sort of character seem to think they will not get caught.

TFred


VA-ALERT: ACTION ITEM: Stafford County Sheriff betrays gun owners!!

On Tuesday, just a few hours before the start of National Night Out, the Target in Stafford called and did a flipflop, denying VCDL a booth.

On Wednesday, as I was writing up an alert for us to bombard the Stafford Target with emails and phone calls, the VCDL phone rang - it was from Target corporate and everything changed.

I was told by the corporate representative that the Stafford County Sheriff, Charles E. Jett, asked the Stafford Target to deny VCDL a table at last night’s National Night Out event, ban open carry, and prohibit VCDL handing out any materials, even if unsolicited!

I had no idea that Sheriff Jett was anti-gun, would pressure Target to enforce his personal biases against the 1st and 2nd Amendments, would have his representative lie to me by saying the ban was Target’s idea, and let Target take the heat from gun owners for his scheme.

This is the same Sheriff Jett who put his left hand on a bible, put his right hand in the air, and swore an oath to uphold the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions and to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.


BACKGROUND

When I had spoken to Sgt. English with the Stafford Sheriff’s Department initially about VCDL having a booth, Sgt. English first said VCDL could not have a booth because we were a “political organization.” I explained to him why that statement is simply not correct. I mailed him the materials we would be handing out and called him back a week or so later.

He said the booth was still denied because if he gave VCDL a booth, then he’d have to give the “other side” a booth, and a gun debate wasn’t what this event was all about. I told him we could care less if he gives the other side a booth. We would be there to provide our materials to anyone that wanted them and that’s all we would do.

A few days later, Sgt. English called and said VCDL could have a booth, but no one was to open carry at the booth and we could only handout materials from the booth. I said we would be fine with only providing materials from the booth. When I said that I was not about to tell our members that they could not open carry if they wanted to, I was told the booth offer was withdrawn.

All this struck me as odd, as Sgt. English didn’t say anything about Target having input on any of these decisions. In fact, Sgt. English said the Sheriff was the one who put this event together, implying that the Sheriff made the decisions on vendors.

This Monday, the day before the event, I called the Stafford Target directly and got the go ahead for a booth from them as long as we did not actively solicit people to take stickers or handouts. Carry was not an issue. I put out a call for volunteers and about ten gun owners stepped forward.

Tuesday afternoon, the day of the event, I got a call from the Target in Stafford.

This time the Target representative who had given permission for the booth the day before said that VCDL couldn’t have a booth, members couldn’t open carry, and even if we were just walking around we couldn’t make stickers or other materials available to attendees!

I called Target's headquarters to verify what seemed like a contradiction in their policies and the representative said the ban was just for that particular event, and not a general policy.

She couldn’t see it, but my eyebrows went up. Very, very interesting.

Because of this last minute flip-flop by Target, there really wasn’t anyway to contact those who were set to come help with a now non-existent booth.

Board member Bruce Jackson and I put our heads together and decided that VCDL would show up at the event anyway, with each person plastered with GSL stickers and an “Ask me about VCDL.ORG” button and walk amongst the crowd. Bruce also had a great idea to carry a still-sealed roll of GSL stickers in his hand.

As people would approach us to get a sticker or to ask about VCDL, we would tell them that Target had selected gun owners for "special treatment," denying us a table and also denying us the ability to simply hand out requested materials, like the GSL stickers.

The reaction from everyone was consistent: a wide-eyed, jaw-dropping, “WHAT?!”

Looking around the event, they had the Sheriff’s department showing off their paramilitary toys, various local businesses with booths, and tons of solicitation going on. Interesting, because when we had been approved for a booth initially I was told that soliciting was absolutely not acceptable and the 'no soliciting' rule applied to ALL vendors. If VCDL were to solicit, we’d be kicked out. A textbook example of a double-standard.

Bruce and I told the VCDL volunteers last night that our gut instinct was that the Sheriff's hands were dirty in all of this, but we had no proof of that.

At least not until the phone call from Target Corporate.

——

ACTION ITEM: Email Sheriff Jett and *politely* let him know that asking Target to both ban open carry and to deny VCDL a booth at National Night Out is unacceptable.

Email: cjett@staffordcountyva.gov

Suggested subject: Your actions regarding National Night Out

Suggested message:

Dear Sheriff Jett,

I am very disappointed in your actions concerning National Night Out on Tuesday.

It has come to my attention that you asked the Target in Stafford to both ban open carry and to prohibit VCDL from having a booth or handing out any literature at National Night Out on Tuesday. You then told VCDL that the open carry ban was Target’s policy.

You swore an oath to uphold both the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions and to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth. Your actions against the 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights of Virginia’s gun owners belie that oath and Target was about to take the heat for what was your unethical request to them.

You owe VCDL and gun owners in Stafford County a public apology! In addition, you should ensure that this does not happen again.

Sincerely,
xxx​
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I'm a new Stafford County resident and the current Sheriff won't be getting my vote at the next election!
Sadly, he's not going anywhere until they carry him out in a box. Sheriff for 14 years, on the force in Stafford for 30. I think the Jett family is related to half the county in one way or another. Throw in the shenanigans with the CA... let's just say I have no plans to move to Stafford County any time soon.

TFred
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I'm a new Stafford County resident and the current Sheriff won't be getting my vote at the next election!
Sadly, he's not going anywhere until they carry him out in a box. Sheriff for 14 years, on the force in Stafford for 30. I think the Jett family is related to half the county in one way or another. Throw in the shenanigans with the CA... let's just say I have no plans to move to Stafford County any time soon.

TFred
I'm sure that Eric Cantor felt so safe also - there is a change blowing in the winds.....involuntary retirement perhaps?

An email exchange with PVC, VCDL president, produced this thought:
I don't comment often, but this situation sounds ripe for a FOIA request for all the sheriffs records and directives, to be publicized during the next elections.......
 
Top