Ah yes, that is it... and I see that it is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Originally Posted by ProShooter
As I said, I don't expect any changes, but this would seem to also limit the scope of:
§ 18.2-283.1. Carrying weapon into courthouse.
It shall be unlawful for any person to possess in or transport into any courthouse in this Commonwealth any (i) gun or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile or projectile of any kind, (ii) frame, receiver, muffler, silencer, missile, projectile or ammunition designed for use with a dangerous weapon and (iii) any other dangerous weapon, including explosives, stun weapons as defined in § 18.2-308.1, and those weapons specified in subsection A of § 18.2-308. Any such weapon shall be subject to seizure by a law-enforcement officer. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
to only those areas within the building that are "... appointed for use of circuit court..." [which is what] constitutes courthouse."
But the next questions is: Does this section of code below give the court the authority to impose a strict security perimeter around the entire building, even when portions of the building are not used specifically for the court? And perhaps more to the point, since the remainder of the building is under the control of the local government, wouldn't preemption cover access to those portions of the building? Remember, 15.2-915 says that ANY exceptions must explicitly reference firearms to be valid exceptions, and the "certain rules" section of code below does not.
§ 8.01-4. District courts and circuit courts may prescribe certain rules.
The district courts and circuit courts may, from time to time, prescribe rules for their respective districts and circuits. Such rules shall be limited to those rules necessary to promote proper order and decorum and the efficient and safe use of courthouse facilities and clerks' offices. No rule of any such court shall be prescribed or enforced which is inconsistent with this statute or any other statutory provision, or the Rules of Supreme Court or contrary to the decided cases, or which has the effect of abridging substantive rights of persons before such court. Any rule of court which violates the provisions of this section shall be invalid.
I'm fairly well convinced that it violates the law for an entire courthouse to impose one security perimeter for the entire building in which the courthouse is located, when there are other non-courthouse functions also located within the building. Can anyone show me that I'm wrong?