as noted in a recent VA-Alert, Chesapeake is holding a hearing to "discuss" new restriction on where a person can lawfully shoot within the city boundaries. The meeting is scheduled for 6PM at:
Chesapeake Sheriff's Administration Building
401 Albermarle Drive (Corner of Holt Drive and Albermarle Drive)
You MUST SIGN UP TO ATTEND.
via: Karen Green with the Ches Police at 757-382-6404 or via email firstname.lastname@example.org
I am signed up to go, and received this information back from Karen Green:
Please see the below information from Chief Kelvin Wright:
Thank you for your email. I want you to know that there is misinformation going
about and please feel free to share this email with others.
The meeting which is taking place on July20th, is not on a proposed ordinance.
We are having the meeting to hear and discuss the concerns of farmers, hunters,
and target shooters so that we can craft or adjust our existing ordinances so as
to promote the safety of our citizens. Clearly, Chesapeake is not as rural as
it was 20 years ago. Over the recent years, we have had numerous reports of
damaged property to farmers equipment, livestock and residents homes from
errant bullets. We have also had people injured. Our concern is the safety of
the people. To this end, we have asked members of the Farm Bureau, the
Agriculture Commission, and called everyone who spoke at City Council Meeting on
June 28th as well to attend this meeting. We have asked them to tell their
friends and anyone they think would be affected and be of help sothey we can
hear their concerns.
The problems all of us face will not subside if we do nothing. In fact over
time, it will only worsen and more people will be in jeopardy of serious injury
or death. Therefore, I conclude that we have the responsibility to come
together and jointly discuss how best to proceed. I have already had a number
of stakeholders offer reasonable solutions that take into account others
concerns and the safety of the community. They also indicate that they will
attend the meeting.
Again, I welcome you to attend the meeting so that we can determine how best to
proceed. I believe that we can all work together and achieve a balanced
My understanding is that given that the meeting is in the administration building and not the jail or courthouse, OC should be allowed. Does anyone know for sure one way or the other?
Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-18-2016 at 10:55 AM. Reason: rule #19
It is likely illegal to require an attendance sheet be signed to in respect to an open meeting. Perhaps to speak, but not to just attend.
Go, and if required to sign-in, leave and file a complaint under your open meetings laws and have the meeting voided.
And if not a meeting as defined by your open meetings laws then requiring to sign-in is likely a 1st amendment violation.
But is sounds like a meeting to me.
Don't play the game, don't argue....record the demand to sign-in ... make them articulate that signing in is MANDATORY (because they will argue later that is was not mandatory but just info they took on a voluntary basis) to attend. Gets name, rank, ser # of all you encounter. Once you have evidence on tape noting that a sign-in sheet is demanded to be completed then walk away and deal with this issue in another venue.
Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-18-2016 at 11:32 AM.
Due to large number of people signing up to attend the meeting was moved to the City Council Chambers.
BLUF: (Bottom line up front)
1. concept: B+ (previously proposed changes scrapped and this meeting was to capture community input from all)
2. Execution: D (crowd was splint into 3 focus groups (Farmers/Hunters/sport&recreational shooters) but room was not set up for groups to gather or groups given separate rooms ---> result, many couldn't get close enough to ear the comments/conversations with the LE facilitator or to speak and be heard. LE hung around as long as folks wanted to talk so if you were patient you could eventually get to speak to the facilitator.
I have some photos I will post later from home. Was encouraged that LE was willing to listen and be open to reasonable requests but the proof will be in the outcome proposal. I am reminded that the Katie Currick piece seemed positive initially but what came out in the film was something totally different.
I have a civil case pending regarding an admin agency hearing on one of my admin cases. I disqualified one of the members of the agency and then they lacked a quorum that is needed to conduct business.
The agency answered the complaint (that they had no quorum to conduct the business that they conducted~a righteous complaint) arguing that I caused the lack of a quorum, so them violating the law was my fault.
Classic commie logic.
Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-22-2016 at 01:42 AM.