Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Cheaspeake considering outdoor shooting restrictions

  1. #1
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635

    Cheaspeake considering outdoor shooting restrictions

    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
    Training Room
    401 Albermarle Drive (Corner of Holt Drive and Albermarle Drive)
    Chesapeake, Va.

    You MUST SIGN UP TO ATTEND.

    via: Karen Green with the Ches Police at 757-382-6404 or via email kgreen@cityofchesapeake.net


    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
    outcome.

    Kind regards,
    Chief Wright


    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?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-18-2016 at 11:55 AM. Reason: rule #19

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    ---snipped--

    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?
    Preemption should prevail. VCDL meetings are often held in such facilities.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    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 12:32 PM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    <snip>I believe that we can all work together and achieve a balanced
    outcome.
    We all know what "balanced outcome" means. Steal your RKBA.

  5. #5
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    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.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    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.
    They are not meeting to increase your freedoms, rest assured of that.

    Were required to sign-in as a condition of attendance ?

  7. #7
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    They are not meeting to increase your freedoms, rest assured of that.

    Were required to sign-in as a condition of attendance ?
    LMFAO..... You of all people throwing the BS flag!? Priceless!

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    LMFAO..... You of all people throwing the BS flag!? Priceless!
    Mirror mirror on the wall.........
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    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 02:42 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •