• 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.

Cheaspeake considering outdoor shooting restrictions

wrearick

wrearick

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
650
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
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 a moderator:
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
wrearick said:
---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?
Click to expand...

Preemption should prevail. VCDL meetings are often held in such facilities.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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:
wrearick

wrearick

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
650
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
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.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
wrearick said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are not meeting to increase your freedoms, rest assured of that.

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

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top