imported post
That's an interesting question. I think it successfully skirts preemption. 15.2-915 states that a locality, etc. may not legislate on firearms unless specifically permitted by law by the general assembly and any law, ordinance etc proffered by them is void- basically. However, preemption cannothave effect against a private actor.
I believe this comes under contract law. If the locality were to enter into any agreement either as lessor, or lessee, by law they would be legally required to ensure that 15.2-915 was complied with. Accordingly, any negotiations between lessor & lessee in which any entity covered by 15.2-915 *MUST* include provisions to prohibit any firearms restrictions. Failure to do so clearly amounts to negligence on their part and failure to comply with the laws as written by the general assembly.
Doing something about it could be difficult. It would almost require a lawsuit, sinceboth parties will be super secretive about the terms of their contract. The locality's ageeement should be subject to FOIA however (I think).Winning might not necessarily fix the situation, because what happens to the existing contract? I don't think the court could legally amend a contract, only uphold it, or void it. You'd have to show bad faith and all the locality would have to dois "not remember" under oath and bad faith goes out the window.
I think this is something that we need to tackle with 15.2-915 amendment - to somehow say that any agreement with a private operator shall have the same restrictions as upon the gov. itself and that no venue owned, or leased by the gov may or private operator from the gov may include any provision prohibiting a firearm, or weapon.
Here's the tough part: We need a violation penalty. The general assembly never punishes it's own. Getting that hurdle crossed is going to be very hard.