Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 108

Thread: Hampton VA Closes Gun Show "Loophole?"

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    I really don't see how Hampton has closed the "loophole." Maybe I'm missing it...

    Ideduce that a private seller cannot get a table at the Hampton shows...butis there anything that prevents aprivate seller from selling to a private buyer at the Hampton shows?

    Also, I wonder if anyone will start accusing Southeastern Guns and Knives of selling out 2A rights advocates by voluntarily agreeing with City of Hampton restrictions...





    Gun show sense
    Other cities should close the loophole, as Hampton has
    October 29, 2007

    Gun control will be an issue in the General Assembly in January, as usual, but this time the always-hot subject will be further fueled by the Virginia Tech massacre. Fortunately, common sense can sometimes break free of the entrenched political positions. When it comes to gun shows, for instance, Hampton has shown the way.

    Consider the scene last weekend in Richmond, as gun-control advocates and gun-rights advocates faced off in a protest outside a big gun show. On the gun-control side, 32 people lay on the ground, representing the 32 victims of Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech. On the gun-rights side, supporters maneuvered into view of TV cameras with signs like the one that said, "This is what happens when people are denied effective means of self-defense."

    Now, with the Tech murders in mind, it's true that the question of whether colleges should be able to impose gun restrictions on students and employees is going to come up at the next Assembly session. And that "arm everybody" argument is sure to be heard.

    But the issue in this case was the gun show, not the campus.

    Virginia law requires licensed gun dealers to screen potential buyers through a state database as well as a federal database. But, like many other states, it exempts person-to-person, private-owner gun sales from that requirement.

    Background checks are designed to ensure that guns aren't sold to people the community agrees should not have them. That is, people who have lost that right because they are felons, they are subject to a court's restraining order for threatening someone, or they have been judged mentally unfit.

    It's a good process that gun-rights advocates resisted years ago, then wisely took charge of, in cooperation with police, to make it streamlined and efficient. Licensed dealers – that means businesses that sell guns, largely – process such checks routinely every day.

    The rationale for the exemption for private sales stands up when it's applied to keep from complicating the lives and choices of individual gun owners. Why should Uncle Al have to worry about getting a background check on his next-door neighbor, a fellow gun collector, in order to sell him that extra handgun?

    But the exemption has earned its nickname – the Gun Show Loophole – when that one-on-one transaction leaves the neighborhood and takes up a sales booth in a big arena. Now it's more like a commercial transaction – but with no questions asked.

    In fact, even with the changes made since the Tech murders to keep deranged people like Cho from buying guns from licensed businesses, nothing in the system today would stop another Cho from buying from a private owner at a gun show.

    But not in Hampton.

    Hampton requires promoters who want to sponsor gun shows at its facilities to bring in only licensed dealers. And to make things simple, the State Police are on hand to do instant background checks.

    The beauty of the city's approach is that it addressed the loophole without needing the permission of the General Assembly. The legislature has rejected bills to close the loophole, and will probably do it again. So Hampton used its leverage as the owner of the exhibition space to make rules for the companies that would use it.

    Southeastern Guns and Knives, a Portsmouth-based company that sponsors gun shows across the state, is a regular promoter at the Hampton Roads Convention Center, as it had been at the Hampton Coliseum. It abides by the Hampton rules, and keeps coming back – the next show is next month -- so it must make business sense, too.

    When the gun-show issue first arose in Hampton, some gun-control voices wanted the city to ban gun shows from its arenas altogether. But that would have gone too far. There's plenty of competition for show space, and only so many boat shows, hobbyist conventions and home expos to go around. Besides, some people obviously enjoy gun shows, and most of what goes on there is as legal as what happens at a quilters' conven- tion.

    But with such a simple approach as Hampton's readily available, other cities should also stop enabling unregulated gun show sales. Why wait for the General Assembly to say no again?

    Practical action beats a protest, on either side.

    http://www.dailypress.com/news/opini...,4625776.story


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    It would seem they made some sort of "ordinance" or something requiring all booths at the gun show to be for licensed dealers only. I'm not actually certain they could enforce this though.... anyone else? I'm curious, because this seems like yet another attempt to break the no-preemption, etc.

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    -C4- wrote:
    It would seem they made some sort of "ordinance" or something requiring all booths at the gun show to be for licensed dealers only. I'm not actually certain they could enforce this though.... anyone else? I'm curious, because this seems like yet another attempt to break the no-preemption, etc.
    The implication (the author is curiously vague on this point) is that the restriction is simply a negotiated one by the City of Hampton. The promoter is free to negotiate the restriction in or out.

    Done right, this is a shrewd move by Hampton. Just a commercial transaction component. I'd guess that it has a good chance of being legal.

    Still, what about the FTF sales between private individuals who do not have a table? Do those sales still occur?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I remember when I was in NC you had to go get a certificate from the police department saying you were able to purchase a gun. It was good for one year and was basically a background check. This was required by all dealers in the area I lived. No idea if it was state wide.

    I am not for more "gun control" nor do I wantthe ATF to know about all the guns you or Iown.I am all for purchase validation in private sales.

    Currently you can buy a gun from ANYONE who is not a dealer with NO CHECKS. We have a system in place to prevent felons, persons with restraining orders, and those who are mentally deficientfrom going out anbuying a gun froma dealer.Private sales circumvent these protective measures rendering them worthless.

    When a gun purchased from a citizen is used in a murder... the ATF trail can end there at that sale or the last registered owner. The last known owner may not even know or remember who they sold the gun to.

    Now I am, of course, thinking aboutcatching bad guys and keeping guns away fromthosewho are already subject togun control laws in place.

    I would not mind seeing a national requirement for private sales to require a purchase permit proving they are eligible to purchase.It would expire after a certain period of time.

    The permitcould contain the name of the person along with a control number that would identify him if needed by law enforcement. Then the person who sold the gun would be able to prove they no longer owned the gun used in a crime.

    Keeping in mind... this is far less intrusive as thefew states that actually require you to REGISTER ALL YOUR GUNS with them. You control the documentthat proves YOU sold the gun.



  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I am all for purchase validation in private sales.

    Currently you can buy a gun from ANYONE who is not a dealer with NO CHECKS. We have a system in place to prevent felons, persons with restraining orders, and those who are mentally deficientfrom going out anbuying a gun froma dealer.Private sales circumvent these protective measures rendering them worthless.

    When a gun purchased from a citizen is used in a murder... the ATF trail can end there at that sale or the last registered owner. The last known owner may not even know or remember who they sold the gun to.

    Now I am, of course, thinking aboutcatching bad guys and keeping guns away fromthosewho are already subject togun control laws in place.

    I would not mind seeing a national requirement for private sales to require a purchase permit proving they are eligible to purchase.It would expire after a certain period of time.

    The permitcould contain the name of the person along with a control number that would identify him if needed by law enforcement. Then the person who sold the gun would be able to prove they no longer owned the gun used in a crime.

    Keeping in mind... this is far less intrusive as thefew states that actually require you to REGISTER ALL YOUR GUNS with them. You control the documentthat proves YOU sold the gun.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    I really don't see how Hampton has closed the "loophole." Maybe I'm missing it...

    Ideduce that a private seller cannot get a table at the Hampton shows...butis there anything that prevents aprivate seller from selling to a private buyer at the Hampton shows?

    Also, I wonder if anyone will start accusing Southeastern Guns and Knives of selling out 2A rights advocates by voluntarily agreeing with City of Hampton restrictions...
    if we can find a smoking gun document setting fort a rule by the city that th show must do this, then that is a preemption violation.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Now I am, of course, thinking about catching bad guys and keeping guns away from those who are already subject to gun control laws in place.
    Oh my......
    Leo229, I have always been impressed with your open mindness and tolerance. I also think your probably a very effective cop........HOWEVER, every now and then:P

    In a perfect world you may ahave a point. This isn't a perfect world though. You and I both know that even in cities that have unbelievable gun control, twenty minutes on the street will net you what your looking for.

    This will only curb sales that would be legal in the first place. It would also kick the Black Market into BIG BUSINESS.

    WHAT's that you say? The check will keep the black marketeers from getting them!
    To quote Ms. Daisey again.....They're like children, they take things!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    Now I am, of course, thinking about catching bad guys and keeping guns away from those who are already subject to gun control laws in place.
    Oh my......
    Leo229, I have always been impressed with your open mindness and tolerance. I also think your probably a very effective cop........HOWEVER, every now and then:P

    In a perfect world you may ahave a point. This isn't a perfect world though. You and I both know that even in cities that have unbelievable gun control, twenty minutes on the street will net you what your looking for.

    This will only curb sales that would be legal in the first place. It would also kick the Black Market into BIG BUSINESS.

    WHAT's that you say? The check will keep the black marketeers from getting them!
    To quote Ms. Daisey again.....They're like children, they take things!
    To me.. this is the only step that is missing to be sure that only thegood citizens that are allowed to buy can do so.

    On the black market... you have many stolen guns or guns traded for drugs from the owners.

    The stolen guns are already in the system as stolen. But unless you catch a bad guy with one... Theperson in possession can carry a stolen handgun and nobody would ever know.

    Requiring ALL private guns sales to require a "clearance check" would allow black market operations to be stopped. They would not be able to trade them for drugs either without providing a clearance check to the drug user.

    Just my opinion.... I am not legislating for a new law... no flaming required.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Hmmmm. You must have a better quality of drug dealers than we do. Here they don't much care where it came from.

    no flaming required.
    Not from me anyway!


    The stolen guns are already in the system as stolen.
    I would be suprised if even 10% are in the system.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    Hmmmm. You must have a better quality of drug dealers than we do. Here they don't much care where it came from.

    no flaming required.
    Not from me anyway!


    The stolen guns are already in the system as stolen.
    I would be suprised if even 10% are in the system.
    Oh.. I can see the logs getting tossed on the fire... I expect some flames soon. But not from you or the otheropen minded people.

    Ya... many people do not have all their SN wrote down. I have gone to calls where people did not know when reporting it as stolen.

    So the bad guy has a clean gun and may not even know it.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP To me.. this is the only step that is missing to be sure that only thegood citizens that are allowed to buy can do so.
    Sorta like CHP backround checkswill ensure that only good citizens carry handguns concealed?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    ... I expect some flames soon.
    Hold it.

    Quiet...let me hear....

    In the distance...I hear....shouting....angry...words....can't quite make out what they're saying.....

    Getting closer....I wonder what it is....





  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP To me.. this is the only step that is missing to be sure that only thegood citizens that are allowed to buy can do so.
    Sorta like CHP backround checkswill ensure that only good citizens carry handguns concealed?
    Sure... If your caughtCCing with no permit... you get in a little bit of trouble. If your selling a gun and you do not obtain theirpermit to purchase... you get in a little bit of trouble.

    It is not the fool proof way.. Friends who sell to known good friends would never be caught. But when strangers could be undercover government agents.....and attempt to buy your gun from you and you never ask for their permit... :shock:

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Now I am, of course, thinking about catching bad guys and keeping guns away from those who are already subject to gun control laws in place.
    Oh my......
    Leo229, I have always been impressed with your open mindness and tolerance. I also think your probably a very effective cop........HOWEVER, every now and then:P

    In a perfect world you may ahave a point. This isn't a perfect world though. You and I both know that even in cities that have unbelievable gun control, twenty minutes on the street will net you what your looking for.

    This will only curb sales that would be legal in the first place. It would also kick the Black Market into BIG BUSINESS.

    WHAT's that you say? The check will keep the black marketeers from getting them!
    To quote Ms. Daisey again.....They're like children, they take things!
    To me.. this is the only step that is missing to be sure that only thegood citizens that are allowed to buy can do so.

    On the black market... you have many stolen guns or guns traded for drugs from the owners.

    The stolen guns are already in the system as stolen. But unless you catch a bad guy with one... Theperson in possession can carry a stolen handgun and nobody would ever know.

    Requiring ALL private guns sales to require a "clearance check" would allow black market operations to be stopped. They would not be able to trade them for drugs either without providing a clearance check to the drug user.

    Just my opinion.... I am not legislating for a new law... no flaming required.
    The UK allows ZERO(nadda, zip, zilch) handgun ownership and there is a black market.

    A guy with a stolen handgun isn't going to open-carry, and if he does carry it's going to be concealed(and.. how many CHP holders steal their handguns?)

    So.. If the government had figured out this "black market" thing, then the Nixon administration would have solved the problem long before "BUSH 2.0" came to power

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    psmartin wrote:
    The UK allows ZERO(nadda, zip, zilch) handgun ownership and there is a black market.

    A guy with a stolen handgun isn't going to open-carry, and if he does carry it's going to be concealed(and.. how many CHP holders steal their handguns?)

    So.. If the government had figured out this "black market" thing, then the Nixon administration would have solved the problem long before "BUSH 2.0" came to power
    Not living in nor working for the UK.... I have no idea if they have any initiative to search out and arrest those that sell guns on the black market.

    Just like catching drug dealers here... we have the end user that provides information on the seller that leads to to the top dealer.

    I suspect thatthis process could work in the UK if they wanted to catch them if they are not doing it already.

    So what is the punishment for getting caught with a gun in the UK?


  16. #16
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    I copy or record the DL #, name and DOB along with any other info I may obtain and store that along with the guns ser.# and description.
    Whether I'm the buyer or seller.

    my personal guns all have two pics one stored with the gun and the other in a secure location along with receipts /names of who purchased from


    Edit:
    if they object no sale.


    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Agent19 wrote:
    I copy or record the DL #, name and DOB along with any other info I may obtain and store that along with the guns ser.# and description.
    Whether I'm the buyer or seller.

    my personal guns all have two pics one stored with the gun and the other in a secure location along with receipts /names of who purchased from

    Edit:
    if they object no sale.
    Obviously.. I am with you.... It just makes good sense.

    I would want to know who bought my gun. Anyone wanting to remain anonymous seems a little odd to me. If you want something bad enough in life.. you will submit to the demands that are placed to get it.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    The only way I could not totally oppose a system like the one LEO is suggesting is if there were a provision in the law that guranteed that the authorization would be given in a set period of time, or else the request becomes a de facto authorization.

    Otherwise it would be too easy to just de-fund the office that sends out the permit and end our ability to buy/sell from private individuals altogether.

    But, personally I don't like the idea of having to get a permission slip from the government. For one thing, I think it would tend lower the price I could sell my guns.

    Now, if there were a system I could check someone out myself if they agreed, I might avail myself of that, because I don't want to sell a gun to a bad guy.


    The idea of BATF or similar agency coming to audit my records of all private gun sales for the past 15 years is a pretty scary thought, especially if I could go to prison based on a fake address someone used on a .22 7 years ago..




  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Skeptic wrote:
    The only way I could not totally oppose a system like the one LEO is suggesting is if there were a provision in the law that guranteed that the authorization would be given in a set period of time, or else the request becomes a de facto authorization.

    Otherwise it would be too easy to just de-fund the office that sends out the permit and end our ability to buy/sell from private individuals altogether.

    But, personally I don't like the idea of having to get a permission slip from the government. For one thing, I think it would tend lower the price I could sell my guns.

    Now, if there were a system I could check someone out myself if they agreed, I might avail myself of that, because I don't want to sell a gun to a bad guy.


    The idea of BATF or similar agency coming to audit my records of all private gun sales for the past 15 years is a pretty scary thought, especially if I could go to prison based on a fake address someone used on a .22 7 years ago..
    In NC... I got my permits in a few minutes. Being able to do a check yourself is a little hard because it will take a human to review all the records and determine if there are any disqualifications present. You would not be able to view the data and I know I would not want a computer to decide on complicated and confusing data.

    I would see no requirement to maintain the document after sale unless you want to protect your own interest. The document would have been validated by the police so a fake address would be hard to do.

    The purpose would be only to know that the person can posses a gun. The trail of the sale is just a bonus.

  20. #20
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    It would be nice if they could setup an instant check at the show. Have the local Police setup a connection to NCIC and they would be able to give the person a certificate to clear them to buy a weapon at the show. Yes it is not perfect but it will help keep the ones who should not buy from getting a weapon. This would also help the ones that can buy one from needing to plan far in advance if they are going to buy a weapon at the show. You know when you go there and see a good deal on a gun you want.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, ,
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    Personally, I don't agree at all with anything that effectively requires the FFL paperwork be filed for private sales. At that point, there is a perfect paper trail for every firearm you own....unless you're a criminal.

    However, I would love it if it were easy for people to run a background check on themselves, with nothing indicating why it was run. As far as the government would be concerned, it could be anything from a private firearm transaction to some guy proving to a potential girlfriend that he really doesn't have a record. But some people would prefer to sell their private firearms to people that they know aren't criminals, just like some people prefer buying used guns through The Trading Post paper so the government doesn't have an easy time of knowing what they have.

    Granted, I'd like to see purchases from dealers work that way too. Background check performed, but scrap all that paperwork that currently gets retained for years.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    You know guys. ....if such a fool law were to pass, it wouldn't impact crime one bit. It's just feel good legislation.

    I'm a great believer in personal RIGHTS.
    Agent 9 posted:

    if they object no sale.
    I support his right to do that.

    OTOH....if (and to date no one has ever told me that) a potential seller told me that, I'd thank him for his time and wish him luck on the next buyer.

    That's my right!

    I understand Leo's thinking. His job is difficult and anything that gives him more information is good for him, however, anything that imposes additional hoops for law abiding gun buyers to jump through, IS GUN CONTROL and turns more law abiding buyers that have drawn the line, into people that skirt the law.

    WE are living in what amounts to an open air prison anyway. How could any thinking person want to add yet another lock.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I would not mind seeing a national requirement for private sales to require a purchase permit proving they are eligible to purchase.It would expire after a certain period of time.

    The permitcould contain the name of the person along with a control number that would identify him if needed by law enforcement. Then the person who sold the gun would be able to prove they no longer owned the gun used in a crime.

    Keeping in mind... this is far less intrusive as thefew states that actually require you to REGISTER ALL YOUR GUNS with them. You control the documentthat proves YOU sold the gun.

    Missouri got rid of their purchase permits when CCW came along.



    As far as a "control number"--in Ill-annoy--they call it a Firearm Owners Identification Card (aka FOID card)....FOID sucks, hence, why I am no longer there.



    I suppose we should check every person who buys a car just to make sure they don't have any DUIs?



    I hear what you are saying--and understand the logic behind it...but it is giving up that teeny much more freedom for little to no security we think we'll get.



    BTW--the notion that this would have prevented Cho from his rampage is disingenuous. He bought his guns from a licensed dealer and lied on his 4473. I guess facts don't get in the way of a "good" news story.

  24. #24
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    The problem was his court ordered mental health treatment was not shared. Yes the bad guys will find a way to get a gun and we at times have to suffer for it. There is sometimes when there is no real perfect solution to a problem and we have to go with the one that sucks the least. I do agree that most time lawmakers have a knee jerk reaction and think if they pass a law that forbids it all will be ok.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    Not only is Hampton's restrictions a violation of Va. Code §15.2-915 but it has also run afoul of Virginia case law.

    "The Declaration of Rights of the State of Virginia, as it existed at the time of the passage of this act and under the new Constitution, guarantees in all capital or criminal prosecutions the right of trial by jury, in order 'that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers.'

    The word "Liberty" as used in the Constitution of the United States and the several states, has frequently been construed, and means more than mere freedom from restraint. It means not merely the right to go where one chooses, but to do such acts as he may judge best for his interest, not inconsistent with the equal right of others; that is, to follow such pursuits as may be best adapted to his faculties, and which give him the highest enjoyment. The liberty mentioned is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purpose mentioned. These are individual rights, formulated as such under the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, which begins with the fundamental principle that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Young v. Commonwealth, 101 Va. 853, 45 S.E. 327 (1903).


    The City of Hampton may not make illegal through ordinance or cohersion, or under the guise of the police power of the political subdivision, for no police power exists in this area. "No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. " Citing Va. Code §15.2-915.

    What the General Assembly or the Constitution has made legal or protects, a political subdivisionn cannot deny. Since it is not illegal to conduct a person to person transfer, Hampton's actions amount to the police action of the county in contravention to §15.2-915. "Virginia adheres to the Dillon Rule of strict construction, which provides that "‘[local governing bodies] have only those powers which are expressly granted by the state legislature, those powers fairly or necessarily implied from expressly granted powers, and those which are essential and indispensable.’"6 Any doubt as to the existence of a power must be resolved against the locality.7 The Dillon Rule recognizes that localities are political subdivisions of the Commonwealth, which, in turn, rest on the foundation of Article I, § 14 of the Constitution of Virginia.8 "Op. Va. Att'y Gen. No. 02-29, April (2002).

    "It is, of course, fundamental that local ordinances must conform to and not be in conflict with the public policy of the State as embodied in its statutes. ...Indeed, that principle is embodied in our statutes which require that local ordinances must "not be inconsistent with" the state law." King v. County of Arlington, 195 Va. 1084, 1085. (1954).

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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