Alexandria Waterfront Frestival

imported post

Tess wrote:

<snip>I find myself wanting to be a test case for this. Unfortunately, given family situation and other considerations, I cannot do so<snip>

Click to expand...

me too

imported post

I know that I was the fastest draw on the block with my finger pistol when I was a kid. I OCd with it practically since birth.

The hunting reg is clearly out. The Red Cross event is another story. While the statute says "owner", the legal meaning of the word is not the literal meaning. If you lease, rent, buy with a loan, or otherwise compensate the owner of a property for its use, you have the same legal rights as an "owner" unless your contract with the land owner retains that right to the land owner.

None of us would brook the bank saying that we couldn't carry in our car, house, or apartment, event though it's owned by the bank or leasing agent. The public agencies have the same right to lease properties. The lessee has the same rights as you in your home.

I think the operative clause in a lease is "for their exclusive use". If that phrase is in the lease, then they can ban anything they like, as long as it isn't a recognized discrimination, race, religion, ability, etc. In effect, for the term of the lease, the land is no longer public property.

Cal

imported post

caltain wrote:

I know that I was the fastest draw on the block with my finger pistol when I was a kid. I OCd with it practically since birth.

The hunting reg is clearly out. The Red Cross event is another story. While the statute says "owner", the legal meaning of the word is not the literal meaning. If you lease, rent, buy with a loan, or otherwise compensate the owner of a property for its use, you have the same legal rights as an "owner" unless your contract with the land owner retains that right to the land owner.

None of us would brook the bank saying that we couldn't carry in our car, house, or apartment, event though it's owned by the bank or leasing agent. The public agencies have the same right to lease properties. The lessee has the same rights as you in your home.

I think the operative clause in a lease is "for their exclusive use". If that phrase is in the lease, then they can ban anything they like, as long as it isn't a recognized discrimination, race, religion, ability, etc. In effect, for the term of the lease, the land is no longer public property.

Cal

Click to expand...

I understand 100% what you are saying. It does seem weird that a private organization can become the only "owner" of public land, even if for a day. Aren't we all owners as tax payers who pay for parks ?

imported post

mkl wrote:

I understand 100% what you are saying. It does seem weird that a private organization can become the only "owner" of public land, even if for a day. Aren't we all owners as tax payers who pay for parks ?

Click to expand...

The taxpayers of Alexandria have elected city council members to speak for them. If the city council has adopted a plan by which to rent the park to organizations, and city council having said the organizations (Red Cross) can enforce whatever rules and regulations they deem fit while renting the park, I don't see how there's any way around it. But I of course am not an attorney.



edit for typo

imported post

I think preemption strictly trumps these rules. There are 2 principles at play in our favor.

1: By statute, 15.2-915 prohibits (generally) local firearms ordinance enforcement.

2: Virginia is a "Dillon rule" state meaning that the localities are only permitted to enact and enforce those laws, ordinances and regulations that the Commonwealth permits them to enact and enforce.

For example, Their rules could say something like: Due to the high rate of sickle cell anemia among negroes, those persons who are negroes or have some negro ancestryare strictly prohibited from attending the festival.

While Alexandria city might be stupid enough to enact suchrules for the festival the Commonwealth having been duly spanked in federal court, more than once, is not.

The same principle applies to the no weapons policy. No matter what reasoning they try to attach to it, since they don't have authority to ban weapons, they cannot grant that authority on city lands.

I called them last year andsaid "hey, my wife carries agun, howshould she handle the bagsearch?" They were apoplectic. Eventually I was speaking with some PD SGT. I pushed them and said "no, she won't leave it at home, it's her decision to carry it, not yours. Are you leaving your gun at home Sergeant? "No"... Well, 15.2-915 says no local firearms ordinances. Then I got the why do you need to carry a gun interview.

I started with, first of all, I'm asking for my wife, not me. Second of all, that's none of your business, third, why do you carry a gun, UK police don't need them and neither do you. <silence> "well, we're asking you not to bring guns"

No, but thanks for the info.

imported post

I don't plan on attending but I have sent a email and called regarding this matter.

Your reply to another citizen is unsatisfactory.

Mr.XXXXX

The Waterfront Festival is a Red Cross event, not a City of Alexandria event. I encourage you to contact them regarding your concerns.

Thanks. Have a good weekend.

----
Justin M. Wilson, Member
Alexandria City Council
Office: 703.838.4500
Home: 703.299.1576
justin.wilson@alexandriava.gov





The Red Cross doesn't own the city streets, it is public land.
This firearm ban is illegal.
The Alexandria PD and any security officers/personnel should be informed that legally armed citizens should not be harassed in any way.

You may wish to research the lawsuit filed by legally armed citizen
(Chet Szymecki) against another VA city and police dept.


Sincerely,

M.


[line]
I alsosent my msg tothe Mayor.

I will appraise if/when they reply.

imported post

I, too, sent an e-mail to Mr. Wilson. I've PM'd Ed with the contents, and will update as I hear anything. I'm pissed not only at the response, but at the council member's willingness to abdicate his responsibility to citizens.

imported post

And when did the Red Cross become a national security agency? They're treating everyone as subjects to be searched????

The more I think about this, the more incensed I become.

imported post

So if we open carry here, we have merely violated Red Cross rules, according to the City of Alexandria.

Although BS, it would be interesting to see how THAT would play out.

imported post

caltain wrote:

I know that I was the fastest draw on the block with my finger pistol when I was a kid. I OCd with it practically since birth.

The hunting reg is clearly out. The Red Cross event is another story. While the statute says "owner", the legal meaning of the word is not the literal meaning. If you lease, rent, buy with a loan, or otherwise compensate the owner of a property for its use, you have the same legal rights as an "owner" unless your contract with the land owner retains that right to the land owner.

None of us would brook the bank saying that we couldn't carry in our car, house, or apartment, event though it's owned by the bank or leasing agent. The public agencies have the same right to lease properties. The lessee has the same rights as you in your home.

I think the operative clause in a lease is "for their exclusive use". If that phrase is in the lease, then they can ban anything they like, as long as it isn't a recognized discrimination, race, religion, ability, etc. In effect, for the term of the lease, the land is no longer public property.

Cal

Click to expand...

In this case if the lesseeretains the same rights as the landowner then firearms can not be banned. The land owner can not convey rights that it does not have to give.

Click to expand...

imported post

15.2-915 contains the phrase: "For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization."

The meaning here isto cover statutes which enable the locality to act - such as to enter into agreements, contracts, etc. If you remember your history, both Fairfax county and Alexandria maintained a "trespass" statute threat after shall issue was passed. Fairfax was successfully defeated in court, but IIRC Alexandria prevailed. It was neverup to the appeals ct. I don't think though. Eventually, the G.A. strengthened preemption, and then totally preempted Alexandria.

Accordinly, Alexandria PD would be acting illegally were they to arrest someone for Trespassat the Waterfront festival. ARC can say all they want that they don't want firearms, but APD is without legal authority to arrest and prosecute otherwise law abiding guncarriers for this totally made up offense.

That is not to say they won't cite or arrest you, surely da mayah has made clear the marching orders.

imported post

Tess wrote:

...I find myself wanting to be a test case for this.

Click to expand...

Me too! I can't go this year, but maybe next year if someone will promise to videotape my entry to the Festival. If they don'tlet me in, they better give me my money back! If I get arrested, I will sue for a lot more than the admission charge. And maybe I will get famous on YouTube! Not that I would want to be arrested or anything.

imported post

The biggest problem I see here... once theAlexandria Police Department responds to a call by the Red Cross that people are OCing against their wishes, the police are just like us....... they won't know how the hell to apply the law possibly??? Maybe somebody needs to get an opinion from the police department. Or at least put them on notice that it's possible some people will insist on OC and some might OC. This way the police won't be responding blindly. I'm sure they have at least one officer on "light duty" that can research this thing with the city attorney and get a definitive answer one way or the other as to whether the Red Cross can ban weapons or not.

Let there be no mistake though, if and when the police do respond and do anything incorrectly (as in false arrest), Alexandria and the police department will fight tooth and nail in defending themselves. This I know from personal experience with them. After all, it's only taxpayer money. They will spend $500,000 in taxpayer money to keep from paying out $200,000.

imported post

maybe next year I will open carry AND not wear sunscreen!

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

The biggest problem I see here... once theAlexandria Police Department responds to a call by the Red Cross that people are OCing against their wishes, the police are just like us....... they won't know how the hell to apply the law possibly???

Click to expand...

The biggest problem is that there shouldn't be a problem. The very idea that "they won't know how thehell to apply the law possibly" is wrong. Every officer fit to wear a badge in the City of Alexandria should know that law and that the Red Cross is wrong.

imported post

After some of the recent incidents involving some of the members of this board, the Alexandria police have had ample opportunities to learn about the laws concerning carry of firearms. I don't buy that "they might not know the law" crap one bit. It's not like this would be the first time.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

After some of the recent incidents involving some of the members of this board, the Alexandria police have had ample opportunities to learn about the laws concerning carry of firearms. I don't buy that "they might not know the law" crap one bit. It's not like this would be the first time.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear.

If you recall, it was less than a year ago that the Chief's representative promised one of our members to conduct remedial training on open carry.

imported post

You folks that want to push this can go ahead and try. I'm still of the opinion that the Red Cross has the same right to enact any policy they want regarding guns at the festival. They leased the land for their exclusive use. That gives them the same rights any lessee has on the leased property. The only way that the preemption statute enters in to it is if they didn't lease the land for exclusive use, or if they were running/hosting the event. Once public land has been leased, it is no longer public land.

In the early 90's I had a friend that leased a house owned by the Montgomery County Parks Authority. By the logic that some here are using, any citizen could have just wandered up the front steps and walked right in. It's owned by the county=public land=free access by everyone. I'd have liked to hear that said to the arresting officer, or the EMTs trying to hold your face on your skull when her rotweilers were done with you.

Alexandria is not conveying their rights to the property, they are conveying THE right to use the property. The lessee has all the same rights that belong to any "owner" under common law, including whether they want to allow guns.

Cal

imported post

caltain wrote:

You folks that want to push this can go ahead and try. I'm still of the opinion that the Red Cross has the same right to enact any policy they want regarding guns at the festival. They leased the land for their exclusive use. That gives them the same rights any lessee has on the leased property. The only way that the preemption statute enters in to it is if they didn't lease the land for exclusive use, or if they were running/hosting the event. Once public land has been leased, it is no longer public land.

In the early 90's I had a friend that leased a house owned by the Montgomery County Parks Authority. By the logic that some here are using, any citizen could have just wandered up the front steps and walked right in. It's owned by the county=public land=free access by everyone. I'd have liked to hear that said to the arresting officer, or the EMTs trying to hold your face on your skull when her rotweilers were done with you.

Alexandria is not conveying their rights to the property, they are conveying THE right to use the property. The lessee has all the same rights that belong to any "owner" under common law, including whether they want to allow guns.

Cal

Click to expand...

So do you agree that Alexandria could lease the entirety of all public property to a private party for an entire year long lease? And from that point on the new "leasee" could make any laws they want? Didn't that happen in RoboCop?

imported post

caltain wrote:

You folks that want to push this can go ahead and try. I'm still of the opinion that the Red Cross has the same right to enact any policy they want regarding guns at the festival. They leased the land for their exclusive use. That gives them the same rights any lessee has on the leased property. The only way that the preemption statute enters in to it is if they didn't lease the land for exclusive use, or if they were running/hosting the event. Once public land has been leased, it is no longer public land.

In the early 90's I had a friend that leased a house owned by the Montgomery County Parks Authority. By the logic that some here are using, any citizen could have just wandered up the front steps and walked right in. It's owned by the county=public land=free access by everyone. I'd have liked to hear that said to the arresting officer, or the EMTs trying to hold your face on your skull when her rotweilers were done with you.

Alexandria is not conveying their rights to the property, they are conveying THE right to use the property. The lessee has all the same rights that belong to any "owner" under common law, including whether they want to allow guns.

Cal

Click to expand...

Quick question.

Before the house was leased, was it used for public use, i.e. a museum or library?