2a4all wrote:
Yes, preemption must be preserved, but as I said in an earlier post,
"C. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting an ordinance that prohibits possessing or carrying firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof in a community or recreation center, administrative building, or public library owned or operated by the locality during an official meeting of the governing body."
It would be easy to amend this bill to mandate these prohibitions as part of state law, and preserve preemption.
The backlash of bad PR could cause this to happen.
Is there an argument for
NOT doing what this proposal says that
promotes the public good (the general public, not just the pro-gun people) which could be made to prevail?
What is the cost of implementation and enforcement of these (local) ordinances? Would the state pay? Doubtful, with the looming current budget shortfall. Could the localities afford it? How would these efforts be funded? Sluffing these burdens off onto the localities (like the Transportation Authorities) to avoid the cost has been done before by the GA.
What can Ms Locke do to help fund any of this? Posting "No Firearms" signs at the entrance won't work. Would such signage mislead the general public into thinking that the local library is a safe place for the kids on a Saturday morning? Would patrons be subject to searches? Who will be liable for the "collateral damage" of a drug deal gone bad in the library parking lot?
I think we should clarify what is covered by the proposed language. Reading carefully...
Localities are not being allowed to prohibit firearms in
"a community or recreation center, administrative building, or public library owned or operated by the locality" across the board, but only "
during an official meeting of the governing body."
In my opinion (which is free...and worth it) this language says: Localities cannot prohibit firearms in locations X, Y & Z (owned or operated by the locality) except during an official meeting of the governing body.
A previous poster placed an "and" between the "owned or operated by" clause and the "during an official meeting" clause which is not in the original language and changes the meaning dramatically.
The quandary is that this language does not attempt to "protect" library patrons, community or recreation center patrons, or employees working at (or citizens conducting business at) a local administrative building by prohibiting firearms during the normal operating hours.
The single purpose of the language is to give local government councils the option of banning firearms "during meetings of the governing body" (presumably meaning the governing body of the locality and not the rec center or library).
They (governing bodies) don't want us in their meetings because they don't like us. We make them uncomfortable. In the broadest sense they are the people who are afraid that someone will come into their meeting, get mad and shoot them. As we know, this form of projection is used by those who are afraid of losing control of their own emotions/behavior to impugn the behavior of others.
We remind them there are constituencies that are not subject to their affectations of power....who do not bleat or genuflect before them to ensure our continued protection within the herd.
Discrimination against a specific constituency...hmmm. A constituency of Virginians conducting themselves 100% within the laws of the commonwealth being excluded from the governance of a locality in the commonwealth. Allowing the "royalty" of each locality to specifically exclude a constituency from freely exercising rights protected in the commonwealth writ large because they don't like that constituency?
Local elected officials being allowed to ban constituents from exercising rights protected in the commonwealth while participating in the process of governing of the locality.
The local official fraidy cat act. The local royalty protection act. Local governments operating in a "rights free zone." The local official pansy act. Surely there must be something there we can use....
It sounds different when you insert some other fundamental right:
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting an ordinance that prohibits "free speech" in a community or recreation center, administrative building, or public library owned or operated by the locality during an official meeting of the governing body.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting an ordinance that prohibits "freedom of the press" in a community or recreation center, administrative building, or public library owned or operated by the locality during an official meeting of the governing body.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting an ordinance that prohibits "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure" in a community or recreation center, administrative building, or public library owned or operated by the locality during an official meeting of the governing body.
I'll check back later. I'm just getting warmed up....
