Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 294

Thread: The response from the Richmond Coliseum

  1. #1
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Post imported post

    On 2/19/09, I emailed the Richmond Coliseum to find out who owns it and their gun policy. Below is the email string. Read from the bottom up to maintain continuity.....





    RE: question

    Info Richmond Coliseum to you - 4 hrs ago


    A bit further down on the Visitor Information/Event Policies page on our website, there is this section which may further answer your question.

    Firearms/Weapons
    No persons are permitted to bring weapons of any kind into the arena with the exception of local, state, and federal law enforcement officials.

    If you have any futher questions, feel free to contact our office at (804) 780-4970.
    Thank you and have a nice day.



    [line]

    From:XXX@XXX.com
    Sent: Wed 2/25/2009 9:36 AM
    To: Info Richmond Coliseum
    Subject: Fwd: question


    Can someone give me a reply to my question posted inred below?



    -----Original Message-----
    From: XXX@XXX.com
    To: info@richmondcoliseum.net
    Sent: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 8:02 am
    Subject: Re: question



    Thank you for your reply.

    I noticed from your website that you have a visitor policy that prohibits "Weapons and dangerous devices of any type". Does that include lawfully carried firearms, whether concealed or openly carried?




    -----Original Message-----
    From: Info Richmond Coliseum <info@richmondcoliseum.net>
    To: XXX@XXX.com
    Sent: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 6:55 am
    Subject: RE: question




    Thanks for your e-mail.
    Sure, the City of Richmond is the owner.





    From:XXX@XXX.com
    Sent: Thu 2/19/2009 4:27 PM
    To: info@richmondcoliseum.net
    Subject: question


    Can you tell me who actually owns the Richmond Coliseum?
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    So if the city of Richmond is the owner, that means they have to remove that portion of their rules or, at the least, they can't enforce it. Correct?

  3. #3
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Post imported post

    DHCruiser wrote:
    So if the city of Richmond is the owner, that means they have to remove that portion of their rules or, at the least, they can't enforce it. Correct?
    that would be my understanding
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    So if Kaine decides to sign SB 1513 (which he should, since it was overwhelmingly passed by both bodies), then after July 1st, should a lawsuit be required, the judge "may" award penalties to the prevailing party.

    That should cause a lot of these issues to really go away fast.

    TFred


  5. #5
    Regular Member doug23838's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    ProShooter wrote:
    DHCruiser wrote:
    So if the city of Richmond is the owner, that means they have to remove that portion of their rules or, at the least, they can't enforce it. Correct?
    that would be my understanding
    I thought the Richmond Coliseum was owned by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority ( a quasi-government entity created by the City.)

    So were you thinking: "If its city propety then the statewide pre-emption laws "kick in" and therefore, they can't prohibit lawful carry."

    I'm thinking the same thing, but, just like the City leases their parks to event promoters to conduct fairs, festivals and concerts, the tenant then imposes the restriction.

    I see clearly the conflict. On one hand a tenant can impose a restriction on the property they rent. On the other hand, the tenant should not be allowed to impose a restriction that is otherwise lawful on property owned by the people.








  6. #6
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Post imported post

    doug23838 wrote:
    ProShooter wrote:
    DHCruiser wrote:
    So if the city of Richmond is the owner, that means they have to remove that portion of their rules or, at the least, they can't enforce it. Correct?
    that would be my understanding
    I thought the Richmond Coliseum was owned by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority ( a quasi-government entity created by the City.)

    So were you thinking: "If its city propety then the statewide pre-emption laws "kick in" and therefore, they can't prohibit lawful carry."

    I'm thinking the same thing, but, just like the City leases their parks to event promoters to conduct fairs, festivals and concerts, the tenant then imposes the restriction.

    I see clearly the conflict. On one hand a tenant can impose a restriction on the property they rent. On the other hand, the tenant should not be allowed to impose a restriction that is otherwise lawful on property owned by the people.






    I think we're still in the clear here, but I'll be giving them a phone call regardless.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  7. #7
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213

    Post imported post

    doug23838 wrote:
    ProShooter wrote:
    DHCruiser wrote:
    So if the city of Richmond is the owner, that means they have to remove that portion of their rules or, at the least, they can't enforce it. Correct?
    that would be my understanding
    I thought the Richmond Coliseum was owned by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority ( a quasi-government entity created by the City.)

    So were you thinking: "If its city propety then the statewide pre-emption laws "kick in" and therefore, they can't prohibit lawful carry."

    I'm thinking the same thing, but, just like the City leases their parks to event promoters to conduct fairs, festivals and concerts, the tenant then imposes the restriction.

    I see clearly the conflict. On one hand a tenant can impose a restriction on the property they rent. On the other hand, the tenant should not be allowed to impose a restriction that is otherwise lawful on property owned by the people.






    This was Norfolk's idea too and they lost! Waterside.


    Yes I carry a Bible and a Gun, your point.
    Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (meaning: "A defence of liberty against tyrants")
    Benjamin Franklin said, "A government that does not trust it's citizens with guns is a government that should not be trusted."



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    454

    Post imported post

    Wolf_shadow wrote:
    doug23838 wrote:
    ProShooter wrote:
    DHCruiser wrote:
    So if the city of Richmond is the owner, that means they have to remove that portion of their rules or, at the least, they can't enforce it. Correct?
    that would be my understanding
    I thought the Richmond Coliseum was owned by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority ( a quasi-government entity created by the City.)

    So were you thinking: "If its city propety then the statewide pre-emption laws "kick in" and therefore, they can't prohibit lawful carry."

    I'm thinking the same thing, but, just like the City leases their parks to event promoters to conduct fairs, festivals and concerts, the tenant then imposes the restriction.

    I see clearly the conflict. On one hand a tenant can impose a restriction on the property they rent. On the other hand, the tenant should not be allowed to impose a restriction that is otherwise lawful on property owned by the people.






    This was Norfolk's idea too and they lost! Waterside.

    exactly



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636

    Post imported post

    The Richmond Coliseum is owned by the city (taxpayers) and is/was managed by SMG out of Pennsylvania. They a pretty much sanitized policy and procedures manual, meaning they use generic terms.

    Depending on the event OC would be necessary due to the alcohol sales. non sporting events and concerts are the only time they don't sell alcohol inside the arena.

    It is possible some of the above has changed recently, but I doubt it. After all it is the City of Richmond. The new Mayor is former Delegate Dwight Jones. Anyone know what his record was in the GA?

  10. #10
    Regular Member doug23838's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    Wolf_shadow wrote:
    doug23838 wrote:
    ProShooter wrote:
    DHCruiser wrote:
    So if the city of Richmond is the owner, that means they have to remove that portion of their rules or, at the least, they can't enforce it. Correct?
    that would be my understanding
    I thought the Richmond Coliseum was owned by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority ( a quasi-government entity created by the City.)

    So were you thinking: "If its city propety then the statewide pre-emption laws "kick in" and therefore, they can't prohibit lawful carry."

    I'm thinking the same thing, but, just like the City leases their parks to event promoters to conduct fairs, festivals and concerts, the tenant then imposes the restriction.

    I see clearly the conflict. On one hand a tenant can impose a restriction on the property they rent. On the other hand, the tenant should not be allowed to impose a restriction that is otherwise lawful on property owned by the people.






    This was Norfolk's idea too and they lost! Waterside.

    I see a distinction in that Waterside has a commons area or mall and individual shops and restaurants which (I'm assuming )are leased by the City to the tenant. I'm assuming that a tenant at Waterside could impose a restriction on firearm possession in their leased space, just as a tenant of the Coliseum could impose on the building entirely (if they lease the entire building).

    I can tell you this. I don't like it. I think if you lease or rent city owned property then with it should come the responsibility of accomodating all guests welcome to the facility.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    I have a big problem with the word... "authority" in the title of the .... agency? company?

    What... if any.... legal jurisdiction do they have? ...and how was that legal jurisdiction granted? Are they a government agency, or are they a private company?

    I think this should be on our radar scope for future turf battles. Private enterprises and"partnerships"should be disbarred from using the word, "authority" in their business name, unless specifically granted legal jurisprudence through an act of the Virginia General Assembly. Even then, the limits of their "authority" should be clearly defined as to what they may, or may not do.

    This shoud paint these semi-quasi, nebulous organizations into a box. Either they can stand on their grounds as a private company, operating soley with private funds, or they are subject to LAW, because they are publicly funded.

    It's way past time to either$h!t or get off the pot!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    IANAL, but when the Roanoke Times takes over parks here, they get a license, not a lease.

    The city can not confer rights it does not have, which means carry as you will.

    Find out what terms the Coliseum is operated under, it has to be a public document - FOIA if you have to. I don't even know if a public entity can lease public property in such a way that the public's rights are infringed. Housing I guess? Let us know what you find out. FYI, Salem and Roanoke both blinked, took down signs, and don't argue the point anymore.

    C.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    Armed wrote:
    Private enterprises and*"partnerships"*should be disbarred from using the word, "authority" in their business name, unless specifically granted legal jurisprudence through an act of the Virginia General Assembly.*
    Look out Sports Authority. We're coming for you...

  14. #14
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    Post imported post

    Armed wrote:
    I have a big problem with the word... "authority" in the title of the .... agency? company?

    What... if any.... legal jurisdiction do they have? ...and how was that legal jurisdiction granted? Are they a government agency, or are they a private company?

    I think this should be on our radar scope for future turf battles. Private enterprises and"partnerships"should be disbarred from using the word, "authority" in their business nIame, unless specifically granted legal jurisprudence through an act of the Virginia General Assembly. Even then, the limits of their "authority" should be clearly defined as to what they may, or may not do.

    This shoud paint these semi-quasi, nebulous organizations into a box. Either they can stand on their grounds as a private company, operating soley with private funds, or they are subject to LAW, because they are publicly funded.

    It's way past time to either$h!t or get off the pot!
    I can not agree more. Just another way of shifting responsibility. Elected officials should be accountable in all ways under the law.



    Just ask Tim!

    Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be well informed. ALL rights matter.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."

    --Robert A. Heinlein

    Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!

  15. #15
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Just a thought... you really sort of have to feel sorry for these folks...

    Unless they are stooges for the Brady Bunch, which I don't think we have any particular reason to think is the case at this point, they are most likely well-meaning folks who have, like countless others in general society, been deceived by the media, the liberals, and the purveyors-of-doom, into believing that it is the gun that is evil, and that they are protecting the general public with their oh-so-comforting "no weapons" policies.

    Depending on the legal savvy of the staff and management there, they may or may not know by now that their policy violates state law, and is not enforceable.

    In any case, it's a mindset that must be overcome, and if all the circumstances are as they appear, it will be overcome, either willingly or not.

    I know not everyone here has a Christian background, and I certainly don't intend to offend anyone, but I'm reminded of a Bible verse which could easily apply to this situation.

    Think of "the Lord's servant" as Second Amendment supporters, and the Brady Bunch propaganda as "the trap of the devil" and you will see how it applies!

    2 Timothy 2:24-26 (New International Version)

    And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
    TFred


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    doug23838 wrote:
    ProShooter wrote:
    DHCruiser wrote:
    So if the city of Richmond is the owner, that means they have to remove that portion of their rules or, at the least, they can't enforce it. Correct?
    that would be my understanding
    I thought the Richmond Coliseum was owned by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority ( a quasi-government entity created by the City.)

    So were you thinking: "If its city propety then the statewide pre-emption laws "kick in" and therefore, they can't prohibit lawful carry."

    I'm thinking the same thing, but, just like the City leases their parks to event promoters to conduct fairs, festivals and concerts, the tenant then imposes the restriction.

    I see clearly the conflict. On one hand a tenant can impose a restriction on the property they rent. On the other hand, the tenant should not be allowed to impose a restriction that is otherwise lawful on property owned by the people.






    Don't forget though... the 'tenant' in this case is a political subdivision. That makes them an agent of the City of Richmond.

    Since they are a piece of the Richmond Government, they are bound by the same rules as the Richmond Government.

    Thus, they could not ban firearms there legally.

    I supposea private group could apply such restrictions iftheywere leasing the property for private use.

    The real question I think would be "Does private use of public property allow for such restrictions if the private use was open to the public?"

  17. #17
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Post imported post

    I placed a call to the Coliseum this morning. I'm awaiting their return call.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  18. #18
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    Interesting. Any updates on this?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    doug23838 wrote:
    I see a distinction in that Waterside has a commons area or mall and individual shops and restaurants which (I'm assuming )are leased by the City to the tenant. I'm assuming that a tenant at Waterside could impose a restriction on firearm possession in their leased space, just as a tenant of the Coliseum could impose on the building entirely (if they lease the entire building).

    I can tell you this. I don't like it. I think if you lease or rent city owned property then with it should come the responsibility of accomodating all guests welcome to the facility.
    The rationale is that the "people" have determined that OCing shall be allowed on all public property. Therefore the "people" would not offer a lease for that public property that allowed the lessee to restrict the people's will.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    would this apply to the Hampton Coliseum I wonder? or Norfolk scope.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    I intend on carrying at the Rich. Coliseum in May for the convention.

  22. #22
    Regular Member vbnative73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Va Beach, 23456
    Posts
    215

    Post imported post

    doug23838 wrote:
    ProShooter wrote:
    DHCruiser wrote:
    So if the city of Richmond is the owner, that means they have to remove that portion of their rules or, at the least, they can't enforce it. Correct?
    that would be my understanding
    I thought the Richmond Coliseum was owned by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority ( a quasi-government entity created by the City.)

    So were you thinking: "If its city propety then the statewide pre-emption laws "kick in" and therefore, they can't prohibit lawful carry."

    I'm thinking the same thing, but, just like the City leases their parks to event promoters to conduct fairs, festivals and concerts, the tenant then imposes the restriction.

    I see clearly the conflict. On one hand a tenant can impose a restriction on the property they rent. On the other hand, the tenant should not be allowed to impose a restriction that is otherwise lawful on property owned by the people.






    Hiding behind the "ownership" of the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority shouldn't work. And as of last month, there is case law to argue. (ie. City of Norfolk v. Danladi Moore)

    Wouldn't the Richmond Coliseum fall into the same arguement that was made for Waterside?



  23. #23
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    Yes and No. Danbus' case was in District Court, which is not a court of record.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  24. #24
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Post imported post

    I have not received a reply yet. Kind of got placed on the back burner due to business being so good.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  25. #25
    ccloud43
    Guest

    Post imported post

    IANAL but i dont think that the Richmond Coliseum/Norfolk Scope or Hampton Coliseum would be classified as a club or resturantby definition of Va Law.

    18.2-308 says:
    J3. No person shall carry a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; however, nothing herein shall prohibit any sworn law-enforcement officer from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of such restaurant or club or any owner or event sponsor or his employees from carrying a concealed handgun while on duty at such restaurant or club if such person has a concealed handgun permit.
    4.1-100:

    "Club" means any private nonprofit corporation or association which is the owner, lessee, or occupant of an establishment operated solely for a national, social, patriotic, political, athletic, or other like purpose, but not for pecuniary gain, the advantages of which belong to all of the members. It also means the establishment so operated. A corporation or association shall not lose its status as a club because of the conduct of charitable gaming conducted pursuant to Article 1.1:1 (§ 18.2-340.15 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of Title 18.2 in which nonmembers participate frequently or in large numbers, provided that no alcoholic beverages are served or consumed in the room where such charitable gaming is being conducted while such gaming is being conducted and that no alcoholic beverages are made available upon the premises to any person who is neither a member nor a bona fide guest of a member.

    "Restaurant" means, for a beer, or wine and beer license, any establishment provided with special space and accommodation, where, in consideration of payment, meals or other foods prepared on the premises are regularly sold.

    "Restaurant" means, for a mixed beverage license, an established place of business (i) where meals with substantial entrees are regularly sold and (ii) which has adequate facilities and sufficient employees for cooking, preparing, and serving such meals for consumption at tables in dining areas on the premises, and includes establishments specializing in full course meals with a single substantial entree.
    I know it petains to CC. but would i be wrong to think I could not at least CC there?

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... 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
  •