• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The response from the Richmond Coliseum

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
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
space.gif

space.gif

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?
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

doug23838

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
306
Location
, Virginia, USA
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.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
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.
 

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,215
Location
Accomac, Virginia, USA
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.
 

DonTreadOnMe

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
454
Location
Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
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
 

kenny

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
635
Location
Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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?
 

doug23838

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
306
Location
, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Armed

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
418
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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!
 

CPerdue

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
235
Location
Salem, ,
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.
 

ccunning

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
115
Location
Manassas, Virginia, USA
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...
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
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!
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
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?"
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
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.
 
Top