Bill in VA
Regular Member
imported post
.
.
+1this sort of thing is best worked out between local citizens and their elected/appointed officials, as opposed to starting with a bunch of folks from outside the area dogpiling on them.
skidmark wrote:+1this sort of thing is best worked out between local citizens and their elected/appointed officials, as opposed to starting with a bunch of folks from outside the area dogpiling on them.
OK, I am at a loss here....Back in September of 2008 the Town of Wytheville put up two signs on the front window of the municipal building. For the record, there are no courtrooms, judges' chambers, etc... in this building, nor is this particularbuilding anywhere near our two courthouses. (See the original threads here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/14403.html and here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/16817.html ) As a refresher, there are two signs, one reads,"NOTICE/NO WEAPONS ALLOWED/The Possession of Any and All Dangerous Weapons is Prohibited on These Premises" and the other reads, "NOTICE/YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO SEARCH." The first of these signs is a violation of Virginia's preemption law, §15.2-915.The Town has no lawful authority to prohibit carriage of a firearm in the municipal building and any attempt to regulate such is a violation of state law.The long and the short of it is that my comments and Phillip's phone calls convinced the town fathers to remove these two signs back in October.
Last month, however, while back inside the municipal building, I noticed these two signs were back up, but this time on the doorway leading into the Town Council Chambers room (alarge auditorium-type room where the town council meets and the public can attend.) I sent Phillip an email about this, he replied (as expected) that the law has not changed, the signage is still unlawful, and they need to come down. Yesterday, as I was inside the building I looked and yes, the signs are still there. I've notified the town officers that the sign needs to come down, but I think it'd be more effective to have fellow VCDL members also remind them that the signage is unlawful and a violation of VA §15.2-915. For some reason they seem to think they are above the law.
Oh, so a sign restricting a drinking fountain in the county office to whites only is OK then? After all, it's just a sign.Bill in VA wrote:OK, I am at a loss here....Back in September of 2008 the Town of Wytheville put up two signs on the front window of the municipal building. For the record, there are no courtrooms, judges' chambers, etc... in this building, nor is this particularbuilding anywhere near our two courthouses. (See the original threads here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/14403.html and here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/16817.html ) As a refresher, there are two signs, one reads,"NOTICE/NO WEAPONS ALLOWED/The Possession of Any and All Dangerous Weapons is Prohibited on These Premises" and the other reads, "NOTICE/YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO SEARCH." The first of these signs is a violation of Virginia's preemption law, §15.2-915.The Town has no lawful authority to prohibit carriage of a firearm in the municipal building and any attempt to regulate such is a violation of state law.The long and the short of it is that my comments and Phillip's phone calls convinced the town fathers to remove these two signs back in October.
Last month, however, while back inside the municipal building, I noticed these two signs were back up, but this time on the doorway leading into the Town Council Chambers room (alarge auditorium-type room where the town council meets and the public can attend.) I sent Phillip an email about this, he replied (as expected) that the law has not changed, the signage is still unlawful, and they need to come down. Yesterday, as I was inside the building I looked and yes, the signs are still there. I've notified the town officers that the sign needs to come down, but I think it'd be more effective to have fellow VCDL members also remind them that the signage is unlawful and a violation of VA §15.2-915. For some reason they seem to think they are above the law.
Where exactly in the code does it say a "sign" is unlawful and against the law?
I can post all the signs I want. If they have no standing, I certainly cannot act upon them. But a sign by itself seems to not be covered.
The preemptive law only stops the localities from actually charging you with gun crime not in the state code.
Just saying.... :?
Ya beat me to it Skep. I might add, which you pointed out too, that a sign is a command to do or not do something. When in a government building it carries the authority of the state, that the state is commanding you. Problem is that the state doesn't have that authority to command such. If it's an illegal command then the sign is illegal and should be removed.LEO 229 wrote:Oh, so a sign restricting a drinking fountain in the county office to whites only is OK then? After all, it's just a sign.Bill in VA wrote:OK, I am at a loss here....Back in September of 2008 the Town of Wytheville put up two signs on the front window of the municipal building. For the record, there are no courtrooms, judges' chambers, etc... in this building, nor is this particularbuilding anywhere near our two courthouses. (See the original threads here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/14403.html and here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/16817.html ) As a refresher, there are two signs, one reads,"NOTICE/NO WEAPONS ALLOWED/The Possession of Any and All Dangerous Weapons is Prohibited on These Premises" and the other reads, "NOTICE/YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO SEARCH." The first of these signs is a violation of Virginia's preemption law, §15.2-915.The Town has no lawful authority to prohibit carriage of a firearm in the municipal building and any attempt to regulate such is a violation of state law.The long and the short of it is that my comments and Phillip's phone calls convinced the town fathers to remove these two signs back in October.
Last month, however, while back inside the municipal building, I noticed these two signs were back up, but this time on the doorway leading into the Town Council Chambers room (alarge auditorium-type room where the town council meets and the public can attend.) I sent Phillip an email about this, he replied (as expected) that the law has not changed, the signage is still unlawful, and they need to come down. Yesterday, as I was inside the building I looked and yes, the signs are still there. I've notified the town officers that the sign needs to come down, but I think it'd be more effective to have fellow VCDL members also remind them that the signage is unlawful and a violation of VA §15.2-915. For some reason they seem to think they are above the law.
Where exactly in the code does it say a "sign" is unlawful and against the law?
I can post all the signs I want. If they have no standing, I certainly cannot act upon them. But a sign by itself seems to not be covered.
The preemptive law only stops the localities from actually charging you with gun crime not in the state code.
Just saying.... :?
How about a sign that tells women they must wear a burka under penalty of death? Just words, just a sign.
How about a sign "Juden Verbotten"? No harm there either?
The sign is an an attempt in and of itself to get people to comply with something that is clearly illegal.
I see and understand your point, LEO, but I don't think it's germane to the discussion. A sign prohibiting the possession of firearms by a government entity (with certain exceptions, of course) communicates something that is untrue, and claims authority the entity doesn't have.Where exactly in the code does it say a "sign" is unlawful and against the law?
OMG... here we go again....Oh, so a sign restricting a drinking fountain in the county office to whites only is OK then? After all, it's just a sign.
How about a sign that tells women they must wear a burka under penalty of death? Just words, just a sign.
How about a sign "Juden Verbotten"? No harm there either?
The sign is an an attempt in and of itself to get people to comply with something that is clearly illegal.
TN...LEO 229 wrote:I see and understand your point, LEO, but I don't think it's germane to the discussion. A sign prohibiting the possession of firearms by a government entity (with certain exceptions, of course) communicates something that is untrue, and claims authority the entity doesn't have.Where exactly in the code does it say a "sign" is unlawful and against the law?
So while no one may be charged, tried and convicted of the "crime" of displaying such an "unlawful" sign, that's not what anyone is advocating, anyway. We understand that these extra-legal signs are essentially lies, and we get angered when our governments lie to us. We want them to stop the lies, and remove the signs.
And for the record, no, I don't believe that posting a sign next to a water fountain stating "For Whites Only" is illegal. Incredibly offensive, yes. Colossally stupid, yes. You'd better not enforce what the sign says, yes. But illegal? I'm not sure what law it violates. And if there is such a law, then we need to expand it to include all signs that prohibit lawful behavior, such as carrying a gun.
Two points here:1) With all due respect to Bill, I think he was a bit careless in his wording, as you pointed out, and 2) you're focusing in on the details of specific sentences and ignoring his overall point, and the action he wants to happen.But the member did not say that. He said the signs were 'illegal' ...
TN, no accusations here...LEO 229 wrote:Two points here:1) With all due respect to Bill, I think he was a bit careless in his wording, as you pointed out, and 2) you're focusing in on the details of specific sentences and ignoring his overall point, and the action he wants to happen.But the member did not say that. He said the signs were 'illegal' ...
Bill didn't say he wants someone to be arrested or go to jail for posting the sign; he said he wants the signs to come down.
So yes, the "tree" you're focusing on claimed the signs were illegal, but you're ignoring the "forest" that calls for removal of the signs, and nothing else.
And my last point: let's not descend into that sewer of claiming someone else's intent, or jumping to the worst possible conclusion about another poster. As I discussed above, I think Bill chose his words poorly, but to call his statements "lies" goes overboard. You don't know that, and I think you should apologize to Bill for calling him a liar.
Unless, of course, Bill wants to come on here and clarify that he does indeed think that posting the signs is a crime under current law, and people should be tried and convicted for it. In that case, I withdraw everything I've said here.
~ Boyd
P.S. And Bill, I don't intend to badmouth you, and I don't claim that I don't make the same mistake that I think you made here. I knew what (I believe) you meant, but as we've learned time and time again here in the OCDO forums, imprecision in what we write can cause useless digression and discussion. Folks will often choose to interpret our words in the most damaging light possible.
And LEO, I think you're committing the same unfounded accusation that you're often the target of.
I'm starting to get unfocused myself, so it's time for me to shut up. At least for a while.
I only asked for someone to show me a law that says the signs are "illegal". As of yet.. I have not seen anyone do it. They did talk about Nazis... as always happens here. But no state or federal code.
§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies. A. 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. 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. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 from acting within the scope of his duties. The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility. B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid. (1987, c. 629, § 15.1-29.15; 1988, c. 392; 1997, cc. 550, 587; 2002, c. 484; 2003, c. 943; 2004, cc. 837, 923.)
And this is where we disagree, and only Bill can clarify. I think Bill worded his point incorrectly, three times (I'll take your word for it on the count).Once in error, twice makes you take a second look. But three times in the same post identifies to me that the author clearly believes signs are illegal.