Richmond Convention Center

skidmark · May 26, 2009

imported post

TFred wrote:

skidmark wrote:

TFred wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

TFred wrote:

"You may also find it helpful to be reminded that the 2009 General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed into law, SB 1513, which allows a court to award attorney fees, expenses and court costs to any entity that prevails in an action challenging a violation of Section 15.2-915.

Your legal staff will certainly understand and agree that your clear violation of the law has no grounds, and will certainly not prevail, should litigation be required to prompt your action to correct the situation at hand."

(A little more "help" to convince them to do the right thing...)

TFred

Click to expand...

I do not think that this new law takes effect until July 1st.

Would not the date of infraction be the deciding factor as to whether it applied?

Yata hey

Click to expand...

July 1st is only 5 weeks and 1 day away. I don't know why it wouldn't apply any time after July 1st. It would certainly take longer than 5 weeks to even be heard in a court room.

TFred

Click to expand...

Tess had it correct when dealing with a law that has an implementation date. Anything that happens before the new law takes effect is tried under the old law, no matter how long it takes to get into court.

You have heard of ex post facto laws, right? Unconstitutional as all get-out. You are trying to create a pre post facto law - too confusing for even a Supreme Court Justice nominee who singlehandedly saved Major League baseball to contemplate.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

Sure, but why wouldn't a court action that takes place entirely after July 1 be covered? Are you saying that any violation of preemption that exists before July 1 is exempt from the provisions provided by the new law, no matter when the court action to correct it takes place?

That makes no sense to me at all.

ETA: In fact, since almost universally, violations of preemption originate from old rules/laws that were never updated to reflect preemption, there will be very few cases that do not come from before July 1, 2009.

TFred

The court is dealing with an act that took place before the new law went into effect, regardless of when after 7/1/09 the court hearing is held. Thus, the court has to apply the law as it existed on the date the act took place.

If the act takes place after 7/1/09 the court will apply the new law.

It is not the existence of the rule/policy/ordinance that matters, but the date when someone applies that rule/policy/ordinance against you.

Just to make your head swim even more, there is nothing in the law now that prevents you from asking the court to make the locality repay all your costs and expenses. And just as after 7/1/09, the court can decide to, or not to, order those costs and expenses reimbursed.

All the new law will do is put judges and localities on notice that is is legal (permitted by an act of the General Assembly) to recover costs/expenses, whereas in some few cases before, the judge had ruled that there was no law allowing that to happen.

Don't you just love the logic of the law? [/sarcasm]

stay safe.

skidmark

bdodds · May 26, 2009

imported post

So the new law doesn't say that people are any more able to recover costs, it just says that cost recovery can't be denied on the basis of no legal standing to demand that recovery?

Armed · May 26, 2009

imported post

...and the reply..(drum roll please....)

I appreciate your concern. In your reference to Section 18.2 – 308 of the Code of Virginia, please note subsection J3 of the code which states the following:

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.

You may not be aware that the premises of the Greater Richmond Convention Center are licensed under the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption as a mixed beverage restaurant establishment. I hope this information helps clarify our policy.

Best Regards,
Michael A. Meyers, General Manager
Greater Richmond Convention Center / Global Spectrum
403 N. 3rd Street
Richmond, VA 23219

804.783.7311
804.225.0508 fax

www.richmondcenter.com

*****************************************************************

So the open-carry arguement aside for the moment, did I not read somewhere on this board there was a physical limitation established for "food courts" in malls, where a vendor serves alcohol?

If there were aboundary on where alcoholic beverages are not permitted beyonda certain area, doesn't that define the limit of said restriction? I'm thinking if they serve alcohol at their food court, they probably have a restriction about those drinks leaving the food court area.

On another note - just because they have a license to serve, doesn't necessarily mean they are serving alcohol at all events. That might be something in place to facilitate a user of their facility to serve alcohol. So if alchohol isn't being served actively at an event - does this restriction still apply?

Give me some ammo here!

Tess · May 26, 2009

imported post

Armed wrote:

...and the reply..(drum roll please....)

I appreciate your concern. In your reference to Section 18.2 – 308 of the Code of Virginia, please note subsection J3 of the code which states the following:

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.

You may not be aware that the premises of the Greater Richmond Convention Center are licensed under the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption as a mixed beverage restaurant establishment. I hope this information helps clarify our policy.

Best Regards,
Michael A. Meyers, General Manager
Greater Richmond Convention Center / Global Spectrum
403 N. 3rd Street
Richmond, VA 23219

804.783.7311
804.225.0508 fax

http://www.richmondcenter.com

*****************************************************************

So the open-carry arguement aside for the moment, did I not read somewhere on this board there was a physical limitation established for "food courts" in malls, where a vendor serves alcohol?

If there were aboundary on where alcoholic beverages are not permitted beyonda certain area, doesn't that define the limit of said restriction? I'm thinking if they serve alcohol at their food court, they probably have a restriction about those drinks leaving the food court area.

On another note - just because they have a license to serve, doesn't necessarily mean they are serving alcohol at all events. That might be something in place to facilitate a user of their facility to serve alcohol. So if alchohol isn't being served actively at an event - does this restriction still apply?

Give me some ammo here!

1. I maintain that the Greater Richmond Convention Center is not a restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100. Just because ABC calls it a restaurant does not make it a restaurant under the specific definition cited (the cat may have its kittens in the oven, but that don't make 'em biscuits, dontcha know).

2. Even if it were a restaurant, that doesn't exempt open carry, only concealed.

3. But "What are you smoking and why aren't you sharing" is probably not the appropriate response at this point in the game.

Armed · May 26, 2009

imported post

A quick search of the ABC online license registration shows the following:

type sub-type wine & beer status mixed bev

[align=right]14380
Greater Richmond Convention Center
Fine Host Corp
Restaurant
Non-Government Property
VoluntarySurrender
VoluntarySurrender

30014
Greater Richmond Convention Center
Aramark Sports & Entertainment Services LLC
Restaurant
Non-Government Property
Active
Active[/align]

Does anybody know what this stuff means? How can the convention centerbe considered non-government property?

eh... okay - so table don't display correctly. what does "voluntary surrender" mean for alcohol type? (two categories: wine and beer / mixed beverage)

Grapeshot · May 26, 2009

imported post

TFred wrote:

Sure, but why wouldn't a court action that takes place entirely after July 1 be covered? Are you saying that any violation of preemption that exists before July 1 is exempt from the provisions provided by the new law, no matter when the court action to correct it takes place?

That makes no sense to me at all.

ETA: In fact, since almost universally, violations of preemption originate from old rules/laws that were never updated to reflect preemption, there will be very few cases that do not come from before July 1, 2009.

TFred

Actually it makes perfect sense.

The date of origin of a law has nothing to do with the date of violation. The entire question hinges on what law is in effect on what date.

Look at it this way - you exceed the posted 35MPH speed limit by 10 MPH and are ticketed. Then the speed limit is raised to 45MPH a day or two before you go to court. Where you guilty of speeding on the day in question?

Yata hey

TFred · May 26, 2009

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

TFred wrote:

Sure, but why wouldn't a court action that takes place entirely after July 1 be covered? Are you saying that any violation of preemption that exists before July 1 is exempt from the provisions provided by the new law, no matter when the court action to correct it takes place?

That makes no sense to me at all.

ETA: In fact, since almost universally, violations of preemption originate from old rules/laws that were never updated to reflect preemption, there will be very few cases that do not come from before July 1, 2009.

TFred

Click to expand...

Actually it makes perfect sense.

The date of origin of a law has nothing to do with the date of violation. The entire question hinges on what law is in effect on what date.

Look at it this way - you exceed the posted 35MPH speed limit by 10 MPH and are ticketed. Then the speed limit is raised to 45MPH a day or two before you go to court. Where you guilty of speeding on the day in question?

Yata hey

But that analogy is not what we're talking about here. If they raise the penalty for speeding from $5 to $10, you can't say that you aren't subject to pay the new fine because it was against the law to speed before the increased fine was implemented.

TFred

Grapeshot · May 26, 2009

imported post

TFred wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

TFred wrote:

Sure, but why wouldn't a court action that takes place entirely after July 1 be covered? Are you saying that any violation of preemption that exists before July 1 is exempt from the provisions provided by the new law, no matter when the court action to correct it takes place?

That makes no sense to me at all.

ETA: In fact, since almost universally, violations of preemption originate from old rules/laws that were never updated to reflect preemption, there will be very few cases that do not come from before July 1, 2009.

TFred

Click to expand...

Actually it makes perfect sense.

The date of origin of a law has nothing to do with the date of violation. The entire question hinges on what law is in effect on what date.

Look at it this way - you exceed the posted 35MPH speed limit by 10 MPH and are ticketed. Then the speed limit is raised to 45MPH a day or two before you go to court. Where you guilty of speeding on the day in question?

Yata hey

Click to expand...

But that analogy is not what we're talking about here. If they raise the penalty for speeding from $5 to $10, you can't say that you aren't subject to pay the new fine because it was against the law to speed before the increased fine was implemented.

TFred

That is illogical, Capt Kirk. If I speed on May 15th, I would expect to pay the penalty/fine in effect on May 15th - not an increased level in effect for violators ticketed after the date of a new increase - regardless of the court date or the date I paid it. Anyway it was just my analogy - you're free to choose your own.

Any court hearing will be/should be judged on the law in effect as of the date of violation. Can't be said any simpler in layman's terms.

Yata hey

paramedic70002 · May 26, 2009

imported post

Hmmmm interesting. So which law wins? Preemption or ABC? Could any government building get an ABC permit and end CC?

darthmord · May 27, 2009

imported post

What I understand about ABC-on, is if they have been issued one you must OC if you are carrying. Whether or not they have any alcohol for sale is irrelevant. You must OC.

Personally, I would err on the side of caution. I would OC there to avoid any possibility of running afoul of CC & ABC requirements whether or not the facility is considered a restaurant.

This way, if they try and have you arrested for being a M/WWAG, you will have a better case as the facility and grounds are owned by the City of Richmond (thus subject to pre-emption).

On a side note, it sure would be nice if the laws were updated to be written in plain english without any legalese. Would make our lives easier IMO.

TexasNative · May 27, 2009

imported post

darthmord wrote:

On a side note, it sure would be nice if the laws were updated to be written in plain english without any legalese. Would make our lives easier IMO.

Think of all those poor lawyers your suggestion would put out of work!

Insert your favorite lawyer joke here.

~ Boyd

peter nap · May 27, 2009

imported post

How many are going to meet at noon on FRIDAY, at the Convention Center?

TFred · May 27, 2009

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

Hmmmm interesting. So which law wins? Preemption or ABC? Could any government building get an ABC permit and end CC?

IANAL, but since by definition, preemption's sole purpose for existing is to keep local governments from enacting laws contrary to state law, and since the ABC law is a state law, I would say that the ABC law trumps preemption. Preemption is designed to keep laws across the state consistent. Now for example, if a local jurisdiction decided to outlaw open carry at ABC licensed establishments, then I would say preemption would prevail.

For what it's worth.

TFred

TexasNative · May 27, 2009

imported post

Great analysis, Fred. Makes lots of sense.

So it must be wrong.

~ Boyd

ProShooter · May 27, 2009

imported post

TFred wrote:

paramedic70002 wrote:

Hmmmm interesting. So which law wins? Preemption or ABC? Could any government building get an ABC permit and end CC?

Click to expand...

IANAL, but since by definition, preemption's sole purpose for existing is to keep local governments from enacting laws contrary to state law, and since the ABC law is a state law, I would say that the ABC law trumps preemption. Preemption is designed to keep laws across the state consistent. Now for example, if a local jurisdiction decided to outlaw open carry at ABC licensed establishments, then I would say preemption would prevail.

For what it's worth.

TFred

I agree. That's the conclusion I came to as well.

paramedic70002 · May 27, 2009

imported post

Ga, I thought the preemption law also set out which state agencies could issue 2A restrictive laws/regs. Could someone post anything relevant?

TFred · May 27, 2009

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

Ga, I thought the preemption law also set out which state agencies could issue 2A restrictive laws/regs. Could someone post anything relevant?

The prohibition against Concealed Carry in restaurants that are licensed by the ABC is not an ABC rule or regulation, it is a state law. The ABC only comes in to play to determine which restaurants may serve alcohol, which is what determines whether they are subject to the state law passed by the General Assembly, etc.

I would hazard a guess that the ABC folks probably hate being tasked with dealing with anything firearms related, it's not their job, and I'm sure they get a lot of headache dealing with such issues.

TFred

skidmark · May 27, 2009

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

Ga, I thought the preemption law also set out which state agencies could issue 2A restrictive laws/regs. Could someone post anything relevant?

Nope! Nothing exists, except that state agencies cannot do anything the General Assembly has not specifically authorized them via enabling legislation to do.

Check how well that has worked with various university Boards of Visitors using the Administrative Code to violate preemption. :cuss::banghead::cuss:

stay safe.

skidmark

useful_idiot · May 28, 2009

imported post

peter nap wrote:

How many are going to meet at noon on FRIDAY, at the Convention Center?

I was planning to be there...

...until I realized the RPV convention is at the Richmond Coliseum.

...so now I'm meeting there. :quirky

peter nap · May 28, 2009

imported post

useful_idiot wrote:

peter nap wrote:

How many are going to meet at noon on FRIDAY, at the Convention Center?

Click to expand...

I was planning to be there...

...until I realized the RPV convention is at the Richmond Coliseum.

...so now I'm meeting there. :quirky

I'm having a lot of senior moments this week!

You know where to go, don't listen to me. Besides, I was very nicely escorted OUT of the Coliseum tonight.:uhoh:

Tomorrow will either be interesting..or a non-event!

Richmond Convention Center

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Accomplished Advocate