• 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.

Richmond Convention Center

A

Armed

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

I tied a search for this and came up donuts. Is anyone aware of any gun-buster signs or anti-gun policies posted at the center?

I looked at the web site and couldn't find anything.

http://www.richmondcenter.com/about-us.html

It would appear this is another private-public partnership, similar to the Waterside debaucle. Anyone have experience or thoughts with this convention center.

Apparently, I have been invited to attend a girls vollyball tournament this weekend and just wanted to check my status and get my ducks in a row.

Thanx -
 
A

Armed

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

Ahh.. never mind. I found the offending paragraph on page 19 of their "rules and regulations."

[align=left]Weapons and Concealed Handguns[/align]
[align=left]It is the policy of the Greater Richmond Convention Center that handguns and other weapons are prohibited in Greater Richmond Convention Center. This prohibition applies to all persons including concealed handgun Licensees, with the exception of licensed law enforcement officers.[/align]
[align=left] [/align]
[align=left]http://www.richmondcenter.com/event-attendance.html[/align]
 
dbc3804

dbc3804

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
79
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
imported post

Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority


The Greater Richmond Convention Center was built as a result of regional cooperation between the City of Richmond and the surrounding counties of Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover. The Greater Richmond Convention Center is owned by the Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority, which is composed of these governmental entities and the Retail Merchants Association of Greater Richmond.


If they are "owned" by three government entities how can they do this?
 
D

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

dbc3804 wrote:
Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority


The Greater Richmond Convention Center was built as a result of regional cooperation between the City of Richmond and the surrounding counties of Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover. The Greater Richmond Convention Center is owned by the Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority, which is composed of these governmental entities and the Retail Merchants Association of Greater Richmond.


If they are "owned" by three government entities how can they do this?
Click to expand...

The correct answer is... They cannot. This was shown to be true when Danbus was in court. A government agency owned facility must respect the law regardless of how many layers of government sit between the government owner and the facility.

Preemption prevents them from enforcing such a restriction.
 
D

Dispatcher

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
311
Location
Virginia, , USA
imported post

darthmord wrote:
dbc3804 wrote:
Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority


The Greater Richmond Convention Center was built as a result of regional cooperation between the City of Richmond and the surrounding counties of Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover. The Greater Richmond Convention Center is owned by the Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority, which is composed of these governmental entities and the Retail Merchants Association of Greater Richmond.


If they are "owned" by three government entities how can they do this?
Click to expand...

The correct answer is... They cannot. This was shown to be true when Danbus was in court. A government agency owned facility must respect the law regardless of how many layers of government sit between the government owner and the facility.

Preemption prevents them from enforcing such a restriction.
Click to expand...
They'll attempt to "enforce" it anyways and throw you behind bars.

It has to be brought down.
 
Dutch Uncle

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Dispatcher wrote:
darthmord wrote:
dbc3804 wrote:
If they are "owned" by three government entities how can they do this?
Click to expand...

The correct answer is... They cannot. This was shown to be true when Danbus was in court. A government agency owned facility must respect the law regardless of how many layers of government sit between the government owner and the facility.

Preemption prevents them from enforcing such a restriction.
Click to expand...
They'll attempt to "enforce" it anyways and throw you behind bars.

It has to be brought down.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone will be "thrown behind bars". Dan wasn't put in jail for his experience at Waterside, just given a ticket and sent on his way. Its a misdemeanor violation, (and as we know, invalid because of state pre-emption) so as long as you give ID, the cop has no justification to put you in jail. I'm assuming you wouldn't resist arrest, etc. etc. Think of it as your ticket to ride...to have the whole thing thrown out because of invalidity. Heck, Phil would probably get the city to drop everything since the Norfolk/Waterside mess is almost certainly known by the Richmond people.
 
A

Armed

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

Okay, so yesterday I was on a schedule to meet some people from out of state. So I decided to go CC. I parked in the adjacent deck off of Third St., on the third floor, that has a walkway into the convention center.

Near the walkway entrance they have some signs posted and stopped to read them. One of them has a "rules and regulations" posted, but was all about parking and activites not allowed in the parking deck. Alchohol, loitering, etc. But NO mention of weapons.

I entered the convention center and again checked for signs. Nothing at all. On my way out I checked the first floor entance (facing my parking deck), and again - I did not see any signs prohibiting weapons.

They did have "security" personnel posted at entrances, but they appear to be more of a tourist guide type function than actual security. They do not even carry a radio. They did not appear to be screening anyone walking in - which is good.

I just wonder how things would have went if I were OC.

I will follow up with the convention center / City of Richmond, next week, about their posted regs.
 
R

Renegade

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
270
Location
Yorktown, VA, ,
imported post

If unsure of how an operation reacts you can always ingress CC. When the event is near closing, OC, relax, and prepare to leave. If anyone says anything you are close to leaving anyway.

Missions accomplished.
 
A

Armed

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

Renegade wrote:
If unsure of how an operation reacts you can always ingress CC. When the event is near closing, OC, relax, and prepare to leave. If anyone says anything you are close to leaving anyway.

Missions accomplished.
Click to expand...
HA! I was wearing my piece on my ankle. I guess I could have rolled up my pant leg and walked out looking like a complete dork.. :D
 
A

Armed

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

TO: "Michael Meyers" <mmeyers@greaterrichmondcc.com>,

CC: "Arthur Williams" <awilliams@greaterrichmondcc.com>, "Norman Sales" <norman.sales@richmondgov.com>, "Philip Van Cleave" <philip@virginiasystems.com>,

Subj: Convention Center - Illegal Policy Regarding Firearms

Dear Mr. Meyers,

It has recently come to my attention that the Richmond Convention Center maintains a policy that does not allow the legal carry of firearms. I believe this policy to be in violation of the Code of Virginia 15.2-915.

Specifically, that the Greater Richmond Convention Center is publicly owned property, a joint project involving public tax dollars from the local jurisdictions of the City of Richmond, the County of Henrico, the County of Hanover, and the County of Chesterfield. To wit, payment must be made to the City of Richmond for use of the facility.

State preemption law (15.2-915) specifically prohibits local jurisdictions from establishing independent ordinances or policies that further restricts the possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, that is not consistent with state law as definedby 18.2-308.

The offending statement can be found on page 19 of the "Rules and Regulations", which may be found here: http://www.richmondcenter.com/facility-rules.html

I respectfully request that you remove the offending language from your posted regulations, and that you inform all of your staff of this change.

I look forward to hearing of your progress on this issue.


Respectfully,

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

Michael Meyers is theGeneral Manager of the Convention Center. Arthur Williams is the Director of Security at the Conv. Center, andNormal Sales is the Richmond City Attorney. Can't wait to hear the reply....
 
TFred

TFred

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

"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
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

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
 
TFred

TFred

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

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
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

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
 
TFred

TFred

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

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top