• 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.

Daily Press and Isle of Wight

TFred

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

Oh bummer they require registration to comment. Here's what I woulda said...

Correction: It is not a "useless" law, it is an ILLEGAL law. And starting today, persons who sue local governments to force compliance with the long-standing state preemption of gun laws may be reimbursed for all the legal expenses incurred while doing so. You better believe they will repeal this law, unless they are just plain stupid.
TFred
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

A thought:

Since, according to the article, the ordinance applies ONLY to 'concealed' carry in those affected areas, wouldn't one's (CCW/CHP/CHL/LTCF/CWP/whatever) establish one as 'authorized' within the the ordinance? (Not having read the ordinance myself to see if it specifies only gummint goons are 'authorized')

If such were the case, and said ordinance were NOT enforced against OCing, and 'permitted' CCing, then I'm not so sure it would be illegal, so much as deceptive. Kinda like a sign that says "No illegal weapons allowed''....as long as the weapon is legal, they can't do anything, but it causes people who don't know any better to think they can't carry.;)
 

TFred

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

Phssthpok wrote:
A thought:

Since, according to the article, the ordinance applies ONLY to 'concealed' carry in those affected areas, wouldn't one's (CCW/CHP/CHL/LTCF/CWP/whatever) establish one as 'authorized' within the the ordinance? (Not having read the ordinance myself to see if it specifies only gummint goons are 'authorized')

If such were the case, and said ordinance were NOT enforced against OCing, and 'permitted' CCing, then I'm not so sure it would be illegal, so much as deceptive. Kinda like a sign that says "No illegal weapons allowed''....as long as the weapon is legal, they can't do anything, but it causes people who don't know any better to think they can't carry.;)
IANAL, but my understanding of the law is that local governments are prohibited from enacting any ordinance on firearms, not just ordinances that are contrary to state law.

You can read it for yourself, see if you agree:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915

TFred
 

Grapeshot

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

TFred wrote:
IANAL, but my understanding of the law is that local governments are prohibited from enacting any ordinance on firearms, not just ordinances that are contrary to state law.

You can read it for yourself, see if you agree:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915

TFred
Hmmm - new law would seem to say exactly what you indicate. :D

Still we have state departments with their "rules" i.e. hunting, no more than 3 shells in a shotgun and carrying in state parks.

Yata hey
 
Top