Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: I would like to write a LTE to rebut anti-gun nut Morrissey.

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    This is what Morrissey said:

    "Unfortunately, Council President Kathy C.Graziano was accurate when she stated: “I don’t think there is much we can do about it.” Normally, Section 15.2-1425 of the Code of Virginia would be the statute that would give the Richmond City Council (and other local governing bodies) the authority to “do something.” This code section states, simply: “The governing body of every locality in the performance of its duties, obligations, functions may adopt, as appropriate, ordinances, resolutions and motions.” However, sadly, the legislature also passed Section 15.2-915, which took away local government’s authority when it comes to possessing, transferring, transporting, etc. guns. Section 15.2- 915 and its companion statute, Section 15.2-915.1 (which preventscities and counties fromsuing gun manufacturers), are indefensible and need to be repealed as they unfairly and, many would say, unconstitutionally, restrict the authority of local governing bodies."



    Now, If I am not mistaken this is not true. If you look at the DGIF rules you see this:


    It is unlawful to transport, possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road or highway.




    That's specific to the City of Richmond and the City of Richmond only.




    My question is this. Does the City of Richmond make these regulations or is it DGIF? Is it considered a statute?


    If yes; then Morrissey misleads readers of his letter that the City is totally powerless to regulate "guns". When clearly they can regulate long guns.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I would be more inclined to rebut his label of "indefensible" for 15.2-915. If that law were repealed or neutered, the resulting chaos and rampant persecution of law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth would be a far more heinous crime than any ideological inconvenience Morrissey might have to endure now.

    The more time passes, the more I think 15.2-915 is my favorite law in the Code of Virginia.

    The idea that a law-abiding citizen would have to research, know, and comply with potentially dozens of different gun laws throughout the state is ridiculous. Such a confusing melee is just what these anti-gunners want, to intimidate and for all essential purposes make absolutely impractical, any sort of regular carrying of firearms.

    Of course, that is just MHO... If Morrissey is incorrect, then he certainly needs to be shown so.

    TFred


  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    This is what Morrissey said:

    "Unfortunately, Council President Kathy C.Graziano was accurate when she stated: “I don’t think there is much we can do about it.” Normally, Section 15.2-1425 of the Code of Virginia would be the statute that would give the Richmond City Council (and other local governing bodies) the authority to “do something.” This code section states, simply: “The governing body of every locality in the performance of its duties, obligations, functions may adopt, as appropriate, ordinances, resolutions and motions.” However, sadly, the legislature also passed Section 15.2-915, which took away local government’s authority when it comes to possessing, transferring, transporting, etc. guns. Section 15.2- 915 and its companion statute, Section 15.2-915.1 (which preventscities and counties fromsuing gun manufacturers), are indefensible and need to be repealed as they unfairly and, many would say, unconstitutionally, restrict the authority of local governing bodies."



    Now, If I am not mistaken this is not true. If you look at the DGIF rules you see this:


    It is unlawful to transport, possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road or highway.




    That's specific to the City of Richmond and the City of Richmond only.




    My question is this. Does the City of Richmond make these regulations or is it DGIF? Is it considered a statute?


    If yes; then Morrissey misleads readers of his letter that the City is totally powerless to regulate "guns". When clearly they can regulate long guns.
    The state gives the city the authority to enact that ordnance so it's exempt from preemption.
    Under the statute that gives them the authority, they are required to notify DGIF so they may publish it.

    To give the quickee answer to your question, the City makes that ordnance.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Tdub -

    The last thing we want to do is help Joe Morrisey get anything right.

    If you want to write a LTE, consider focusing on the pot calling the kettle black (no, I do not think any of the staff at RFP will get it, let alone many of their readers) or on Joe's apparent sour grapes because his past behavior now prevents him from being able to protect himself.

    Or focus on why "gun control" has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control. The readers of the RFP might take notice of that if they see 15.2-915 as the stake in the heart of Jim Crow.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    In last week's edition of the Free Press Delegate Morrissey wrote a letter to the editor stating that Section 15.2-915 of the Virginia Code takesaway "local government’s authority when it comes to possessing, transferring, transporting, etc. guns." That is incorrect. I am surprised that a former city prosecuting attorney, and current state delegate would make such an oversight. All one has to do to see that Morrissey is wrong is to look at a Virginia Department of Game and Inland fisheries rule book. Look at all 75 local firearm ordinances that individual cities, and counties adopt and you will see #54 which applies to the City of Richmond.It states that "It is unlawful to transport,possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway." Not every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth has adopted that ordinance, but the city has; and clearly the legislature is not preventing them from doing so as Morrissey's letter leads the reader to believe.

    The Preemption law that Morrissey is referring to only applies to handguns and for good reason. The legislature recognized that local cities and counties could pass ordinances that would prevent the citizen from exercising their court issued concealed handgun permitthroughout the Commonwealth. Virginia's strong preemption law prevents anti-freedom, anti-gun citycouncilactivists from trampling our rights as a law-abiding citizens of the commonwealth.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  6. #6
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    In last week's edition of the Free Press Delegate Morrissey wrote a letter to the editor stating that Section 15.2-915 of the Virginia Code takesaway "local government’s authority when it comes to possessing, transferring, transporting, etc. guns." That is incorrect. I am surprised that a former city prosecuting attorney, and current state delegate would make such an oversight. All one has to do to see that Morrissey is wrong is to look at a Virginia Department of Game and Inland fisheries rule book. Look at all 75 local firearm ordinances that individual cities, and counties adopt and you will see #54 which applies to the City of Richmond.It states that "It is unlawful to transport,possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway." Not every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth has adopted that ordinance, but the city has; and clearly the legislature is not preventing them from doing so as Morrissey's letter leads the reader to believe.

    The Preemption law that Morrissey is referring to only applies to handguns and for good reason. The legislature recognized that local cities and counties could pass ordinances that would prevent the citizen from exercising their court issued concealed handgun permitthroughout the Commonwealth. Virginia's strong preemption law prevents anti-freedom, anti-gun citycouncilactivists from trampling our rights as a law-abiding citizens of the commonwealth.
    I don't know where you are getting this information. The meat of 15.2-915, Section A, says:

    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.
    There is nothing in the entire law about any particular kind of gun, handguns or long guns.

    ETA: Just to clairfy, 15.2-915.2 does grant localities the ability to regulate the carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns in vehicles, on the streets, etc. of that locality.

    TFred


  7. #7
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    In last week's edition of the Free Press Delegate Morrissey wrote a letter to the editor stating that Section 15.2-915 of the Virginia Code takesaway "local government’s authority when it comes to possessing, transferring, transporting, etc. guns." That is incorrect. I am surprised that a former city prosecuting attorney, and current state delegate would make such an oversight. All one has to do to see that Morrissey is wrong is to look at a Virginia Department of Game and Inland fisheries rule book. Look at all 75 local firearm ordinances that individual cities, and counties adopt and you will see #54 which applies to the City of Richmond.It states that "It is unlawful to transport,possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway." Not every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth has adopted that ordinance, but the city has; and clearly the legislature is not preventing them from doing so as Morrissey's letter leads the reader to believe.

    The Preemption law that Morrissey is referring to only applies to handguns and for good reason. The legislature recognized that local cities and counties could pass ordinances that would prevent the citizen from exercising their court issued concealed handgun permitthroughout the Commonwealth. Virginia's strong preemption law prevents anti-freedom, anti-gun citycouncilactivists from trampling our rights as a law-abiding citizens of the commonwealth.
    Should be:

    Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    T Dubya wrote:
    In last week's edition of the Free Press Delegate Morrissey wrote a letter to the editor stating that Section 15.2-915 of the Virginia Code takesaway "local government’s authority when it comes to possessing, transferring, transporting, etc. guns." That is incorrect. I am surprised that a former city prosecuting attorney, and current state delegate would make such an oversight. All one has to do to see that Morrissey is wrong is to look at a Virginia Department of Game and Inland fisheries rule book. Look at all 75 local firearm ordinances that individual cities, and counties adopt and you will see #54 which applies to the City of Richmond.It states that "It is unlawful to transport,possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway." Not every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth has adopted that ordinance, but the city has; and clearly the legislature is not preventing them from doing so as Morrissey's letter leads the reader to believe.

    The Preemption law that Morrissey is referring to only applies to handguns and for good reason. The legislature recognized that local cities and counties could pass ordinances that would prevent the citizen from exercising their court issued concealed handgun permitthroughout the Commonwealth. Virginia's strong preemption law prevents anti-freedom, anti-gun citycouncilactivists from trampling our rights as a law-abiding citizens of the commonwealth.
    I don't know where you are getting this information. The meat of 15.2-915, Section A, says:

    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.
    There is nothing in the entire law about any particular kind of gun, handguns or long guns.

    TFred
    I wonderred about that too Fred. I think T was getting confused on the statutes because if memory serves me, the rifle/shotgun in the truck ordnance, exempts CHP holders. The Preemption statute says only the General assembly can regulate the transportation, Etc..and since there is a statute allowing the localaties to enact the vehicle ordnance, that part would be exempted from preemption.

    In any event, CHP holders are exempt.

    Since this is primarily a hunting ordinance and the only thing to hunt in the City are squirrels and geese, it doesn't make any sense. I'm also not sure why CHP holders are less likely to road hunt than us lowly OC'ers.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I've attached a snapshot of the LTE that Morrissey wrote. Other than omitting reference to Section 15.2-915.2, which is the state law that authorizes localities to regulate the carry of loaded firearms in vehicles on streets within the local jurisdiction, I didn't really see any glaring factual errors in what Mr. Morrissey wrote.

    Now I take great exception to his interpretation of the facts, and especially to his opinion of their relevance and usefulness to the citizens of Virginia. If I were to respond to this letter, that is what I would focus on, not the rather small omission of a reference to 15.2-915.2.

    But that's just MHO...

    TFred

    ETA: Rats, the bb software reduced the size of the jpg, and made it essentially unreadable, let me try again leaving the photo out.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    Well, it's as clear as mud to me now.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    Well, it's as clear as mud to me now.
    What part?

    TFred


  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    I've attached a snapshot of the LTE that Morrissey wrote.* Other than omitting reference to Section 15.2-915.2, which is the state law that authorizes localities to regulate the carry of loaded firearms in vehicles on streets within the local jurisdiction, I didn't really see any glaring factual errors in what Mr. Morrissey wrote.

    Now I take great exception to his interpretation of the facts, and especially to his opinion of their relevance and usefulness to the citizens of Virginia.* If I were to respond to this letter, that is what I would focus on, not the rather small omission of a reference to 15.2-915.2.

    But that's just MHO...*

    TFred

    ETA: Rats, the bb software reduced the size of the jpg, and made it essentially unreadable, let me try again leaving the photo out.
    TFred's position is well taken, and I would add that a few words about the resulting "patchwork" of laws as the very reason the Legislature took regulation away from the localities would be in order. What everyone wants is for people to stay within the law, and that is difficult to impossible if the law is different in every little fly spot that calls itself a city. What's next, allowing HOA's to regulate firearms carry?
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  13. #13
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    It's bad enough that the separate states have somehow come to the [wrong] conclusion that they have ANY authority to regulate possession, transportation or carry of arms.

    It is all in violation of the 2nd Amendment and they know it.:X
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    I've attached a snapshot of the LTE that Morrissey wrote. Other than omitting reference to Section 15.2-915.2, which is the state law that authorizes localities to regulate the carry of loaded firearms in vehicles on streets within the local jurisdiction, I didn't really see any glaring factual errors in what Mr. Morrissey wrote.

    Now I take great exception to his interpretation of the facts, and especially to his opinion of their relevance and usefulness to the citizens of Virginia. If I were to respond to this letter, that is what I would focus on, not the rather small omission of a reference to 15.2-915.2.

    But that's just MHO...

    TFred

    ETA: Rats, the bb software reduced the size of the jpg, and made it essentially unreadable, let me try again leaving the photo out.
    TFred's position is well taken, and I would add that a few words about the resulting "patchwork" of laws as the very reason the Legislature took regulation away from the localities would be in order. What everyone wants is for people to stay within the law, and that is difficult to impossible if the law is different in every little fly spot that calls itself a city. What's next, allowing HOA's to regulate firearms carry?
    I seem to like using driving as a source for analogies, and one could do that here as well. Imagine the danger, confusion and potential for "Deputy Bubba* abuse" if localities were allowed to make their own driving laws that were in conflict with state law. And not required to post signs about them at the city/county limits? Each driver would have to thoroughly research dozens of different laws and navigate with precision to ensure that they would not be risking a ticket or jail time.

    As with most "gun control" laws, a mish-mash of local laws almost exclusively impacts law-abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't care if they are breaking the law or not.

    TFred

    * No offense intended if someone reading here is actually a Deputy named "Bubba".

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    It's bad enough that the separate states have somehow come to the [wrong] conclusion that they have ANY authority to regulate possession, transportation or carry of arms.

    It is all in violation of the 2nd Amendment and they know it.:X
    Actually TSA does not control the states it only applies to the Federal Government. That is why we are working so hard for incorporation of TSA into the 14th. That way TSA would cover the states as well as the federal Government.

    If in doubt about this read the 9th and 10th amendments.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  16. #16
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Reading the newspaper image, I see Joe persists in using the term bars:

    "... and allowing patrons to carry concealed weapons into bars where alcohol is served."

    How many of you see what Morrissey's other error is? Perhaps Joe should read J3 more carefully.

  17. #17
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    It's bad enough that the separate states have somehow come to the [wrong] conclusion that they have ANY authority to regulate possession, transportation or carry of arms.

    It is all in violation of the 2nd Amendment and they know it.:X
    2A still isn't incorporated. This is a forum on VA Law, and the 2A, currently, has no place here. Many States DO have that authority properly, depending on that State's constitution.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  18. #18
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    Reading the newspaper image, I see Joe persists in using the term bars:

    "... and allowing patrons to carry concealed weapons into bars where alcohol is served."

    How many of you see what Morrissey's other error is? Perhaps Joe should read J3 more carefully.
    I'm not even going to look it up. If memory serves, it is "restaurants and clubs" which serve alcohol. How'd I do?
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    T Dubya wrote:
    In last week's edition of the Free Press Delegate Morrissey wrote a letter to the editor stating that Section 15.2-915 of the Virginia Code takesaway "local government’s authority when it comes to possessing, transferring, transporting, etc. guns." That is incorrect. I am surprised that a former city prosecuting attorney, and current state delegate would make such an oversight. All one has to do to see that Morrissey is wrong is to look at a Virginia Department of Game and Inland fisheries rule book. Look at all 75 local firearm ordinances that individual cities, and counties adopt and you will see #54 which applies to the City of Richmond.It states that "It is unlawful to transport,possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway." Not every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth has adopted that ordinance, but the city has; and clearly the legislature is not preventing them from doing so as Morrissey's letter leads the reader to believe.

    The Preemption law that Morrissey is referring to only applies to handguns and for good reason. The legislature recognized that local cities and counties could pass ordinances that would prevent the citizen from exercising their court issued concealed handgun permitthroughout the Commonwealth. Virginia's strong preemption law prevents anti-freedom, anti-gun citycouncilactivists from trampling our rights as a law-abiding citizens of the commonwealth.
    I don't know where you are getting this information. The meat of 15.2-915, Section A, says:

    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.
    There is nothing in the entire law about any particular kind of gun, handguns or long guns.

    ETA: Just to clairfy, 15.2-915.2 does grant localities the ability to regulate the carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns in vehicles, on the streets, etc. of that locality.

    TFred
    You say "I don't know where you get this from and then youwrite "15.2-915.2does grant the ability to regulate carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns in vehicles"



    Well there you have TFred that'swhere I get it from. My interpretation is that state preemption only applies to handguns. If a jurisdiction can regulate loaded rifles and shotguns then preemption doesn't apply.

    That's why I say "clear as mud".




    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    T Dubya wrote:
    In last week's edition of the Free Press Delegate Morrissey wrote a letter to the editor stating that Section 15.2-915 of the Virginia Code takesaway "local government’s authority when it comes to possessing, transferring, transporting, etc. guns." That is incorrect. I am surprised that a former city prosecuting attorney, and current state delegate would make such an oversight. All one has to do to see that Morrissey is wrong is to look at a Virginia Department of Game and Inland fisheries rule book. Look at all 75 local firearm ordinances that individual cities, and counties adopt and you will see #54 which applies to the City of Richmond.It states that "It is unlawful to transport,possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway." Not every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth has adopted that ordinance, but the city has; and clearly the legislature is not preventing them from doing so as Morrissey's letter leads the reader to believe.

    The Preemption law that Morrissey is referring to only applies to handguns and for good reason. The legislature recognized that local cities and counties could pass ordinances that would prevent the citizen from exercising their court issued concealed handgun permitthroughout the Commonwealth. Virginia's strong preemption law prevents anti-freedom, anti-gun citycouncilactivists from trampling our rights as a law-abiding citizens of the commonwealth.
    I don't know where you are getting this information. The meat of 15.2-915, Section A, says:

    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.
    There is nothing in the entire law about any particular kind of gun, handguns or long guns.

    ETA: Just to clairfy, 15.2-915.2 does grant localities the ability to regulate the carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns in vehicles, on the streets, etc. of that locality.

    TFred
    You say "I don't know where you get this from and then youwrite "15.2-915.2does grant the ability to regulate carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns in vehicles"



    Well there you have TFred that'swhere I get it from. My interpretation is that state preemption only applies to handguns. If a jurisdiction can regulate loaded rifles and shotguns then preemption doesn't apply.

    That's why I say "clear as mud".
    Ah, ok I see. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just trying to read your letter from the perspective of an audience who is likely not as familiar with these laws as we are, and who will likely not agree with your viewpoint to start with.

    I said I didn't see where you got it, because you didn't reference that section of code in your letter. I was trying to figure out how you reached your conclusion from only within 15.2-915, but I could not. A reader is not going to know about 15.2-915.2, so if they took the time to look up 15.2-915, the section you do reference in your letter, I believe they would probably conclude that your assertion was in error.

    I don't agree with your interpretation that 15.2-915 applies only to handguns. I think it applies to all firearms, as it clearly states. It basically says, "You can't make any laws about any firearms, except for what we say you can make." Then 15.2-915.2 "says they can make" a law regulating only the carry of loaded long guns in vehicles within their local jurisdiction. That is far shorter than the total list things outlined in 15.2-915 that the localities may not make laws about. So preemption does apply to all other aspects of long guns.

    If my thoughts and suggestions are not welcome, that's fine, I won't be offended. I'm just trying to help you submit an effective letter.

    TFred


  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    No No, TFred you're cool. I understand the point you have made. My point is the DGIF has 75 ordinances that apply to the use and transportation of long guns. The individual counties and cities have those ordinances and somehow preemption doesn't apply.

    Clearly the individual jurisdictions have made those rules without having to go through the legislature.

    Morrissey used the term "guns". That was the point I was making, that I don't believe him to be correct and I believe he misleads the reader of his LTE. It seems to me that preemption applies to handguns and not long guns.

    You can have a loaded shotgun in Hanover, but if you stay west on 360 and you arrive in the city that loaded shotgun is in violation of a city ordinance. I don't believe preemption is going to get you out ofa summons.

    There you have it clear as mud.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    No No, TFred you're cool.* I understand the point you have made.* My point is the DGIF has 75 ordinances that apply to the use and transportation of long guns.* The individual counties and cities have those ordinances and somehow preemption doesn't apply.

    Clearly the individual jurisdictions have made those rules without having to go through the legislature.

    Morrissey used the term "guns".** That was the point I was making, that I don't believe him to be correct and I believe he misleads the reader of his LTE.* It seems to me that preemption applies to handguns and not long guns.

    You can have a loaded shotgun in Hanover, but if you stay west on 360 and you arrive in the city that loaded shotgun is in violation of a city ordinance.* I don't believe preemption is going to get you out of*a summons.

    There you have it clear as mud.
    You guys have the laws correct, and you are onto the actual scheme at play here. DGIF is a STATE agency. The state has reserved the power to regulate to itself. So if a locality can convince DGIF to write a regulation it moves through a much easier channel for approval and it will usually garner less attention from the firearms community. After all if it is proposed by DGIF it must apply to hunting, not general firearms right? That is how a locality gets this stuff done under the radar.

    A similar process in reverse occurs with land taking. The state process is long and expensive. Some more urban localities can use the "Quick Take" process which is cheaper and a lot faster. Also the QT process removes most of the protections for the land owner. So if the state wants a piece of land, all they have to do is tell a locality and the locals will use the QT process and a partnership is born.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  23. #23
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Repeater wrote:
    Reading the newspaper image, I see Joe persists in using the term bars:

    "... and allowing patrons to carry concealed weapons into bars where alcohol is served."

    How many of you see what Morrissey's other error is? Perhaps Joe should read J3 more carefully.
    I'm not even going to look it up. If memory serves, it is "restaurants and clubs" which serve alcohol. How'd I do?
    That's fine, except that's the error I mentioned. What's Joe's other error?

  24. #24
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    2A still isn't incorporated. This is a forum on VA Law, and the 2A, currently, has no place here. Many States DO have that authority properly, depending on that State's constitution.
    Not incorporated?!?!

    "shall not be infringed".

    The 9th and the 10th provide ALL OTHER AUTHORITY to the states. That means by accession to the Constitution the separate states were meant to honor its law.

    Do the other states have to incorporate the 1st amendment to "permit" (a disgusting term) citizens to speak or practice religion freely in order for it to be lawful? No. It is ludicrous to even think so, yet so many people completely flip on the 2nd. And when a self-proclaimed "pro-gun" individual takes the stance that the states have some authority to limit the possession of ownership and carry, it only does our cause that much more harm.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  25. #25
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    simmonsjoe wrote:
    2A still isn't incorporated. This is a forum on VA Law, and the 2A, currently, has no place here. Many States DO have that authority properly, depending on that State's constitution.
    Not incorporated?!?!

    "shall not be infringed".

    The 9th and the 10th provide ALL OTHER AUTHORITY to the states. That means by accession to the Constitution the separate states were meant to honor its law.

    Do the other states have to incorporate the 1st amendment to "permit" (a disgusting term) citizens to speak or practice religion freely in order for it to be lawful? No. It is ludicrous to even think so, yet so many people completely flip on the 2nd. And when a self-proclaimed "pro-gun" individual takes the stance that the states have some authority to limit the possession of ownership and carry, it only does our cause that much more harm.
    Ummm, yes they do? the 1A IS INCORPORATED against the states. This isn't really the appropriate thread for this. If you wish to learn more about the efforts to incorporate the 2A check out

    http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

    Read the constitution a little more carefully. The Bill of Rights, in most cases, restrict only federal gov't.

    I believe the 2A will be incorporated soon. Until then it has no place in the VA forum when discussing state law. Google 2A incorporation or search the forums as it has been discussed plenty. If you still, after that, need to discuss it more, start a thread.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •