Emergency shelters and no guns?

imported post

Bugger! should have looked at TFred's post first. Nevermind........

In a local notice, preparations of a publicemergency shelter were sent out. In the notice was the following: "No guns or pets (expect (sic) service animals) are allowed in the shelter."

Before I email the emergency coordinator and ask for clarification, does the county have authority to ban guns in a county owned building? I think not, but maybe someoneknows of where in the Codeit might be?

Thanks


Ps. "Adults will need a form of ID." was also in there. I wonder about that too.

imported post

AtackDuck wrote:

Bugger! should have looked at TFred's post first. Nevermind........

In a local notice, preparations of a publicemergency shelter were sent out. In the notice was the following: "No guns or pets (expect (sic) service animals) are allowed in the shelter."

Before I email the emergency coordinator and ask for clarification, does the county have authority to ban guns in a county owned building? I think not, but maybe someoneknows of where in the Codeit might be?

Thanks

Ps. "Adults will need a form of ID." was also in there. I wonder about that too.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's one of those things that preemption should normally take care of, except if you look at the law that HB 1070 is amending, it does specifically grant localities this authority.

I don't know about the ID thing though, that may be a good question to follow up on.

TFred

imported post

In Virginia shelter operations are contracted to the Red Cross. During the time the shelter is open it is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Red Cross. No county funds should be utilized. It may be staffed by county employees, however they are acting as Red Cross volunteers.

Now this does not answer your concerns which are valid. However the Red Cross does not and most likely will not firearms. If you stay you will have to present a valid ID.

imported post

kenny wrote:

In Virginia shelter operations are contracted to the Red Cross. During the time the shelter is open it is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Red Cross. No county funds should be utilized. It may be staffed by county employees, however they are acting as Red Cross volunteers.

Now this does not answer your concerns which are valid. However the Red Cross does not and most likely will not firearms. If you stay you will have to present a valid ID.

Click to expand...

Shelters can be either privately owned and operated, or publicly owned and operated. The Red Cross as you citied above, is a private non-profit / non-government entity, as are churches.

Some shelters may be government. Schools, rescue squads, fire stations, libraries, etc. Pre-emption should (in my not legally qualified opinion) apply here.

imported post

Armed wrote:

Some shelters may be government. Schools, rescue squads, fire stations, libraries, etc. Pre-emption should (in my not legally qualified opinion) apply here.

Click to expand...

No... again... even if the shelter is run by the government, Virginia state law specifically grants the authority to exclude firearms.

That is the very point of HB 1070, to change that law. Preemption does not trump all other state law, it explicitly yields to it: "...other than those expressly authorized by statute."

TFred

imported post

Shelters can be either privately owned and operated, or publicly owned and operated. The Red Cross as you citied above, is a private non-profit / non-government entity, as are churches.

Some shelters may be government. Schools, rescue squads, fire stations, libraries, etc. Pre-emption should (in my not legally qualified opinion) apply here.[/quote]

Shelters are opened at the direction and control of the local government. A private shelter, as some businesses set up or a shelter in place situation, is in fact private. You pr I would not being going to it unless you or I, or our family members were one of the "class".

All public shelters in the Commonwealth of Virginia are under the command & control of the Red Cross through a signed agreement with the VA Department of Emergency Services. Most pre-planned disaster shelters are not set up in a fire or rescue building. A school or a library make up over 70 percent of the pre-planned shelters in the Commonwealth.

In Richmond for example you will not see any schools being used because they are ADA compliant. Schools offer the best print for shelter operation.

FYI the Red Cross is mandated by the United States Congress to provide disaster relief service in the USA. However the Red Cross receives no funding from Congress.

I would like to see the current legislation passed as applies to CC. However it will be a cold day in hell before OC would ever be allowed.

imported post

kenny wrote: Shelters are opened at the direction and control of the local government. A private shelter, as some businesses set up or a shelter in place situation, is in fact private. You pr I would not being going to it unless you or I, or our family members were one of the "class".

All public shelters in the Commonwealth of Virginia are under the command & control of the Red Cross through a signed agreement with the VA Department of Emergency Services. Most pre-planned disaster shelters are not set up in a fire or rescue building. A school or a library make up over 70 percent of the pre-planned shelters in the Commonwealth.

In Richmond for example you will not see any schools being used because they are ADA compliant. Schools offer the best print for shelter operation.

FYI the Red Cross is mandated by the United States Congress to provide disaster relief service in the USA. However the Red Cross receives no funding from Congress.

I would like to see the current legislation passed as applies to CC. However it will be a cold day in hell before OC would ever be allowed.


Another good reason to NOT contribute to the Red Cross

imported post

Rescinded, after I figured out that it was this crummy board software that misattributed Kenny in his message above...

Drives me crazy!!

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

Rescinded, after I figured out that it was this crummy board software that misattributed Kenny in his message above...

Drives me crazy!!

TFred

Click to expand...

Life's too short to worry about it:lol:

imported post

I apologize in advance for pontificating, but the use of the term, "pre-emption" in this context drives me nuts. Pre-emption (the alternate spelling is without the hypen, but with an umlaut over the second "e") applies as between two otherwise co-equal governmental units. E.g., in a civil suit in a Virginia circuit court where foreign law (like that of Tennessee, India, Kenya,or Delaware) applies as a result of a contract provision, certain aspects of the foreign law may pre-empt Virginia law. Or, where (as I frequently argue) a federal statute presumes to regulate the ownership, possession, or use of a firearm, as opposed to a transfer affecting interstate commerce, then Virginia law pre-empts the federal law, since the Constitution assigns such powers exclusively to the states, or to the people (Amendment 10).

Where, as in the present context, we're talking about a government and its creature, a municipal corporation, there is no pre-emption issue. The creature can be no more powerful than its creator has decreed. A municipal corporation, such as a city, county, or town, can have no greater powers than are contained in its charter or which may be created by general law. Any act by the governing body of such entity is not "pre-empted", it's simply void as an "ultra vires" act, which basically means in excess of authority, or beyond the scope of the powers granted.

In this respect, a municipal corporation is on exactly the same footing as any other corporate entity chartered by the state. A stock-capitalized business corporation cannot pass ordinances creating crimes punishable by imprisonment, for example, because it lacks the authority under its charter and general law to do so.

Same principle applies to universities and colleges, by the way.

imported post

It's been well established that governments in VA cannot lease away citizen's rights.

Think Waterside.

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

It's been well established that governments in VA cannot lease away citizen's rights.

Think Waterside.

Click to expand...

Then how can the Red Cross ban firearms on public property?

imported post

darthmord wrote:

paramedic70002 wrote:

It's been well established that governments in VA cannot lease away citizen's rights.

Think Waterside.

Click to expand...

Then how can the Red Cross ban firearms on public property?

Click to expand...

Funny you should ask.

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

darthmord wrote:

paramedic70002 wrote:

It's been well established that governments in VA cannot lease away citizen's rights.

Think Waterside.

Click to expand...

Then how can the Red Cross ban firearms on public property?

Click to expand...

Funny you should ask.

Click to expand...

You have to be careful here, current law allows the government, all the way down to local jurisdictions, to exclude firearms from emergency shelters. If push comes to shove, all the Red Cross has to do is say the town/county told them to.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-146.15

Nothing in this chapter is to be construed to:

(3) Empower the Governor, any political subdivision, or any other governmental authority to in any way limit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the lawful possession, sale, or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons;

Click to expand...

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

You have to be careful here, current law allows the government, all the way down to local jurisdictions, to exclude firearms from emergency shelters. If push comes to shove, all the Red Cross has to do is say the town/county told them to.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-146.15

Nothing in this chapter is to be construed to:

(3) Empower the Governor, any political subdivision, or any other governmental authority to in any way limit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the lawful possession, sale, or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons;

Click to expand...

TFred

Click to expand...

Yep - its carte blanche :X

Yata hey

imported post

This is a beginning -

HB 1070 Concealed handguns; person who possesses valid permit may
carry into emergency shelter was reported out of subcommittee.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

TFred wrote:

You have to be careful here, current law allows the government, all the way down to local jurisdictions, to exclude firearms from emergency shelters. If push comes to shove, all the Red Cross has to do is say the town/county told them to.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-146.15

Nothing in this chapter is to be construed to:

(3) Empower the Governor, any political subdivision, or any other governmental authority to in any way limit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the lawful possession, sale, or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons;

Click to expand...

TFred

Click to expand...

Yep - its carte blanche :X

Yata hey

Click to expand...

So is it necessary? I think not. How can we challenge this ambiguous law?

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

TFred wrote:

You have to be careful here, current law allows the government, all the way down to local jurisdictions, to exclude firearms from emergency shelters. If push comes to shove, all the Red Cross has to do is say the town/county told them to.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-146.15

Nothing in this chapter is to be construed to:

(3) Empower the Governor, any political subdivision, or any other governmental authority to in any way limit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the lawful possession, sale, or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons;

Click to expand...

TFred

Click to expand...

Yep - its carte blanche :X

Yata hey

Click to expand...

So is it necessary? I think not. How can we challenge this ambiguous law?

Click to expand...

Probably like you challenge every ambiguous law... get arrested for breaking it and spend a boatload of money on attorneys.

Justice may be blind, but she ain't cheap.

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

paramedic70002 wrote:

So is it necessary? I think not. How can we challenge this ambiguous law?

Click to expand...

Probably like you challenge every ambiguous law... get arrested for breaking it and spend a boatload of money on attorneys.

Justice may be blind, but she ain't cheap.

TFred

Click to expand...

Well, you could challenge it directly too couldn't you, without getting arrested. But it would still cost money.....

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

TFred wrote:

paramedic70002 wrote:

So is it necessary? I think not. How can we challenge this ambiguous law?

Click to expand...

Probably like you challenge every ambiguous law... get arrested for breaking it and spend a boatload of money on attorneys.

Justice may be blind, but she ain't cheap.

TFred

Click to expand...

Well, you could challenge it directly too couldn't you, without getting arrested. But it would still cost money.....

Click to expand...

I don't know if you can sue without standing, and I don't know if you can have standing if you don't have anything personally at stake. Need a lawyer type to answer that question.

If you could, then why hasn't someone with big pockets like the NRA already challenged the GFSZ?

TFred