Virginia Department of Health

Tosta Dojen · Jun 16, 2010

imported post

At the local Health Department today, I learned that the Virginia Department of Health has a policy forbidding the possession of weapons. I requested and received a copy of the policy, which reads, under section 5C:

VDH prohibits VDH employees and volunteers from carrying weapons on VDH property or work locations. To the extent allowed by law, third parties are prohibited from carrying weapons on VDH property or work locations.

As this is a state agency, the policy would not be preempted.

gis · Jun 16, 2010

imported post

Tosta Dojen wrote:

To the extent allowed by law, third parties are prohibited from carrying weapons on VDH property or work locations.

Since the law doesn't allow it, the point is moot. It's got no teeth, but certainly tells you where they stand.

TFred · Jun 16, 2010

imported post

gis wrote:

Tosta Dojen wrote:

To the extent allowed by law, third parties are prohibited from carrying weapons on VDH property or work locations.

Click to expand...

Since the law doesn't allow it, the point is moot. It's got no teeth, but certainly tells you where they stand.

But what is your basis for saying the law does not allow it? If the VDH is subject to preemption, then sure, but if not, then they are acting like any other private employer, and can set their own policy.

TFred

jmelvin · Jun 16, 2010

imported post

It would be interesting to see what the policy means by 3rd parties. If this is customers this would seem to fly in the face of what we call pre-emption (but isn't). Of course if "pre-emption" doesn't apply to state agencies then as some seem to think Mr. Cuccinelli has indicated, then any agency could ban us. Is there any useful case-law regarding state agencies attempting to enforce a gun ban on non-employees or volunteers?

Tosta Dojen · Jun 16, 2010

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

It would be interesting to see what the policy means by 3rd parties.

Conveniently, the term is defined on the same page, section 4C:

Third Parties - Anyone who is not a VDH employee and enters VDH facilities or locations where VDH staff members perform work.

That includes pretty much everyone. Interestingly, there appears to be no exception for law enforcement.

TFred · Jun 16, 2010

imported post

Tosta Dojen wrote:

Interestingly, there appears to be no exception for law enforcement.

"To the extent allowed by law." I suspect that covers the LEOs.

TFred

gis · Jun 16, 2010

imported post

TFred wrote:

gis wrote:

Tosta Dojen wrote:

To the extent allowed by law, third parties are prohibited from carrying weapons on VDH property or work locations.

Click to expand...

Since the law doesn't allow it, the point is moot. It's got no teeth, but certainly tells you where they stand.

Click to expand...

But what is your basis for saying the law does not allow it? If the VDH is subject to preemption, then sure, but if not, then they are acting like any other private employer, and can set their own policy.

TFred

I can see them being able to ban employees, but why wouldn't pre-emption apply to third parties?

TFred · Jun 16, 2010

imported post

gis wrote:

TFred wrote:

gis wrote:

Tosta Dojen wrote:

To the extent allowed by law, third parties are prohibited from carrying weapons on VDH property or work locations.

Click to expand...

Since the law doesn't allow it, the point is moot. It's got no teeth, but certainly tells you where they stand.

Click to expand...

But what is your basis for saying the law does not allow it? If the VDH is subject to preemption, then sure, but if not, then they are acting like any other private employer, and can set their own policy.

TFred

Click to expand...

I can see them being able to ban employees, but why wouldn't pre-emption apply to third parties?

Selected portions of 15.2-915...

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

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.

[...]

The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

None of these specific subjects to the law are state-wide agencies such as the VDoH.

We've been round-and-round on this for a long time.

TFred

TFred · Jun 16, 2010

imported post

gis wrote:

I can see them being able to ban employees, but why wouldn't pre-emption apply to third parties?

The question that needs to be asked of the General Assembly is "Why don't you include state agencies as well?"

TFred

nova · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

Preemption doesn't need to apply. State agencies do not have the authority to ban guns as they were not given that authority. Only the General Assembly can make laws regarding firearms, and the Const. of VA states they cannot delegate that power away.

State agencies are not a legislative entity of the government and therefore can't make up regs that they can enforce with the force of law (or at least shouldn't be).

jmelvin · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

TFred, looking at the legislative codereference do we have a definition for "authority"? It would seem to me that VDoH would most certainly be "any authority". Note the description does not say local authority, the description says that the provisions that apply to any locality ALSO apply to "any authority", or "to a local government entity...." If VDoH is not "any authority" what are they?

bohdi · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

nova wrote:

Preemption doesn't need to apply. State agencies do not have the authority to ban guns as they were not given that authority. Only the General Assembly can make laws regarding firearms, and the Const. of VA states they cannot delegate that power away.

State agencies are not a legislative entity of the government and therefore can't make up regs that they can enforce with the force of law (or at least shouldn't be).

Tread lightly with that statement. This is exactly what I thought and ended up making things worse for folks that had home day care facilities. The General Assembly provides that agencies such as Health and Human Services can create policy that have the force of law behind it......

TFred · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

TFred, looking at the legislative codereference do we have a definition for "authority"? It would seem to me that VDoH would most certainly be "any authority". Note the description does not say local authority, the description says that the provisions that apply to any locality ALSO apply to "any authority", or "to a local government entity...." If VDoH is not "any authority" what are they?

I'm not sure, I know it's been hashed around here a bunch of times. The problem is, no matter what we might think, they don't think it applies to them, so it doesn't, until you sue, which is not an easy task.

TFred

jmelvin · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

It would be nice if our illustrious governor would step in and make it clear to these state agencies that they do not have the authority to author gun restrictions except for their own employees, as he did when he was our illustrious attorney general. If it were my case, I would (likely) sue, but I have yet to be wronged so I don't have standing.

Grapeshot · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

It would be nice if our illustrious governor would step in and make it clear to these state agencies that they do not have the authority to author gun restrictions except for their own employees, as he did when he was our illustrious attorney general. If it were my case, I would (likely) sue, but I have yet to be wronged so I don't have standing.

The silence from the governor's office is deafening.

Yata hey

jmelvin · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

I was re-reading this thing and it is very clear from the second paragraph of the code as posted by TFred that the code most definitely applies to state agencies as much as local entities. Read and follow: "shall apply to any authority or lacal entity, including a department or agency". "Including any department or agency" describes BOTH "any authority" and "local entity", whichever is being considered thus the use of "or".

The initial chapters of the code do not define "authority" (and maybe not "entity")' but this specific section gives us both authority and entity and further tells us that both include departments or agency (which may be described by "local" or "any").

skidmark · Jun 17, 2010

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

I was re-reading this thing and it is very clear from the second paragraph of the code as posted by TFred that the code most definitely applies to state agencies as much as local entities. Read and follow: "shall apply to any authority or lacal entity, including a department or agency". "Including any department or agency" describes BOTH "any authority" and "local entity", whichever is being considered thus the use of "or".

The initial chapters of the code do not define "authority" (and maybe not "entity")' but this specific section gives us both authority and entity and further tells us that both include departments or agency (which may be described by "local" or "any").

I respectfully disagree.

Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state. The General Assembly grants powers to localities, as localities are sub-units of the Commonwealth. The General Assembly has preempted the field of firearm regulation as that applies to localities. It has NOT spoken in any manner regarding Departments, Agencies, Boards, Commissions or other entities of State government.

Many of us are working to effect a change in that circumstance.

stay safe.

ETA:

Mea culpa. I missed it the first time around. "Workplace violence prevention" is an aspect of OSHA/VOSHA regulation and generally is applicable only to employees and volunteers. I do not have immediate access to the State Policy & Procedure Manual (need physical access - some parts are NOT available on-line) which IIRC addresses this.

In other words, VDH may in fact have overstepped its bounds, not related to preemption/not preeemption, but by creating policy effecting those it has no authority to control by policy. Had they created a policy under some other Title they might better get away with their prohibition, but I think they can be found to have screwed up in this instance.

I'll try to get hands-on access to the P&P Manual to verify my suspicions.

Stay tuned/stay safe.

joeamt · Jun 18, 2010

imported post

Tosta Dojen wrote:

At the local Health Department today, I learned that the Virginia Department of Health has a policy forbidding the possession of weapons. I requested and received a copy of the policy, which reads, under section 5C:

VDH prohibits VDH employees and volunteers from carrying weapons on VDH property or work locations. To the extent allowed by law, third parties are prohibited from carrying weapons on VDH property or work locations.

Click to expand...

As this is a state agency, the policy would not be preempted.

I OC'd at the PWC health dept monday and wed this last week.. no issues at all!

jmelvin · Jun 18, 2010

imported post

skidmark while it is understood that Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state, and it is clear that a portion of 15.2-915 is providing clarification to localities that their authority is limited in the realm of handgun law, this section of code goes further than just providing limitations to localities. Whether by intent or not, the General Assembly provided language that limited not only "local entities" (including departments and agencies), but also "any authority" (including departments and agencies) with regard to the establishmend of handgun laws, except for those rules that would govern workers in the workplace.

"The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authorityOR to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility."

We don't need a new law on the books. We simply need enforcement of the one we have. Time to play in the realm of the courts.

skidmark · Jun 18, 2010

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

skidmark while it is understood that Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state, and it is clear that a portion of 15.2-915 is providing clarification to localities that their authority is limited in the realm of handgun law, this section of code goes further than just providing limitations to localities. Whether by intent or not, the General Assembly provided language that limited not only "local entities" (including departments and agencies), but also "any authority" (including departments and agencies) with regard to the establishmend of handgun laws, except for those rules that would govern workers in the workplace.

"The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authorityOR to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility."

We don't need a new law on the books. We simply need enforcement of the one we have. Time to play in the realm of the courts.

I, and the courts of Virginia, respectfully decline to agree with you.

stay safe.

Virginia Department of Health

Regular Member

Attachments

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Legendary Warrior

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran