Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Richmond City Council Anti-freedom Agenda

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603

    Thumbs down Richmond City Council Anti-freedom Agenda

    Richmond Mayor and City Council again show their anti-freedom, lack of understanding by promoting "closing the gun show loophole." The minutes of the Nov. 22, 2010 meeting are not yet on-line, but I am advised that a resolution was passed to encourage the GA to take up this matter again.

    Excuse me ladies and gentleman, but there is NO loophole. An honest citizen has the right to sell his/her private property without constraint from the state. If this were a direct source of criminals getting guns, I would be willing to take another look at it - but it is NOT. No neutral party study has ever validated this contention - quite to the contrary.

    http://www.stoppingpower.net/comment...op_killers.asp

    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=260&issue=014

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fbi-cri...-safer-public/

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...2009/crime2009

    Unfortunately the Richmond City Council and the Mayor seem more interested in promoting their unsupported and faulty claim than learning the facts and being good stewards of the trust placed in them.

    ETA: note the vote of support for the resolution was 9-0
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-23-2010 at 09:13 PM. Reason: added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Richmond Mayor and City Council again show their anti-freedom, lack of understanding by promoting "closing the gun show loophole." The minutes of the Nov. 22, 2010 meeting are not yet on-line, but I am advised that a resolution was passed to encourage the GA to take up this matter again.

    Excuse me ladies and gentleman, but there is NO loophole. An honest citizen has the right to sell his/her private property without constraint from the state. If this were a direct source of criminals getting guns, I would be willing to take another look at it - but it is NOT. No neutral party study has ever validated this contention - quite to the contrary.

    http://www.stoppingpower.net/comment...op_killers.asp

    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=260&issue=014

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fbi-cri...-safer-public/

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...2009/crime2009

    Unfortunately the Richmond City Council and the Mayor seem more interested in promoting their unsupported and faulty claim than learning the facts and being good stewards of the trust placed in them.

    ETA: note the vote of support for the resolution was 9-0
    Maybe it is time to attent another council meeting?

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by xdm guy View Post
    Maybe it is time to attent another council meeting?
    Wonder if herzoner, the council president, would give us the extended digit again?

    Wasn't that a mature response?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Wonder if herzoner, the council president, would give us the extended digit again?

    Wasn't that a mature response?
    Was that brandishing?
    I was frightened!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    The State of Virginia should just go ahead and hand over Richmond to Maryland. They apparently want to be part of the PRM, not a city in a free commonwealth...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    The State of Virginia should just go ahead and hand over Richmond to Maryland. They apparently want to be part of the PRM, not a city in a free commonwealth...
    Not going to do it - that would be too much to their liking. Anyone or all of them should feel free to relocate there though - I believe that freedom will catch up with those enclaves too one day and their running away from freedom will have been for naught.

    I happen to like Richmond and some of the things the city has to offer - just think that a few of the people are a bit .........unusual and illogical. Maybe it's the KoolAid they put in the water there.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

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

    Style Weekly has report on Dance Hall violence

    This is worth reading to see how authoritarian Richmond is:

    After the Party - Race, politics and dancing: How the city’s crackdown on nightclubs is dredging up some old demons, by Scott Bass and Vernal Coleman. Photos by Scott Elmquist.

    The club unwittingly has become ground zero in the city’s political war on nightlife. A fight that erupted outside the club in April led to an exchange of gunfire in the adjacent parking lot, killing a Petersburg man. It was one of many incidents throughout the city this year, including two teen dance parties that turned violent on West Broad Street and another spring shooting in the Bottom.

    In the process the neighborhood has become exhibit A amid a growing perception that nightlife in the city has become unruly, violent and out of control — leading City Council to adopt a controversial dance hall ordinance Sept. 13, which attempts to hold club owners accountable for violence that spills into the streets.

    In a span of a few short weeks, the two murders in Shockoe Bottom led to a show of force by Richmond police and City Hall. A three-club event in mid-May, which goading promoters dubbed Shockoe Bottom Shutdown, drew heavy police presence — officers on horseback, a mobile police command center and tower, complete with spotlights and a city street sweeper that doused the sidewalks to disperse crowds when the clubs let out.

    Many see the ordinance as a necessity. It requires more security officers for larger crowds, for example, and background checks for club managers and promoters. It passed unanimously, with the mayor’s blessing.

    But others say there are larger forces at play. They worry that restrictive regulations will make it difficult for clubs to stay in business, undermining the city’s growing reputation as a thriving regional hub for arts, culture and music.

    ...

    Under the new rules, dance hall owners are barred from bringing in promoters who have been convicted of any of a litany of criminal offenses specified by the new ordinance — possession or conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance or firearm, for example. Some say a conviction for what might be a minor offense shouldn’t prevent someone from entering the business.
    The Ordinance is 2010-113-159, approved unanimously by City Council on Sept. 13, 2010. It has far more on firearms than the article above implies.

    Municode has NOT updated their code to include the ordinance, so you have to go get the ordinance yourself by going here.

    Race and culture, combined with guns, are a volatile mix. The easy way out is to blame lax gun laws and respond with authoritarian remedies that don't work. It is a brave soul that says what needs saying; David Codrea is such a soul -- see here:

    Anti-gun rappers' aim to curb violence off target

    We can't neglect looking at race--not as a cause of violent crime, but as an indicator of populations most directly affected by and responsive to a continuing history of Liberty-eroding government policies.

    If we're afraid to even address this, we're never going to be able to make things right. And those hurt the most by this self-imposed blindness will continue to be the least prosperous and protected among us.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Let's make it easier for folks to read the new law. Go here: http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/a...O=2010-113-159

    stay safe.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Saying that dance halls, or rap artists, or young black people are the cause of this problem is just as stupid, offensive, and nonsensical as saying that guns are the problem.

    There are PLENTY of DJs, dance-hall patrons, and night-lifers who are just everyday people who want to go out and have a good time. Sure some of them drink to excess. Sure some of them might get stupid and throw a punch. But to imply that they are all a bunch of ruthless gangbangers carrying illegal weapons, and the only way to remedy this problem is to shut down these dance halls is, at the very least, idiotic, and at it's worst, a flat-out racist ploy to destroy the ability for an entire segment to enjoy their nights out.

    This whole issue reminds me of the Hearst Newspaper stories back in the 1930's in the Western states about how Mexicans and Blacks were smoking marijuana, and it was causing them to look lustfully at white women. It was the yellow journalism of the Hearst Newspapers (that just so happened to have spent the previous decade buying up pulp wood farms in the Pacific NW--which just so happened to have as its only competitor the Hemp industry in the US...) in order to make Marijuana (Hemp) illegal.

    There is something else in the works in Richmond--this current issue has NOTHING to do with shootings in parking lots, or "rap culture", or any of that foolishness. The VAST majority of these shootings are committed by repeat offenders, and people with prior records. It is a TINY percentage of the population that is committing these crimes (in Richmond, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, etc), and these new laws are essentially the 21st century equivalent of the Jim Crow laws of the 19th century, or the "Zoot Suit" prohibitions of the 1940s in California.

    It's getting more and more that in the news stories, and government responses from Richmond, you could simply replace the word "Richmond" with "Baltimore" and it could be accurate...

    Wake up, Richmond. Your government has been taken over by racist eugenicists who hate freedom, and are doing EVERYTHING in their power to destroy small business and what's left of the middle class, foment racial tensions, and divide the good citizens into fractious antagonistic enclaves.

    Wake up, Richmond...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post

    There is something else in the works in Richmond--this current issue has NOTHING to do with shootings in parking lots, or "rap culture", or any of that foolishness. The VAST majority of these shootings are committed by repeat offenders, and people with prior records. It is a TINY percentage of the population that is committing these crimes (in Richmond, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, etc), and these new laws are essentially the 21st century equivalent of the Jim Crow laws of the 19th century, or the "Zoot Suit" prohibitions of the 1940s in California.

    It's getting more and more that in the news stories, and government responses from Richmond, you could simply replace the word "Richmond" with "Baltimore" and it could be accurate...

    ...
    You're pretty observant Dreamer.
    The big murder problem in Richmond goes in cycles and can usually be traced back to one group.
    The Brown family for instance, kicked the rate way up. When they were gone the murder rate shrank and the PD took the bows for efficient policing (which was untrue).

    Another problem is of course, the projects. That's a difficult issue because not everyone in the projects are criminals. A very small percentage are but among the younger people, the temptation is there.

    I had the unpleasant task of serving on a regional planning commission with some of Richmond leaders. (I was civilized for a short period) Walter Kenny was one and a more narrow minded, self centered, ill prepared idiot has never existed.

    He was one that blamed everything on guns.

    There are other issues now also. A large illegal Mexican population that will not report crimes for fear of being deported, poverty in areas that were formerly lower middle class and a bigger student body at VCU (The Fan attracts derelicts like fly's to honey)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Wonder if herzoner, the council president, would give us the extended digit again?

    Wasn't that a mature response?
    Prehaps we should all say hi back next time?

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by xdm guy View Post
    Prehaps we should all say hi back next time?
    I discussed an idea a week ago (I'll tell you about it on Thursday). I doubt it'll happen but it sure would be fun.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by xdm guy View Post
    Prehaps we should all say hi back next time?
    No. no - the five fingered "beauty pageant wave" maintains the moral high ground.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Who has read the Ordinance?

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Let's make it easier for folks to read the new law. Go here: http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/a...O=2010-113-159

    stay safe.
    Thanks for the link -- makes it very easy now to download. Has anyone read the ordinance? It's an IMAGE PDF so I can't past what I read, but I have to wonder:

    What is conspiracy to possess, sell or distribute firearms?

    The ordinance reads like a joke or a parody, except that it's not.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Everybody knows that in Virginia a conspiracy is when one person gets together with another person and they are both thinking about doing the same thing. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...00+cod+18.2-22

    The problem is, a conspiracy to possess, sell or distribute firearms may or may not involve an act that is defined as any sort of a crime, let alone a felony. As has been noted before, it's all about control.

    And might I remind all of you who are talking about Jim Crow and Zoot Suit laws that in the Richmond Metro Area the folks who are melanin-deprived are the minority. We need to come up with a more accurate phrase. :>) *

    stay safe.

    * PLEASE notice the emoticon. It's there to indicate a lack of prejudice and racial bias on my part. I'm just trying to say if we are going to epithets we ought to be more precise and accurate in describing who we are "epithetting" about.

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Let's make it easier for folks to read the new law. Go here: http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/a...O=2010-113-159

    stay safe.
    Upon a quick skim of the 24 page ordinance, it looks like the firearms sections are at the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7, and also on page 12.

    Both sections basically state that nobody can be involved in a nightclub event if they have been convicted of a crime within the past 5 years involving:

    "the possession, sale or distribution of, attempted possession, sale or distribution of, or conspiracy to possess, sell or distribute a controlled substance, alcohol or firearms..."

    Now IANAL, but I honestly don't see how this ordinance can possibly be legal.

    The Preemption statute clearly states:

    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.

    What this new city ordinance literally does is impose an additional punishment on someone for violating firearms laws. That is certainly going to fall under the act of "governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms", which the law specifically says they may not do.

    I don't think this is even close.

    Now we are getting into the General Assembly season. It may not be a good idea to raise a stink about this right now, or we'll see one of the Richmond folks introduce a state-wide bill to this effect. We learned this the hard way last year up north.

    TFred

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    How is this different from saying that a convicted pedophile cannot work in a day care center or someone with a firearms felony conviction can't work at a gun counter?

    I do not agree with what they have done nor the linking of two non-related (IMO) elements. They are saying that if you have been convicted of a gun crime (overly broad) you cannot work at a certain type of job within the city - that might not be legal, but it certainly doesn't run afoul of § 15.2-915 (preemption) at all.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    How is this different from saying that a convicted pedophile cannot work in a day care center or someone with a firearms felony conviction can't work at a gun counter?

    I do not agree with what they have done nor the linking of two non-related (IMO) elements. They are saying that if you have been convicted of a gun crime (overly broad) you cannot work at a certain type of job within the city - that might not be legal, but it certainly doesn't run afoul of § 15.2-915 (preemption) at all.
    Easy: There is no specific state law that says someone convicted of a gun crime cannot work at a nightclub in Richmond.

    I don't know pedophile laws, but I suspect there are parts of the punishment (that are within the state level guidelines) that govern access to children. There are other laws that specifically restrict gun criminals from access to guns.

    Preemption is our friend. It was designed specifically to prevent this sort of a law from being enacted. I think this law very much violates it. This law imposes additional, local, penalties beyond that which the state has already provided for a crime involving firearms.

    Some theoretical person who wants to work with a club in Richmond would have paid their debt to society. Except in Richmond, where they aren't quite done yet.

    Just because the victims of this law are criminals does not make it a good law, or one that we should ignore with a wink and a nod.

    Do we have state-wide preemption of all firearms laws, or don't we?

    TFred

  19. #19
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Dillon Rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I do not agree with what they have done nor the linking of two non-related (IMO) elements. They are saying that if you have been convicted of a gun crime (overly broad) you cannot work at a certain type of job within the city - that might not be legal, but it certainly doesn't run afoul of § 15.2-915 (preemption) at all.
    The real question is, how is the ordinance compliant with the Dillon Rule? Did the General Assembly grant Richmond this authority?

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Do we have state-wide preemption of all firearms laws, or don't we?

    TFred
    I would ask you that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    The real question is, how is the ordinance compliant with the Dillon Rule? Did the General Assembly grant Richmond this authority?
    That may well be the better question and one to be settled by the courts or GA and the short session (limited # of bills) is not likely to find a sponsor for a low priority item. Alternately, the Attorney General could be asked to give an opinion to a well worded question.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Judge finds ordinance unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Saying that dance halls, or rap artists, or young black people are the cause of this problem is just as stupid, offensive, and nonsensical as saying that guns are the problem.

    ...

    This whole issue reminds me of the Hearst Newspaper stories back in the 1930's in the Western states about how Mexicans and Blacks were smoking marijuana, and it was causing them to look lustfully at white women. It was the yellow journalism of the Hearst Newspapers (that just so happened to have spent the previous decade buying up pulp wood farms in the Pacific NW--which just so happened to have as its only competitor the Hemp industry in the US...) in order to make Marijuana (Hemp) illegal.

    ...

    Wake up, Richmond. Your government has been taken over by racist eugenicists who hate freedom, and are doing EVERYTHING in their power to destroy small business and what's left of the middle class, foment racial tensions, and divide the good citizens into fractious antagonistic enclaves.

    Wake up, Richmond...
    Well, breaking news:

    Judge declares city noise ordinance unconstitutional

    The City Council unanimously approved the ordinance Feb. 22. During daytime hours, the ordinance prohibits sound such as a television or the playing of a musical instrument if it is “plainly audible” inside someone else’s home or at 50 feet away or farther.

    The ordinance exempts sounds related to religious expression, such as sounds from religious services or events, including singing, bells and organs. Steven Benjamin, who is representing the four people charged, argued at a hearing last month that the exemption violates the First Amendment, and he said the law was unconstitutional because it was too broad.

    "This statute advances religion over any other normal conduct," Pustilnik said in court Tuesday. He said the ordinance criminalizes noise emanating from almost any appliance and noted that a husband who turned on the television after getting into bed would violate the ordinance if his wife beside him could hear the television.
    Another ordinance that passed unanimously.

    Council either knew or reasonably should have known that ordinance was unconstitutional; yet they passed it anyway, and now looked what happened.

    Freedom is simply not respected in Richmond government. Sounds, dances, guns, and on and on -- it somebody doesn't like it, Richmond city council will likely regulate it or ban it -- if they can get away with it.

    Please, let's keep the Dillon Rule precisely because of authoritarians like these.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    For those folks out there who aren't familiar with the "Dillon Rule", here is a link that explains it pretty clearly:

    http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/governm...illon-rule.htm
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    No. no - the five fingered "beauty pageant wave" maintains the moral high ground.
    Well thats no fun!!

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by xdm guy View Post
    Well thats no fun!!
    Ah, but there is lots of pleasure to be had by not letting them think that they got to us, that we are right and we are accustomed to winning because of it + we will go "one more time into the breach" no matter how many times it takes.

    That is a combination to which they have no good response except to sulk and pout a lot.

    Nice thing about the Dillion Rule is that no matter how many times and ways they try to circumvent it, it still stands solid against intrusion.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Excellent Dillon Rule Link

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    For those folks out there who aren't familiar with the "Dillon Rule", here is a link that explains it pretty clearly:

    http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/governm...illon-rule.htm
    What an instructive link to read -- thank you.

    Its tone seems rather contemptuous, doesn't it? In particular, I saw this:

    For well-established county functions, like planning, zoning, and taxation, there are a number of statutes that give the county clear direction and authority to act, but in new areas of governmental concern, the Dillon Rule can serve as a constraint to innovative governmental responses.
    When any government wants to try "innovative responses" to any problem, both real and imagined, run for the hills.

    One would think that, in theory, the Dillon Rule alone would be sufficient to preempt localities from attempting to regulate or ban weapons; still, it clearly helps to have statutory preemption with enforcement provisions.

    I still think it would help to have a Dillon Enforcement Act in the Code.

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
  •