• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Richmond City Council Anti-freedom Agenda

Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Judge finds ordinance unconstitutional

Dreamer said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
xdm guy said:
Well thats no fun!!:cry::lol:
Click to expand...

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. :lol:

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.
 
Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Excellent Dillon Rule Link

Dreamer said:
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/government/about/dillon-rule.htm
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Repeater said:
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.
Click to expand...

You want to our elected officials to be responsible for their actions? :eek: :lol:

We of course have the recall election process available.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-684.1

Found nothing in the Code of Virginia regarding malfeasance in office and little reference to such in court cases. Our legal system is based on English Common Law and this did show up on my simple search:

Under English law, misconduct (or misfeasance) in public office is an offense at common law.[1]
The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this offense[1] say that the elements of the offense are when:

  1. A public officer acting as such.
  2. Willfully neglects to perform his duty and/or willfully misconducts himself.
  3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.[2]
  4. Without reasonable excuse or justification.
The similarly-named malfeasance (or misfeasance) in public office is a tort. In the House of Lords judgment on the BCCI Malfeasance Case it was held that this had 3 essential elements[3]:

  1. The defendant must be a public officer
  2. The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer
  3. The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office
I know it is wiki, but pickin's were slim. : (
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top