After discussing this issue with User off-line, I believe we have both reached the conclusion that localities that have ordinances that copy or refer to the state's 18.2-308 are in violation of 15.2-915.
Under the current state code the local jurisdictions are allowed to require fingerprinting for first time applicants only. They cannot require fingerprinting for renewal applications.
While this might technically meet the requirement, I am not a fan of fixing this by obscure reference to the State Code. This makes it too easy for an ordinary citizen to look up the local ordinance and see only the "IT'S ILLEGAL" part, and not even be aware that they need to continue searching for the reference that gives the exceptions.
I was out of town myself. Not sure I can make the Public Hearing on the 11th, that's the night of my annual HOA meeting.
User sent a note to someone in Richmond about it. The link to the Chapter is what was actually passed by the GA. Apparently it is an LIS error that the second part was not included. If you look at the code, there is a live link at the bottom of the page that points to the Chapter, which does include paragraph 2. I'm not a legislative expert, but apparently the Chapter was the law that was actually passed, directing the change to the 915.4 section of code, and also specifying the penalty for not complying.
Here's the Fredericksburg City Attorney's agenda item:
I agree, and thought the same thing exactly. I really didn't understand what part that played in the situation. They had to change the ordinance, a fact which the mayor even observed out loud with a chuckle after her presentation: "We don't really have a choice here, do we?" BB gun statistics and alerts had no bearing on the matter at all.