• 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.

Severability of Local Ordinances

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
The new air gun ordinance 15.2-915.4, provides that any local ordinance that does not implement the new requirements "shall be invalid":

2. That notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, any local ordinance adopted prior to the effective date of this act that prohibits the use of pneumatic guns on or within private property with permission of the owner or legal possessor of the property when conducted with reasonable care to prevent a projectile from crossing the bounds of the property shall be invalid.

Here's my question:

If such an ordinance is a long, complex ordinance that covers all sort of other things (discharge of actual firearms, for example), does the "shall be invalid" clause apply to the entire ordinance, or just the part on air guns? Paragraph 2 above does not specifically restrict the invalid penalty to just the air gun portions, rendering a plain-text read that would seem to invalidate the entire ordinance. Perhaps there are other sources that clarify?

What are the severability characteristics of Local Ordinances?

TFred
 

youngck

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
65
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
My opinion is that the law says the offending ordinance is invalid, not the provisions that are offending, therefore the entire ordinance is invalid if it contains any offending provision. IANAL, but I have stayed in the same holiday inn express.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
My opinion is that the law says the offending ordinance is invalid, not the provisions that are offending, therefore the entire ordinance is invalid if it contains any offending provision. IANAL, but I have stayed in the same holiday inn express.

Correct. The ordinance itself is severable (the code is still the code, even with a particular ordinance gone), but provisions within the ordinance (other than the titles or catchlines) are not.

However, courts make every effort to "interpret" code sections, statutes, and ordinances, to give effect to whatever is relevant to the case under consideration. If the bad part is not an issue in the case, then they don't need to think about the bad part, on the theory that it's valid "as applied".
 
Last edited:
Top