Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: In Richmond, shooting a gun on your own property is legal - FOR NOW

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    In Richmond, shooting a gun on your own property is legal - FOR NOW

    How many of you unfortunate souls live within Richmond?

    So we learn that Councilman Charles Samuels is upset that residents may lawfully discharge their weapons on their own private property. He intends to stop that:

    Charlie (Donít) Get Your Gun
    Shooting a house = trouble.

    Shooting a person = big trouble.

    But shooting a gun on your own property, just for the heck of it? Thatís OK. At least, for now.

    Richmondís laws donít prohibit discharging a firearm on private property, Councilman Charles Samuels told residents of his north-central 2nd District last week. Samuels says he made the discovery after conferring with a city police officer who wanted to, but couldnít, charge someone for doing just that. Samuelsí office also has received complaints about gunfire on private property from Ginter Park residents.

    ...

    The cityís law department is preparing a draft of the ordinance. Once Samuels reviews and approves it, he plans to introduce it in late January.
    Like I posted here yesterday, with cops either confused or chomping at the bit to arrest, the proposed solution is yet another law.

    The real solution is more liberty.

    As a compromise, perhaps the property owner could be required to have insurance -- although not necessarily proof of insurance.
    Last edited by Repeater; 12-28-2011 at 05:29 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    How many of you unfortunate souls live within Richmond?

    So we learn that Councilman Charles Samuels is upset that residents may lawfully discharge their weapons on their own private property. He intends to stop that:

    Charlie (Donít) Get Your Gun


    Like I posted here yesterday, with cops either confused or chomping at the bit to arrest, the proposed solution is yet another law.

    The real solution is more liberty.

    As a compromise, perhaps the property owner could be required to have insurance -- although not necessarily proof of insurance.
    Here's what you do:

    Call the guy up, and make sure he includes paint-ball guns, air-soft guns and BB and pellet guns in the same ordinance... you don't want anyone shooting their eye out, right?

    Then after they pass it, ignore it... if they lump it all together, it will be an invalid ordinance.



    TFred

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Here's what you do:

    Call the guy up, and make sure he includes paint-ball guns, air-soft guns and BB and pellet guns in the same ordinance... you don't want anyone shooting their eye out, right?

    Then after they pass it, ignore it... if they lump it all together, it will be an invalid ordinance.



    TFred

    You're bad!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Here's what you do:

    Call the guy up, and make sure he includes paint-ball guns, air-soft guns and BB and pellet guns in the same ordinance... you don't want anyone shooting their eye out, right?

    Then after they pass it, ignore it... if they lump it all together, it will be an invalid ordinance.



    TFred
    Why would it be invalid?

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Neplusultra View Post
    Why would it be invalid?
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...l+CHAP0832+hil

    Paragraph #2.

    TFred

  6. #6
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Oregon Hill residents expresses opinions

    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Here's what you do:

    Call the guy up, and make sure he includes paint-ball guns, air-soft guns and BB and pellet guns in the same ordinance... you don't want anyone shooting their eye out, right?

    Then after they pass it, ignore it... if they lump it all together, it will be an invalid ordinance.



    TFred
    This is eye-opening:

    It is legal to shoot your guns on your own property

    Check out Comment #9:
    Shooting discipline requires awareness not just of your target but whatís behind your target, and in urban residential zones it is effectively impossible to shoot at anything without also pointing the weapon in the direction of a residence. In several years of shooting I have had one accidental discharge, but fortunately I was following good range discipline and the pistol was pointed down range. (The round struck a wall at an oblique angle and wound up striking the backstop.) ďDown rangeĒ is acceptable in a controlled environment, but it is NOT acceptable in a backyard, where any accidental discharge above the backstop could kill someone as much as a half mile away.

    If I were a Richmond police office called to investigate a complaint and found someone target shooting in his backyard, Iíd tell him to stop. If he refused or repeated the behavior Iíd arrest him for reckless handling of firearms.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...+cod+18.2-56.1

    ß 18.2-56.1. Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting.
    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
    emphasis added

    Cop's going to have to prove endangerment. Merely saying "It could happen" is not sufficient - especially if a backstop was there and no proof of shooting over/around the backstop.

    Now, of course, it might take time, effort, and money to convince a judge that the backstop was adequate and that there was no actual endangerment.

    But you cannot convince the liberal weenies that there is a difference between something actually happening and something hypothetically being possible if this and that condition were met and this and that circumstance were changed. Why they bother getting out of bed in the morning when the Earth could be struck by an asteroid mystifies me no end.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    ...Samuels says he made the discovery after conferring with a city police officer who wanted to, but couldnít, charge someone for doing just that....
    So how long was the person detained and harassed before the officer reluctantly was forced to acknowledge that there was no crime?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •