• 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.

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

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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 (Don’t) 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? That’s OK. At least, for now.

Richmond’s laws don’t 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 couldn’t, charge someone for doing just that. Samuels’ office also has received complaints about gunfire on private property from Ginter Park residents.

...

The city’s 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:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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 (Don’t) 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.

:D

TFred
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.

:D

TFred


You're bad!:lol:
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
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.

:D

TFred

Why would it be invalid?
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Oregon Hill residents expresses opinions

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.

:D

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 what’s 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.) “Down range” 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, I’d tell him to stop. If he refused or repeated the behavior I’d arrest him for reckless handling of firearms.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-56.1

§ 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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...Samuels says he made the discovery after conferring with a city police officer who wanted to, but couldn’t, 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?
 
Top