Wolf_shadow
Activist Member
Are you bringing Skid and his Schticks tomarrow to the Picanic?
-
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.
-
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.
Chesterfield Parks Wording
- Thread starter peter nap
- Start date
He will be in attendance - don't know how many schticks he'll have in his kit bag though.
I'll be accompanied by my decidedly better half, DoubleTap, who obviously has great patience and fortitude as well as impeccable taste
Wolf_shadow
Activist Member
He will be in attendance - don't know how many schticks he'll have in his kit bag though.
I'll be accompanied by my decidedly better half, DoubleTap, who obviously has great patience and fortitude as well as impeccable taste
Good will be nice to see you all.
Likewise.
I enjoy these events as it allows me to meet the people that are the ones in the trenches making things happen - they are the real backbone of the RKBA movement. I always seem to learn something new from others.
A few years back when the NightLine crew was at the picnic videoing, DoubleTap and GrapeJuice (daughter-in-law) were tapped as subjects - they knocked my socks off how well they knew the right answers/responses - made me proud, even a tear in my eye. Women OCing are golden.
VCDL President
Centurion
I believe there are other laws that say you can't hunt with a firearm during certain seasons. Is that a firearm issue or a hunting issue? I would say hunting and I'm guessing you will say firearms because they are not prohibiting the use of a bow and arrow, only a firearm.
OTOH - carrying a handgun for self-defense during bow season is a gun issue.
Whether with a permit (CC or OC) or w/o a permit (OC) should not make any difference. If the game is not taken with the handgun that IMO should be the end of the story.
Had a young DGIF officer ask me why I was carrying a pistol while in the dove field - all the time he was in a crouch with his hand on his gun :uhoh:.........the rest of the story another time.
Whether with a permit (CC or OC) or w/o a permit (OC) should not make any difference. If the game is not taken with the handgun that IMO should be the end of the story.
Had a young DGIF officer ask me why I was carrying a pistol while in the dove field - all the time he was in a crouch with his hand on his gun :uhoh:.........the rest of the story another time.
67GT390FB
Regular Member
Philip, actually no, you guessed wrong. I wouldn't say that was a firearms issue because as you so kindly pointed out the language in that law is preventing the act of "HUNTING". In this case the law is not disallowing the act of hunting it is expressly disallowing the act of transportation, possession or carry of a loaded firearm by an individual who happens to be a hunter. Even though you have gotten the board to change the subject from person to hunter the act being prevented makes it a firearms ordinance and not a hunting ordinance. It just happens to be a firearms ordinance that is legal for the board to pass because of the word hunter.
Phillip let me ask you to look at the situation this way. For example I am hunting outside this mythical barrier that extends onto my property so i'm legal to hunt there. I'm done hunting so I decide to walk through the 100yd GFZ to find a spot to put up a bow stand(again a legal act) or to simply get back to my truck because the road runs through this zone. Some idiot anti calls 911 because they hear gunshots from my or some other bordering property and say that someone is hunting in the park. The police come and I then get arrested for walking through my own property. Am i still a hunter or am I the gun owner you are trying to protect. I mean I am no longer hunting at this point, I'm just a gun owner with a gun on my own property. when exactly do i stop being a hunter and turn back into a regular firearms owner. Do i expect that to happen no, could it happen yes.
Actually thought of another example that may make more headway. It is based on this statement from you: "We pushed and got a change to the law to allow CHP holders to carry for self-defense while hunting years ago." What if I want to bowhunt on my property which is legal within the GFZ. Are you telling me that you support this ordinance that would ban me from being able to carry my firearm for self defense while i happen to be bowhunting? I mean you did say that you worked to get that exception approved now you are working on an ordinance that would allow Chesterfield county to take away my legal firearms rights under the guise of a "hunting ordinance". I don't think you are doing so purposefully, I just don't think you have looked at the issue in this way. You now have a "hunting" issue that is conflicting with a "defensive firearms" issue.
67GT390FB
Regular Member
hahah great minds think alike you posted yours while i was still editing mine. i really would like to know which law supercedes the other. how can chesterfield ban my defensive carry while hunting, but that same carry while hunting is allowed under another state law.
67GT390FB
Regular Member
that's it the horse might revive once it splashes in that cold water.
Marco
Regular Member
I concur!!!
Bow/ BP or because of some invisible boundary line
A Virginia man is recovering after being bitten by a black bear while hunting in the Jefferson National Forest in Botetourt County.
http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=9585893
An attack by a rabid bear was ended by an Albemarle County farm worker’s point-blank shotgun blast
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/...ttacks-albemarle-shot-dead-victim-ar-1855598/
Sixty-year-old Thurman Hensley was hunting on the last day of the muzzle-loader bear season when he spotted a bear and then shot it. That's when his troubles began.
As he went up to the 600-pound black bear to check it, it jumped up and mauled him.
http://attack.igorilla.com/node/289
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/336/coyote-attacks-va.-man
Hawthorne was riding his lawn mower outside his home when a coyote ran out of the woods and attacked him.
VCDL President
Centurion
I agree it is in conflict with someone carrying a handgun for self-defense while hunting. We could get an AG's Opinion as to whether that person's handgun would be exempt from such an ordinance. The best way to fix the whole issue is by changing the enabling legislation to not apply to a hunter on private property or to not apply to a handgun carried for self-defense by the hunter (I like that fix and it would be the easiest to accomplish I believe) or repealing the enabling legislation altogether as not needed (hardest to do). That way it would fix this problem statewide.
riverrat10k
Regular Member
I think the County is in violation of Virginia eminent domain law.
2011 Code of Virginia
Title 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Chapter 2.1 Common Law and Rules of Construction (1-200 thru 1-257)
1-219.1 Limitations on eminent domain.
(emphasis mine-some passages I think are not relevent are omitted)
Universal Citation: VA Code § 1-219.1 (2001 through Reg Session)
1-219.1. Limitations on eminent domain.
A. The right to private property being a fundamental right, the General Assembly shall not pass any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses without just compensation. The term "public uses" mentioned in Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia is hereby defined as to embrace only the acquisition of property where: (i) the property is taken for the possession, ownership, occupation, and enjoyment of property by the public or a public corporation; (ii) the property is taken for construction, maintenance, or operation of public facilities by public corporations or by private entities provided that there is a written agreement with a public corporation providing for use of the facility by the public; (iii) the property is taken for the creation or functioning of any public service corporation, public service company, or railroad; (iv) the property is taken for the provision of any authorized utility service by a government utility corporation; (v) the property is taken for the elimination of blight provided that the property itself is a blighted property; or (vi) the property taken is in a redevelopment or conservation area and is abandoned or the acquisition is needed to clear title where one of the owners agrees to such acquisition or the acquisition is by agreement of all the owners.
(Is it not a taking to restrict the use of one's own property? Nothing here about creating a "buffer zone")
"Public facilities" means ...(ii) educational facilities;...(ix) parks so designated by the Commonwealth or by the locality in its comprehensive plan; ...
But nothing about an additional buffer zone, nothing about safety, for example
C. No more private property may be taken than that which is necessary to achieve the stated public use.
Seems pretty clear cut.
D. Except where property is taken (i) for the creation or functioning of a public service corporation, public service company, or railroad; (ii) for the provision of any authorized utility service by a government utility corporation; or (iii) for sanitary sewer, water or stormwater facilities, or transportation facilities, including highways, roads, streets, and bridges, traffic signals, related easements and rights-of-way, mass transit, ports, and any components of federal, state, or local transportation facilities, by a public corporation, property can only be taken where: (a) the public interest dominates the private gain and (b) the primary purpose is not private financial gain, private benefit, an increase in tax base or tax revenues, an increase in employment, or economic development.
E. During condemnation proceedings, the property owner may challenge whether the taking or damaging is for a public use, the stated public use is a pretext for an unauthorized use, or the taking or damaging of property is a violation of subsection D. Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating any defenses or rights otherwise available to the property owner independently of this section.
I think all this together means the ordinance is illegal
From FindLaw (VA law does not state this exactly that I could find):
In an eminent domain action, what is necessary in order for a "taking" to occur is not always a formal transfer of interest in the property. Rather, what is required is a destruction of a personal interest in property, or such a drastic interference with the use and enjoyment of that property so as to constitute a taking. In other words, the impairment is so severe that it is tantamount to the assertion of a servitude on the property for the benefit of the government.
Just my two cents.
2011 Code of Virginia
Title 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Chapter 2.1 Common Law and Rules of Construction (1-200 thru 1-257)
1-219.1 Limitations on eminent domain.
(emphasis mine-some passages I think are not relevent are omitted)
Universal Citation: VA Code § 1-219.1 (2001 through Reg Session)
1-219.1. Limitations on eminent domain.
A. The right to private property being a fundamental right, the General Assembly shall not pass any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses without just compensation. The term "public uses" mentioned in Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia is hereby defined as to embrace only the acquisition of property where: (i) the property is taken for the possession, ownership, occupation, and enjoyment of property by the public or a public corporation; (ii) the property is taken for construction, maintenance, or operation of public facilities by public corporations or by private entities provided that there is a written agreement with a public corporation providing for use of the facility by the public; (iii) the property is taken for the creation or functioning of any public service corporation, public service company, or railroad; (iv) the property is taken for the provision of any authorized utility service by a government utility corporation; (v) the property is taken for the elimination of blight provided that the property itself is a blighted property; or (vi) the property taken is in a redevelopment or conservation area and is abandoned or the acquisition is needed to clear title where one of the owners agrees to such acquisition or the acquisition is by agreement of all the owners.
(Is it not a taking to restrict the use of one's own property? Nothing here about creating a "buffer zone")
"Public facilities" means ...(ii) educational facilities;...(ix) parks so designated by the Commonwealth or by the locality in its comprehensive plan; ...
But nothing about an additional buffer zone, nothing about safety, for example
C. No more private property may be taken than that which is necessary to achieve the stated public use.
Seems pretty clear cut.
D. Except where property is taken (i) for the creation or functioning of a public service corporation, public service company, or railroad; (ii) for the provision of any authorized utility service by a government utility corporation; or (iii) for sanitary sewer, water or stormwater facilities, or transportation facilities, including highways, roads, streets, and bridges, traffic signals, related easements and rights-of-way, mass transit, ports, and any components of federal, state, or local transportation facilities, by a public corporation, property can only be taken where: (a) the public interest dominates the private gain and (b) the primary purpose is not private financial gain, private benefit, an increase in tax base or tax revenues, an increase in employment, or economic development.
E. During condemnation proceedings, the property owner may challenge whether the taking or damaging is for a public use, the stated public use is a pretext for an unauthorized use, or the taking or damaging of property is a violation of subsection D. Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating any defenses or rights otherwise available to the property owner independently of this section.
I think all this together means the ordinance is illegal
From FindLaw (VA law does not state this exactly that I could find):
In an eminent domain action, what is necessary in order for a "taking" to occur is not always a formal transfer of interest in the property. Rather, what is required is a destruction of a personal interest in property, or such a drastic interference with the use and enjoyment of that property so as to constitute a taking. In other words, the impairment is so severe that it is tantamount to the assertion of a servitude on the property for the benefit of the government.
Just my two cents.
deleted
Last edited:
That is by far the best argument I have seen. Do you plan to be at the meeting and speak?
Interesting idea especially since there will be a Constitutional Amendment on the ballet this year to prevent localities from using their eminent domain power for other than proper purposes. I'm supposed to meet with the patron of that bill soon for something else. I'll mention it to him.
It might be a fun session yet. I'm trying to get a bill introduced that Philip's buddy ain't gonna like one damn bit.:lol::lol:
VCDL President
Centurion
New proposed wording for ordinance:
"Except for handguns carried lawfully for self-defense, no person while hunting shall transport..."
"Except for handguns carried lawfully for self-defense, no person while hunting shall transport..."
67GT390FB
Regular Member
Cautiously optimistic after tonights meeting. The board was receptive to our side and refered the ordinance back to the county attorney for 30 days to research whether the ordinance is even needed and what the proper language should be if they decide to keep it. Phillip pointed out that they can't restrict defensive carry under state law and that if they decided to drop the ordinance completely VCDL would support that option as well. Thanks Phillip. Two other folks besides me and Phillip spoke against the ordinance but i don;t know if they were there for this issue or were just piling on.
Thanks Joe. I got tied up and couldn't get there. Thanks Philip!
Goochland is tomorrow isn't it?
Nevermind...Goochland 9/20 at 7:00 PM.
See you there.
Last edited:
Sincerely hope that they got the message and will do the right thing. The best response would be to eliminate the ordinance. It is not needed and creates problems no matter how you turn it.
The supervisors were of open mind and attentive to what was said - left the meeting feeling more positive than I did upon arrival. Will be back for the next meeting.
The supervisors were of open mind and attentive to what was said - left the meeting feeling more positive than I did upon arrival. Will be back for the next meeting.