t33j
Regular Member
imported post
Yeah anyone wanna put up a template email for this one???
Yeah anyone wanna put up a template email for this one???
Nicely done - good documentation - well pointed out selfish and underhanded reason for HB1379.Here's what I launched this morning. You might want to modify to your tastes as I wrote this first person.
Good morning Delegates,
I am writing to you today because it has come to my attention that House Bill 1379 may be coming to your committee (Militia, Police and Public Safety) this session and I would like you to not allow this bill out of the committee. This bill is being submitted because one locality is currently out of compliance with Virginia state law.
...........snip
From sub-committee to full committee.http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+HB1379
So does this mean that this is being moved out of sub committee to full committee, our out of committee to the GA for a vote for amendment?
Oh yes - in full committee and my the House if it went that far.So there is still a chance that it could get killed right?
You have a general misunderstanding of how 15.2-915 works. There cannot be a conflict, because 15.2-915 is specifically and purposely subordinate to any other state code. That is its very purpose for existing.Alright for those of you that haven't been following this saga, now that the general assembly is done for the year, this was passed overwhelmingly by both sides of theGA.
On one hand we have premption, a state statute. On the other hand we have state statutes regulating day care providers. Which one has the overall authority?
...The Board was briefed on the matter in closed session two weeks ago with respect to the preliminary findings of the County Attorney's office. It does appear that there is a conflict with the State Code. Steps were taken to finish the review and initiate appropriate changes to the County Code as necessary....
[align=left]Michael R. Frey[/align]
[align=left]Sully District Supervisor[/align]
[align=left]Fairfax County Board of Supervisors[/align]
My guess is they used the exception for discussing litigation. I don't know if they have to be in actual litigation over it before that is allowed, but at the very least, they could have put the county at a disadvantage by openly discussing the situation, should litigation later arise over the matter.bohdi wrote:Is that statement correct? This was done in a closed session? This is not a personnel issue or a possible land aquisition which is permitted to be in a closed session. This was a discussion of the boardasking for political intervention., and discussing the changing of the county code. IANAL but this seems to be a bozo no nowrt the open meetings laws of Virginia.:what:...The Board was briefed on the matter in closed session two weeks ago with respect to the preliminary findings of the County Attorney's office. It does appear that there is a conflict with the State Code. Steps were taken to finish the review and initiate appropriate changes to the County Code as necessary....
[align=left]Michael R. Frey[/align]
[align=left]Sully District Supervisor[/align]
[align=left]Fairfax County Board of Supervisors[/align]
I sure was confused because the way you word it preemption isn't all it's cracked up to be. Or I am confused about what preemption is. The way people on this site talk about it, Ithought it was the end all be all, but then again I admit I don't really know jack about how statutes and laws are constructed and haven't paid anyone to explain it to me either. I suppose it's better than nothing but if any statute can be regulated by a state agency, crickies. We ought to be thankful some slippery lawyer hasn't made things worse by using the "State Agency" loophole!!!!!You have a general misunderstanding of how 15.2-915 works. There cannot be a conflict, because 15.2-915 is specifically and purposely subordinate to any other state code. That is its very purpose for existing.
The purpose of the law is to force the lower levels of government to go back to the General Assembly to authorize their desires for laws that regulate firearms.
TFred
No that's not quite right either. It can't be more restrictive than the statute.basically any state statute is a starting point that can be further restricted by any state agency...
There it is. How does this not apply to state colleges, state forests, et al agencies? OT question perhaps, but seems like the same difference to me - have trouble wrapping my head around that one.No that's not quite right either. It can't be more restrictive than the statute.basically any state statute is a starting point that can be further restricted by any state agency...
Dillon's Rule The theory of state preeminence over local governments was expressed as Dillon’s Rule in an 1868 case: "Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Clinton v Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad,(24 Iowa 455; 1868).
In dealing with pure agencies...they still cannot exceed the authority granted by the state.