Okay, need some help with a festival.

[ed]

imported post

Mike wrote:

good luck guys; Richomnd Coliseum blinked this wekk, now Alexandria needs to investigated.

My bet would be now that the Richmond Coliseum Republican Convention is over it will go back to lillegal business as usual.

 

[ed]

imported post

So.. anyone planning on going to this festival?

 

[RedKnightt]

imported post

I was, but as I mentioned to you, I'm out of this fight, and I'm really frustrated and disappointed about it.

 

[ed]

imported post

RedKnightt wrote:

I was, but as I mentioned to you, I'm out of this fight, and I'm really frustrated and disappointed about it.

The fight is not over.. I assure you. No matter the outcome, I think I am going to the event OC.

 

[ed]

imported post

ed wrote:

RedKnightt wrote:

I was, but as I mentioned to you, I'm out of this fight, and I'm really frustrated and disappointed about it.

The fight is not over.. I assure you. No matter the outcome, I think I am going to the event OC.

If I go, it might be Sunday.. is anyone else gonna go?

 

[Marco]

imported post

ed wrote:

If I go, it might be Sunday.. is anyone else gonna go?

I hurt my back yesterday, so I'm not going.

Might I suggest, buy your tickets online (with Amex) so the can't just refuse to sell you a ticket.

Why us Amex?
They areknown to side with the customer more than the merchant in disputes, easier to get a refund for your tickets if you are denied entry or kicked out.

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

ed wrote:

ed wrote:

RedKnightt wrote:

I was, but as I mentioned to you, I'm out of this fight, and I'm really frustrated and disappointed about it.

The fight is not over.. I assure you. No matter the outcome, I think I am going to the event OC.

If I go, it might be Sunday.. is anyone else gonna go?

Are you planning on trying to enter OCing? I suppose you could and make a stink, but they are sure to turn you away. I am a frequent OCer in that part of Alexandria. The cops see me and never bother me, so I think they know well about OC.

If you want support, I could come. I could bring my voice recorder and hang around without OCing or with. I cannot conceal, no CWP yet. Feel free to pm me if you want to.

 

[ed]

imported post

Jonesy wrote:

Are you planning on trying to enter OCing? I suppose you could and make a stink, but they are sure to turn you away. I am a frequent OCer in that part of Alexandria. The cops see me and never bother me, so I think they know well about OC.

If you want support, I could come. I could bring my voice recorder and hang around without OCing or with. I cannot conceal, no CWP yet. Feel free to pm me if you want to.

If I can make it there.. I will CC and go in and then OC once I am in.

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

Well, if you go, maybe post what time you are going. I livea few miles awayand could pop over to be a witness to whatever may happen.

 

[ed]

imported post

I did not make it.. did anyone else? Hopefully we will get thise resolved before next year.

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

I went on my normal walk by Oronco the day before and saw them setting up. I was surprised at how rinkey-dink the whole thing was. They had all these very small rides crammed into a small area, and they all looked like they were from 1955, only good for very young kids, and even they might balk. It really looked pitiful to me.

Still would have been good to straighten them out though.

 

[skidmark]

imported post

Thread necromancy to post Cucinelli's Opinion on the issue:

http://www.oag.state.va.us/OPINIONS/2010opns/10-009-Greason.pdf

I guess the question of whether or not a government can abrogate the rights of the citizens when it leases public space to a private party never entered into the consideration of the question.Seems to methe question was not framed sufficiently to address that aspect.

To say I am disappointed is an understatement. To say we are stuck with this is a tragedy.:cuss::banghead::cuss:

:arrow:Make sure you are asking the question you want to get an answer to.:exclaim:

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[Mike]

imported post

skidmark wrote:

http://www.oag.state.va.us/OPINIONS/2010opns/10-009-Greason.pdf

The theory that preemption was going to bind any party controlling land titled to a locality never had a chance - the AG is 100% correct here - the text of the preemption statute could no be more clear - in binds localitiesand their agents and authorities - that's it, not people who lease land belonging to a locality.

Where the party is an agent of the city, they are bound by preemption. That will be a question of fact in any preemption litigation.

 

[Mike]

imported post

skidmark wrote:

I guess the question of whether or not a government can abrogate the rights of the citizens when it leases public space to a private party never entered into the consideration of the question

Correct, because the government in this case is (apparently) not establishing the gun ban - the red cross is, and apparently dowees at other places like lood drives.

Now, if somebody can get evidence that the Richmond Coliseum is strongarming renters into establishing gun bans, then you can ask your question to the AG or a court.

 

[Mike]

imported post

Additionally, the question about private entities which gain permit use rights to streets or sidewalks which remain free to be used by the general public passing thru to their properties etc. was not addressed - seems to me that question would be answered on the side of the gun owner at least for use of the street as a msans of egress and ingress, but perhaps not on preemption grounds, but some other grounds - hmm, another legal nebula.

 

[jmelvin]

imported post

Ugh.

 

[skidmark]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Additionally, the question about private entities which gain permit use rights to streets or sidewalks which remain free to be used by the general public passing thru to their properties etc. was not addressed - seems to me that question would be answered on the side of the gun owner at least for use of the street as a msans of egress and ingress, but perhaps not on preemption grounds, but some other grounds - hmm, another legal nebula.

Thanks, Mike. Since the general public had access, ingress and egress during the event and, reportedly was able to enter the leased area without having to go through specific entrance points, that was the theory I was going under.

And again "Thanks" for noticing that my displeasure was not based on preemption but the opinion that a locality can permit/allow a private party to violate a raft of civil rights protections. Should McDonald come down in our favor we could then add "bearing arms" as another civil right that applies outside DC.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[jmelvin]

imported post

Skidmark, do we even need McDonald for this purpose in VA since the keeping and bearing of arms is already recognized as a civil right within the VA constitution? I suppose we'd have to view what the courts have said with regard to the state constitutional statement for the answer to that. Hmmm....

 

[skidmark]

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

Skidmark, do we even need McDonald for this purpose in VA since the keeping and bearing of arms is already recognized as a civil right within the VA constitution? I suppose we'd have to view what the courts have said with regard to the state constitutional statement for the answer to that. Hmmm....

It depends on whether or not you want to play with the VA Supreme Court or with SCOTUS.

You raised a thought in that thing I call a brain. Is alllowing the Red Cross the "right" to set policy for the use of a city park a violation of "single government" in Virginia? Yes it is a long shot, but right now I'm just looking for concepts, not deciding which to expand and expound. Anybody else want to "blue-sky" this or other concepts? We don't need a perfect solution right away - just some lines thrown out there to see if there are boundaries for one that does not connect to another idea.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[jmelvin]

imported post

Well we see what kind of luck GFA (Georgia Firearms Ass'n.) had playing the game in Fed courts using the US Constitution in a pre-McDonald world, rather than state constitution when they challenged the Atlanta airport's ban on firearms carry. I suppose a look at precedents set at the state level rather than US might be useful. The unnecessary limitation of the practice of state recognized civil rights (not a "sensitive" area) on property owned by a local government (that operates at the pleasure of the state) seems to be non-sensical. What good are protections of civil rights against government infringement if they can just abrogated at whim of the government by turning over government owned property to a hostile 3rd party?