Unemployment Office Gottcha

[TFred]

Respectfully, as a matter of semantics state agencies CANNOT be incorporated into the preemption statute of 15.2-915.

§15.2 is titled "Counties, Cities and Towns". Its statutes refer specifically to what municipal subdivisions of the state may and may not legislate (subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, etc).

I can't pull up a cite, but it has been pointed out several times* that the title of a statute is irrelevant to the content of the statute, and in fact, it can say anything under the sun without affecting the code inside.

It would be perfectly fine to include State Agencies inside the 15.2-915 section of code.

If one were OCD on the matter, there would be no reason not to amend the title of the section to reflect the change as well.

TFred

* I see upon more careful reading that you are also referring to the chapter of the code, not the title of the particular law. This was just addressed in the Senate's Courts of Justice committee meeting on Thursday, during the debate over the so-called "Castle Doctrine" bills, and the fact that the civil liability bills should have been in the Civil chapter, not the Criminal chapter. One of the committee members took a minute to clarify that any code, affecting any subject, can be filed in any chapter, without regard to how well it relates to the other code in the chapter.

Essentially, the chapters are just convenient ways to organize the code, and have nothing to do with the validity of the laws therein.

 

[peter nap]

I can't pull up a cite, but it has been pointed out several times* that the title of a statute is irrelevant to the content of the statute, and in fact, it can say anything under the sun without affecting the code inside.

It would be perfectly fine to include State Agencies inside the 15.2-915 section of code.

If one were OCD on the matter, there would be no reason not to amend the title of the section to reflect the change as well.

TFred

* I see upon more careful reading that you are also referring to the chapter of the code, not the title of the particular law. This was just addressed in the Senate's Courts of Justice committee meeting on Thursday, during the debate over the so-called "Castle Doctrine" bills, and the fact that the civil liability bills should have been in the Civil chapter, not the Criminal chapter. One of the committee members took a minute to clarify that any code, affecting any subject, can be filed in any chapter, without regard to how well it relates to the other code in the chapter.

Essentially, the chapters are just convenient ways to organize the code, and have nothing to do with the validity of the laws therein.

That's almost always true TFred.
If a certain statute requires interpreting by the courts, they do take the chapter into account.
Since Va is a weak legislative intent state, it's one of the tools used to tell what they intended it to do.

 

[jmelvin]

Here's the citation TFred: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+1-217

 

[TFred]

That's almost always true TFred.
If a certain statute requires interpreting by the courts, they do take the chapter into account.
Since Va is a weak legislative intent state, it's one of the tools used to tell what they intended it to do.

Interesting, and makes sense... how do we become a "strong legislative intent" state, or would we want to? It seems silly to me to NOT be able to discuss things like the Governor sending back legislation to be changed, when that legislation gets hung up in a court case over those very words (i.e. "secured" vs. "locked"). It seems to weaken the role of the legislature, and strengthen the role of the Judge!

Here's the citation TFred: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+1-217

Thanks, that's it!

TFred

 

[wylde007]

I understand the argument, but I feel that it would be confusing, if not onerous, to file a law under a heading in which nothing else has a relationship.

If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, but I would think decorum might dictate that a separate title be considered for submittal of a "statewide" preemption statute.

 

[paramedic70002]

A cite would be nice on that proported regulation.

Yeah, it would. I couldn't find one. Hence the question mark at the end of my post.

Maybe I was thinking of the local health departments?

 

[MSC 45ACP]

So what is the "Bottom Line"???

So...

Can one carry in the Unemployment office? The DMV? Where else can we carry and not carry? I thought we could carry in all state offices except the GA and courts...

 

[Mike]

B. That was only an opinion with no legal weight.

[/B][/I]

Actually, AG Opinions are generally considered persuasive legal authorities. In Virginia, "[t]he legislature is presumed to have had knowledge of the Attorney General's interpretation of the statutes, and its failure to make corrective amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General's view." Richard L. Deal & Assocs. v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 618, 622, 299 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1983).

Moreover, "[w]hile it is not binding . . . , an Opinion of the Attorney General is 'entitled to due consideration.' Twietmeyer v. City of Hampton, 255 Va. 387, 393, 497 S.E.2d 858, 861 (1998). This is particularly so when the General Assembly has known of the Attorney General's Opinion, in this case for five years, and has done nothing to change it." Beck v. Shelton, 267 Va 482; 593 S.E.2d 195 (2004).

 

[JamesCanby]

That's true but this an OC board and as much as the CHiPpers would like it to be a "Get a CHP so you can OC and play Dress Up, it isn't!

Wow, that's really good, Peter. In one brief statement you managed to denigrate every Virginia resident who, despite their support of OC and their willingness to carry openly most of the time, have obtained a CHP for their own personal reasons, or for when, in their judgement, situations necessitate concealment (as in winter, under a coat), you have labeled them as not being serious OC advocates or supporters of this Board, just people who want to "play Dress Up."

 

[peter nap]

Wow, that's really good, Peter. In one brief statement you managed to denigrate every Virginia resident who, despite their support of OC and their willingness to carry openly most of the time, have obtained a CHP for their own personal reasons, or for when, in their judgement, situations necessitate concealment (as in winter, under a coat), you have labeled them as not being serious OC advocates or supporters of this Board, just people who want to "play Dress Up."

Just the ones that think that permission to conceal somehow makes them more important, so for those, damn right.

I've said this many times to people that feel we are all in this together because we own guns. It only means you can afford a gun, nothing more!

If you read up in this thread:

Strictly speaking, according to Cuccinelli's opinion on carry on college campuses, if you have a CHP state agencies can't prohibit carry unless they implement a regulation to that effect. A policy doesn't make it illegal, and the permit allows you to carry unless otherwise prohibited by law.

Well the OP didn't say anything about a CHP, it was thrown in to say HE would still be legal OC'ing with his CHP.

Sure would! Maybe he could get some work duds so he could dress up like a farmer next.
This isn't a game James and I'm serious as hell about NOVA Chippers that want to destroy Virginia's heritage.

I had breakfast with the usual group this morning and I think every one has a CHP. All friends and we have been told that we have to leave unless you have a PERMIT in places before.
No one pulls out their permit, we all leave. Those are people I count on when we need legislation, not the ones that want to trade my rights for their privileges.

Here's a good example and not one single person whipped out that permission slip and said "I'm Special, I can stay"!

 

[peter nap]

Actually, AG Opinions are generally considered persuasive legal authorities. In Virginia, "[t]he legislature is presumed to have had knowledge of the Attorney General's interpretation of the statutes, and its failure to make corrective amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General's view." Richard L. Deal & Assocs. v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 618, 622, 299 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1983).

Moreover, "[w]hile it is not binding . . . , an Opinion of the Attorney General is 'entitled to due consideration.' Twietmeyer v. City of Hampton, 255 Va. 387, 393, 497 S.E.2d 858, 861 (1998). This is particularly so when the General Assembly has known of the Attorney General's Opinion, in this case for five years, and has done nothing to change it." Beck v. Shelton, 267 Va 482; 593 S.E.2d 195 (2004).

Why don't you tell the rest of that story Mike.

If you are arrested because of your dependance on that advice, you have to go on trial to prove your case. That requires a real lawyer unless you want to bunk with Bubba.

In a complicated case, even something as simple as a Trespassing charge, it will cost between $2,000.00 and $20,000.00. Skidmark's case shows that.

Now since you are a lawyer and presumably with a great deal of criminal defense experience and advising newcomers that they can count on an AG opinion that may well change with the next AG, are you offering to defend them Pro Bono?

 

[bc.cruiser]

I had breakfast with the usual group this morning and I think every one has a CHP. All friends and we have been told that we have to leave unless you have a PERMIT in places before.
No one pulls out their permit, we all leave. Those are people I count on when we need legislation, not the ones that want to trade my rights for their privileges.

My kind of people!

 

[Grapeshot]

Peter definitely does not "denigrate every Virginia resident" who has a CHP. 98% of the people with whom he/we associate have CHPs and some have more than one in their wallet. It doesn't make us better than or more equal either - we are all the same.........law abiding citizens.

While private property owners may make their own rules regarding this issue, I assure you when one of us suffers an insult the rest of us will close ranks. No, I don't wave my papers about, not even to a LEO when a demand is made to see if I'm legal to carry like "that" - I do find it hard to stifle the impeding giggle though.

 

[Kevin108]

I feel this is related as it is yet another state agency - the VA Dept. of Health - posting these signs in the Social Services building in Portsmouth. Opinions on this?

 

[Grapeshot]

I feel this is related as it is yet another state agency - the VA Dept. of Health - posting these signs in the Social Services building in Portsmouth. Opinions on this?

Would be willing to bet that the entire area is considered "restricted."

Legal if the have a properly secured resolution - can't easily determine that though.

Still looking for full state preemption.