Could the "public use" of 1-219.1 requirement under 15.2-1800 restrain a lessee in any way?
(skidmark):
I'd rather you explain how you believe either of those sections of the Code apply to the issue.
---------------
§ 15.2-1800. Purchase, sale, use, etc., of real property.
A. A locality may acquire by purchase, gift, devise, bequest, exchange, lease as lessee, or otherwise, title to, or any interests in, any real property, whether improved or unimproved, within its jurisdiction, for [highlight]any public
use[/highlight].
[...]
G. "Public use" as used in this section shall have the same meaning as in §
1-219.1.
-
§ 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. [highlight]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[/highlight]; (ii) the property is taken for construction, maintenance, or operation of public facilities by public corporations or by [highlight]private entities provided that there is a written agreement with a public corporation providing for use of the facility by the public[/highlight]; (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.
--
More specifically:
This appears to limit the authority of the locality as lessor. 15.2-1800 also allows a locality to lease property it owns in paragraph B. It would appear the restrictions of paragraph A still apply.
Barring arms is a private property type issue correct(below)?? It seems if the land must be for "public
use" then it would preclude any restrictions on entry by a lessee that the locality itself cannot enforce.
This, although a different section of the law entirely, goes back to the same issue as my preemption argument.
How can a locality grant authority it does not possess itself? I say it can't do so.(logically, anyways)
Speaking of preemption, I see yet another angle:
§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.
A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by §
15.2-1425, and
no [highlight]agent[/highlight][highlight] of such locality[/highlight] shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership,
carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than
those expressly authorized by statute.
For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.
--
agent (a representative who acts on behalf of other persons or organizations)
lease (a contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified time for a specified payment)
When a lessee, who is in a contract with a locality, starts dictating certain restrictions that affect the localities land
use requirement(see above), are they now acting as an agent of said locality?
---
And lastly, lets say a lessee of public use land DID ban firearms. How would this be enforced? If I ignored this and just walked into the Red Cross event, what could be done about it? They could ask me to leave under what threat? Trespass? On public propery, for public use, at an event open to the public?
§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
If [highlight]any person[/highlight] without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises [highlight]of another[/highlight], or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, [highlight]lessee[/highlight], custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof,...
"Of another" clearly refers to the property of another
person. The lessee of public property doesn't appear to meet the requirements. Let's check the Trespass of public property laws!
§ 18.2-162. Damage or trespass to public services or utilities.
Any person who shall intentionally destroy or damage any facility which is used to furnish oil, telegraph, telephone, electric, gas, sewer, wastewater or water service to the public, shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony, provided that in the event the destruction or damage may be remedied or repaired for $200 or less such act shall constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor. [highlight]On electric generating property marked with no trespassing signs, the security personnel of a utility may detain a trespasser for a period not to exceed one hour pending arrival of a law-enforcement officer[/highlight]...
Well damn even simple trespass on restricted access public utilities doesn't appear to be a crime. Unless it's some sort of power substation you can't even be detained.