• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

STATE FORESTS

Tusker

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
11
Location
WINCHESTER, Virginia, USA
imported post

I am I the only one who finds it a bit strange that in a State where we have had OC for 400 years, this is not allowed, or otherwise in State Forests? Hopefully this will be corrected shortly. Given we can at least CC in State Parks. Seems as if there are those that will do anything they can to trip us up. Used to be you had to worry about your coat flopping over your gun and having it deemed 'concealed', now you need to worry about whether or not it might be seen by someone. Yeah I know,'know the rules', but the rules should make a bit of sense, at least. JMHO :)
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

You're not alone.

As soon as we can set the clock to "zero" and return this land to the rule of law by the will of the people everything's going to be OK.

Keep your powder dry - you'll be needing it shortly.

[line]The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid.
Novus Ordo Seclorum
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Some body please 'splain to me why preemption doesn't cover state parks.

Yata hey
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
Some body please 'splain to me why preemption doesn't cover state parks.

Yata hey
I guess the simple answer is that State Parks are not a local government entity or agency. State Parks are not locally independent, but are a State level entity.

Now having said that, I wonder why they wouldn't fall under the definition of "any authority", which is not qualified in the law with the word "local". See the last paragraph in Section A. The title of the law even states "applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies", leaving "local" out of the description of "authorities".

TFred

§ 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 agent of such locality 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.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 from acting within the scope of his duties.

The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
imported post

TFred wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Some body please 'splain to me why preemption doesn't cover state parks.

Yata hey
I guess the simple answer is that State Parks are not a local government entity or agency. State Parks are not locally independent, but are a State level entity.

Now having said that, I wonder why they wouldn't fall under the definition of "any authority", which is not qualified in the law with the word "local". See the last paragraph in Section A. The title of the law even states "applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies", leaving "local" out of the description of "authorities".

TFred

§ 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 agent of such locality 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.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 from acting within the scope of his duties.

The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.
The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

Which brings us full circle - why preemption doesn't cover state parks? If not then the state can violate its own laws - in this case preemption.

Yata hey
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
TFred wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Some body please 'splain to me why preemption doesn't cover state parks.

Yata hey
I guess the simple answer is that State Parks are not a local government entity or agency. State Parks are not locally independent, but are a State level entity.

Now having said that, I wonder why they wouldn't fall under the definition of "any authority", which is not qualified in the law with the word "local". See the last paragraph in Section A. The title of the law even states "applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies", leaving "local" out of the description of "authorities".

TFred

§ 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 agent of such locality 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.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 from acting within the scope of his duties.

The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.
The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

Which brings us full circle - why preemption doesn't cover state parks? If not then the state can violate its own laws - in this case preemption.

Yata hey
Well, just like the AG's opinion which stated that he believes current law protects CHP personal information, but court clerks choose to believe it doesn't, perhaps the parks people choose to believe that this law applies only to local jurisdictions, in spite of what it actually says.

Sadly, it takes court cases and/or willing prosecutors to bear these things out.

TFred
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
imported post

TFred wrote:
Well, just like the AG's opinion which stated that he believes current law protects CHP personal information, but court clerks choose to believe it doesn't, perhaps the parks people choose to believe that this law applies only to local jurisdictions, in spite of what it actually says.

Sadly, it takes court cases and/or willing prosecutors to bear these things out.

TFred
Now there you go getting logical again; but illogical isn't it?

Rant temporarily suspended. :)

Yata hey
 

VAopencarry

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
2,151
Location
Berryville-ish, VA
imported post

You can, or will soon
From VCDL:

Virginia State Forests have ruled on VCDL's petition to allow open and concealed carry (with CHP) in State Forests.

In the ruling, they are going to allow for concealed carry with CHP's, but deny open carry.

Basically, State Forests will mimic State Parks in how they treat the otherwise lawful carry of handguns.

However, both State Forests and State Parks are in violation of Attorney General Bob McDonnell's opinion that open carry is legal in parks and cannot be banned.

While this is a victory of sorts, I will be conferring with the VCDL Board of Directors for our next move on both forests and parks, as a ban on open carry is still not acceptable in either venue.

Anyway, good work, VCDL: your 2,000 comments certainly helped getting the way cleared for concealed carry in State Forests.

I will keep you posted as to our next move, whenever that comes.

Here's the ruling:

http://www.townhall.virginia.gov/l/viewpetition.cfm?petitionid=64

NOTE: The new rule is NOT in effect yet, so don't conceal carry in State Forests until we give the go ahead.
 
Top