Petersburg Virginia bans guns from ALL public spaces

[LittleLebowski]

Even sidewalks. The Democrat Party is fast shedding itself of any pretenses of being “blue dog”.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/09/petersburg-council-passes-firearm-ban-for-public-spaces/


A Virginia city is banning firearms from public spaces.

The Progress-Index reports that the Petersburg City Council unanimously passed a measure Tuesday barring people from carrying firearms in any place open to the public.

The ban includes city buildings, public parks, city-owned recreation or community centers and any public street, road, alley or sidewalk.

On-duty law enforcement officers and armed security personnel acting on a contract with the city are exempt.

Councilor Charlie Cuthbert introduced the idea in July shortly after community activist Willie Noise III was fatally shot at the city-owned Patton Park.

[JRB]

This is why state pre-emption is a damn good thing.

I've spent a good bit of time in Petersburg because of its proximity to Ft Lee. The place already had its rough edges, and I'm saddened that the good folks there just trying to make a living are now so much more vulnerable to being victimized.

[RoyGBiv]

Councilor Charlie Cuthbert introduced the idea in July shortly after community activist Willie Noise III was fatally shot at the city-owned Patton Park.

I'm sure that Mr Noise was shot by an otherwise law abiding citizen who will immediately comply with this new law. /sarc

ETA: Not
https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/willie-noise-obit

The driver, later identified as 52-year-old Jimmy Merhout, of Chesterfield, left but returned a short time later.

“He took a long rifle and put it on the hood of the truck," McRae said. "Willie said, 'as long as you don't point that gun at me, we ain’t got no problem.' Jimmy took the gun and pointed it at Willie, Willie shot, Jimmy shot back."

Both men were struck.

Merhout suffered non-life-threatening injuries. Noise died.

[okie john]

When you turn a blind eye to sanctuary cities, people feel like they can ignore aspects of the Constitution that they don't like.

Shoulda nipped that trend in the bud decades ago....


Okie John

[BehindBlueI's]

Does Virginia not have state pre-emption?

[RoyGBiv]

Does Virginia not have state pre-emption?

Not since 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Virginia






Virginia has state preemption for most but not all firearm laws. As of July 1, 2020, local governments have expanded power to ban firearms in certain sensitive areas, such as government buildings and public events.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Virginia#cite_note-SB35-VA-6)




I guess sidewalks are now sensitive areas.
Certain to be litigated. Likely on hold until SCOTUS hears NYSRPA case.

[Stephanie B]

How much of this is pushback against the open-carry asswipes?

[P30]

This is why state pre-emption is a damn good thing.
So in the USA, you have the 2nd Amendment.
But if your city politicians say, "You are not allowed to bear arms!", then in public spaces you are not allowed.
But if your state law says, "City politicians, you can't take the 2nd Amendment away!", then they can't.

Is that correct?

[DC_P]

This thread, appropriately, fell just below Tom Givens post about the town in TN when I clicked the 'new posts' button.

[BehindBlueI's]

So in the USA, you have the 2nd Amendment.
But if your city politicians say: You can't bear arms, then in public spaces you can't.
But if your state law says: City politicians, you can't take the 2nd Amendment away! Then they can't.

Is that correct?

You have to add in the court system has to agree with the restrictions as well, but it's mostly correct. States can vary pretty wildly on this. In my state, just as they can in if they require a permit to carry (or even own), how onerous the requirements to get said permit are, etc.

[Bergeron]

I was living in Virginia when the state flipped to Democrat control. The northern part of the state bordering DC, as well as certain urban areas, are very “blue”, while the remainder is a sea of lower population density “red”. Urban Virginia Democrats tend to look down on gun rights as something for lower, less refined, and racist people. By eliminating state pre-emotion, Democrat-controlled jurisdictions now feel themselves free to impose a great deal of gun control measures that would never be accepted on a state level.

[WobblyPossum]

Fingers crossed the upcoming Supreme Court case out of NY bitch slaps all of these infringements on our civil rights.

[mtnbkr]

How much of this is pushback against the open-carry asswipes?

The article says it was specifically in response to a shooting.

Also, virtually all of the open carry I've seen in VA (aside from big political rallies specific to the 2nd) have been handguns in belt holsters, more commonly in rural or semi-rural areas, but also seen in more urbanized regions. In any case, it has been relatively discrete.

It would be nice to play the blame game, but this comes squarely from our state democrat leadership and outside gun control monies. The state was relatively safe gun-control-wise until Gov Blackface won and the money started flowing into the state.

Chris

[msstate56]

I used to work for a city that tried this. No carry on any city owned property (sidewalks, parks, etc.). I told my shift in no uncertain terms that we would not be enforcing what was clearly an unconstitutional city ord. It was challenged by local attorneys and it just quietly went away.

[Kyle Reese]

Elections have consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RoyGBiv]

So in the USA, you have the 2nd Amendment.
But if your city politicians say, "You are not allowed to bear arms!", then in public spaces you are not allowed.
But if your state law says, "City politicians, you can't take the 2nd Amendment away!", then they can't.

Is that correct?

Not exactly.....

What you describe is correct, but, only if the law passed by the City is Constitutionally lawful.
Resolving that through the court system can be a looooooong process. As BBI mentioned a few posts earlier.
Also... Court precedents differ in different parts of the US... It's a mess, really.

HOWEVER....
There is a case that the US Supreme Court will hear in their next session (currently scheduled for 3-November-21 (https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/))that MAY re-establish / clarify that citizens (with some much less random restrictions) are entitled to bear arms in public, simply for protection against the possibility of crimes against them. NYSRPA is challenging the "proper cause" requirement for issuance of a carry permit in NY in NYSPRA vs Bruen (https://www.thetrace.org/2021/05/supreme-court-gun-rights-concealed-carry-new-york-corlett/).

[P30]

To infringe what the constitution or its amendments say shall not be infringed. That's not constitutionally lawful of course. Just from a logical and reasonable point of view, I mean. But unfortunately, sometimes hypocrisy and propaganda walk in and logic and reason don't count much.

Thank you very much for the answers, BBI and Roy!

The domestic politics and jurisdiction in my country show some very questionable examples, too. I don't want to whine about it here, that's not the topic. Wish you all the best coming from your Supreme Court!

[TGS]

To infringe what the constitution says shall not be infringed. That's not constitutionally lawful of course. Just from a logical and reasonable point of view. Unfortunately that's not all what counts, I know.


It gets complicated because the Supreme Court of the United States has determined in the past that rights are not absolute, and therefore subject to "reasonable restriction" (or "regulation", can't remember the exact wording).

Problem being we haven't had the courts determine what "reasonable" is in terms of the 2nd Amendment, which leaves what is "reasonable" up to legislators representing their constituents. That obviously results in a wide swing between what is reasonable depending on the constituents.

There also comes the issue that we have two sovereign governments in the US.....the federal government, and the government of a given state. Each government operates under their own constitution that usually are pretty close but may have some differences. The 14th Amendment (establishing civil rights) "incorporated" the US Constitutional Amendments onto states, meaning they're binding to the state government as well. However, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted a doctrine of "selective incorporation", and not absolute: the result being that only certain amendments (and only certain parts of those amendments) are incorporated. It wasn't even until 2010 that the Supreme Court affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is fully incorporated by the 14th Amendment. Until then, a state could argue they didn't actually have to follow the 2nd Amendment as the Constitution only required the government of the United States to follow the 2nd Amendment....not individual states.

It's very convoluted, and hopefully that helped. Also, I hope that my layman's understanding and explanation didn't make joshs slam his face into a table. :)

[RoyGBiv]

Problem being we haven't had the courts determine what "reasonable" is in terms of the 2nd Amendment, which leaves what is "reasonable" up to legislators representing their constituents. That obviously results in a wide swing between what is reasonable depending on the constituents.

Just adding an additional layer of complexity.... State laws that are alleged to infringe on US laws can be litigated in State courts or US (Federal) courts... Anything not resolved to the satisfaction of both parties eventually makes it through US District Courts (94 of those) and onward to US Circuit courts (13 of those). Each Federal Circuit court may come up with a different ruling/view of the State law in question. For example, the US 9th circuit (western US and Hawaii) is known to be hostile to 2A. The 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) is known to be more 2A friendly. One of the motivators for the US Supreme Court to take up a case is discrepancies between rulings on similar issues in the Circuit courts.

[joshs]

It gets complicated because the Supreme Court of the United States has determined in the past that rights are not absolute, and therefore subject to "reasonable restriction" (or "regulation", can't remember the exact wording).

Problem being we haven't had the courts determine what "reasonable" is in terms of the 2nd Amendment, which leaves what is "reasonable" up to legislators representing their constituents. That obviously results in a wide swing between what is reasonable depending on the constituents.

There also comes the issue that we have two sovereign governments in the US.....the federal government, and the government of a given state. Each government operates under their own constitution that usually are pretty close but may have some differences. The 14th Amendment (establishing civil rights) "incorporated" the US Constitutional Amendments onto states, meaning they're binding to the state government as well. However, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted a doctrine of "selective incorporation", and not absolute: the result being that only certain amendments (and only certain parts of those amendments) are incorporated. It wasn't even until 2010 that the Supreme Court affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is fully incorporated by the 14th Amendment. Until then, a state could argue they didn't actually have to follow the 2nd Amendment as the Constitution only required the government of the United States to follow the 2nd Amendment....not individual states.

It's very convoluted, and hopefully that helped. Also, I hope that my layman's understanding and explanation didn't make joshs slam his face into a table. :)

My face and surrounding tables are safe, for now . . .

While the text is quite clear, there a lot of questions that have not been answered with regards to the application of the Second Amendment to various restrictions on arms. We don't really know who "the people" are yet. We don't know what it means "bear arms" (although this one might be resolved soon (https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html)). And, we don't know what "arms" are protected. We're still a long way off from having a stable body of law on the Second Amendment like we have for the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth. As TGS points out, the Supreme Court didn't even recognize that the Second Amendment applied to the states until 2010.

[Blades]

I guess everyone gets a rape whistle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PKVmzdQGwg

[P30]

As far as I've read there's a traditional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and I suppose the Supreme Court has respected it so far. I suppose it means that the people can keep and bear handheld weapons like the infantry does. Is that true?

What about tradition in the US? In Germany, it's not in vogue according to mainstream media and the government (they brandish traditionalists as a kind of nazi). I like tradition more than the aforementioned.

[TGS]

My face and surrounding tables are safe, for now . . .

Challenge accepted.

[TGS]

As far as I've read there's a traditional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and I suppose the Supreme Court has respected it so far. I suppose it means that the people can keep and bear handheld weapons like the infantry does. Is that true?

That hasn't been directly decided yet, but yeah that's the argument most 2A advocates hold.

SCOTUS's 1939 decision in Miller v US where SCOTUS decided that the 2A protects our right to bear arms in order to "maintain a well regulated militia". Thus, most 2A advocates argue that the 2A should protect our ability to own things like pistols and AR15s as anything designed to be employed by a single man serving in a militia fulfills such.


What about tradition in the US? In Germany, it's not in vogue according to mainstream media and the government (they brandish traditionalists as a kind of nazi). I like tradition more than the aforementioned.

Completely depends on where you go. Where I last lived in north New Jersey, even talking about guns in the workplace would likely get a phone call from the police. Whereas now where I live in the decidedly blue area of northern Virginia outside DC, my wife's coworkers openly talk about guns and sometimes go shooting on lunch break. Even within states, different parts of states can hold wildly varying different levels of support; New York City vs upstate New York being a great example. At the national level, we have congressional representatives who think that only the government should have any gun of any type, and we've got congressional representatives who treat guns like fashion accessories.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gjsentinel.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/c4/2c42902c-bb3c-11ea-9ae1-f39855542758/5efbea1a53302.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C1651

[trailrunner]

I've lived in Virginia for 30 years now. When I moved to Fairfax County in 1991, I could not get a CCW permit because it was a may-issue state, and Fairfax County just didn't like guns.

In 1995, it became a shall-issue state. I went to Richmond to rally, and I testified in Fairfax County in support of this change. Fairfax County tried to push back on that, but pre-emption protected us.

Over the years since then, the laws had been getting a bit more favorable for gun owners. Pre-emption kept Fairfax County in check whenever they tried to enact their own laws.

But in 2019, the entire state government flipped to Democrat majority, and it was evident that they were going to try to push a bunch of new anti-gun laws. Most of the focus seemed to be on them trying to ban ARs, and there was strong opposition, but in 2020 they also snuck in a bill to end pre-emption. I KNEW that was going to be a disaster, but nobody seemed to worry about it. And sure enough, that got passed.

Shortly after that, Fairfax County, along with Alexandria and Arlingon, passed local rules prohibiting guns in various parks and at some events. It's created a patchwork of laws. Technically, I can't take a walk down a wooded path by my house because I believe it is some sort of county park because there are some tennis courts there. It's a mess for gun owners. Both my state delegate and state senator voted in favor of ending pre-emption, and didn't even answer my polite emails urging them not to.

Now that Petersburg has passed this, I wouldn't be surprised if Fairfax County passes a similar law. Everything I predicted about ending pre-emption has come true.

[joshs]

I've lived in Virginia for 30 years now. When I moved to Fairfax County in 1991, I could not get a CCW permit because it was a may-issue state, and Fairfax County just didn't like guns.

In 1995, it became a shall-issue state. I went to Richmond to rally, and I testified in Fairfax County in support of this change. Fairfax County tried to push back on that, but pre-emption protected us.

Over the years since then, the laws had been getting a bit more favorable for gun owners. Pre-emption kept Fairfax County in check whenever they tried to enact their own laws.

But in 2019, the entire state government flipped to Democrat majority, and it was evident that they were going to try to push a bunch of new anti-gun laws. Most of the focus seemed to be on them trying to ban ARs, and there was strong opposition, but in 2020 they also snuck in a bill to end pre-emption. I KNEW that was going to be a disaster, but nobody seemed to worry about it. And sure enough, that got passed.

Shortly after that, Fairfax County, along with Alexandria and Arlingon, passed local rules prohibiting guns in various parks and at some events. It's created a patchwork of laws. Technically, I can't take a walk down a wooded path by my house because I believe it is some sort of county park because there are some tennis courts there. It's a mess for gun owners. Both my state delegate and state senator voted in favor of ending pre-emption, and didn't even answer my polite emails urging them not to.

Now that Petersburg has passed this, I wouldn't be surprised if Fairfax County passes a similar law. Everything I predicted about ending pre-emption has come true.

We've certainly been worried about any attempts to limit preemption. We're also suing Fairfax County over the parks ban: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210129/nra-sues-fairfax-county-over-parks-ban

[TheNewbie]

I used to work for a city that tried this. No carry on any city owned property (sidewalks, parks, etc.). I told my shift in no uncertain terms that we would not be enforcing what was clearly an unconstitutional city ord. It was challenged by local attorneys and it just quietly went away.

Thank you for standing up on behalf of the constitution.

[Sanch]

This is why state pre-emption is a damn good thing.

You know what would be even better? Federal pre-emption. Like, if the constitution said something about the right to bear arms and how no level of government could infringe upon that. Would be a hell of an idea if our founders had the foresight to add it in. Maybe next time.

[Sanch]

It gets complicated because the Supreme Court of the United States has determined in the past that rights are not absolute, and therefore subject to "reasonable restriction" (or "regulation", can't remember the exact wording).



I love it. The government gets to re-interpret the definition of the document that restricts their powers to make it less restrictive, as they deem appropriate.

[fly out]

P30 An old joke in the U.S. is that the American Civil Liberties Union counts to ten, "One, Three, Four..." The Second Amendment has long been neglected and little serious discussion happened for a hundred-plus years.

Sanford Levinson, a liberal University of Texas law professor, wrote an interesting article in 1989, entitled The Embarrassing Second Amendment (https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7254&context=ylj), and it was mildly seismic. (1989 was the year I started law school, and it was a hot topic of discussion among a subset of students and professors.)

It might be an interesting read for someone looking to see the left's thoughts on the Second Amendment. Or, it might be too deep of a dive.

[Spartan1980]

The Democrat Party is fast shedding itself of any pretenses of being “blue dog”.

They gone bro. They ought to just rename themselves appropriately to the Communist Party. They don't give a shit past getting elected and holding office. JFK would be run out of town today on a rail and covered in tar and feathers.

[blues]

They gone bro. They ought to just rename themselves appropriately to the Communist Party. They don't give a shit past getting elected and holding office. JFK would be run out of town today on a rail and covered in tar and feathers.

Chairman Joe's "Little Red Book"...

...available at booksellers everywhere. Illustrations by Hunter Biden...First Minister of Art, Pornography and Graft.

[P30]

They gone bro. They ought to just rename themselves appropriately to the Communist Party.
This also applies to the two major German parties. They are officially called CDU and SPD. CDU is Merkel's party. SPD is traditionally even more left.


JFK would be run out of town today on a rail and covered in tar and feathers.
This also applies to the last German chancellors who were good for their people. I mean Helmut Schmidt and Willy Brandt of SPD. Maybe also Helmut Kohl of CDU. I'm not sure if he was good for the German people. But at least he was chancellor at the time of the German reunification which was a good thing.

Strange what is going on in our countries.

[1slow]

I grew up in VA (born 1957). Lived in Albemarle County.

I do not recognize it any more. Courtesy of DC and southern spread from DC it has gone way left.

I would only go back for business or training.

[cheby]

P30 An old joke in the U.S. is that the American Civil Liberties Union counts to ten, "One, Three, Four..." The Second Amendment has long been neglected and little serious discussion happened for a hundred-plus years.
It's been "Three, Four..." for a while now.

[Clusterfrack]

It's been "Three, Four..." for a while now.

Yes. That’s one of several reasons I throw requests from the ACLU in the trash.

[Catshooter]

Has the ACLU ever taken up a case to defend the 2A? I've not heard of such a thing.


Cat

[TGS]

Has the ACLU ever taken up a case to defend the 2A? I've not heard of such a thing.


Cat

I'm not sure, but I would guess no since they openly address the 2A as a collective right instead of an individual right, i.e. the national guard has a right to have guns, not individual citizens.

[MickAK]

Has the ACLU ever taken up a case to defend the 2A? I've not heard of such a thing.


Cat

They have in the past. Individual state affiliates don't always fall into line with the national organization.

[Catshooter]

Huh. Ok, thanks.


Cat

[LittleLebowski]

How much of this is pushback against the open-carry asswipes?

None of it. The Dems literally hired people from Moms Demand Action to work for the state on fucking us over, they had this all planned out way ahead of time.

[LittleLebowski]

P30 An old joke in the U.S. is that the American Civil Liberties Union counts to ten, "One, Three, Four..." The Second Amendment has long been neglected and little serious discussion happened for a hundred-plus years.

Sanford Levinson, a liberal University of Texas law professor, wrote an interesting article in 1989, entitled The Embarrassing Second Amendment (https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7254&context=ylj), and it was mildly seismic. (1989 was the year I started law school, and it was a hot topic of discussion among a subset of students and professors.)

It might be an interesting read for someone looking to see the left's thoughts on the Second Amendment. Or, it might be too deep of a dive.

That was a great read.