Virginia: Roanoke ordinance may run afoul of state preemption statute


PDA






JohnPierce
April 21, 2012, 05:11 PM
Virginia is a Dillon Rule state. Under the Dillon Rule, municipalities have powers that are strictly limited.

Where possession, transportation, and carrying of firearms and ammunition are concerned, the Virginia Legislature has left no question as to the ability of municipalities to regulate the field. They cannot. The legislature has specifically preempted the entire field under § 15.2-915 of the Code of Virginia.

Ordinances passed in violation of preemption are void and unenforcable. But they do serve the purpose for which they are intended. They make citizens afraid to engage in conduct that is both legal and affirmatively protected by state law. They exert a “chilling effect” on the exercise of citizens’ rights.

Which leads us to an analysis of the Roanoke County ordinance in question …

Excerpt ... Read more (http://monachuslex.com/?p=566)

If you enjoyed reading about "Virginia: Roanoke ordinance may run afoul of state preemption statute" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bubbles
April 22, 2012, 12:47 AM
We here in WV are well aware of how the Florida legislature put some teeth into their pre-emption law, and are working on getting something similar into our laws.

JohnPierce
April 22, 2012, 11:47 AM
We here in WV are well aware of how the Florida legislature put some teeth into their pre-emption law, and are working on getting something similar into our laws.
We need to duplicate the Florida effort here in Virginia as well.

Deanimator
April 22, 2012, 12:09 PM
Ohio also has preemption of firearms laws. Cleveland tried that nonsense a while back and took the kind of beating in court that Bruce Willis took in "Last Man Standing". Frank Jackson still walks with a limp. :D

Ohioans for Concealed Carry keeps an eye on preemption violations and jumps on them hard, bringing suit where necessary. VCDL has an even tougher reputation.

HOOfan_1
April 22, 2012, 12:15 PM
They keep saying allowed by statute, yet they don't deem it necessary to say specifically WHAT STATUTE...

brickeyee
April 22, 2012, 12:44 PM
This is Virginia's preemption statute.

The "expressly authorized by statute' referred is STATE statute, not local.

Only those powers directly granted to a sub-municipality by the STATE are allowed.

Some local yodel attorney is asking to be smacked down.

A letter form the state AG should do the job.


§ 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.

C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.

(1987, c. 629, § 15.1-29.15; 1988, c. 392; 1997, cc. 550, 587; 2002, c. 484; 2003, c. 943; 2004, cc. 837, 923; 2009, cc. 735, 772.)

HOOfan_1
April 22, 2012, 01:07 PM
A letter form the state AG should do the job.

Cuccinellii is big on second amendment rights and he is big on enforcing Dillon Rule

If you enjoyed reading about "Virginia: Roanoke ordinance may run afoul of state preemption statute" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!