Gun rights activists from the Virginia Citizens Defense League have taken issue with a sign located at Louisa Town Hall Community Park that reads, “No weapons.”
Philip Van Cleave, president of VCDL, wrote in an email to Louisa Town Manager Tom Filer that the sign posted in front of the playground is not in compliance with Virginia state law.
Van Cleave cites Code section 15.2-915 which states that no local governing body can make rules concerning guns.
The sign in front of the playground at the park, Van Cleave said, is considered an administrative action and therefore illegal.
Van Cleave argues that even if the town were to change the sign to read, “no illegal weapons,” it would still be out of compliance.
“The town certainly supports people’s Second Amendment rights,” Filer said. “We’re just trying to create a safe park.”
While the town isn’t trying to restrict firearms, a concern over illegal weapons still exists.
“What they may have been thinking of is the list of banned concealed weapons,” Van Cleave said.
Virginia state law does ban some concealed weapons in public areas including throwing stars, nun chucks, metal knuckles and blackjacks.
The word “weapons” applies to firearms as well. Even adding the word “illegal” on the sign, the town would still be making regulations that refer to firearms, in contrast to state laws.
“The sign is illegal. That’s the bottom line,” Van Cleave said.
Van Cleave should just leave it alone. Why must everything be an issue? So Louisa County doesn’t want weapons in its parks. Good for them. Maybe there has been a problem in the past. Maybe something has gotten thrown out of court when some kids were misbehaving with what they consider toys.
With Van Cleave on the loose, I am not going to worry about taking MY issue to far. No one is threatening his rights.
Because the signs are illegal. Governments are not free to disregard the law. This isn’t worth your time, and your “just leave it be” argument fails the legal test.
Absolutely it isn’t worth MY time. I have my own issues. But it is worth the blog’s time. Guns aren’t the only form of weapon. Perhaps this needs discussion. It should come as no surprise, this isn’t one of my favorite organizations.
I heard during the happy hour debates that the top two favorite organizations in the United States were, Planned Parenthood and the NRA. Oh the irony.
Maybe for brevity’s sake, the sign should have read, “no fighting with weapons.”
That could even include kids fighting with sticks, which is a favorite pastime at my house. (You’re going to poke your eye out kinda fighting.)
Are the signs actually illegal or would implementing the ban be illegal? I am not sure how the signs are considered “illegal.”
So tired of the angry being allowed so much air time. No guns in parks, no Manger in parks….. Devolving although a lovely word doesn’t quite capture the fast fall of our civilized society. What happened to tolerance and just not seeing everything?
The signs themselves are illegal. Localities cannot pass statutes regarding weapons, nor can they make public areas weapons free on their own. A weapon banned by state code is banned regardless of the local, and a weapon permitted by state code is legal regardless of the local. This is why VCDL gets involved. Every so often, a jurisdiction or department takes it upon themselves to ban something otherwise permitted The problem is, they lack the statutory authority to do so. We are a Dillon Rule state, after all .
I’m having a little trouble understanding why it’s illegal to have a concealed blackjack or brass knuckles, but not (assuming you have a permit) a concealed 9mm pistol.
Yeah, why would we want a community to do what they want with their park with regard to lethal weapons. Seems to me if they wanted to ban gay marriage ceremonies we’d be hearing different arguments supporting the ban.
Lyssa, I think you might be on to something….
Because the state does not issue Concealed Weapons Permits. They issue Concealed Hand Gun permits. I would also assume that Blackjacks, Saps, Brass Knuckles, Ninja stars or the rest are not protected under the 2nd Amendment, and therefore can be restricted. “Arms” are considered “suitable for military purposes”.
Scout: Another element to your question is that the gun manufacturers do not make blackjacks, etc. so they spend no time or money lobbying for one’s right to bear them. Without lobby money, politicians have little interest in the 2A coverage of other then the lobbyists’ products.
@BSinVA
BS again slinging…well, BS:
A blackjack or Brass knuckles have little practical use in self-defense, especially in an era where OC-spray, Tazers, and handguns are available to law-abiding citizens. Blackjacks, Brass Knuckles, Saps, etc. are historically the weapons chosen by predators to prey on victims. Neither Law Enforcement, nor the military has found any use for such weapons, when more effective and practical alternatives abound.
When I was growing up in Boston, we often fashioned a local variant of the Milwall brick, for carriage in school. A section of the Boston Globe, a pocket full of change, washers, or lead fishing weights, a half-dozen rubber-bands, and you had one mean improvised black-jack. Used them meself a time or two. We called it the “Southside Brick”. From personal experience I can tell you that contact weapons are implements of last resort. If something better is available, and protected under the 2A, why settle for less? This is why prohibited persons chose such weapons, as they are much more accessible.
@Moon-howler
I know.
Steve: Let us get back to Scout’s question. If black jacks are less effective than a pistol… why is it illegal to carry one???
@BSinVA
Because the state would outlaw all weapons if it could. It was forced to recognize 2nd amendment rights.
It SHOULD be legal.
I think the point, CS, is that the Second Amendment isn’t confined to guns. Indeed, at the time it was drafted, the term “arms” was commonly recognized to be a much broader concept than guns than it would be today. Hence, my practice of openly carrying a cavalry sabre on my person whenever I go to the Home Depot, Grocery Store, Starbucks, or other places no doubt teeming with violent miscreants intent on doing me harm. It’s a bit awkward getting in and out of cars (the thing was really designed for when we went about on horses), but as a 2A purist, I’m doing my part.
Steve is of the view that non-firearm weapons are not protected because they are not militarily useful. I earlier, in another thread, I think, expressed my view that pistols aren’t particularly useful militarily, at least not in the scenario Steve offered where we might have to go to war with our own Army (you can include me out on that one, frankly). While I doubt that that’s a meaningful constitutional criterion, I would note that there was a time when at least brass knuckles were considered useful military equipage, and that there were standard issue US Model brass knuckles and “knuckle knives” in common circulation among the troops. In WWII, it was not uncommon for paratroopers to carry some variant of brass knuckles, although I am not sure that they were standard issue.
But we stray a bit from the subject of the post. I merely observe as an irony the fact that we ban by law a number of weapons of considerably lesser potential lethality than guns. That strikes me as odd. As for guns themselves and public parks, I think it would be well within the considerable reasonable regulation powers of a municipality to require guns to be left behind at parks (or any number of other places). Whether that’s good policy in any particular case is another question. But I don’t see a Second Amendment issue there.
Because they are the tools of a predator, and are not effective for self-defense. Ask a cop if you don’t believe me. Same applies to a switchblade.
@Scout
Scout, the problem with you logic re: municipal bans on firearms is the law, specifically, the Dillon rule.
It is true that during WWI the 1918 trench knife was issued, and was a combo double-edged knife, with brass knuckles on the guard. I do believe that the Geneva convention banned these. Now, there may have been a time when these were considered “arms”, but they were replaced by other fighting knives, which are issued today. Still VA does limit the concealed carry of blades over a certain length, spring assisted folders, collapsing batons, saps, cudgels, shilelahs, etc…openly carrying these is ok.
But this has nothing to do with firearms, and the fact that localities do not have the authority to ban any weapon ..period
It might be a problem in Virginia and other Dillon Rule jurisdictions, Steve. My point wasn’t so confined, however. States and municipalities (if their state constitutions leave them that much autonomy) have considerable power to impose reasonable regulation on weapons, including firearms (which are no different than quite a number of other weapons under Second Amendment analysis). The Second Amendment (I think we can agree on this, at least) is much broader than guns.
But you raise an interesting point with regard to this particular park and its sign. Could, consistent with the Dillon Rule, the City Fathers in a Virginia municipality put up a sign saying that litter must be placed in a proper receptacle or banning dogs not on leashes (just to use two examples). In other words, if the Dillon Rule is the limiting factor here, how far does that limit extend in terms of prohibiting municipal actions addressed to a local park or other local facility?
@Scout
Scout, I understand where you are coming from, and you pose legitimate hypotheticals re: weapons for self-defense.
As you may or may not know, Massachusetts strictly regulates firearms, and is a discretionary issue state. During the 1970’s, crime was in issue in Boston, as it was in other major urban centers, and this was a decade before Florida became the first state to move to “Shall Issue”. I delivered newspapers as a kid, and was responsible for my own collecting, and upon knocking I was usually greeted by a woman, either a Mom or an elderly woman. I cannot tell you how many cans of Easy Off oven cleaner I saw sitting on a table, next to the door. Older men carried gnarly looking blackthorn canes called Shillelagh, and smaller cudgels were often table-side next to the oven cleaner.
I carried 2 bike-chains, sling bandito-style across my chest; one to keep my bike safe, and another to keep me, and my newspaper money safe. I’ve already shared the “Southside Brick” story, where loose change was placed in several sheets of newsprint, and secured with rubberbands. I also took woodshop. I always seemed to be making a table or a stool, requiring me to have a leg or two in my locker (never did complete a table or stool, but I made tons of legs) Girls carried steel rat-tail combs, and they would make the tips extra-sharp by rubbing on a brick. Mace required a permit, and the only folks I knew that had it drove cabs or delivered pizzas. Martial Arts implements were restricted to those who were enrolled in a licensed school, and even then, could only be carried to and from. Brass knuckles, black-jacks, blades over 3.5 inches, and switchbladed etc. were illegal as well.
Yes, there were a myriad of items kept or carried that while having a legitimate (read lawful) purpose for possession, could be used for self-defense. The thing is, NONE of these items were designed for that purpose. It was the prevailing restrictive laws that forced the citizen to resort to these.
As far as the Dillon Rule, and state preemption laws, I generally support them, especially in the case of firearms. Localities in VA do not make laws, and an ordinance cannot trump state law.
Steve: the point of my question, however, was whether the Dillon Rule had a more restrictive impact re firearms than it does re dogs on leashes (or any other non-firearm example one might think of). I would think not. If the municipality cannot regulate firearms in the park because of the Dillon Rule, then it probably cannot regulate off-leash dogs or litter.
It sounds like this Dillon Rule is selectively employed….as needed.
§ 15.2-5704. Powers of authority … provides the authority to the entity governing a park “To adopt such rules and regulations from time to time, not in conflict with the laws of this Commonwealth, concerning the use of properties under its control”
Aha! Ed provides the answer through the expedient of actually looking it up, as opposed to the approach favored by others of us, which is to enter into Socratic dialog best suited to determining things like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
So the Dillon Rule apparently would not prevent the authority from restricting weapons or even firearms, unless there is a conflicting state statute. I would think that the conflict would have to be a statute that requires weapons to be taken to a park.
@Scout
“So the Dillon Rule apparently would not prevent the authority from restricting weapons or even firearms, unless there is a conflicting state statute. I would think that the conflict would have to be a statute that requires weapons to be taken to a park.”
That municipalities do not have the power (under the Dillon Rule” to regulate that which the State has claimed is what I have been saying all along. I suspected you, an attorney, were chosing to ignore this argument for the sake of arguing your case to the jury, and now I am convinced.
Can a locality regulate dogs, chickens, llamas, etc? Yes, because these powers to regulate are not listed in the state code. Can they regulate weapons? Nope. Why? Because these are specifically listed in § 18.2-308. Under the Dillon Rule, a municipality cannot no more prohibit the lawful carry of weapons listed in this code section, than they could legalize them in opposition to the state code.
I support preemption. I think it useful to Virginians to have a uniform law, regardless of where we travel in the state. Other states, like NY, do not. The result is you have NY state residents who are legally authorized to be armed in one part of the state, becoming unwitting criminals when exercising a state and federal right, in other parts of the state. A great example of this is the airports. Under federal law, it is legal to declare and check a firearm as luggage on a domestic flight…but don’t do it when flying out of LaGauardia or JFK airports. NYC PD hangs out at the counters and arrests people who comply with Federal law for flights AND peaceable journey laws as having violated NYC ordinances. This is a travesty of justice.
I didn’t ignore your argument, Steve, but I did think it probably had limitations that you were no acknowledging – like the fact that Ed brought out – that the locality, under state law, has the authority to regulate park activities. Of course, the statute quoted by Ed says that the local authorities can’t act in conflict with the Commonwealth. You and I would agree that that’s probably a good thing. But the fact that a subject is mentioned in the state code doesn’t mean that a local regulation is “in conflict”. If the Commonwealth’s statutes say that localities cannot regulate the possession of firearms in parks, then the locality must give way under Ed’s citation. But the Commonwealth’s statutes don’t say that, to my knowledge. Do you have information to the contrary?
I do agree with you that preemption is a good thing in most cases, whether nationally in favor of the federal government in areas clearly within the enumerated powers of the federal government, or statewide. There should a statewide standard for carrying weapons. I would support a much more rigorous statewide standard in Virginia that would permit people like you to carry a weapon anywhere in the state (other than parks, churches, bars, schools, restaurants etc. where municipalities or property owners have, in their wisdom, forbidden it). And, if there could be a high standard for carriage nationally, I would think, on balance, that that would be better than a patchwork of standards, with ridiculously low standards like ours in Virginia becoming the controlling lowest common denominator. In the meantime, however, how much of a problem is it for people traveling through New York (to use your example) not to take a firearm with them?
@Scout
In the meantime, however, how much of a problem is it for people traveling through New York (to use your example) not to take a firearm with them?
It can be quite hard. If your plane is routed through NYC and the airline changes planes, cancels, etc, you MUST claim your weapon that has been packed according to federal laws. The airline cannot be held responsible if you are not traveling.
The second you claim it in NYC, you are breaking the law and subject to arrest.
I think you addressed a question I didn’t ask. If you weren’t traveling with a firearm, I would think that none of the problems you describe would occur. So, if I have travel plans that take me outside Virginia, I leave my weapons behind, and I just have to contend with the same inconveniences that any other traveller has to contend with – long lines, throwing away my water bottle, and making sure I put my toothpaste in a little plastic bag.
Who the hell travels with guns, anyway?