• 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.

Harrisonburg Parks and Recreation bans firearms on park property?

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

So, my City of Harrisonburg Parks and Recreation guide came in this week, and I decided to open it up and see what was available.

First page, after the cover. Apologies for the poor lighting. It was a free camera. :)




No alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, firearms or weapons of any kind are allowed on park property.

I am a bit curious if they can do this, as the Parks & Recreation Commission is run by the city, listed on the left side of the above picture.

I checked the city's municipal code webpage, and found no restrictions on carry.

I checked the city's Parks and Rec Website and found a .pdf copy of the Summer Activities guide I received in the mail, which can be found here.

The restriction appears as listed in my print copy sure as it sits on my desk.

I guess my question would be: Is this something I should see about fixing, or am I mistaken?

I have two weeks off, it could keep me out of trouble. :)

Edit: Reference link for state pre-emption
 

TFred

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

It would appear to me that this violates the state code. We've seen this type of thing before, and I would just suggest that you keep in mind that most of these mistakes are just that, mistakes, perhaps with a little bit of Political Correctness thrown in for flavor. (I mean after all who would oppose such a rule, right? Or so "they" think.*)

I would suggest you contact the director, whose information is right there on the same page, and politely point out that while he is probably not aware, their rules are in direct violation of state law.

From his initial reaction, I would then judge the next step. If he seems genuinely interested in confirming and correcting the error, then give him a chance to do so. If he seems skeptical or hostile toward the idea, then immediately switch over to everything in writing and notch up the serious level, perhaps next contacting the county attorney's office.

Remember, you are doing them a favor, you are helping them reduce their exposure to an unwinnable lawsuit, and that they may also have to reimburse the plaintiffs in such a suit.

JMHO...

TFred

* Just some added thoughts on this, after I posted... Adding blanket weapons prohibitions for places like parks, etc, makes perfect sense - in the mind of a liberal. I've read that at highest levels, one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals see the world as it could be, while conservatives see the world as it really is. So when a liberal puts up a sign that says "no firearms", what they see is a park where there will actually BE no firearms. When a conservative sees a sign that says "no firearms", they rightly realize that while the law-abiding citizens will not bring their firearms into the park, a criminal intent on law-breaking activity will still have a firearm, and will still conduct their planned activity, leaving the law-abiding citizens defenseless.

To the mind of a liberal, the policy, and the sign, describe the conditions they want for the park. And I would even grant that except for transportation issues and other such practical matters, almost everyone, no matter their ideology, would be OK with a park with absolutely NO firearms. The difference is that one side lives in the real world, and the other lives in fantasy-land.
 

VAopencarry

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

AbNo, If you need or want some help with this let me know. I am in Bridgewater. I think this afternoon I might ride up there and check the signs at the parks and see what they say.
 

wylde007

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

illegal drugs, firearms or weapons of any kind
Could it just be the context?

No "illegal" firearms or weapons"?

Either way it should be amended to reflect proper context and Commonwealth law.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

wylde007 wrote:
illegal drugs, firearms or weapons of any kind
Could it just be the context?

No "illegal" firearms or weapons"?

Either way it should be amended to reflect proper context and Commonwealth law.
That's a good point Wylde. The "Illegal" is getting a lot of use now. Harrisonburg definitely doesn't want to allow them though and never have.
Before shall issue, the Judge almost never issued CWP's (They were CWP's then).
Private security was about the only group to get them and then they were conditional. Lawyers could get one and some politicians.
 

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
imported post

wylde007 wrote:
illegal drugs, firearms or weapons of any kind
Could it just be the context?

No "illegal" firearms or weapons"?

Either way it should be amended to reflect proper context and Commonwealth law.
That's the catch. Only "illegal" firearms. So OC/CC are OK as long as not being done with a street sweeper or by a felon.
 

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
imported post

peter nap wrote:
wylde007 wrote:
illegal drugs, firearms or weapons of any kind
Could it just be the context?

No "illegal" firearms or weapons"?

Either way it should be amended to reflect proper context and Commonwealth law.
That's a good point Wylde. The "Illegal" is getting a lot of use now. Harrisonburg definitely doesn't want to allow them though and never have.
Before shall issue, the Judge almost never issued CWP's (They were CWP's then).
Private security was about the only group to get them and then they were conditional. Lawyers could get one and some politicians.
Yes - the bad old days. :X

And why "may issue" is always a joke.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

VCDL President wrote:
wylde007 wrote:
illegal drugs, firearms or weapons of any kind
Could it just be the context?

No "illegal" firearms or weapons"?

Either way it should be amended to reflect proper context and Commonwealth law.
That's the catch. Only "illegal" firearms. So OC/CC are OK as long as not being done with a street sweeper or by a felon.
Don't see it that way.

The sign is clearly intended to convey the message that firearms are not permitted. The word "illegal" only modifies the noun "drugs."

Technically the sign might be correct if it said "no illegal drugs or illegal weapons."

IMO - they are stating no "firearms or weapons of any kind."

Under the best possible interpretation, they are trying to give the impression that those items are 100% illegal - it is what a reasonable man would be expected to see. Most assuredly it does not live up to the spirit of the law.

Yata hey
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
imported post

In accordance with Virginia Law 15.2-915, this Ordinance is Illegal.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

aadvark wrote:
In accordance with Virginia Law 15.2-915, this Ordinance is Illegal.
Maybe a new tact can be taken per the bold highlighted words below.

Since the sign referencing guns is NOT "expressly authorized by statute," the sign/notice itself is illegal, not just the wording. In other words, they cannot even mention "guns/firearms" in any restrictive way in their publications or signs.

15.2-1425 does not make a distinction between "illegal guns" and "legal guns." Any action not specifically authorized is in violation.

Considering using this approach with the Richmond Coliseum too.

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.

Yata hey
 

wylde007

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

I believe "rules" like this are deliberately written to be obfuscating and, even if written to imply no "illegal" weapons, are also meant to discourage lawful carry by the unspecific nature of the modifiers.

Either way, the language should be changed for clarification. Either separated into two (2) categories or the "firearms and weapons of any kind" completely stricken.

We all know full-well what the intent is of such rules, regardless of their lawfulness.
 

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
imported post

OK - I've talked to the City Manager and he confirms that they flyer is in error and he has talked to Parks to make sure the next printing does not have that wording. He confirmed that gun in the parks are OK and the police, he said, do know that.
 
Top