• 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.

Refresh My Memory: When a Jurisdiction Leases to a Private Organization

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
What I keep hearing you say is that a private entity can dictate what the rules will be on public property open to the public knowing full well those rules are in violation of state law. That is what I’m hearing you say. Is that what you are saying?
Ah, see, you never heard me say (well, you never read me type!) "public property open to the public." That is not the situation here. The local jurisdiction has leased a building and associated property to a private entity. While the private entity does have some events on the property that are open to the public, they control the entrances to the property, and sometimes do charge admission. They also generally charge admission to the building.

The AG opinion we've talked about here does not exactly fit this scenario. The AG opinion is about a single event. The disclaimer at the end of the AG scenario is the other extreme, where the jurisdiction has essentially "contracted out" the management of the public space to circumvent the preemption code. Neither of those cases apply here.

TFred
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,949
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Ah, see, you never heard me say (well, you never read me type!) "public property open to the public." That is not the situation here. The local jurisdiction has leased a building and associated property to a private entity. While the private entity does have some events on the property that are open to the public, they control the entrances to the property, and sometimes do charge admission. They also generally charge admission to the building.

The AG opinion we've talked about here does not exactly fit this scenario. The AG opinion is about a single event. The disclaimer at the end of the AG scenario is the other extreme, where the jurisdiction has essentially "contracted out" the management of the public space to circumvent the preemption code. Neither of those cases apply here.

TFred
Now we are getting somewhere.

The Virginia Supreme Court adopted the Dillon Rule in 1896. The Dillon Rule says that local governments have limited authority. Local governments can only pass ordinances in areas where the General Assembly has granted clear authority and/or the constitution.

Article VII, Section 9 of the Virginia Constitution allows local governments to enter into long term leases with private entities. The lease to a business cannot be for the purpose of that business to carry out government functions just to avoid statutory law. In other words, the lease to a business is for that business to carry out their private business. The lease cannot be for the purposes of the private business to carry out public business for the government.

If the lease with a business is for the business to out their private business, then the private business can keep guns out.
 
Last edited:
Top