0
   

More on the second amendment

 
 
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 07:58 am
Norfolk and visitor with a holstered .45 are tangled in a Catch-22

By MATTHEW ROY, The Virginian-Pilot
© July 22, 2007

NORFOLK

Chester Szymecki Jr. was waiting for some music to start at Harborfest when a sheriff's deputy approached.

It was a warm June afternoon, and thousands of people wandered on and off the tall ships moored around Town Point Park. Szymecki had come from Yorktown with his wife, their three children and two children from their neighborhood.

Szymecki had brought along something else, too - a .45-caliber handgun in a holster on his belt.

The deputy asked Szymecki whether he was a police officer. He said no. And then, he said, uniformed city police began closing in. They gave him a choice, he said: Leave the event or face arrest. When he tried to say that there must be a mistake, he was disarmed and led away, handcuffed, he recalled.

Szymecki was charged with violating a local ordinance that the City Council had passed in May, which set up rules to govern Harborfest. Among them was a provision banning handguns and other weapons.

There's just one problem: A few years ago, the General Assembly barred localities from enforcing laws governing the carrying of firearms. That meant state law prevailed. And in Virginia, "open carry" is legal.

Localities today generally do not have the authority to restrict guns, said Mark Flynn, director of legal services for the Virginia Municipal League. A state law last amended in 2004 says localities cannot adopt or enforce laws regarding the purchase, carrying, possession, storage, or sale of firearms.

The case has enraged the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group that has successfully challenged local gun restrictions around the commonwealth. Szymecki is a member. In the past the group has protested Norfolk's attempts to prevent the carrying of weapons in city parks.

Philip Van Cleave, the president of the league, says members plan to crowd the City Council chambers in protest at a future date.

The ordinance, he said, was "a huge mistake."

City Attorney Bernard Pishko said the city is not attempting to challenge the state law by imposing restrictions on handguns.

Pishko described the gun ban in the Harborfest ordinance as an oversight, a "housekeeping" issue. "This is one that we missed," he said. An ordinance governing Afr'Am Fest in May contained the same restrictions on weapons. Both ordinances were in effect only for the few days the events ran.

Pishko said his office has since advised police that "the only gun laws in effect for Norfolk are those in effect for Virginia."

Szymecki said the incident has changed the way he views the police. He said he plans to file a lawsuit and have a "neutral court" decide whether police violated his rights.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,363 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 08:13 am
How does this story relate, in any way, to the second amendment?
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 08:15 am
You mean besides local authorities not being allowed to supersede state laws regarding gun rights and those rights being based on the second amendment of the constitution?

I wonder if you even bothered to read the article...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 08:19 am
As the Supreme Court noted in Presser versus the State of Illinois and The United States versus Cruikshank, the Second Amendment binds the Federal government only, not the states.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 08:21 am
McGentrix wrote:
You mean besides local authorities not being allowed to supersede state laws regarding gun rights and those rights being based on the second amendment of the constitution?

Setanta is correct. The second amendment binds congress, not the states. The fact that a locality can't pass ordinances that supersede state law is a purely state matter. It has no bearing on the constitution.

McGentrix wrote:
I wonder if you even bothered to read the article...

I wonder if you even bothered to read the second amendment.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 08:36 am
In The United States versus Cruikshank, the Supremes wrote:

Quote:
The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police', 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.


In Presser versus the State of Illinois, the Supremes wrote:

Quote:
But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 08:45 am
They should've shot 'm down like a dawg.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 08:51 am
The wife and kids, too.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 05:44 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
How does this story relate, in any way, to the second amendment?


I realize that I'm responding to something from 2007 (how did I not see it back then?), but presuming that the Supreme Court rules in a month or two that the Heller ruling applies to state and local governments via the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the subsequent steps will be to try to get the courts to rule that the Constitution protects the right to carry a gun for self defense.

Probably the next step will be assault weapons. But the right to carry guns is also on the agenda.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:00 am
@oralloy,
I for one will feel much safer when every John Wayne wanna be is carrrying a gun on his hip. Screw bambi, lets have full automatics in every hunters hands.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:39 pm
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:
I for one will feel much safer when every John Wayne wanna be is carrrying a gun on his hip.


Me too. It'll be heaven on earth. Finally, after all these years the courts are starting to recognize our civil rights.



rabel22 wrote:
Screw bambi, lets have full automatics in every hunters hands.


I wouldn't mind seeing a full-auto in *everyone's* hands.

However, I doubt a full-auto would be a very practical hunting weapon.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » More on the second amendment
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 08:14:54