Fairfax VA parks ban

[swinokur]

This applies to Fairfax Va but has national implications post Bruen

 

[press1280]

I haven't seen the briefings but wouldn't this simply be a VA preemption violation or has Democratic control of the state done away with that?

 

[jc1240]

This applies to Fairfax Va but has national implications post Bruen

An excellent reminder of what historically is a "sensitive place" and that parks don't qualify among many other places.

Some folks complain that guy is too long-winded. Maybe. But he is thorough and detailed and that is what counts.

 

[davsco]

An excellent reminder of what historically is a "sensitive place" and that parks don't qualify among many other places.

the problem is they don't care what qualifies and what doesn't. they put their bullsh1t laws in place and you're going to jail if you break them. at some point years down the road, the courts may overturn, with absolutely no effect on the lawmakers, no fines, no jail time, no nothing.

 

[HaveBlue]

Thanks OP for posting this! Here are the docs for this case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68032887/lafave-v-the-county-of-fairfax-virginia/

 

[jc1240]

the problem is they don't care what qualifies and what doesn't. they put their bullsh1t laws in place and you're going to jail if you break them. at some point years down the road, the courts may overturn, with absolutely no effect on the lawmakers, no fines, no jail time, no nothing.

That could be one of the biggest wins for the country - punishment for KNOWINGLY creating laws that violate people's rights. The DO KNOW they are pissing on COTUS.

 

[swinokur]

SCOTUS said there are 3 historical analogues for sensitive places.

1. Court Houses
2. Legislatures
3. Schools

That’s it.

 

[K-Romulus]

I haven't seen the briefings but wouldn't this simply be a VA preemption violation or has Democratic control of the state done away with that?

Yes, the preemption rollback with respect to some locations was one of the first bills to get rammed through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Occam]

That could be one of the biggest wins for the country - punishment for KNOWINGLY creating laws that violate people's rights. The DO KNOW they are pissing on COTUS.

But that's nearly impossible to prove in court absent them circulating an email among the legislators saying, "Now, we all know this is unconstitutional, but we're doing it anyway, right?" Instead, they just say that they believe their new law/rule/reg is well within their interpretation of the constitution and recent rulings, so of course it's OK. That's it. Prove they don't believe that, right? Very difficult.

 

[davsco]

But that's nearly impossible to prove in court absent them circulating an email among the legislators saying, "Now, we all know this is unconstitutional, but we're doing it anyway, right?" Instead, they just say that they believe their new law/rule/reg is well within their interpretation of the constitution and recent rulings, so of course it's OK. That's it. Prove they don't believe that, right? Very difficult.

well if it walks and quacks like a duck... all moot anyways as no one is on the hook for any bad deeds. total UNaccountability.

 

[jc1240]

But that's nearly impossible to prove in court absent them circulating an email among the legislators saying, "Now, we all know this is unconstitutional, but we're doing it anyway, right?" Instead, they just say that they believe their new law/rule/reg is well within their interpretation of the constitution and recent rulings, so of course it's OK. That's it. Prove they don't believe that, right? Very difficult.

Folks have to prove things all the time as defendants. For legislators, take for example the new W&C fee increases. Unless they can prove via financial documents the doubling was necessary, it was purely punitive.

Looking at Swinokur's post, a ban on carry at Texas Roadhouse doesn't fit "school" "courthouse" or "legislature" so how'd they get it wrong when the bills passed 6 or so months after the SCOTUS decision? There was more than enough time to read and understand the ruling.

Anyway, (stealing from 4 boxes diner) the reason for the 3 exceptions was they were already guarded by men with guns, so there wasn't a need to bring one's own.

I know reality. Just as I can dream of being an astronaut or beamed aboard a starship from the year 2268, I can dream of politicians being held accountable for their chicanery. I know all have the same chance. Just my inner child throwing a tantrum.

 

[HaveBlue]

But that's nearly impossible to prove in court absent them circulating an email among the legislators saying, "Now, we all know this is unconstitutional, but we're doing it anyway, right?" Instead, they just say that they believe their new law/rule/reg is well within their interpretation of the constitution and recent rulings, so of course it's OK. That's it. Prove they don't believe that, right? Very difficult.

My mom always said that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

[N3YMY]

total UNaccountability.

I see what you did there

 

[Blacksmith101]

SCOTUS said there are 3 historical analogues for sensitive places.

1. Court Houses
2. Legislatures
3. Schools

That’s it.

I believe the three called out in Bruen were:
1. Court Houses (protected by Bailiffs)
2. Legislatures (protected by Sargent's At Arms)
3. Polling Places (protected by Sheriffs and Deputes)

At the time of the founding the only people prohibited from carrying in schools were the students. Back then colleges and universities often had students that were in their early teens and the schools had a special relationship with the students, Locis Parentice (Sp ?) i.e. acting as the parents of these students. However the teachers, staff, and visitors were not banned from being armed.

Mark Smith covers the three places starting at the 2:50 mark in this video:

 

[RFBfromDE]

My mom always said that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

She wasn’t talking to our masters, she was taking to you, a worthless nothing.

So she was right!

 

[swinokur]

I believe the three called out in Bruen were:
1. Court Houses (protected by Bailiffs)
2. Legislatures (protected by Sargent's At Arms)
3. Polling Places (protected by Sheriffs and Deputes)

At the time of the founding the only people prohibited from carrying in schools were the students. Back then colleges and universities often had students that were in their early teens and the schools had a special relationship with the students, Locis Parentice (Sp ?) i.e. acting as the parents of these students. However the teachers, staff, and visitors were not banned from being armed.

Mark Smith covers the three places starting at the 2:50 mark in this video:

You are corrrct. I goofed

 

[HaveBlue]

Thanks OP for posting this! Here are the docs for this case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68032887/lafave-v-the-county-of-fairfax-virginia/

Plaintiffs reply is due tomorrow.

 

[HaveBlue]

The judge denied the Preliminary Injunction. Arguments are scheduled for 2/7.

 

[HaveBlue]

Update from Court Listener link above:

Order Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order - Pursuant to the Rule 16(b) Conference 1. All discovery shall be concluded by June 14, 2024.2. The Joint Discovery Plan is approved and shall control discovery to the extent of its application unless further modified by the court.3. At the request of the parties, the pretrial conference scheduled for Wednesday, February 7, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. is cancelled.