Richmond Magazine Possesion Ban Legal Challenge

[bwiese]

It appears that Berkekely code is 'on the books' but they understand not to enforce it.

The problem, I've been told, is there's little case law requiring cities to expend efforts/costs to depublish bad law that is out of force due to court decisions, preemption, etc.

[wash]

I haven't checked this section in a few days. It's great news that Richmond is considering a repeal.

I wonder if there is a polite way to let them know that anything less than a complete repeal would still generate a costly lawsuit. Otherwise they will probably re-write the ordinance just to remove the standing of your plaintiffs.

If they do try to pull a fast one, please put the full force of the NRA on them, let everyone know that it's useless and expensive to keep bad gun laws on the books.

[Swiss]

Temporary repeal, back with a stronger law later

From Richmond Confidential

The council is considering to strengthen the law at a meeting next year, but Riddle has recommended the city repeal the ban in the meantime.

<Snip>

[thempopresense]

forward then reverse.....

[chuckdc]

Whoa, I wasn't even aware that Richmond had a ban on possession. And to think, I go to Richmond Rod and Gun so much...

Oops, same here. I used to go up there and shoot the TASC and Hot Shots matches.

[tiki]

The council is considering to strengthen the law at a meeting next year, but Riddle has recommended the city repeal the ban in the meantime.

Oh, so they will repeal it and come back with one that is more unconstitutional? Nice. The concern wasn't about the weakness of the law, but, rather, its unconstitutionality.
I don't believe they will come back with anything. Its just words to appease anyone that would oppose the repeal.

[CHS]

Oh, so they will repeal it and come back with one that is more unconstitutional? Nice. The concern wasn't about the weakness of the law, but, rather, its unconstitutionality.

Actually, the main legal concern was that it was already pre-empted by state law.

[bwiese]

Actually, the main legal concern was that it was already pre-empted by state law.

Yup, the City Attorney appears to be a rational guy and understands the issues.

Remarks by the Council may just be posturing that they're gonna keep up the fight.

[GuyW]

....the City has been talking to us about the possibility of repealing the ordinance.....because we anticipate that the City will decline to repeal the ordinance entirely. More likely they may try to revise it.

Ha ha! Wary enough to suspect that change is in the air, but too stupid to appreciate the hammer that is about to fall....
.

[curtisfong]

there's little case law requiring legislators at any level to expend efforts/costs to depublish bad law that is out of force due to court decisions, preemption, etc.

There, fixed it for you.

[Sgt Raven]

The problem, I've been told, is there's little case law requiring legislators at any level to expend efforts/costs to depublish bad law that is out of force due to court decisions, preemption, etc.

That's a problem the courts really needs to address as there are to many bad laws that are out of force but can still cause problems in the short run, causing people to spend money on lawyers that they shouldn't have to.

Just look how Harrot changed the law in California, but the regulations haven't been changed to reflect it. It just causes FUD at all levels of government.

[Liberty1]

I just found this thread now. Any updates?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=246009

and congrats on 1.3 posts per year JK