VA Port Authority Gun Regs

[Bilgeman]

You folks may find this of interest;

About 3 years ago, I was working aboard a ship moored, (more or less permanently), in Norfolk at the Norfolk International Terminal, a property owned by the Commonwealth, operated by the Virginia Ports Authority, and guarded by the VA Port Police.

As I then had, and still have, a VA CCW permit, I wanted to "go in the front door" so to speak, and clarify that the VPA was okay with my lawful self-defense weapon being in my vehicle in the parking area.
(Since my ship was US Federal territory, that was a no-go area...and THAT'S a whole different kettle of fish anyway).

The VA Port Police were adamant that no weapons of any kind were to be allowed in their port facility...because apparently the US Coast Guard had said so.

page 9 of this .pdf:

http://www.portofvirginia.com/media/111 ... 102008.pdf

Manifestly, the USCG's policies are trumping Virginia law on Virginia property.

I even went so far as to call the VA Port Police's head honcho in Richmond to clarify this, and he asserted that this was indeed the case, (on the qt, I don't think that he cared much for the state of affairs, either).

So, if you are a contractor or trucker, even licensed to carry concealed lawfully in Virginia, know ye that thanks to the USCG, you are by law disarmed on these Commonwealth facilities.

[gunderwood]

This sounds like it could make a good legal challenge. Unless they want to take over the operation and funding (assuming VA was ok with it) it is state property, not federal. As such, the laws of VA apply IMHO. INAL, but I would suggest you email VCDL and see if they are interested in making this an issue.

[Bilgeman]

gunderwood;

This sounds like it could make a good legal challenge. Unless they want to take over the operation and funding (assuming VA was ok with it) it is state property, not federal. As such, the laws of VA apply IMHO. INAL, but I would suggest you email VCDL and see if they are interested in making this an issue.

I actually did talk to Phillip Van Cleave about this, giving him a heads-up to the situation, I don't think the VCDL did much, or has that much interest in it, since to be frank, no-one really much GAS about seamen, (see: Maersk Alabama, crews STILL unarmed over a year after her seizure), and folks don't really give much more concern for truckers and locomotive crews.

Now if the Virginia public habitually used our seaport facilities the way they use WMATA's airport facilities, I'm sure that that might generate more concern.

And I raised precisely the point you do about having the USCG open it's purse to fund and flatulate its inept and corrupt posterior to "Federalize" our ports. VA Port Police honcho wasn't too keen on that, since it would "break his rice bowl".

(I want to point out here that the Coasties who go out saving lives and maintaining buoys and such are a whole different service than the scum-sucking paper-pushing pogues who are charged with regulation and oversight...4 of the last 7 USCG Commandants have gotten on the "corporate gravy train with biscuit wheels"...and inflicted TWIC cards on all transportation workers and 8 brand-new unseaworthy "Deepwater" cutters..."Chryslers of the Sea"...on the REAL Coasties).

To get the Federales regulations off of Commonwealth property whie keeping "their" dough will require a political solution.

[tursiops]

There may be an issue with Homeland Security, not specifically the USCG. Ports that have international ship traffic have additional restrictions on them, it doesn't matter who owns them, state, private, foreign, whatever. You need secured access, etc. even foreign ports that send ships to the US have to play by these rules, or the ships departing them cannot enter the US.

I don't think this is a VA-USCG issue. I think it is almost unbridled power given by the Bush administration (read: Cheney) to DHS.

[Bilgeman]

This is exactly so, since I am on the USCG's Baltimore/National Capital Port Security Citizens' Advisory Committee, (to my knowledge, I'm the ONLY working seaman on this thing...draw yer own conclusions from that).

And...USCG was assimilated by the DHS "Borg" in 2002.

[user]

Even if the U.S. owns the property, it's only a landowner in Virginia and subject to Virginia law. They can make regulations for their own employees and such, but lack sovereignty. If it's a military reservation purchased by special permission of the legislature, then the U.S. has sort of joint sovereignty. Even so, there has to be a statutory basis for the Coast Guard regulation - except to govern their own personnel, they can't just be making up rules for other people. I haven't checked, btw, to see what the status is, or whether they have a statutory basis for their regulations, other than the ban on weapons in "federal facilities" - buildings in which regularly employed federal workers do their jobs.

Having said that, it seems to me that the Virginia Port Authority lacks the power to accede to or implement federal regulations with respect to lawfully carried firearms. It's a "body corporate" created by Va. Code § 62.1-128, and an "authority" under Va. Code §15.2-915; notice in particular the part about the award of attorneys' fees:

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. 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.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 from acting within the scope of his duties.

The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.

C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.