[Archived] Circuit Court Upholds Alexandria Ban on Firarms on City Property


News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date:	Wednesday, January 20, 1999
Contact:	Amy Bertsch, City Manager's Office, (703) 838-4300

Circuit Court Upholds Alexandria Ban on Firarms on City Property

On Tuesday, January 19, the City received a decision by the Circuit Court of Alexandria finding that the City Manager's administrative regulation prohibiting the possession of deadly weapons, including firearms, in City buildings was valid and not in conflict with the City charter or State law.

This suit was filed against the City Manager by four City residents, Leo A. Sentiger, Glenn Morris, Kenneth H. Kelly and Abel Ashbridge. The suit challenged the City Manager's administrative regulation that prohibits the possession or use, and any threat to use, a weapon or firearms at a City workaday.

The suit asserted that the regulation is invalid for four reasons: first, because the City Manager lacks the authority to promulgate any administrative regulations at all; second, because the City Manager lacks the authority to promulgate any regulations which govern the "possession of firearms"; third, because the General Assembly has"preempted" any authority the City Manager

might have to regulate firearms; and fourth, because the regulation limits the access of certain members of the public (i.e., those desiring to carry firearms) to meetings of City Council and other public bodies that are held in City buildings and, consequently, violates these citizens' right to attend meetings granted by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

The court rejected each of these asserted reasons for invalidating the manager's regulation.

First, the court determined that the City Manager's powers as City Manager necessarily include the "day-to-day operations of the City government." It therefore had little difficulty in concluding that the City Manager was authorized to promulgate the regulation in question which governs the comings and going, and the conduct, of employees and members of the public while on City property.

Second, the court concluded that the City Manager possesses the affirmative authority to issue a regulation that restricts the possession of firearms on City property. In this regard, the court noted that both the City charter and the Virginia Code expressly authorize the City to "control and regulate the use and management of all property of the City, both real and personal." This express power, the court reasoned, includes "an incident and implied power" to protect the safety of City employees and the public while on City property, which is precisely what the regulation in question was designed to do. The court therefore concluded that the City Manager is affirmatively authorized to issue the regulation in question, leaving open the question (the plaintiffs' third claim) whether the General Assembly had nonetheless "preempted" this authority.

Third, on the preemption issue, the plaintiffs argued that any authority the City Manager might have to regulate firearms had been preempted -- i.e., negated -- by the State law that allows Virginia residents to obtain permits to carry a concealed weapon. Through this law, the plaintiffs argued, the General Assembly had conferred upon individuals possessing a concealed handgun permit the "right" to carry their firearm on any public property they wished and had, therefore, negated any authority the Manager might have to prohibit such individuals from possessing a firearm on City property.

The court rejected this argument. It determined that the State's concealed handgun law does not create a substantive "right" that entitles holders of concealed handgun permits to carry a weapon wherever they wish. Rather than conferring any such "right," the court interpreted the law as conferring on permit holders a limited immunity from criminal prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon. In other words, while the State law prevents a permit holder from being criminally prosecuted for carrying the weapon, it does not negate the City Manager's authority to issue a regulation that bans firearms from City property and penalizes persons who violated the ban for trespassing on public property.

Fourth, the court concluded that the City Manager's regulation places only an "incidental and appropriate burden" upon the ability of the plaintiffs to exercise their statutory rights under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act. Since, therefore, no "rights" under the statute were affected by the regulation, the plaintiffs' claim that the regulations violated FOIA was rejected.