Leesburg Council Will Consider Gun Prohibition in Gov’t Buildings

Leesburg may follow the example of Loudoun County in prohibiting firearms in town government buildings and town property.

The council will discuss the matter at its Aug. 9 work session after Mayor Kelly Burk found support to add it to a meeting agenda.

According to a staff report, the Virginia State Code provides localities with the authority to restrict individuals from carrying firearms on municipal property. The restriction may apply to possession, carrying or transportation of firearms in government-owned buildings; public parks; recreation or community centers; orin any public street, road, alley, or sidewalk or public right-of-way or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public and is being used by or is adjacent to a permitted event or an event that would otherwise require a permit.

The code also provides localities with the ability to employ security measures designed to prevent violations of an ordinance, including metal detectors and increased use of security personnel.

Exempt from regulation would be firearms carried by law enforcement, security, or military personnel.

When the Board of Supervisors considered the gun ban this spring, it stirred passions in the community, with meetings drawing out individuals on both sides of the argument. Ultimately, the ban passed on a 6-3 vote along party lines. The City of Alexandria and Arlington and Fairfax counties have adopted similar ordinances.

According to Town Attorney Christopher Spera, if the council directs him to prepare an ordinance with the changes, a public hearing would be scheduled prior to any potential adoption.

Monday’s work session begins at 7 p.m.

12 thoughts on “Leesburg Council Will Consider Gun Prohibition in Gov’t Buildings

  • 2021-08-05 at 2:33 pm
    Permalink

    Another “solution” in search of a problem. Alexandria has seen a surge of shootings since they passed this measure. Criminals don’t obey laws so such measures only prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves in public. Stop trampling the rights of citizens.

  • 2021-08-05 at 3:10 pm
    Permalink

    “any public street, road, alley, or sidewalk or public right-of-way or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public and is being used by or is adjacent to a permitted event or an event that would otherwise require a permit.”

    Why not include any area where public air blows through too? The 2nd Amendment is being treated like the 1st Amendment. You are free to exercise them in the small confined spaces defined by the Government, which is the exact opposite of what rights are.

    Shall not be INFRINGED.

  • 2021-08-05 at 9:37 pm
    Permalink

    Maybe, just maybe these people have seen you all in public forums and read your comments here. And, they think your are whackos and don’t want you bringing guns into the place where they and civil servants work for us. Why do you need a gun in the Leesburg Town Hall? Or in the fire department? Explain yourselves beyond “Shall Not Be Infringed!!!” Really.

    • 2021-08-06 at 2:46 pm
      Permalink

      “Soft target” is a term you should consider adding to your vocabulary. Citizens with permits to carry concealed are among the most law-abiding, yet restrictive measures such as these open the doors to those who wish to do harm, and permit holders avoid “gun free zones,” which puts citizens like you at a distinct disadvantage. If you honestly believe that an establishment designated as “gun free” is safer than one which is not, you are in essence volunteering to become a defenseless, soft target. I choose to exercise my rights as an American citizen to protect those for whom I care, and if I’m doing so responsibly, you wouldn’t know anyway, so what difference does it make to you?

  • 2021-08-06 at 10:11 am
    Permalink

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    It is a right. You don’t need to give an explanation. If you do, then it is a privilege and not a right.

  • 2021-08-06 at 11:50 am
    Permalink

    People can not be trusted with guns. A “good guy” can become a “bad guy”. Take guns away, destroy all confiscated. It will take time, but we can get to a point where police don’t have to carry guns and won’t have to enter every situation worried about being shot.

    • 2021-08-07 at 12:38 am
      Permalink

      “ People can not be trusted with guns. A “good guy” can become a “bad guy”. Take guns away, destroy all confiscated. It will take time, but we can get to a point where police don’t have to carry guns and won’t have to enter every situation worried about being shot.”

      Responsible citizens can be trusted, how do you think we find people to serve as police? Maybe you don’t know what goes on outside the United States or read history where governments disarm citizens shortly before they become tyrannical.

      • 2021-08-10 at 1:12 pm
        Permalink

        Australian and Great Britain are the most tyrannical countries in the world!

        How do you know who is responsible and who is not?

  • 2021-08-06 at 1:49 pm
    Permalink

    You mean they’re going to have to leave their security blankets in their cars? I mean, what’s an ammosexual to do!

  • 2021-08-07 at 12:22 am
    Permalink

    IamWhatIam,
    Virginia gun laws already prohibit the civilian firearms in government facilities. But you need to ask yourself, what makes a “civil servant” more qualified to defend him/herself and others? Training? Because any citizen can access the same gun training. People are not wackos because they like guns, they are just responsible citizens who know self-preservation is a personal responsibility and a natural right. We have allowed the establishment of armed police so we as citizens don’t have to take their place on a voluntary basis. We even pay for them through OUR TAXES so we don’t have staff volunteers at the courthouse to guard the rule of law. See, self-preservation of ones self and community is not the primary responsibility of designated paid citizens (police), but with you, which is what the second amendment protects.
    So do we need to carry guns to government facilities? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean the government should limit your right or remove your personal responsibility to protect yourself and you community.

  • 2021-08-07 at 8:51 am
    Permalink

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

    “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Why do “proponents” of the Second Amendment conveniently overlook the first half of the sentence? Any regulations imposed on the Militia (“the people”) regarding the right to keep and bear guns are considered anti-Second Amendment. No where does the amendment refer to “Guns”. Arms can include guns, missiles, nukes, grenades, fire throwers, etc, however ANY attempt to regulate Guns instantly places logic aside in favor of polarizing ideological passion for the complete deregulation for Guns.

    When will we accept the full text of the Second Amendment, common sense, and promoting the general welfare and acknowledge that it is OK for WE the People to regulate our militia? Yes, we have the right to keep and bear Arms. We, the People, also have the Constitutional right to regulate which Arms are acceptable, who, when, and where specific Arms can be employed.

    • 2021-08-10 at 9:50 am
      Permalink

      Your understanding of the Constitution is disturbing.

      The word “regulate” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: