Minutes 06/20/1960 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

424~ June 20th. 1960 Motion of Mr. Walker. to amend;by placing:a period after th~ word Manager in the third line of Section 20-2 and deleting the remaining par5 of that sensence. Motion of Mr. Breedlove to table w~s adopted, and by the following vote: Ayes: Bartlett, Breed%0ve, ~ewar~, Smith, ~e~seman, Walker Nays: Baker 60-193 - Th~ following leszer from the City Manager was read: ' "i submit the 'attached or~dinance and recommend that it be placed on first reading. The Judges of the Hustings and Circuit Courts have !requested that they be allowed to be covered under the Stat~ of Virginia's Group Insurance Plan. As it was specified in our ordinance that they be covered under the City pla~, the Stase is requiring that the ordinance be,-ameqded before, t~ey can b~ %nql~ded i~ the State plan. Under the State plan, they can ge~ more insurance than under the City plan and that is their reason for this requesto~' On motion of Mr. Breedlove, the $.tem ~as ~laced on the ~genda and by the following vo~e: ~yes: Baker, Bartlett, Br~edloge, Seoard~, Smith¥.Weiseman, Walker Nays: None On motion of Mr. Weisema~, the following ordinance was placed on firs5 reading, withM out dissenting vote: .. .'~N 9.RD~NAN~E ~ AMEND THE.QRDINA.~C~ ~DOPTED .JANUA~ 36, 1960, EIfrITLED, · 'AN.O~DI~NANCE. TQ?ROyIDE ~ROU? .~IFE. INSURANCE-FOR.OITY E~PLOYEES AND SETTING TERMS AND CONDITIONS .UNDER ~HICH E~PLOYEE$.~ ~E I%~SU~ED', SO AS TO REMO~E THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF HUSTINGS AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH FRO~ THE GROUP' COVERED THEREBy" Mr. Walker ~equest~d, on~-point of~ pers?nal pri¥ilege., _that the following be in - eluded in the minutes, regarding ~he ordinance amending Sectioh 17-57 .of ,the~Cod~ee-of the City of Portsmouth, adopted earlier ~n the meeting~ Motion of Mr. Smith tha~ the co~waents not be included was lost, there b.eing no second. -when this amendment ~o Section 17-57 of the Code was ap - "At last Council meeting proved on first reading, I made some very pointed off-the-cuff comments which-made little impression on my colleagues and which the pres's did not-see fit to pass on to our most trusting,"bnt horribly uninformed citizenry. I remember 5hat the vose was five 50 5wo in favor of its passabe but, although I have reviewed again the two pertinent sections of the Code, the proposed ordinance and ~he events leading up 5o its drafting, I can find no legal or logical reason or~ ground on whic~ such a vo~e c.an ~he justif.ied. ~y objecsion to the passage of this d' ordinance is right and proper~ amd well founde . It is evident that thd seriousness of this proposal has no5 been realized and that the ordinance h~s been approved on ~rs final reading.:Therefore I ~-m remding ~o the record the reasons for m~; negative vo~e, and to reiterate this stamd. The~history of the legal malfeasance which brought us to- this point follows: Judge McMurran, in a personal letter to the Chief of Police, eom - plained about the number of permit, s~ being issued ~o carry concealed_weapons- and requested help in controlling and reducing them. Since the Judge referred many times in his letter to permits ~o carry and no~ once-to sale of, it is obvious that the section of' the Code~ to which he referred was ~ection 17-55. Since 17-55 con - rains no procedure wherein the ?olic~ Departmen~ personnel.and facilities cquldf ~e utilized by the Court to produce th~ needed information it showily' be obvious that t~h~ Judges request was valid. Therefore, my first reason for voting against it is thet it does not honor the initial request but instead s.mends a section of the Code-(17-57 Permit to~ Sell). over wt~ich t. b~lieve .the-CourL-assumes no jurisdiction. My proposed substitute ~o ~end Section 17-55 zs believed 50 be a suitable instrumen5 and an appropriate action zn answer to the reques of the Court. The subject of Chief Crowe'$ l_etter to.~he Manage~r reads 'Permits to Buy Guns' and therefore can not be considered as action on the written request of the Court which~ ! must?emend, was read ~n conference as support of the drafting of this amendment. Chief Crowe's letter also contained a valid request since the Code at present does not clearly establish the procedures and responsibilities required of the Chief for 'permit~ to carry' as against those for 'permits ~o sell'. Paragraph 3 of his letter 'Once a permit to buy a gun has been approved by this office, there is no~ assuranc$ that th$ gun has been regissered or a permit 50 carry has been obtained. The la~er is not necessary if the weapon ms kept in the house' clearly indicates his confusion between the ~we sections.of the Code. This proposed s_mendmen~ does ao~ serve 50 dissipate that confusion, but adds to'it. In ?~ addition, it assists the' Court in no way since~the permit to buy is issued by the Chief only whenever the applicast 9rodu~es a certified order' to carry.from the Court.~The investigative facilities and processing help of the Police Department are of no value after the order 50 carry ~s signed by the Court: This ordinance, although no~ in itself of utmost importance, is indicative of our current disregard and depart- ure from the basic concept of law by free men under a Constitutional Republic. The necessity for a law, or a change ia one, should be beyond doubt. This one.isn't necessary, or better said, what W~s necessary has no~ been accomplished: It is unenforceable in that it requ~ires a permit for transferring ownership ~n any manner It is inequitable in that~ it hinders only licensed dealers and law-abiding citi- cealed; it establishes a fine of not less t~an $200.00 or more than $500.00 for violation of Section 17-57 (Selling) but only a fine of not less than $20.00 or more than $100.00 for violation of Section 17-55 (~ar~- from least, it infringes on the Constitutional right of a citizen to keep and bear .arms in tha~ it .sets up a hurdle which is costly, purchase o ~he Mimosa Road School 60-194 ~ The following letter.from ~he Superintendent of Schools was read: of "You are hereb~ requested to approve .awarding of the ~on~rac~ for the construction to Jsmes T. Copley, Inc., 10w bidder az a cost'of $339,865.00."