Search results for query: *

Not exactly. It specifically declares that threatening a high member of the state government is a crime against the city of Richmond, where the government is. It has enough reasoning in it to survive a challenge fairly easily.

Not precisely. If this law didn't exist, and they tried a person in Richmond for it, then the 6th amendment would hold (note that district here refers to judicial district, not necessarily county boundaries, so there is some wiggle room). This law simply declares that the law was violated in...

There won't be any jurisdictional problems, at least by the US constitution. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, all non-DC local governments are part of their respective state governments. All of the power and establishment of the local governments comes from the state they reside in...

This law is totally constitutional. It just alters jurisdiction for another law (which is also constitutional) that makes true threats illegal.

The reasoning for giving Richmond jurisdiction is probably so that they can get around deliberate non-prosecutions by county sheriffs not arresting and county prosecutors not prosecuting. That's not a first amendment attack.