Unless I'm reading this wrong...we get them next year

Email from VCDL this morning.

"Excellent news!  HB 1577, Delegate Cline's omnibus bill, passed out
of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee by a large margin!  Some
minor parts of the bill were stripped out, BUT two MAJOR parts of the
bill made it though:

Permits will become LIFETIME permits (starting July 1st, 2007
assuming that funding is appropriated next year).  The State Police
will do an annual background check on all permit holders
automatically, there will be NOTHING for you to do but just go about
your life."

sounds good to me.  maybe then i can go in and get a permit that actually has my current address on it

I would B*tch about the "The State Police
will do an annual background check on all permit holders" part but considering Ive probably had 6-7 BG checks run this year between NICS, FFL Seeler ID, and NFA, I'll just say "Cool".

The bill's current status: leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+sum+HB1577

My only concern is in the legislative fiscal impact statement at the Senate level,which is linkable through  VCDL and LIS server: leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+oth+HB1577FS1160+PDF

to wit: "The proposal states it would be a Class 1 misdemeanor for a person carrying a concealed
handgun, who is detained by a law enforcement officer, to fail to inform the officer of the possession,
secure the weapon at the officer’s direction, or allow the officer to secure the weapon for the duration of
the contact."
That part sure isn't in the proposed bill. It looks like a requirement to notify,even at traffic stops. I wonder why that was put in the fiscal impact statement when it isn't in the bill or existing law.

In reading the actual text of the bill, it looks pretty good for us.

Quoted: My only concern is in the legislative fiscal impact statement at the Senate level,which is linkable through  VCDL and LIS server (link, from original post) to wit: "The proposal states it would be a Class 1 misdemeanor for a person carrying a concealed handgun, who is detained by a law enforcement officer, to fail to inform the officer of the possession, secure the weapon at the officer’s direction, or allow the officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact." That part sure isn't in the proposed bill. It looks like a requirement to notify,even at traffic stops. I wonder why that was put in the fiscal impact statement when it isn't in the bill or existing law.

A couple of comments about the possible meaning of the text.  As it is not in the legislation proper, the concern might be unwarranted.  I, for one, am happy that you, Poodleshooter, and others at organizations like VCDL, are vigilant to any attempts at trying to 'backdoor' us via the administrivia that accompanies legislation.

1. The phrase "a person carrying a concealed handgun" does not mention whether the act of carrying is pursuant to the possession by the carrier of a valid permit.  The intent might be to redress a current shortcoming, or create an add-on charge to use, with scrotes who carry unlawfully.  Certainly wording like "a person carrying a concealed handgun (unlawfully) (without a valid permit) (except as permitted in {insert appropriate citations here}" would make the intent clearer.  

2.  Detain is an interesting word, and I wish I knew the contextual meaning of this excerpt.  I share your concern about this coming into effect during a traffic enforcement stop or other official encounter in which the recipient of the LEO's attention voluntarily remains present.  The usage of 'detain' (vice 'arrest' or 'take into custody') implies that an LEO in the Commonwealth can elect to keep a person against his/her will, without effecting an arrest.  I didn't believe this to be lawful, but I am not a lawyer.  The following comments apply to a presumably lawful detention that is somehow not equal to an arrest, and somewhere beyond the voluntary continued presence at the incident ... which would not trigger this concept.

After an officer makes a determination to detain a person, a juncture has been reached that requires special attention to the safety of all involved in the incident.  I have no problem with the holder of a CHP to be under the obligation to tell an LEO that the CHP holder is carrying a concealed handgun -- at the latest -- when a detention is effected.  For the safety of all involved, the securing of the handgun "for the duration of the contact" at the direction of the LEO might make sense -- I can live with the LEO being the arbiter.  Note that securing the weapon by either party is not mandated, rather it gives the LEO the necessary authority to remove handguns from the equation during a detention, rather than forcing the LEO to arrest, and then search, the subject.  (During an arrest, the handgun would be controlled by the officer.)