Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/8/2006 8:59:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 10:29:32 AM EDT by Hank_Rearden1]
Okay guys.. both the NRA and VCDL (hello Mr PVC... please look at this carefully) are talking about HB 162. Here is the Bill, as ammended now for the second time (in the senate, substitue version 064667820-S1 leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+ful+HB162S1 ) the bill sucks and Russ Potts did a good job by sending it back to committee, note section C:

064667820

HOUSE BILL NO. 162
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
(Proposed by the Senate Committee for Courts of Justice
on March 6, 2006)
(Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Lingamfelter)
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01, relating to firearms in locked vehicles.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01 as follows:

§ 18.2-308.1:01. Firearms in locked vehicles.

A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a firearms rack in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property available to the general public for parking motor vehicles.

B. Any person may enforce this section by filing a petition for injunction in the court of record of the county or city in which the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity prohibiting the firearm is located. The court shall award actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees to a prevailing party.

C. This section shall not apply to (i) property on which a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm by § 18.2-308.1; (ii) possession of firearms in vehicles on the curtilage of an individual's abode; (iii) vehicles on property (a) to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station, signs, or other means of restricting or limiting general access onto the property; or (b) upon which a building occupied by a single employer and its affiliated entities is located and in which access to the building is restricted or limited by card access, a security station, signs, or other means of restricting or limiting general public access into the building; (iv) vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment; or (v) personal vehicles while such vehicles are being used for the transport of consumers of programs licensed by the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services.


Had this Bill passed it would have caused more problems. In NoVA, most employers (AOL, MCI/Verizon, ATT, the Gov't contractors, etc) have restricted access to their buildings. Currently, they need to affirmatively indicated/document that they prohibt firearms on their premises, these policies could be fought in court and perhps result in precedent that would make such prohibitions finally end. This law would change that...it would further provide them with a basis for denying our civil rights. The biggest proponents of the changes to the bill were MCI and and AOL and their new puppets are recently elected hyper liberal Poision (shamefully sits in Dick Black's former Militia committee house seat) and Herring in the Senate.

This Bill should crash and never see light of day until it can be passed in its original form. Please call Russ Potts and thank him.


ETA: For comparison, here is the original bill:

HOUSE BILL NO. 162
Offered January 11, 2006
Prefiled December 29, 2005
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01, relating to firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability; civil penalty.
----------
Patron-- Lingamfelter
----------
Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
----------
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01 as follows:

§ 18.2-308.1:01. Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability.

A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.

B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence that results from or is connected to the use of a firearm that was lawfully stored pursuant to subsection A, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity commits a criminal act involving the use of the firearm.

C. Any person may enforce this section by filing a petition for injunction in the court of record of the county or city in which the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity prohibiting the firearm is located. The court shall award actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

D. This section shall not apply to § 18.2-308.1, relating to possession of firearms on school property.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:20:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hank_Rearden1:
Okay guys.. both the NRA and VCDL (hello Mr PVC... please look at this carefully) are talking about HB 162. Here is the Bill, as ammended now for the second time (in the senate, substitue version 064667820-S1 leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+ful+HB162S1) the bill sucks and Russ Potts did a good job by sending it back to committee, note section C:

064667820

HOUSE BILL NO. 162
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
(Proposed by the Senate Committee for Courts of Justice
on March 6, 2006)
(Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Lingamfelter)
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01, relating to firearms in locked vehicles.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01 as follows:

§ 18.2-308.1:01. Firearms in locked vehicles.

A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a firearms rack in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property available to the general public for parking motor vehicles.

B. Any person may enforce this section by filing a petition for injunction in the court of record of the county or city in which the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity prohibiting the firearm is located. The court shall award actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees to a prevailing party.

C. This section shall not apply to (i) property on which a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm by § 18.2-308.1; (ii) possession of firearms in vehicles on the curtilage of an individual's abode; (iii) vehicles on property (a) to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station, signs, or other means of restricting or limiting general access onto the property; or (b) upon which a building occupied by a single employer and its affiliated entities is located and in which access to the building is restricted or limited by card access, a security station, signs, or other means of restricting or limiting general public access into the building; (iv) vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment; or (v) personal vehicles while such vehicles are being used for the transport of consumers of programs licensed by the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services.

Had this Bill passed it would have caused more problems. In NoVA, most employers (AOL, MCI/Verizon, ATT, the Gov't contractors, etc) have restricted access to their buildings. Currently, they need to affirmatively indicated/document that they prohibt firearms on their premises, these policies could be fought in court and perhps result in precedent that would make such prohibitions finally end. This law would change that...it would further provide them with a basis for denying our civil rights. The biggest proponents of the change to bill were MCI and and AOL and their new puppets are recently elected hyper liberal Poision (shamefully sits in Dick Black's former Militia committee house seat) and Herring in the Senate.

This Bill should crash and never see light of day until it can be passed in its original form. Please call Russ Potts and thank him.



I took the liberty of changing the size and color of the quoted text so that old fogeys like me can read it better. I'll try to thank Mr. Potts for the good work, but here and now, I'd like to thank you and your peers for watching our six on this.

If this will eventually find its way back to the floor, I'd be interested in learning the intent behind the phrase, "storing a firearm locked in or locked to a firearms rack in a motor vehicle." Was the intent behind the wording to require within the motor vehicle a firearms rack, in or to which the firearm must be locked? Or, was the intent to allow a firearm to be stored within the locked motor vehicle and/or locked to a firearms rack that is not necessarily within the motor vehicle? If I had to regularly leave my concealed weapon in my vehicle, e.g., because of workplace restrictions, I would have a securable repository in my vehicle. I would not necessarily have such accoutrements in a loaner or rental vehicle.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:32:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By larrycwdc:

If this will eventually find its way back to the floor, I'd be interested in learning the intent behind the phrase, "storing a firearm locked in or locked to a firearms rack in a motor vehicle." Was the intent behind the wording to require within the motor vehicle a firearms rack, in or to which the firearm must be locked? Or, was the intent to allow a firearm to be stored within the locked motor vehicle and/or locked to a firearms rack that is not necessarily within the motor vehicle? If I had to regularly leave my concealed weapon in my vehicle, e.g., because of workplace restrictions, I would have a securable repository in my vehicle. I would not necessarily have such accoutrements in a loaner or rental vehicle.



The original bill just said "locked in or locked to a motor vehicle". I think the intent is that the firearm could possibly, in the case of a convertible, motorcycle, or bed storage compartment of a pickup truck, be kept in that type of vehicle provided that it was secured to the vehicle eventhough technically it might not be "inside" the vehicle. I interpret the ammended version with the spefication of a "firearms rack" to be more limiting.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:52:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 4:53:24 AM EDT by MGinVA]
The right thing to do would have been to refer to committee WITH INSTRUCTION. That... well, that would have been a motion that I could have thanked Potts for.

To instead move to send the bill to purgatory all but assuring it's death for the session - that's a spineless move.

I'll not be thanking anyone for simply walking away from this bill, thanks.



(edited for spelling)
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:15:13 AM EDT
I don't think Potts was doing anything out of concern for gun owners.
Gun bill shot down


"I'm a strong supporter of the NRA … but this was a horrible bill," Potts said after the chamber's floor session. "It was opposed by the retail merchants, the tourism industry, by the medical society, you name the group."

Lingamfelter was taken aback by Potts' sudden move, and said the senator never approached him about his intention to kill the bill.

"I didn't know what was going on, I didn't find out about it until after it happened," the delegate said.

"It's usually a courtesy you extend to people, but maybe that's a courtesy that Sen. Potts doesn't feel."




Potts, who is not a gun owner, disagreed with the delegate's position.

"If you want to have a gun, fine, go hunting," he said, but "don't be bringing it on the property where you work."


[
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:46:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 8:51:03 AM EDT by Hank_Rearden1]

Originally Posted By longwatch:
I don't think Potts was doing anything out of concern for gun owners.
Gun bill shot down


"I'm a strong supporter of the NRA … but this was a horrible bill," Potts said after the chamber's floor session. "It was opposed by the retail merchants, the tourism industry, by the medical society, you name the group."

Lingamfelter was taken aback by Potts' sudden move, and said the senator never approached him about his intention to kill the bill.

"I didn't know what was going on, I didn't find out about it until after it happened," the delegate said.

"It's usually a courtesy you extend to people, but maybe that's a courtesy that Sen. Potts doesn't feel."




Potts, who is not a gun owner, disagreed with the delegate's position.

"If you want to have a gun, fine, go hunting," he said, but "don't be bringing it on the property where you work."


[




Okay. Well regarless of his motives and the fact that he is dip (I was not aware of that, I was only judging the issue on the results), it was a bad bill as ammended and perhaps it would still be suitable to "thank" him for derailing a bad bill... if anything perhaps for the ironic humor value it could have.

My other point is that I don't understand how VCDL and NRA would still be showing support for the bill as ammended. Their support could be perceived that they and gunowners in general (who also have a responsibility to make NRA and VCDL aware of these things) are not watching the issues closely. I'll be the first to admit that when I saw the bill ammended the first time, I did not send out a single email or post anything about here.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 9:13:12 AM EDT
While it was a weaker bill than originally intended there would have been relief for some employees under it. Sometimes it is better to accept half of what you want in a bill. If you are patient you can get what you want in the long run. I'll put it this way, if it had passed it would have been easier to fix in the future. Personally, I implicitly trust Philip Van Cleave and the VCDL, I know he keeps pretty close track of whats going on down in Richmond along with the board of VCDL. I think we can have confidence that overall this bill would have better for gun owners even if it was weaker than before, or at least could have been fixed in conference.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 9:55:28 AM EDT
RTD article

"It was a horrible bill," Potts said. It was a clear example of the NRA pushing the envelope to see how far they could move their agenda. Not a single group, with the exception of the NRA, supported the bill, he said.

This from a guy who advertises his (supposed) pro-Second Amendment stance and NRA member number on his website.

What an asshole.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 10:41:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 10:43:25 AM EDT by Hank_Rearden1]

Originally Posted By longwatch:
While it was a weaker bill than originally intended there would have been relief for some employees under it. Sometimes it is better to accept half of what you want in a bill. If you are patient you can get what you want in the long run. I'll put it this way, if it had passed it would have been easier to fix in the future. Personally, I implicitly trust Philip Van Cleave and the VCDL, I know he keeps pretty close track of whats going on down in Richmond along with the board of VCDL. I think we can have confidence that overall this bill would have better for gun owners even if it was weaker than before, or at least could have been fixed in conference.



Definately agree that VCDL and PVC are excellent and deserve our gratitude and trust. However, in this instance, I fail to see what benefits this law, as ammended, would have provided and why the NRA or anyone would have continued to support it.

My understanding is that current law already limits many employers that allow public access to their parking lots to restrict people from keeping weapons in their vehicles, specially if they are shared parking lots, assuming that employers in these cases even own the parking lots. The problem and intent of the original bill was to restict larger employers (those that have control over their facilities) from requiring their employees to commute to and from work unarmed. The ammended bill would even allow shopping centers and large commercial centers with shared gated parking lot entrances (like Tysons Corner) to prohibit vehicles with firearms.

By my read, it seems to me the Bill would have degraded our rights.

NOTE: I changed title of the thread to reflect shift to technical discussion of Bill... rather than support for Potts. I stand corrected. He is an asshole.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 11:08:20 AM EDT
I think you may be mistaken about what this bill would do to places like tysons. At least last time i was there tysons didn't have gated lots. If the general public is allowed to park there then employees may keep their guns there under this bill.

a) to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station, signs, or other means of restricting or limiting general access onto the property

Now you are correct that employee only parking lots would not be affected but the status quo would remain the same. I think this bill would have been a net gain even if limited.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 11:12:11 AM EDT
Here is a good question, if this bill was bad for gun owners why did the anti's want to kill it?
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 11:33:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By longwatch:
I think you may be mistaken about what this bill would do to places like tysons. At least last time i was there tysons didn't have gated lots. If the general public is allowed to park there then employees may keep their guns there under this bill.

a) to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station, signs, or other means of restricting or limiting general access onto the property

Now you are correct that employee only parking lots would not be affected but the status quo would remain the same. I think this bill would have been a net gain even if limited.



Referring to the shared employee lots that are in the garages that require badges and the public lots at pentagon city mall that do have gates. All any public lot would need to do is put up a gate or a sign at its entrance.

I have no clue what goes through the anti's minds... many don't understand that VA is an open carry state and that we can already carry in our cars (ccw).
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 12:00:27 PM EDT
I'm afraid we might be arguing around each other, but I still think that a parking lot that allows the general public in, i.e. doesn't restrict their access, would not qualify as a gun free area. Perhaps an AG opinion would have been neccessary to clarify it in law. As anyone now could do what you fear would have happened (put up no guns signs, etc.) I don't see what harm this bill would have caused.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 12:14:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 12:14:48 PM EDT by Hank_Rearden1]

Originally Posted By longwatch:
I'm afraid we might be arguing around each other, but I still think that a parking lot that allows the general public in, i.e. doesn't restrict their access, would not qualify as a gun free area. Perhaps an AG opinion would have been neccessary to clarify it in law. As anyone now could do what you fear would have happened (put up no guns signs, etc.) I don't see what harm this bill would have caused.




Good point.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 12:34:36 PM EDT
Not to derail the thread, but there are already two declared candidates against Potts for the Republican nomination next year: Mark Tate and Jill Holtzman.

On RKBA and tax issues the nod would go to Tate.

If anyone is willing to help I can put you in touch with him.
Top Top