Posted: 1/5/2010 6:17:03 PM EDT
HB 106, Delegate Cole (R - Fredericksburg), completely repeals the restaurant ban and allows a CHP holder to carry concealed during a religious meeting with the permission of the leader of the meeting. The complete repeal of the restaurant ban is the perfect solution - allowing restaurants to set their own policies on guns. On church carry, VCDL would prefer the prohibition on carrying during a religious meeting be repealed completely.
Let's thank Delegate Cole and let our own delegates know that this is very important to us! |
|
Quoted:
I'm not sure about the legislative procedures - can anyone clarify if this keeps the good and sufficient reason provision for places of worship? I think the few church shootings last year is more than good and sufficient reason for someone to carry. I was wondering the same thing myself. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure about the legislative procedures - can anyone clarify if this keeps the good and sufficient reason provision for places of worship? I think the few church shootings last year is more than good and sufficient reason for someone to carry. I was wondering the same thing myself. I don't believe so. From recent VCDL email: VCDL STRONGLY SUPPORTS:
HB 106, Delegate Cole (R - Fredericksburg), completely repeals the restaurant ban and allows a CHP holder to carry concealed during a religious meeting with the permission of the leader of the meeting. The complete repeal of the restaurant ban is the perfect solution - allowing restaurants to set their own policies on guns. On church carry, VCDL would prefer the prohibition on carrying during a religious meeting be repealed completely. It sounds like the "with permission" would negate "with good and sufficient reason." Cole introduced three strongly pro-2A bills, I think that the intent behind this one was good, but maybe not thought through properly. |
|
I honestly believe the combination of two issues into one bill is a mistake. Carrying concealed in a restaurant and carrying in a church are two different venues, two different set of circumstances and should be addressed separately.
By combining the two you are inherently allowing people who do not favor carrying inside of a church to add their opposition to the restaurant issue which they may otherwise not oppose and vice versa. |
|
Quoted:
I honestly believe the combination of two issues into one bill is a mistake. Carrying concealed in a restaurant and carrying in a church are two different venues, two different set of circumstances and should be addressed separately. By combining the two you are inherently allowing people who do not favor carrying inside of a church to add their opposition to the restaurant issue which they may otherwise not oppose and vice versa. In general, I strongly dislike how bills address more than one issue. A horrid example is the current national health care legislation. I WISH legislatures were restricted to have only one law created with each bill. And I agree with what you are saying. |
| Cole is my delegate and he's great guy. I've OCed to his "town hall" meetings and none of his staff have ever blinked an eye at it. I asked him a few years ago about the castle doctrine and his response was pretty much that we don't need it because of our common law. I hope we can convince him eventually that it could help. |