-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Bills signed by the Governor
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
I believe the purpose of HB 20 was geared more towards fending off a law like NC has that states:
"It is also a misdemeanor under North Carolina law for a person to transport or
possess, off his or her own premises, a dangerous weapon in an area during a declared
state of emergency, or in the vicinity of a riot. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.7 A concealed
handgun permit does not allow a permittee to carry a weapon in these areas. N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 14-415.11(c) "
So when the Gov. of NC declares a "State of Emergency" during (or after) a hurricane, snow storm... whatever, you may not legally leave your property with a "dangerous weapon" whether you are evacuating to a shelter or simply to a family members home, hotel, etc.
I strongly supported this bill as I live in a flood prone area and have had to evacuate a few times. And of course my "valuables" leave with me. YMMV
John
"It is also a misdemeanor under North Carolina law for a person to transport or
possess, off his or her own premises, a dangerous weapon in an area during a declared
state of emergency, or in the vicinity of a riot. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.7 A concealed
handgun permit does not allow a permittee to carry a weapon in these areas. N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 14-415.11(c) "
So when the Gov. of NC declares a "State of Emergency" during (or after) a hurricane, snow storm... whatever, you may not legally leave your property with a "dangerous weapon" whether you are evacuating to a shelter or simply to a family members home, hotel, etc.
I strongly supported this bill as I live in a flood prone area and have had to evacuate a few times. And of course my "valuables" leave with me. YMMV
John
roscoe13
Campaign Veteran
The purpose/original intent is irrelevant. What we ended up with is a bill that's worse than having no bill at all...
Roscoe
Roscoe
Thundar
Regular Member
Well the bill does suck, but it could have sucked more. I am surprised that the constitutional guarantees were not afforded to only those that have a CHP. You know a real P4P - a trump card for emergency gun bans.
Marco
Regular Member
Agreed.
But, this bill is not going to stop anyone from carrying.
Those that feel they need to carry are going to do so during an emergency regardless of what some Gubermint stooge is tell them they can or can't do. While they may not be obvious about it they'll be armed none the less.
I'm not adovcating criminal activity but let's face facts, during a national/regional emergency the need for arms is greatly increased not decreased.
The person(s) that thought up/included this line "except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety" is a tool.
Why not state no carrying of weapons for criminal purposes instead.
They aren't going to install metal detectors at every entrance of an emergency shelter or search each and every person each and everytime they enter. Short of the above they can't ensure no firearms will be carried.
I'd sooner get me and mine in the car and head for safer ground than use an emergency shelter or just buckle down and weather it out at home if possible.
IMHO, just another useless feel good bill, that panders to both sides without really doing anything.
Last edited:
kenny
Regular Member
That's the way it is throughout the Commonwealth. In Richmond the schools are in such bad shape and not ADA compliant that the Ashe Center and Coliseum are used. Every once in a while a church may be used depending on how long the shelter will be opened.
wylde007
Regular Member
Or the classic forum favorite "no illegal weapons".
ocholsteroc
Regular Member
Or the classic forum favorite "no illegal weapons".
I seen a sign like that once "No illegal guns"
Okay.. No full autos.
:lol:
machine guns aren't illegal in va.
sure, hoops to jump through and dances to dance... the state registry, and the pesky federal $200 tax stamp, yet still legal.
ocholsteroc
Regular Member
amtilton17
Regular Member
Gun law added to list
HB 26
Failure to produce concealed permit while carrying concealed now carries a $25 fine which may be waived upon production of permit. Also production of permit to court is now an affirmative defense of a violating concealed handgun charge.
HB 26
Failure to produce concealed permit while carrying concealed now carries a $25 fine which may be waived upon production of permit. Also production of permit to court is now an affirmative defense of a violating concealed handgun charge.
Maybe just not willing to put pen to paper - not compromising his signature. It's the lesser of two evils for his spin team.
Bob McD in trying maintain the middle of the road has several times now found himself facing on coming traffic - IMO that is not unlike playing Russian roulette with voter's reactions. He's trying to control his national image.
Maybe just not willing to put pen to paper - not compromising his signature. It's the lesser of two evils for his spin team.
Bob McD in trying maintain the middle of the road has several times now found himself facing on coming traffic - IMO that is not unlike playing Russian roulette with voter's reactions. He's trying to control his national image.
If he doesn't get the #2 spot, maybe the Republicans will make him head of the National Committee. Then he and Kaine can stand on either side of the line and see who can get the other wet.:lol:
I have a mental image of a very unacceptable picture.:monkey
Never get into a whizzing contest with a skunk - you'll end up drowning* in it and the skunk doesn't mind.
* It's a question of matter over mind.
TFred
Regular Member
The Governor's options
I was curious, so I dug around a little on the General Assembly website and found this, outlining the Governor's options for handling a bill that is sent to him.
TFred
For any bill presented, the Constitution of Virginia provides the Governor with three options: sign, veto, or offer amendments. The Governor may also veto one or more items in an appropriation bill. If the Governor does not act on a bill, it becomes law without his signature.
During the regular or special session, the Governor has seven days to act on bills presented to him. If there are fewer than seven days remaining in the General Assembly session, or if the General Assembly has adjourned, the Governor has thirty days after adjournment to act on bills.
If the Governor recommends amendments to or vetoes a bill, and the General Assembly is still in session, the General Assembly can consider the Governor's action.
When the General Assembly receives recommended amendments or vetoed legislation from the Governor, it is sent to the house of origin, i.e. House bills are sent to the House of Delegates and Senate bills are sent to the Senate. There are various constitutional options available to the General Assembly:
A. The Governor's amendments can be agreed to or rejected. If the amendments are agreed to by both houses, the amended bill is reenrolled and becomes law. Governor's amendments may be rejected and the original bill sent back to the Governor where it may be signed as originally presented or vetoed. The house of origin, having rejected a Governor's amendment, can pass the bill as originally presented to the Governor by a vote of two-thirds of the members of each body.
B. The Governor must submit amendments in a form that allows the General Assembly to act on each amendment individually. The General Assembly may accept or reject part of the amendments. The bill is then returned to the Governor with the amendments agreed to by the General Assembly. The Governor may approve or veto the bill as amended. If the Governor does not act, the bill will become law without his signature.
C. If either house of the General Assembly determines that the Governor's amendments are not specific and severable (able to be acted upon individually), that house may refer the bill to committee and the bill will be treated as if it was just introduced. If the bill is then passed by the General Assembly, it is enrolled and sent back to the Governor for approval or veto.
D. The Governor's vetoes may be upheld or overridden. If the veto is upheld, the bill dies. The vote to override a Governor's veto requires a two-thirds vote of both the House of Delegates and the Senate.
I was curious, so I dug around a little on the General Assembly website and found this, outlining the Governor's options for handling a bill that is sent to him.
TFred
For any bill presented, the Constitution of Virginia provides the Governor with three options: sign, veto, or offer amendments. The Governor may also veto one or more items in an appropriation bill. If the Governor does not act on a bill, it becomes law without his signature.
During the regular or special session, the Governor has seven days to act on bills presented to him. If there are fewer than seven days remaining in the General Assembly session, or if the General Assembly has adjourned, the Governor has thirty days after adjournment to act on bills.
If the Governor recommends amendments to or vetoes a bill, and the General Assembly is still in session, the General Assembly can consider the Governor's action.
When the General Assembly receives recommended amendments or vetoed legislation from the Governor, it is sent to the house of origin, i.e. House bills are sent to the House of Delegates and Senate bills are sent to the Senate. There are various constitutional options available to the General Assembly:
A. The Governor's amendments can be agreed to or rejected. If the amendments are agreed to by both houses, the amended bill is reenrolled and becomes law. Governor's amendments may be rejected and the original bill sent back to the Governor where it may be signed as originally presented or vetoed. The house of origin, having rejected a Governor's amendment, can pass the bill as originally presented to the Governor by a vote of two-thirds of the members of each body.
B. The Governor must submit amendments in a form that allows the General Assembly to act on each amendment individually. The General Assembly may accept or reject part of the amendments. The bill is then returned to the Governor with the amendments agreed to by the General Assembly. The Governor may approve or veto the bill as amended. If the Governor does not act, the bill will become law without his signature.
C. If either house of the General Assembly determines that the Governor's amendments are not specific and severable (able to be acted upon individually), that house may refer the bill to committee and the bill will be treated as if it was just introduced. If the bill is then passed by the General Assembly, it is enrolled and sent back to the Governor for approval or veto.
D. The Governor's vetoes may be upheld or overridden. If the veto is upheld, the bill dies. The vote to override a Governor's veto requires a two-thirds vote of both the House of Delegates and the Senate.
TFred
Regular Member
Now having posted the previous message, I'm curious about SB563.
It was signed by the President of the Senate on 2/28, which was well prior to seven days before the end of the session (3/10), shouldn't the status be updated by now to reflect either some action by the Governor, or the fact that it became law without his signature?
TFred
It was signed by the President of the Senate on 2/28, which was well prior to seven days before the end of the session (3/10), shouldn't the status be updated by now to reflect either some action by the Governor, or the fact that it became law without his signature?
TFred
Would surely think so TFred - that is the way I read that too. Would appear that it will be effective July 1st.
One scenario seems to be missing regarding a the fate of a bill. If the governor were to suggest amendments and the GA is not in session, is that kosher and what happens to the bill?
With the regular session concluded and the special session not yet formally begun (or has it?) - where does this process stand?
TFred
Regular Member
I think that falls under the 30 day timer. If the session ends before 7 days is up, then he automatically gets 30 days. Then they have to act on it along with all the other amendments and vetoes when they come back for that purpose.
TFred