• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

HB 375 Firearms; workplace rule

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
It just went to Conference Committee so it's not dead...but probably won't go any further.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I don't understand why the House rejected the Senate substitute. The House amendments "broke" the original law in a drastic manner. The Senate amendment "fixed" it back to be OK.

TFred

There's a very heavy anti lobby TFred.
The fence sitters are just looking for excuses so they don't make either side too angry.
 

streetdoc

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
341
Location
Unionville, Virginia, USA
Yesterday the Senate requested a conference with the House for HB375 and today the House agreed. Please e-mail your Senators and Delegates urging reconciliation and agreement to pass HB375. I realize that it does not help everybody but it does not hurt anybody either. For those of us the work for Local Government it will be a big help and a stepping stone to get this for others next year.
This morning I sent an e-mail to every Senator and every Delegate urging them to work together and pass HB375, please take a little time to do this also. This is what I sent them;

"I am urging you to reconcile your differences and pass HB375.

I live in Senator Reeves’ and Delegate Ed Scott’s District, Orange County and work in Fairfax County. I work for local government on 24 hour shift work. As such, they prohibit us as a condition of employment from possessing or securing a firearm in our vehicles on County Property. I leave my home at 4am to go to work and leave work the following day once I am relived at 7am. On my return to my home I may make stops for shopping, fuel, banking, hunting (in the appropriate season), etc. It is very important that we be afforded our rights to be able to provide for our own defense, or other lawful shooting sports, i.e. hunting or ranges, without having to return home to get our firearms. Local government employees should not be required to give up their rights just because we work for local government.

Please come to an agreement and pass HB 375.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Name & address"
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Yesterday the Senate requested a conference with the House for HB375 and today the House agreed. Please e-mail your Senators and Delegates urging reconciliation and agreement to pass HB375. I realize that it does not help everybody but it does not hurt anybody either. For those of us the work for Local Government it will be a big help and a stepping stone to get this for others next year.
This morning I sent an e-mail to every Senator and every Delegate urging them to work together and pass HB375, please take a little time to do this also. This is what I sent them;

"I am urging you to reconcile your differences and pass HB375.

I live in Senator Reeves’ and Delegate Ed Scott’s District, Orange County and work in Fairfax County. I work for local government on 24 hour shift work. As such, they prohibit us as a condition of employment from possessing or securing a firearm in our vehicles on County Property. I leave my home at 4am to go to work and leave work the following day once I am relived at 7am. On my return to my home I may make stops for shopping, fuel, banking, hunting (in the appropriate season), etc. It is very important that we be afforded our rights to be able to provide for our own defense, or other lawful shooting sports, i.e. hunting or ranges, without having to return home to get our firearms. Local government employees should not be required to give up their rights just because we work for local government.

Please come to an agreement and pass HB 375.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Name & address"
The bold above is not quite accurate.

If this bill is passed, it is crucial that the Senate amendments be allowed to stand. The House amendments were made on the floor, and cripple the law that this bill is trying to change: our all-important preemption law, 15.2-915.

If the House version is passed, our preemption law becomes virtually meaningless.


Compare Paragraph D of the House version, to the Senate version, to see why this is absolutely critical.

TFred

For those who don't like to click:

House version: [D. The provisions of this section shall apply only to workplaces of the locality.]

Senate version: [D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."]

As you can see, the House version virtually guts the scope of the entire law.
 

streetdoc

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
341
Location
Unionville, Virginia, USA
TFred, I agree the Senate version is worded better so we don't loose anything, however, they added some places were firearms would be prohibited. Hopefully, they can work out their differences and we can get an appropriately worded and passed version of HB375.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
TFred, I agree the Senate version is worded better so we don't loose anything, however, they added some places were firearms would be prohibited. Hopefully, they can work out their differences and we can get an appropriately worded and passed version of HB375.
Ah, you are right. Looks like the Senate also added these places where the new parking lot rule would be exempt:

"any college or university, or any community services board or behavioral health authority licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services."

As long as they keep the Senate version of Paragraph D, the rest is not critical.

TFred
 
Last edited:

optiksguy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
69
Location
Town of Herndon, VA
House version: [D. The provisions of this section shall apply only to workplaces of the locality.]

Senate version: [D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."]

As you can see, the House version virtually guts the scope of the entire law.

I'm usually pretty good at parsing these things but I must be especially dense today because I'm having trouble understanding the difference between the two versions as you quoted above. I'd be appreciative of a brief explanation.

Best regards
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
House version: [D. The provisions of this section shall apply only to workplaces of the locality.]

Senate version: [D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."]

As you can see, the House version virtually guts the scope of the entire law.

I'm usually pretty good at parsing these things but I must be especially dense today because I'm having trouble understanding the difference between the two versions as you quoted above. I'd be appreciative of a brief explanation.

Best regards
As best I understand it, "this section" refers to the entire section of code, 15.2-915, which is THE preemption law. Paragraph D of the House version limits the scope of the whole law to only workplaces of localities. That would leave localities free to impose any local ordinance that 15.2-915 currently prohibits, as long as that local ordinance did not apply to "the workplaces of the localities."

It is obviously a mistake, because that wouldn't even make sense, but that would be what the law says, if it is not fixed.

I'm a little confused on why they need to make this clarification anyway, other than to just explicitly say that it applies only to local government workplaces, and not "workplaces" in general, which is what a "real" parking lot law would cover.

TFred
 

optiksguy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
69
Location
Town of Herndon, VA
As best I understand it, "this section" refers to the entire section of code, 15.2-915, which is THE preemption law. Paragraph D of the House version limits the scope of the whole law to only workplaces of localities.
TFred

Ahh, ok, I get it now, that makes sense (well, your explanation does, not their wording). Thanks much.
 

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
The bill has been kicked around way too much. It won't pass.

The intent has already been approved by both Houses - it is some word-smithing that has been the battle currently. As long as the bill that comes out of conference committee has the original intent in place with properer wording, it should pass.

I have been working this issue with Delegate Pogge. Hopefully we will get the job done. We should know in a few days.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
The intent has already been approved by both Houses - it is some word-smithing that has been the battle currently. As long as the bill that comes out of conference committee has the original intent in place with properer wording, it should pass.

I have been working this issue with Delegate Pogge. Hopefully we will get the job done. We should know in a few days.


As I understand things, Virginia does not reccognize "legislative intent". The law is what the law says it is, using plain language unless the courts want to twist it into some other meaning. User knows the Latin for this - I'll let him impress us all with attorney-speak.

The point is that
House version: [D. The provisions of this section shall apply only to workplaces of the locality.] does not mean exactly the same thing as

Senate version: [D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."].

stay safe.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
As I understand things, Virginia does not reccognize "legislative intent". The law is what the law says it is, using plain language unless the courts want to twist it into some other meaning. User knows the Latin for this - I'll let him impress us all with attorney-speak.

The point is that
House version: [D. The provisions of this section shall apply only to workplaces of the locality.] does not mean exactly the same thing as

Senate version: [D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."].

stay safe.
You are right, it is my opinion that this was a mistake created by an amendment made on the floor of the house. It was picked up on fairly quickly and always was intended to be corrected in the Senate version.

However, see this earlier post:

Ah, you are right. Looks like the Senate also added these places where the new parking lot rule would be exempt:

"any college or university, or any community services board or behavioral health authority licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services."

As long as they keep the Senate version of Paragraph D, the rest is not critical.
I believe the Senate added those four exceptions to the House version. I suspect that this is the change under debate, not the correction of the poorly worded floor amendment from the House's version.

Although not critical to the value of the bill, I hope the House holds out on these four exceptions, those employees deserve protection no less than any other state employee. The type of work the person does, or where they do it, has no impact on whether they should be able to protect themselves on the drive to and from work.

The argument for these exceptions is the same anti-gun insanity as every other gun-control law.

TFred
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Colleges, universities, community service boards and behavioral health authorities are all places where crazy people with violent tendencies are known to congregate. They are also places where (in the first two instances) students are to be found and (in the latter two instances) people who want their lives to be better are to be found.

The Senators apparently believes that the similarities between themselves and the folks at colleges, universities, community service boards and behavioral health authorities are too close to ignore.:uhoh:

stay safe.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Colleges, universities, community service boards and behavioral health authorities are all places where crazy people with violent tendencies are known to congregate. They are also places where (in the first two instances) students are to be found and (in the latter two instances) people who want their lives to be better are to be found.

The Senators apparently believes that the similarities between themselves and the folks at colleges, universities, community service boards and behavioral health authorities are too close to ignore.:uhoh:

stay safe.

:lol:That's not nice Skid....funny, but mean. Saslaw may take you off is Christmas card list.:lol:
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
You are right, it is my opinion that this was a mistake created by an amendment made on the floor of the house. It was picked up on fairly quickly and always was intended to be corrected in the Senate version.

However, see this earlier post:


I believe the Senate added those four exceptions to the House version. I suspect that this is the change under debate, not the correction of the poorly worded floor amendment from the House's version.

Although not critical to the value of the bill, I hope the House holds out on these four exceptions, those employees deserve protection no less than any other state employee. The type of work the person does, or where they do it, has no impact on whether they should be able to protect themselves on the drive to and from work.

The argument for these exceptions is the same anti-gun insanity as every other gun-control law.

TFred

We're getting down to the wire now TFred. Holding out is quickly losing any usefulness.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
They've set the conference members:

03/05/12 Senate: Conferees appointed by Senate
03/05/12 Senate: Senators: Stanley, Reeves, Garrett
03/06/12 House: Conferees appointed by House
03/06/12 House: Delegates: Pogge, Merricks, Kory

TFred
 
Top