Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: For those that aren't checking bills

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    For those that aren't checking bills

    Here are the weapons bills to date:


    • HB 1326 Concealed handgun permits; firearms safety courses.
    • HB 1391 Possession of handguns in legislative buildings.
    • HB 1410 Firearms; possession of weapons following conviction of certain crimes, penalty.
    • HB 1411 Hoax explosive devices; imitation weapons of terrorism, increased penalties.
    • HB 1506 Service firearms; minimum years of service.
    • HB 1557 School boards; training for persons designated to carry concealed handguns on school property.
    • HB 1582 Armed security officers; protection of schools and child day centers.
    • HB 1604 Private security services businesses; carrying firearm in course of duties.
    • HB 1660 Prisoners; prohibits those in correctional facilities from possessing or transporting weapons.
    • HB 1662 Libraries; locality to adopt an ordinance that prohibits firearms, ammunition, etc. in.
    • HB 1679 Concealed handgun permit; exception retired investigator of security division of Lottery Department.
    • HB 1693 Firearms; removes specific exception for possession on public school property, penalty.
    • HB 1833 Concealed weapons and concealed handgun permits; reorganizing & recodifying law related to carrying.
    • HB 1866 Public schools; mandatory expulsion of students.
    • HB 2025 Firearms; requires background check for any purchase.
    • SB 703 Concealed handgun permit fees; provides an exemption for certain retired correctional officers.
    • SB 785 Firearms; use in commission of crime, civil liability.
    • SB 786 Firearms, lost or stolen; failure to report, civil penalty.
    • SB 965 Firearms; failure to report those lost or stolen, penalty.
    • SB 1012 Possession of handguns in legislative buildings.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lynchburg
    Posts
    167
    HB 1410 has a by-product that stems from it that could be a benefit for some. If a state takes away a person firearms rights then grants them back to them. That person is no longer "victim" of the Laudenberg Amendment. Not saying I favor this bill but having a process here in VA such as this would benefit those whom rights were removed due to 18.2-57.2 (with a record of force). Provided of course the Circuit Court restores their gun rights.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by love4guns View Post
    HB 1410 has a by-product that stems from it that could be a benefit for some. If a state takes away a person firearms rights then grants them back to them. That person is no longer "victim" of the Laudenberg Amendment. Not saying I favor this bill but having a process here in VA such as this would benefit those whom rights were removed due to 18.2-57.2 (with a record of force). Provided of course the Circuit Court restores their gun rights.
    The problem with the bill is that it shoots holes in the Common law defenses we now have.
    Kind of like paying a dollar for a dime.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998
    So there are a lot bad bills here and not much of anything that looks like VCDL had anything to do with it. Are VCDL and its friends in the GA intentionally waiting to file pro-gun bills?

    One bills listed here, though, particularly stands out to me as interesting - HB1391. The full text states:

    Be it enacted by General Assembly of Virginia:

    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2 as follows:

    18.2-283.2. Possession of weapons in legislative buildings.

    A. With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.

    B. Any person who enters the Capitol of Virginia or any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly shall be required to go through screening conducted by the Capitol Police or an agent of the Capitol Police. The method of screening shall be determined by the Capitol Police.

    C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly, to the staff of the General Assembly, or to any law-enforcement officer.
    The way I read this, it would actually seem to expand the legality of carry in the General Assembly to include open carry by those who "lawfully possess" a handgun, regardless of whether or not they have a CHP. This bill is sponsored by three democrats, so I don't quite know what to make of it.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by VApatriot View Post
    So there are a lot bad bills here and not much of anything that looks like VCDL had anything to do with it. Are VCDL and its friends in the GA intentionally waiting to file pro-gun bills?

    One bills listed here, though, particularly stands out to me as interesting - HB1391. The full text states:



    The way I read this, it would actually seem to expand the legality of carry in the General Assembly to include open carry by those who "lawfully possess" a handgun, regardless of whether or not they have a CHP. This bill is sponsored by three democrats, so I don't quite know what to make of it.
    It's setting the stage to change to any person who has a CHP...and the real purpose is to require everyone to go through screening. This comes up every year.

    It would codify what is now just a rule as far as weapons and the rule has never been formally passed, probably wouldn't pass if it did come up for a vote.

    What they aren't saying is the danger.


    As far as VCDL's agenda...they'll have to answer that.
    Last edited by peter nap; 01-10-2013 at 11:39 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Here are the weapons bills to date:


    • HB 1326 Concealed handgun permits; firearms safety courses.
    • HB 1391 Possession of handguns in legislative buildings.
    • HB 1410 Firearms; possession of weapons following conviction of certain crimes, penalty.
    • HB 1411 Hoax explosive devices; imitation weapons of terrorism, increased penalties.
    • HB 1506 Service firearms; minimum years of service.
    • HB 1557 School boards; training for persons designated to carry concealed handguns on school property.
    • HB 1582 Armed security officers; protection of schools and child day centers.
    • HB 1604 Private security services businesses; carrying firearm in course of duties.
    • HB 1660 Prisoners; prohibits those in correctional facilities from possessing or transporting weapons.
    • HB 1662 Libraries; locality to adopt an ordinance that prohibits firearms, ammunition, etc. in.
    • HB 1679 Concealed handgun permit; exception retired investigator of security division of Lottery Department.
    • HB 1693 Firearms; removes specific exception for possession on public school property, penalty.
    • HB 1833 Concealed weapons and concealed handgun permits; reorganizing & recodifying law related to carrying.
    • HB 1866 Public schools; mandatory expulsion of students.
    • HB 2025 Firearms; requires background check for any purchase.
    • SB 703 Concealed handgun permit fees; provides an exemption for certain retired correctional officers.
    • SB 785 Firearms; use in commission of crime, civil liability.
    • SB 786 Firearms, lost or stolen; failure to report, civil penalty.
    • SB 965 Firearms; failure to report those lost or stolen, penalty.
    • SB 1012 Possession of handguns in legislative buildings.
    Remind me, if you come to the Rally, to buy you a beer!

    This is great, I'll be glad when I get home, so I can read over this and give input. Thanks for posting.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    Remind me, if you come to the Rally, to buy you a beer!

    This is great, I'll be glad when I get home, so I can read over this and give input. Thanks for posting.
    If Rally you mean the Pre Lobby Day meeting, I'll probably pass. I know Philips speech by heart

    If you mean Lobby day, there will be two people out front with a lot of camera gear, the ugly one is Matt

    I'll be the other one.

    If not there, I'll be on the 6th floor balcony, smoking and arguing with someone.
    Last edited by peter nap; 01-10-2013 at 12:05 PM.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    It appears that Matt has had some health problems that I didn't know about, so my joke was in poor taste.

    He's a very talented Videographer and I'll miss him if he isn't there. At any rate Matt, prayers for a fast recovery!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    It's setting the stage to change to any person who has a CHP...and the real purpose is to require everyone to go through screening. This comes up every year.
    As only people with CHPs can get in while carrying now, that wouldn't really change anything. And, if this bill passes in its current form, it seems unlikely that the GA would come back in a later year and make things more restrictive. As for the security screening requirements, this bill, again, doesn't seem to change much. Currently, CHP holders still going through a screening processes, all be it a slightly different one than most everyone else. The wording of the bill leaves specific screening practices up to the discretion of the capitol police, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that they would simply maintain separate procedures for those carrying firearms, with or without a CHP.

    It would codify what is now just a rule as far as weapons and the rule has never been formally passed, probably wouldn't pass if it did come up for a vote.
    Would it be bad to have this codified? I'll admit that I am not very familiar with the procedures needed to change a GA rule, but wouldn't it be easier for carry rights to go backwards through a negative change in a rule vs. going through changing a statute again if this passes? Of course, I would like the idea of legal carry in the GA through the complete silence of both law and regulation on the subject (i.e. the way open carry is "legal" based on the fact that there is no prohibitions against it), but this would require the GA rule on weapons to be removed. I don't want to sound overly defeatist, but that seems unlikely to happen, and if I have to pick between a rule or a statute that protects carry, I think that statute is better.

    What they aren't saying is the danger.

    As far as VCDL's agenda...they'll have to answer that.
    I completely agree that something does seem suspicious about this bill, but right now I can't see it, and, according to PVC's most recent update, VCDL is currently treating HB1391 as a pro-gun bill that would expand legal carry.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by VApatriot View Post
    As only people with CHPs can get in while carrying now, that wouldn't really change anything. And, if this bill passes in its current form, it seems unlikely that the GA would come back in a later year and make things more restrictive. As for the security screening requirements, this bill, again, doesn't seem to change much. Currently, CHP holders still going through a screening processes, all be it a slightly different one than most everyone else. The wording of the bill leaves specific screening practices up to the discretion of the capitol police, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that they would simply maintain separate procedures for those carrying firearms, with or without a CHP.



    Would it be bad to have this codified? I'll admit that I am not very familiar with the procedures needed to change a GA rule, but wouldn't it be easier for carry rights to go backwards through a negative change in a rule vs. going through changing a statute again if this passes? Of course, I would like the idea of legal carry in the GA through the complete silence of both law and regulation on the subject (i.e. the way open carry is "legal" based on the fact that there is no prohibitions against it), but this would require the GA rule on weapons to be removed. I don't want to sound overly defeatist, but that seems unlikely to happen, and if I have to pick between a rule or a statute that protects carry, I think that statute is better.



    I completely agree that something does seem suspicious about this bill, but right now I can't see it, and, according to PVC's most recent update, VCDL is currently treating HB1391 as a pro-gun bill that would expand legal carry.
    The sun doesn't rise and set with CHP holders.
    Some of us both with and without CHP's can bypass security and I kind of like it that way.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    The sun doesn't rise and set with CHP holders.
    Some of us both with and without CHP's can bypass security and I kind of like it that way.
    I can fully understand and appreciate not wanting rollbacks in terms of security screenings from your perspective. If there haven't been any issues with screening the way it is, why change it to make things more inconvenient? Right? It seems like a classic anti-freedom move of trying to "fix" something that isn't broken.

    At the same time, protecting the ability of non-CHP holders to be able to defend themselves when they come to the capitol would rate much higher on my priorities than keeping certain privileges for a select few when it comes to security screenings. In the most ideal world we could expand carry rights while keeping other security procedures the same (and maybe we can get HB1391 amended to that effect), but if it's going to be one or the other, I'll take carry for everyone over bypassed security for a few every time. It's absolutely nothing personal; it's just the course that seems to most respect and protect individual rights and freedoms.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by VApatriot View Post
    I can fully understand and appreciate not wanting rollbacks in terms of security screenings from your perspective. If there haven't been any issues with screening the way it is, why change it to make things more inconvenient? Right? It seems like a classic anti-freedom move of trying to "fix" something that isn't broken.

    At the same time, protecting the ability of non-CHP holders to be able to defend themselves when they come to the capitol would rate much higher on my priorities than keeping certain privileges for a select few when it comes to security screenings. In the most ideal world we could expand carry rights while keeping other security procedures the same (and maybe we can get HB1391 amended to that effect), but if it's going to be one or the other, I'll take carry for everyone over bypassed security for a few every time. It's absolutely nothing personal; it's just the course that seems to most respect and protect individual rights and freedoms.
    You're right. It's all in perspective.
    I'll let you in on a little secret though. This bill affects ALL lobbyists, and press no matter how they feel about guns in the GA. None of us want to go through the metal detectors so we have already beaten it with a big stick.

    Is that fair....absolutely not!
    Is it a PERK, absolutely!
    Is it reality......Yep!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Steeler-gal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    562

    For those that aren't checking bills

    Thanks for posting. This gives me something to read up on prior to Lobby Day.
    =============================
    NRA Certified Instructor & Range Safety Officer
    Teaching classes in Lorton VA & Springfield VA
    PM me if you need a class, RSO or safety briefing

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeler-gal View Post
    Thanks for posting. This gives me something to read up on prior to Lobby Day.
    There will be more, probably are already but I've been busy trying to edit a commercial segment and arguing about the merits of electronic auto compensation scopes.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Looks like this/these yesterday:
    HB 2207 Sale, transfer, etc., of certain firearms and firearms magazines; penalty.
    Joseph D. Morrissey | all patrons ... notes
    | add to my profiles
    another bill? Log in LIS Home - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bills & Resolutions Members Committees Meetings Calendars Communications Minutes Statistics Lobbyist-in-a-Box

    Summary as introduced:
    Sale, transfer, etc., of certain firearms and firearms magazines; penalty. Provides that a person who imports, sells, barters, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The bill also provides that a person who imports, sells, barters, or transfers a firearms magazine that is designed to hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Finally, the bill provides an exception from both penalties for law-enforcement officers and military personnel.Full text:
    01/10/13 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13103146D pdf

    Status:
    01/10/13 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13103146D
    01/10/13 House: Committee Referral Pending
    ************************************************** ***************************************


    and today:

    HB 2221 Prohibiting selling, etc., of firearms to certain persons; penalty.
    Patrick A. Hope | all patrons ... notes
    | add to my profiles
    another bill? Log in LIS Home - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bills & Resolutions Members Committees Meetings Calendars Communications Minutes Statistics Lobbyist-in-a-Box

    Summary as introduced:
    Prohibiting selling, etc., of firearms to certain persons; penalty. Adds persons found legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated, persons involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility or sent for involuntary outpatient mental health treatment, and those who were the subject of a temporary detention order and subsequently agreed to voluntary admission to a mental health facility to the list of persons for whom it is a Class 6 felony to sell, barter, give, or furnish a firearm if the seller knows that the person is prohibited from possessing or transporting a firearm.Full text:
    01/11/13 House: Presented and ordered printed

    Status:
    01/11/13 House: Presented and ordered printed
    01/11/13 House: Committee Referral Pending




  16. #16
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    Don't forget to contact your elected reps in Richmond and attend Lobby Day if at all possible.

    Who's My legislator?
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •