So much for the secured container law

I haven't said much about this because I didn't want to cause a stir. One of the bad things about asking for a law that's already been defined by the courts, is it may get changed.....Looks like it's in the works...I've said many times...be careful what you ask for:


(HB962)[SIZE=-1]GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION

• 1. Line 3, enrolled, Title, after handgun;

• strike

• secured

• insert

• locked

• 2. Line 108, enrolled, after handgun is

• strike

• secured

• insert

• locked

• 3. Line 109, enrolled, after vessel

• strike

• the remainder of line 109, all of line 110, and through locked on line 111

[/SIZE]

---

Legislative Information System

peter nap said:

I haven't said much about this because I didn't want to cause a stir. One of the bad things about asking for a law that's already been defined by the courts, is it may get changed.....Looks like it's in the works...I've said many times...be careful what you ask for:

Click to expand...

This clearly defies every previously communicated intent for the law. Hopefully worst case, the House will not agree and the bill will die.

This is the revelation of the prophecy about McAuliffe and his ILK from Day 1.

There needs to be a MASSIVE effort for this by VCDL, NRA, EVERYONE.

TFred

ETA: It passed with 70 out of 100 in the House, and 27 out of 40 in the Senate. Both are above a 2/3 margin, isn't that enough to override a Veto?

TFred said:

This clearly defies every previously communicated intent for the law. Hopefully worst case, the House will not agree and the bill will die.

This is the revelation of the prophecy about McAuliffe and his ILK from Day 1.

There needs to be a MASSIVE effort for this by VCDL, NRA, EVERYONE.

TFred

Click to expand...

I kinda hope they stay out of it. Things are bad enough already. The best thing now is for it to die.

peter nap said:

I kinda hope they stay out of it. Things are bad enough already. The best thing now is for it to die.

Click to expand...

Well, there is something to be said for that, since we do have clear precedence to support what "secured" actually means, but at the same time, until it's plainly added to the Code of Virginia, there will always be some punk cop who enjoys sending people on "the ride" - just because he or she can get away with it.

TFred

ETA: Is there a point, and if so, where is it in the process that it becomes "too late" for the bill's patron to withdraw it?

TFred said:

Well, there is something to be said for that, since we do have clear precedence to support what "secured" actually means, but at the same time, until it's plainly added to the Code of Virginia, there will always be some punk cop who enjoys sending people on "the ride" - just because he or she can get away with it.

TFred

ETA: Is there a point, and if so, where is it in the process that it becomes "too late" for the bill's patron to withdraw it?

Click to expand...

It could be withdrawn at this point and I'll be hammering the nails on that coffin. If the Gun Lobby meddles with it it'll be secured carry with a CHP and they'll brag about it to boot..."Looky what we did for you"

All the more reason to just OC.

peter nap said:

It could be withdrawn at this point and I'll be hammering the nails on that coffin. If the Gun Lobby meddles with it it'll be secured carry with a CHP and they'll brag about it to boot..."Looky what we did for you"

Click to expand...

Yea they did that here, it became legal to lock your gun in your car if you have a CHP. Duhhhhhhhhhh, it always has been legal. I just wonder now if some LEO will interpret the law to mean you cannot lock your gun in your car if you do not have a CHP.

And GRNC is real proud of the above like they did us a great favor.

:cuss:

There is no point to this bill, except to penalize otherwise law abiding persons.

............................................................................................................:cuss:

Grapeshot said:

:cuss:

There is no point to this bill, except to penalize otherwise law abiding persons.

............................................................................................................:cuss:

Click to expand...

There is a point, it is clear. Pay for Privilege! As they did here it will eventually be amended to allow privilege card holders to secure their firearm. Not sure how that will affect stubborn OCers until it hits the courts.

WalkingWolf said:

There is a point, it is clear. Pay for Privilege! As they did here it will eventually be amended to allow privilege card holders to secure their firearm. Not sure how that will affect stubborn OCers until it hits the courts.

Click to expand...

Could have, should have said, no desired point.

While I don't like guns being stored in vehicles, it is better than they're running around unattended.

IMO - trying to fix a problem that did not exist. All legal gun owners were....legal.

Grapeshot said:

Could have, should have said, no desired point.

While I don't like guns being stored in vehicles, it is better than they're running around unattended.

IMO - trying to fix a problem that did not exist. All legal gun owners were....legal.

Click to expand...

I agree, but some feel they must sell the mystic of concealed carry. As more people find the truth, there needs to be more hurdles to unlicensed carry. The laws of New Mexico and Oklahoma are the goal for our state and possibly yours, by the supporters of forced training.

A related VA-Alert from VCDL:

-------------------------------------------------
Earlier today Governor McAuliffe made his first suggested amendment to a bill awaiting his signature. What is his first suggested amendment as Governor? Gun control.

The amendment is clearly meant to poke gun owners in the eye! Not a good way for McAuliffe to start off his tenure as Governor, but not unexpected either.

The Governor’s suggested amendment modifies HB 962, which is Delegate Cline’s bill clarifying current law as it deals with storing a handgun in a vehicle or vessel. Right now the law allows a person who does not have a CHP to be able to store a handgun in an UNLOCKED, but closed, compartment or container in their vehicle or vessel.

The Governor’s suggestion completely changes HB 962, requiring that the compartment or container be LOCKED! That’s not a clarification of current law - that is rewriting current law! It also puts the gun owner at increased risk by making his handgun less accessible.

That amendment would move Virginia backwards and that is simply not acceptable.

The Governor’s suggested amendment is just that, a suggestion. The House can simply reject the suggestion and the bill goes back to the Governor in its original form for him to either sign, not sign, or to veto.

If the Governor either signs or doesn’t sign the bill, it will become law (it’s just a clarification to prevent false arrests, so nothing will really change as far as the rights of gun owners go). If he vetoes the bill, it will then become part of the veto override session that will happen in April. If there are enough votes in the House and Senate (2/3 required), the Governor’s veto will be overridden and the bill will become law. Otherwise the bill will die and current law will remain unchanged.

NOTE: If the bill dies, we won’t take a step backwards because we have both an Attorney General’s opinion and, far more importantly, case law on our side. Without the clarification that HB 962 provides, we will continue to see the occasional false arrest based on police and magistrates being confused and not doing their homework.

That the Governor would think to modify such a benign bill is mind boggling. Oh, well - it won’t stop us from making sure his desk is covered in pro-gun bills over the next 4 years nonetheless.

You will be kept in the loop as HB 962 works its way through the remainder of the legislative session. For now we have an urgent action item to do - telling the House that we want them to REJECT the Governor’s suggested amendments:

URGENT ACTION ITEM!

Click here to send a prewritten message to your Delegate (the software automatically figures out who that is based on your address and Zip+4) to reject the Governor’s suggested amendments to HB 962. This just takes seconds to do:

http://tinyurl.com/lhgp48y

Let’s roll on this, VCDL!

Grapeshot said:

:cuss:

There is no point to this bill, except to penalize otherwise law abiding persons.

............................................................................................................:cuss:

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

There is a point, it is clear. Pay for Privilege! As they did here it will eventually be amended to allow privilege card holders to secure their firearm. Not sure how that will affect stubborn OCers until it hits the courts.

Click to expand...

There is a very important point to this bill - as it was originally written, submitted and passed by both houses of the General Assembly. It codifies what both the Attorney General AND recent court cases have confirmed, that one may store a loaded handgun in a "secured" but not "locked" container or compartment within their personally owned vehicle or boat.

Think about it, this law (as it exists NOW, and as it would be further clarified by the original form of this bill) increases the liberty one has to carry a loaded handgun without a CHP, even though it is obvious that placing a handgun inside an opaque container is clearly concealing it. No one can credibly argue that without the current law, one would be charged with carrying a concealed handgun if they stored their handgun in this manner without holding a CHP.

What we have is a governor who is playing to his gun-hating base, and is therefore trying to take us a step backward at every opportunity. Despite the fact that this law passed the General Assembly with the crystal clear intent that the container need not be locked, McAuliffe is trying to bully a rewrite of the law himself, which he has absolutely no right to do as governor.

If we can get the bill through as it was written, it would be a good thing, and IMHO it is worth the effort to do so, if there is no risk of being stuck with McAuliffe's version instead.

The clearer it is to the LEO community that the container need not be locked, the fewer of us risk going on "the ride" that the few corrupt LEOs so enjoy sending folks on.

TFred

VCDL was actually trying to do some good here. Guv'na Terry is being an absolute tool here. I hope that the house of delegates stands firm and returns the bill as originally written.

Four years of this sort of crap from the Guv'na? This must be what nuclear winter feels like.

Thundar said:

VCDL was actually trying to do some good here. Guv'na Terry is being an absolute tool here. I hope that the house of delegates stands firm and returns the bill as originally written.

Four years of this sort of crap from the Guv'na? This must be what nuclear winter feels like.

Click to expand...

Even if they do, he won't sign it.
The only path for this bill is to die.

peter nap said:

Even if they do, he won't sign it.
The only path for this bill is to die.

Click to expand...

If the GA sends back the original, and he does nothing, then it becomes law. If he vetoes it, then it dies, and we are left with the status quo, PLUS everyone in the middle has another data point proving what a schmuck he is.

I don't see the House ever agreeing to adapt his recommendations.

TFred

TFred said:

If the GA sends back the original, and he does nothing, then it becomes law. If he vetoes it, then it dies, and we are left with the status quo, PLUS everyone in the middle has another data point proving what a schmuck he is.

I don't see the House ever agreeing to adapt his recommendations.

TFred

Click to expand...

They probably won't TFred, but I've spent the last 9 days counting to 7 for SH to become law which is still very much up in the air because of this idiot not signing.....putting this bill on the alter was the worst kind of stupidity in the first place. There have two major victories in the last few years, Preemption which I guess they plan to monkey with next year and the secured container law.

This reminds me of the James Mason Supreme Court challenge. Playing Blackjack with your neighbors mortgage money.

Time to just let the thing die and if someone is arrested and too stupid to hire a lawyer or at least bring up the case law in their defense, they shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Yes...my patience is very much done in.

peter nap said:

They probably won't TFred, but I've spent the last 9 days counting to 7 for SH to become law which is still very much up in the air because of this idiot not signing.....putting this bill on the alter was the worst kind of stupidity in the first place. There have two major victories in the last few years, Preemption which I guess they plan to monkey with next year and the secured container law.

This reminds me of the James Mason Supreme Court challenge. Playing Blackjack with your neighbors mortgage money.

Time to just let the thing die and if someone is arrested and too stupid to hire a lawyer or at least bring up the case law in their defense, they shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Yes...my patience is very much done in.

Click to expand...

Another victim of Obama Care and excutive order - that is McAwful

What the heck were they thinking? Why did anyone put this bill forward to begin with? The only thing this can do, if the legislature votes one way or another on a veto is create negative legislative history, which until today, was clear. It is IMPERATIVE that this bill die an natural death. There was no problem to begin with and there is no problem now, but if this goes any farther, well, let's just say the lawyers will be making more money.

user said:

What the heck were they thinking? Why did anyone put this bill forward to begin with? The only thing this can do, if the legislature votes one way or another on a veto is create negative legislative history, which until today, was clear. It is IMPERATIVE that this bill die an natural death. There was no problem to begin with and there is no problem now, but if this goes any farther, well, let's just say the lawyers will be making more money.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong User, but Va being a weak legislative intent state, it's very difficult to show what the legislature intended. It is possible on occasion to show what they didn't mean. This bill was voted through as a locked container bill originally. The Governor sent it back with his recommendation that they use the word Secured....which they did and he signed it into law.

That gave a very strong indication that the bill did not mean "Locked".

The new bill, even if it goes back to the Governor in it's original form, removes much of the clout the first signing created.