Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: VCDL 2008 Legislation Tracking Tool

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spotsylvania County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    700

    Post imported post

    Anyone know when it will be made available?
    ---

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Not the VCDL's tool, but go to http://www.virginia1774.organd look at the Latest Legislative News along the left hand side. It tracks all the bills that have been pre-filed (session does not start until 1/9/08).

    Yes, you will have to wade through all the other stuff to find things related to guns, but a little lesson in civics never hurts.

    stay safe.

    skidmark


    *edited to give correct tab
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    You can search for bill from the General Assembly's website:
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...lnk&val=02

    Go to the "By section" link to see bills by category. Here are the bills related to weapons:
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sbj+068


  4. #4
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Midlothian, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    596

    Post imported post

    John Pierce has the VCDL site up now. Next alert I will let the world know:

    http://www.vcdl.org/static/2008leg.html

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    VCDL President wrote:
    John Pierce has the VCDL site up now. Next alert I will let the world know:

    http://www.vcdl.org/static/2008leg.html
    Execellent!

    Is it just me, or does it seem like Mark Cole is the only true pro-gun delegate left out there?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    In response to Albo's fascist bill, HB 169, I'm going to buy one of these box cutters and carry it around with me, concealed!!! :what:

    http://www.qualitylogoproducts.com/t...tter-knife.htm

    I think it will make a good talking point when the issue comes up. To be able to pull out a very small knife and show people what our delegates want to make illegal, will hopefully send a powerful message.


    EDIT: it looks like carrying a concealed razor might already be illegal (see § 18.2-308(A)) A new thread should probably be started to discuss this. Although I'm still going to get a box cutter, just one without a razor.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    TEX1N wrote:
    In response to Albo's fascist bill, HB 169, I'm going to buy one of these box cutters and carry it around with me, concealed!!! :what:

    http://www.qualitylogoproducts.com/t...tter-knife.htm

    I think it will make a good talking point when the issue comes up. To be able to pull out a very small knife and show people what our delegates want to make illegal, will hopefully send a powerful message.
    I hope Albo realizes that he would no longer be able to buy a box cutter at Home Depot and take it home in a bag.

    He couldn't carry a box cutter in his toolbox or his glove box.

    (Maybe he could recommend this bill to DC and someone will make a fortune selling box-cutter locks!)
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    TEX1N wrote:
    In response to Albo's fascist bill, HB 169, I'm going to buy one of these box cutters and carry it around with me, concealed!!! :what:
    In case anybody wants to know WHY Albo is trying to make boxcutters illegal t9o carry concealed, here's the real story. Seems somebody got away with something :what:and now Albo wants to close off that "loophole."

    Pay attention to the highlighting in red near the very end, OK?







    "The dispositive question in this appeal is whether the subject box cutter is one of the specifically proscribed items, and if not, whether it is nevertheless a "weapon of like kind." Code § 18.2-308(A). Because this question requires construction of a statute, it is a question of law, which we review de novo on appeal. Farrakhan v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 177, 180, 639 S.E.2d 227, 229 (2007).

    In Farrakhan, we set forth the analytical framework for deciding whether an item falls within the reach of Code § 18.2-308(A): If the . . . item in question meets the definition of an enumerated item within Code § 18.2-308(A), the evidence is clearly sufficient for a conviction under the statute. Additionally, if the . . . item is not enumerated, concealment of the item may be proscribed by Code § 18.2-308(A) if it is a "weapon of like kind." However, before examination of similar physical characteristics to enumerated items, the item in question must first be a "weapon.". .. . . Upon establishing that the item in question is a "weapon," the analysis continues to determine if the item possesses such similar characteristics to the enumerated items in the Code § 18.2-308(A) such that its concealment is prohibited. Id. at 182, 639 S.E.2d at 230.

    Relying on the decision of the Court of Appeals in O'Banion, the Commonwealth contends that the subject box cutter qualifies as one of the enumerated items in Code § 18.2-308(A), i.e., a razor. In O'Banion, the defendant, like Harris, was carrying concealed a box cutter described as "a cutting instrument that holds a razor blade." 33 Va. App. at 59, 531 S.E.2d at 605. Employing the dictionary definition of the term "razor," the Court of Appeals concluded that, "by incorporating a razor blade, the box[] cutter combine[d] the fine-edged sharpness of a straight razor with the retracting capacity of a locked-blade knife." Id. at 60, 531 S.E.2d at 605....We do not agree with the Commonwealth's position...

    The current dictionary definition of the term "razor" refers to both a straight razor and a safety razor. See supra note 3 and accompanying text. A box cutter is neither; it is defined as "a small cutting tool that is designed for opening cardboard boxes and typically consists of a retractable razor blade in a thin metal sheath." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 148 (11th ed. 2004). Furthermore, when a razor was added to the list of items that could not lawfully be carried concealed, see 1884 Acts ch. 143, the term "razor" was defined as "a knife with a keen edge and broad back, used for shaving." A Dictionary of the English Language 828 (1885); see also A Dictionary of the English Language 1187 (1880) (defining the term "razor" as "[a] knife or instrument for shaving off beard or hair"). Because we must strictly construe penal statutes, see Farrakhan, 273 Va. at 182, 639 S.E.2d at 230, we hold the subject box cutter is not a razor within the meaning of Code § 18.2-308(A). See In re Michael R., 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 291, 292-93 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that a box cutter did not constitute a "razor with an unguarded blade" and was therefore not a weapon under the California statute at issue). Merely because a box cutter contains a sharp-edged, razor-type blade that is retractable does not mean that a box cutter meets the definition of the item "razor" enumerated in Code § 18.2-308(A). To the extent that the decision in O'Banion is inconsistent with this holding, it is overruled.

    The analysis, however, does not end at this juncture. As we explained in Farrakhan, even if an item is not one of the items enumerated in Code § 18.2-308(A), concealment of the item may still be prohibited if it is a "weapon of like kind." Code § 18.2-308(A). The item must first be a "weapon." If it is not, the analysis ends, and it is not necessary to compare the item's characteristics to those of the enumerated items to decide if it is "of like kind."

    In Farrakhan, we held "that in order to be a 'weapon' within the definition of 'weapon of like kind,' the item must be designed for fighting purposes or commonly understood to be a 'weapon.'" 273 Va. at 182, 639 S.E.2d at 230. Like the kitchen knife at issue in that case, the box cutter that Harris was carrying concealed was not designed for fighting purposes. Nor can we say that a box cutter is commonly understood to be a weapon. As reflected by its dictionary definition, a box cutter is designed to open cardboard boxes. Therefore, we hold that the subject box cutter is not a " 'weapon' within the definition of 'weapon of like kind.' " Id.; see also Holley v. State, 877 So.2d 893, 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that a box cutter is not a "deadly weapon" under the Florida statute at issue).


    We are keenly aware that a box cutter is a potentially dangerous instrumentality and has, in fact, been used as such in the past. It is, however, the role of the General Assembly, not this Court, to craft any needed revisions to Code § 18.2-308(A) and to decide what items to include within the statute's proscription. We are required to construe Code § 18.2-308(A) strictly against the Commonwealth and to confine the statute to those offenses clearly proscribed by its plain terms. See Harward v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 363, 365, 330 S.E.2d 89, 90 (1985) (penal statutes "cannot be extended by implication but must be confined to those offenses proscribed by the language employed"). Harris, like any defendant, "is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt about the construction of a penal statute." Martin v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 298, 300-01, 295 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1982)."

    stay safe.

    skidmark

    *edited for readability
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

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