Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Senate committee watering down the "teeth in preemption" bill?

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred

    Because if the abuser have to pay for their misdeeds, it prevents them from funding further misdeeds in the future.

    =====

    Remember, innocent until proven guilty is an antiquated concept. You have to prove you are innocent (Hah!) and then have to pay for the privilege of doing so. Afterall, you are speaking out against your government masters and overlords.

    Citizenship is highly over-rated. Being a subject is easier for all parties involved. The government says so.

    /end satire


  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred
    Because if the abuser have to pay for their misdeeds, it prevents them from funding further misdeeds in the future.

    =====

    Remember, innocent until proven guilty is an antiquated concept. You have to prove you are innocent (Hah!) and then have to pay for the privilege of doing so. Afterall, you are speaking out against your government masters and overlords.

    Citizenship is highly over-rated. Being a subject is easier for all parties involved. The government says so.

    /end satire
    Sure, but if they don't want the bill to do what the bill is designed to do, then why not just vote it down, rather than leave it alive but totally emasculated? More frustration, along the lines of the bill to "protect" CHP information from release by the VSP, but leaving it totally open at the courthouse. A bill that is totally useless.

    I guess giving the option to punish is better than not having that option, but it leaves the results completely up to the ideology of the judge hearing the case.

    TFred


  4. #4
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    darthmord wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred
    Because if the abuser have to pay for their misdeeds, it prevents them from funding further misdeeds in the future.

    =====

    Remember, innocent until proven guilty is an antiquated concept. You have to prove you are innocent (Hah!) and then have to pay for the privilege of doing so. Afterall, you are speaking out against your government masters and overlords.

    Citizenship is highly over-rated. Being a subject is easier for all parties involved. The government says so.

    /end satire
    Sure, but if they don't want the bill to do what the bill is designed to do, then why not just vote it down, rather than leave it alive but totally emasculated? More frustration, along the lines of the bill to "protect" CHP information from release by the VSP, but leaving it totally open at the courthouse. A bill that is totally useless.

    I guess giving the option to punish is better than not having that option, but it leaves the results completely up to the ideology of the judge hearing the case.

    TFred
    What criteria will be set to make the determination as to whether or not reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costsmay be paid?!?

    2nd Amendment...........Use it............Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Smurfologist wrote:
    What criteria will be set to make the determination as to whether or not reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costsmay be paid?!?

    2nd Amendment...........Use it............Or, lose it!!:X
    That's my point, there is none. Most judges will follow the law, even if reluctantly, because they know they will be overruled on appeal if they don't. But this change to this bill appears to me to allow complete discretion on the part of the judge, so if it's an anti-gunner who thinks preemption shouldn't exist in the first place, they're going to uphold the law, but not punish the jurisdiction, etc, for trying to break it.

    This is a bad amendment, it needs to be removed.

    TFred


  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spotsylvania County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    700

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred
    This is the same change the Senate Courts of Justice committee made to SB1513. Which Senator suggested the change?

    SB1513 and HB1655 had the exact same verbage when introduced in its respective chamber.
    ---

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    rlh2005 wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred
    This is the same change the Senate Courts of Justice committee made to SB1513. Which Senator suggested the change?

    SB1513 and HB1655 had the exact same verbage when introduced in its respective chamber.
    According to the LIS web page, it (HB1655) came out of the Courts of Justice committee with the amendment.

    "02/16/09 Senate: Reported from Courts of Justice with amendment (10-Y 4-N)"

    TFred

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spotsylvania County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    700

    Post imported post

    Oh, if only they committee minutes were online.
    ---

  9. #9
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    rlh2005 wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred
    This is the same change the Senate Courts of Justice committee made to SB1513. Which Senator suggested the change?

    SB1513 and HB1655 had the exact same verbage when introduced in its respective chamber.
    According to the LIS web page, it (HB1655) came out of the Courts of Justice committee with the amendment.

    "02/16/09 Senate: Reported from Courts of Justice with amendment (10-Y 4-N)"

    TFred
    Maybe the "Powers that Be" figure it will help cure the State's deficit (smile)......

    2nd Amendment..........Use it..........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    rlh2005 wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred
    This is the same change the Senate Courts of Justice committee made to SB1513. Which Senator suggested the change?

    SB1513 and HB1655 had the exact same verbage when introduced in its respective chamber.
    According to the LIS web page, it (HB1655) came out of the Courts of Justice committee with the amendment.

    "02/16/09 Senate: Reported from Courts of Justice with amendment (10-Y 4-N)"

    TFred
    I am shocked that Cuccinelli voted yes.......I am sure he had his reasons.

    2nd Amendment..........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Smurfologist wrote:
    I am shocked that Cuccinelli voted yes.......I am sure he had his reasons.

    2nd Amendment..........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X
    That Yes vote was to get the bill out of committe, not the vote to include the amendment. We don't know that vote, unless someone can get ahold of the meeting minutes.

    TFred

  12. #12
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Smurfologist wrote:
    I am shocked that Cuccinelli voted yes.......I am sure he had his reasons.

    2nd Amendment..........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X
    That Yes vote was to get the bill out of committe, not the vote to include the amendment. We don't know that vote, unless someone can get ahold of the meeting minutes.

    TFred
    Oh, I get it now. This can be hard to follow at times. Thanks for keeping me straight.

    2nd Amendment..........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    rlh2005 wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred
    This is the same change the Senate Courts of Justice committee made to SB1513. Which Senator suggested the change?
    That would be Dick Saslaw. He was the one who suggested the change.

    May. As in "May issue a concealed weapons permit." As in "may issue a summons or arrest."

    How does that sound?

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,605

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    rlh2005 wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    According to today's update on LIS, HB 1655, "Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality" was reported out of the Senate's Courts of Justice committee with an amendment which changes the original:

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    to

    C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs...

    What's the point in having teeth to deter and punish the abuse and disregard for preemption if you don't have to use them?

    TFred
    This is the same change the Senate Courts of Justice committee made to SB1513. Which Senator suggested the change?
    That would be Dick Saslaw. He was the one who suggested the change.

    May. As in "May issue a concealed weapons permit." As in "may issue a summons or arrest."

    How does that sound?
    Sounds exactly like Dick Saslaw. And therein lies the source of the distinctive aroma.
    Yet others had to vote to approve the amendment. Who were they?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

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