• 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.

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

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
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
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

Smurfologist

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
536
Location
Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
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
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

rlh2005

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
699
Location
Spotsylvania County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

Smurfologist

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
536
Location
Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
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
 

Smurfologist

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
536
Location
Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
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
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

Smurfologist

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
536
Location
Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
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
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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
 
Top