Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: HB 171: Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability

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

    Post imported post

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...?101+sum+HB171

    Full text

    Summary:

    Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability. Provides that no person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business owner may prohibit a person who lawfully possesses a firearm from storing that firearm in a locked motor vehicle. The bill provides civil immunity for such persons, property owners, tenants, employers, or business owners. The provisions of the bill would not apply to possession of firearms on school property, nor would the provisions apply to vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business and used by an employee in the course of his employment.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    Cool.

  3. #3
    Regular Member fairfax1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    246

    Post imported post

    this is #1 on my list of bills I want passed.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    I've already marked this a good bill.



  5. #5
    Regular Member streetdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Unionville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    342

    Post imported post

    We really need this bill passed, I actually want it more than the restaurant concealed carry. With this my local government employer could no longer tell me I can't have my firearm on county property when I come to work.
    'Till the last landings made, and we stand unafraid, on a shore not mortal has seen,
    'Till the last bugle call, sounds taps for us all,
    It's Semper Fidelis, MARINE!

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    streetdoc wrote:
    We really need this bill passed, I actually want it more than the restaurant concealed carry. With this my local government employer could no longer tell me I can't have my firearm on county property when I come to work.
    I agree with you doc.
    I don't have a dog in the restaurant fight but this would be a major step forward for everyone.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    Post imported post

    Excellent. If given a choice, I'd rather have this bill pass than the restaurant bill. I can already carry openly in any of the places I regularly have lunch, but if I want to carry I'd be forced to park off-site, or more typically, not carry. I'd flatly give upthe effort for concealed carry in restaurants serving alcohol for this and school (K-12) carry with CHP (for now) without a hesitation if I thought I could get a 2 out of 3.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    454

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...?101+sum+HB171

    Full text

    Summary:

    Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability. Provides that no person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business owner may prohibit a person who lawfully possesses a firearm from storing that firearm in a locked motor vehicle. The bill provides civil immunity for such persons, property owners, tenants, employers, or business owners. The provisions of the bill would not apply to possession of firearms on school property, nor would the provisions apply to vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business and used by an employee in the course of his employment.

    This is the bill I wanted to see most! This bill #1 on my wish list!



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henrico County ,
    Posts
    537

    Post imported post

    One of my highest priorities.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    #1 bill for me.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    streetdoc wrote:
    We really need this bill passed, I actually want it more than the restaurant concealed carry. With this my local government employer could no longer tell me I can't have my firearm on county property when I come to work.
    Doc,

    I don't think this will resolve your local government prohibition. It's not written to cover them, and does not address the state's violence prevention policy which is the model for the same at the local government level.

    Hope I'm wrong, but until I see words specifically addressing local government (and howcome state agencies are not included also ) I think you are still screwed.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "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

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    streetdoc wrote:
    We really need this bill passed, I actually want it more than the restaurant concealed carry. With this my local government employer could no longer tell me I can't have my firearm on county property when I come to work.
    Doc,

    I don't think this will resolve your local government prohibition. It's not written to cover them, and does not address the state's violence prevention policy which is the model for the same at the local government level.
    I think it does. Local governments are already prohibited from preventing ordinary citizens from keeping a gun in their locked vehicle on local gov't. property by preemption, this bill would keep them from preventing their employees from having the same liberties.

    Roscoe
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  13. #13
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    roscoe13 wrote:
    I think it does. Local governments are already prohibited from preventing ordinary citizens from keeping a gun in their locked vehicle on local gov't property by preemption, this bill would keep them from preventing their employees from having the same liberties.
    I do hope that you are right.

    One thing that alternately concerns me is that some places of employment (mine included) sometimes have off-site functions and I am frequently required to represent my company in meetings with clients on project sites and municipal offices.

    Company "policy" prohibits me from carrying at any company-sponsored event (Christmas party, summer cookout) or while engaging in business while formally representing the company.

    So I'm disarmed any time I step out of my vehicle. It's aggravating.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    The full text link finally went active, here's the meat of the bill:

    A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.
    I like it, it includes the very generic term "employer", and no exemption for local, state or federal governments, other than schools. Will it pass, and will it hold up?

    TFred

  15. #15
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    jmelvin wrote:
    Excellent. If given a choice, I'd rather have this bill pass than the restaurant bill. I can already carry openly in any of the places I regularly have lunch, but if I want to carry I'd be forced to park off-site, or more typically, not carry. I'd flatly give upthe effort for concealed carry in restaurants serving alcohol for this and school (K-12) carry with CHP (for now) without a hesitation if I thought I could get a 2 out of 3.
    Stop bargaining for your rights. I expect both and will settle for nothing less.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    Post imported post

    Good for you. I would hope for the following of the Constitution as most of us understand it, but that doesn't make it reality. Legislators have only so much effort that they can expend on bills during any session and the populace as a whole rarely gives support and attention to anything but a small spectrum of introduced legislation if they give any mind to it at all. I personally only have so much time and strength to drum up support for the bills I find important before I eventually get ignored as a nuisance by those who don't have the burn for the changes that I do. Personally I will put my efforts in supporting the "parking lot bill" and if there's a decent one that comes out to allow for carry in pre and K-12 schools I'll push for that. I can already carry in places serving alcohol, so I don't care to give up 2 options in restaurants to get at least 1 option in 2 other places I'm very likely to go.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    SicSemperTyrannis wrote:
    One of my highest priorities.
    Really? Here's the text, including what I like:

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01 as follows:

    § 18.2-308.1:01. Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability.

    A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.

    B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence that results from or is connected to the use of a firearm that was lawfully stored pursuant to subsection A, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity commits a criminal act involving the use of the firearm.

    C. Any person may enforce this section by filing a petition for injunction in the court of record of the county or city in which the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity prohibiting the firearm is located. The court shall award actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff.


    D. This section shall not apply to (i) § 18.2-308.1, relating to possession of firearms on school property and at school activities; or (ii) vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment.



  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    From the VCDL VA-ALERT this evening... In my view this is terrible news. The heavily updated section D guts this bill cleaner than a Christmas turkey.

    It's been a while since I've been involved with the security aspects of my company, but I strongly suspect that part (v) of Section D covers all or nearly all federal government contractors. Maybe someone working closer to that field can confirm.

    Then when you add in part (ii) you increase coverage to almost every other technical or professional work environment that isn't a federal contractor.

    It might be better than nothing, but the propaganda value for the other side could very well outweigh any real gains made by this new version.

    How in the world did this happen in the committee anyway? Someone is walking around with a knife in their back.

    TFred


    ************************************************** **
    3. New wording on HB 171, which prohibits employers from banning guns in locked vehicles
    ************************************************** **

    Here is the wording that passed out of committee this morning. The new wording is in (D):

    § 18.2-308.1:01. Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability.

    A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a firearms rack in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.

    B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence that results from or is connected to the use of a firearm that was lawfully stored pursuant to subsection A, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity commits a criminal act, willful misconduct or gross negligence involving the use of the firearm.

    C. Any person may enforce this section by filing a petition for injunction in the court of record of the county or city in which the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity prohibiting the firearm is located. The court shall award actual damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party.

    D. This section shall not apply to (i) property on which a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm by § 18.2-308.1; (ii) vehicles on property (a) to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station, or other means of restricting or limiting general access onto the property; or (b) upon which a building occupied by a single employer and its affiliated entities is located and in which access to the building is restricted or limited by card access, a security station, or other means of restricting or limiting general public access into the building; (iii) vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment; or (iv) personal vehicles while such vehicles are being used for the transport of consumers of programs licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services; (v) vehicles on property controlled by an employer required to develop and implement a security plan under federal law or regulation.



    [From PVC] I am not thrilled with that new wording in (D). Basically this law covers you if the parking lot can be accessed by the public without some kind of restriction by a gate or guard, and the parking lot is either shared by more than one unrelated company or the company owning the parking lot has no public restrictions on going into the building (guard or card access).

    This is a step forward, but not as big a step as I would like.

    -------------------------------------------

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    454

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    From the VCDL VA-ALERT this evening... In my view this is terrible news. The heavily updated section D guts this bill cleaner than a Christmas turkey.

    It's been a while since I've been involved with the security aspects of my company, but I strongly suspect that part (v) of Section D covers all or nearly all federal government contractors. Maybe someone working closer to that field can confirm.

    Then when you add in part (ii) you increase coverage to almost every other technical or professional work environment that isn't a federal contractor.

    It might be better than nothing, but the propaganda value for the other side could very well outweigh any real gains made by this new version.

    How in the world did this happen in the committee anyway? Someone is walking around with a knife in their back.

    TFred


    ************************************************** **
    3. New wording on HB 171, which prohibits employers from banning guns in locked vehicles
    ************************************************** **

    Here is the wording that passed out of committee this morning. The new wording is in (D):

    § 18.2-308.1:01. Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability.

    A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a firearms rack in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.

    B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence that results from or is connected to the use of a firearm that was lawfully stored pursuant to subsection A, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity commits a criminal act, willful misconduct or gross negligence involving the use of the firearm.

    C. Any person may enforce this section by filing a petition for injunction in the court of record of the county or city in which the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity prohibiting the firearm is located. The court shall award actual damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party.

    D. This section shall not apply to (i) property on which a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm by § 18.2-308.1; (ii) vehicles on property (a) to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station, or other means of restricting or limiting general access onto the property; or (b) upon which a building occupied by a single employer and its affiliated entities is located and in which access to the building is restricted or limited by card access, a security station, or other means of restricting or limiting general public access into the building; (iii) vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment; or (iv) personal vehicles while such vehicles are being used for the transport of consumers of programs licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services; (v) vehicles on property controlled by an employer required to develop and implement a security plan under federal law or regulation.



    [From PVC] I am not thrilled with that new wording in (D). Basically this law covers you if the parking lot can be accessed by the public without some kind of restriction by a gate or guard, and the parking lot is either shared by more than one unrelated company or the company owning the parking lot has no public restrictions on going into the building (guard or card access).

    This is a step forward, but not as big a step as I would like.

    -------------------------------------------
    Hmmm.....shame about the changes, but PVC is right.

  20. #20
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    First is there any chance of the Senate passing this bill? Second, any chance we can get a good senator to re-amend the bill to remove most of section D and still get it passed?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Would this apply to those employed by public (State) universities?

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    I keep checking VCDL Alerts hoping that the amendment will be scrapped or some miracle to happen.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  23. #23
    Regular Member streetdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Unionville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    342

    Post imported post

    I just sent this to the Senate subcommittee that will be hearing the firearm legislation today. I also attached the referenced OSHA Letter to the e-mail.

    __________________

    I am urging you to support and pass HB171. This bill would allow us to lawfully secure our firearms at many different locations (employment, shopping, recreation, etc.) while still respecting the property rights of the land owner.

    This bill does not change the fact that the land owner can still post his building stating that firearms are not allowed or he can tell the individual that he does not allow firearms inside his facility and that individual would have to take any firearm back outside and secure it in his vehicle. This bill does respect the individuals right, with some restrictions, to have a firearm with him during travel time to and from various locations as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The indications are that the Supreme Court is going to rule that this Amendment is Incorporated and applies to state and local government as well. Nine states, Alaska, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Oklahoma have passed versions of HB171. Along with Virginia, the states of Arizona, Missouri and Tennessee are working on passing similar legislation.

    This type of legislation has been challenged in court and has gone to various State Courts and US District Courts (see US Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, Case # 07-5166 dated Feb 18, 2009 ) where it has been ruled to be Constitutional. In the case of Oklahoma, State Senator Ellis requested an opinion from the US Department of Labor, the reply came from the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health dated Jan 16 2009 (OSHAParkingLotLtr01162009.pdf). OSHA held in the summary of this letter and states in part: “OSHA also believes that state firearms right-to-possess laws do not, as a general matter, frustrate the OSH Act’s purpose in Section 2(d) of encouraging employers voluntarily to adopt protective measures. … Accordingly, under these circumstances, in the absence of a recognized hazard, the OSH Act’s general purpose of encouraging employers to provide and promote safety and health also does not preempt these types of state laws.”

    Remember what the Constitution of Virginia states in Article 1, Bill of Rights, Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    Does this look familiar; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as ...................., according to the best of my ability (so help me God)." It’s the oath you took when you were elected to represent us is in the state government under Article II, Section 7 of the Constitution of Virginia.
    Please support and pass HB171.
    'Till the last landings made, and we stand unafraid, on a shore not mortal has seen,
    'Till the last bugle call, sounds taps for us all,
    It's Semper Fidelis, MARINE!

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    It's a trick! There's no enforcement provision.

    Suppose an employer fires someone for having the gun in his car on the company parking lot, locked etc.; what recourse does the employee have? Zip, zilch, nada.

    In theory,violation of any statute isa misdemeanor, but as far as I know, no Virginia Commonwealth's Attorney has ever filed charges of any kind against any well-established corporation doing business in Virginia. They pick on small time contractors, and such, from time to time. But real crimes go unnoticed. The last time I asked the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney in Fairfax about it (gasoline seepage under a residential neighborhood causing poisonings and birth defects constituted the crime of "public nuisance", a felony), Bob Horan laughed at me and asked me whom I would put in jail. "You can't put a corporation in jail.", he said. I asked about fines, but he just walked away.

    Without any enforcement provision, this statute means nothing.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

Posting Permissions

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