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.
-------------------------------------------
I think you are still screwed.
