Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: SB 89: Petition to restore right to possess, etc., firearm; notice to attorney for the Commonwealth

  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...e?101+sum+SB89

    Full text

    Petition to restore right to possess, etc., firearm; notice to attorney for the Commonwealth. Provides that if a person files a petition to restore his right to possess or carry a firearm, a copy of the petition shall be served on the attorney for the Commonwealth who shall be entitled to respond and represent the interests of the Commonwealth. The court shall hold a hearing on the petition if requested by either the petitioner or the attorney for the Commonwealth.

  2. #2
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    So is this a good bill or not? I honestly can't tell.

    Does it give the involuntarily committed and convicted criminals additional recourse to have their rights restored?

    It almost seems like an FOIA thing, but I don't read legalese so much good.:?
    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.

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

    Post imported post

    I don't know for sure either, but if I start with the premise that a new law makes something happen that is not currently happening, it sounds to me like someone wants to make sure the State gets a chance to argue against you having your rights restored.

    TFred


  4. #4
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    I don't know anything about Stuart or his agendas. This one presents me with some curiosity, though if I don't break the law (feloniously) then I will never be impacted either way.

    It's a tough call, because I don't want to see liberty eroded, but I want to know what it means BEFORE I try to reason it through my pea-size brain.
    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    So is this a good bill or not? I honestly can't tell.

    Does it give the involuntarily committed and convicted criminals additional recourse to have their rights restored?

    It almost seems like an FOIA thing, but I don't read legalese so much good.:?
    I don't like it. Gives a gun-hating Commonwealth's Attorney the opportunity to come into court and allege the petitioner is "troubled" or is unfit.

    This authority is inserted in 3 different code sections. The one that really causes concern is § 18.2-308.1:3.:

    Purchase, possession or transportation of firearm by persons involuntarily admitted or ordered to outpatient treatment; penalty.

    That has to do with the reaction to the Cho massacre. So, YOU could be ordered to outpatient treatment because someone alleged you're troubled. Later, when you're discharged, you would like to get your weapons back. You petition the court, the Commonwealth's Attorney shows up, and declares to the court it would be too risky for YOU to get your arsenal back.

    You lose.

    Wait, there more. This actually happened:

    http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/153661

    College paper has bad ending
    A UVa-Wise student said he has been expelled, but a college official wouldn't confirm it.

    By Mike Allen
    981-3236

    A student who turned in an "alarming" creative writing assignment referencing suicide and the Virginia Tech shooter was involuntarily committed, then expelled from the University of Virginia's College at Wise after campus police found loaded guns in his car.

    The student, Steven Daniel Barber, 23, of Gate City, said his short story was meant to be taken as fiction exploring a topic relevant to current events.

    "I didn't intend to threaten anybody with it," he wrote Friday in an e-mail in which he said he had been expelled from the school. Though he violated a campus firearms policy by having the guns in his car, he owned them legally, he said.

    College Vice Chancellor Gary Juhan, who would not confirm the expulsion, said the school took seriously the concerns raised by the content of the student's paper.

    "One of the most impossible things to do is predict human behavior," he said.

    In Scott County, where Barber lives, Commonwealth's Attorney Marcus McClung petitioned Tuesday to suspend Barber's permit to carry a concealed weapon. Judge Tammy McElyea approved the suspension Wednesday, citing that Barber had been involuntarily committed.

    McClung said Friday that based on Barber's story and the report from campus police, the petition appeared justified.

    "We just thought it was the safe and prudent thing to do," he said. McClung also said that Barber can appeal the suspension.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    This law seems pointless, because when I had my rights restored in '08 the CA had signed off on it, declaring that he had no objections... seems like this is already in place...

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

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    This law seems pointless, because when I had my rights restored in '08 the CA had signed off on it, declaring that he had no objections... seems like this is already in place...
    See my earlier post... why would a new law be needed if what it does is already in the law? (Yeah, I'm trying to keep a straight face as I type that...)

    I suspect that while it may happen occasionally, or maybe even often, it's probably not a requirement, and that is what this law is trying to do.

    TFred


  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Pagan wrote:
    This law seems pointless, because when I had my rights restored in '08 the CA had signed off on it, declaring that he had no objections... seems like this is already in place...
    See my earlier post... why would a new law be needed if what it does is already in the law? (Yeah, I'm trying to keep a straight face as I type that...)

    I suspect that while it may happen occasionally, or maybe even often, it's probably not a requirement, and that is what this law is trying to do.

    TFred
    I think the ultimate goal of civil rights groups is to have an automatic restoration of rights for non violent offenders.
    Sounds fair enough...but this bill wouldn't do it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:

    I think the ultimate goal of civil rights groups is to have an automatic restoration of rights for non violent offenders.
    Sounds fair enough...but this bill wouldn't do it.
    I have often thought this was a great idea for non-violent offenders, after all portions of sentence have been completed ofcourse. But even violent offenders should have an avenue for restoration, otherwise whats the point of trying to reform?

    As of now in VA. violent offenders and certain other crimes such as voter fraud and certain drug related offenses require additional paper work and more rigorous character witnesses, before rights can be restored. I think this is reasonable.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    *This law seems pointless, because when I had my rights restored in '08 the CA had signed off on it, declaring that he had no objections... seems like this is already in place...
    That is the procedure in many localities. So the CA is already involved. Very much like a civil procedure where in individual seeking their "rights" restored is like a Plaintiff and the CA is the Defense.

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

    Post imported post

    SB 331: Petition to restore right to possess, etc., firearm; notice to attorney for the Commonwealth

    Full Text

    Petition to restore right to possess, etc., firearm; notice to attorney for the Commonwealth. Provides that if a person files a petition to restore his right to possess or carry a firearm, a copy of the petition shall be served on the attorney for the Commonwealth of the city or county in which the petition is filed. The attorney for the Commonwealth shall be made a party defendant to the proceeding and may file an objection or answer to the petition within 21 days after service.


    Similar bill.

    TFred


Posting Permissions

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