HB 1379: Child-care facilities... local regulation of possession and storage of firearms

imported post

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+HB1379

Full text

Child-care facilities in certain counties and cities; local regulation of possession and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof. Provides that certain Northern Virginia localities may adopt local ordinances that regulate the possession and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof at child-care facilities, so long as such regulation is not more extensive in scope than comparable state regulations applicable to family day-care homes.


I wonder if someone has been reading our boards??

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

I wonder if someone has been reading our boards??

TFred

Click to expand...

You even have to ask?

BTW - Do NOT mess with preemption! It'll cost you votes - big time.

Yata hey

imported post

Wow there must be no crime in Northern Virginia

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

TFred wrote:

I wonder if someone has been reading our boards??

TFred

Click to expand...

You even have to ask?

BTW - Do NOT mess with preemption! It'll cost you votes - big time.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

The more I think about it, the more I'd be willing to bet that the county attorney who responded to the inquiry from that other thread is behind this bill in some respect or another.

I guess the lesson could be taken to not stir up trouble during the GA session.

In any case, a new law wouldn't go into effect until July 1st, so the code that is currently on the books needs to come off now.

(And now if we see this bill changed to take effect upon signing, then we'll know for sure they're watching us!)

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I'd be willing to bet that the county attorney who responded to the inquiry from that other thread is behind this bill in some respect or another.

I guess the lesson could be taken to not stir up trouble during the GA session.

In any case, a new law wouldn't go into effect until July 1st, so the code that is currently on the books needs to come off now.

(And now if we see this bill changed to take effect upon signing, then we'll know for sure they're watching us!)

TFred

Click to expand...

Concern a bit premature I think - this bill may never get out of committee.

01/22/10 House: Committee Referral Pending

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

TFred wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I'd be willing to bet that the county attorney who responded to the inquiry from that other thread is behind this bill in some respect or another.

I guess the lesson could be taken to not stir up trouble during the GA session.

In any case, a new law wouldn't go into effect until July 1st, so the code that is currently on the books needs to come off now.

(And now if we see this bill changed to take effect upon signing, then we'll know for sure they're watching us!)

TFred

Click to expand...

Concern a bit premature I think - this bill may never get out of committee.

01/22/10 House: Committee Referral Pending

Yata hey

Click to expand...

It just showed up today, so it's going to be a bit behind schedule.

TFred

imported post

Well considering I haven't heard from the County Attorney maybe it's time I ping him again and ask him what he's been up to? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this just defining pre-emption another way? Meaning localities cannot require daycare providers store weapons in safes unloaded?

I think it's a crap amendment myself. Considering the underlying wording in the last sentence "so long as such regulation is not more extensive in scope than comparable state regulations applicable to family day-care homes."

I think they are trying to get around the wording of the existing statute but I don't think they get there with the amendment. Pre-emption still trumps this I would think.

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Well considering I haven't heard from the County Attorney maybe it's time I ping him again and ask him what he's been up to? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this just defining pre-emption another way? Meaning localities cannot require daycare providers store weapons in safes unloaded?

I think it's a crap amendment myself. Considering the underlying wording in the last sentence "so long as such regulation is not more extensive in scope than comparable state regulations applicable to family day-care homes."

I think they are trying to get around the wording of the existing statute but I don't think they get there with the amendment. Pre-emption still trumps this I would think.

Click to expand...

Were that the case it is all the more reason to kill it - it would just cloud the issue.

Yata hey

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Well considering I haven't heard from the County Attorney maybe it's time I ping him again and ask him what he's been up to? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this just defining pre-emption another way? Meaning localities cannot require daycare providers store weapons in safes unloaded?

I think it's a crap amendment myself. Considering the underlying wording in the last sentence "so long as such regulation is not more extensive in scope than comparable state regulations applicable to family day-care homes."

I think they are trying to get around the wording of the existing statute but I don't think they get there with the amendment. Pre-emption still trumps this I would think.

Click to expand...

Two problems that I see off the top of my head.

1) What does "not more extensive in scope" mean? They could make a law that is different, but "not more extensive" - and this would be decided by whom, in this case a day-care inspector of some sort, and perhaps eventually a judge. The point of preemption is to prevent dozens or hundreds of different laws.

2) You have a basic misunderstanding of preemption. Preemption cannot "trump" any other state law. Preemption specifically applies only to local laws. Any other state law (as long as it specifically mentions "firearems") is specifically allowed in the preemption law. If this law passes, the effect of preemption is diminished greatly, and it subjects you to the requirement of researching the local ordinances of every jurisdiction in which you wish to carry. You may eventually prevail if the ordinance is really "not more extensive in scope" to the state laws that you do know and are following, but it would likely take you through arrest, lawyering and trial to be exonerated.

TFred

imported post

It will be very interesting to hear what the county attorney tells you. I still suspect he is somehow behind this bill, and he thinks that if he stalls long enough to get it passed and to take effect in July, he can just ignore you until then.

TFred

imported post

@ TFred - The existing (state) laws are a loophole for certain providers. Since this board/thread is being watched I'll not add fuel to the fire and do the research for the evil doers

I'm going to do a follow up letter to the Attorney later tonight with stronger language.

imported post

The biggest problem with this whole affair is that there is no direct electronic line to the County Attorney's office. I can understand why to a point but it's a major pain.

TFred - Yeah, I found it highly suspicious that ten days after I got the letter from the FF County Attorney that this amendment shows up, especially from a Delegate so close by....I don't think they were reading the board as much as reacting to my letter to the County Attorney. Of course, it is entirely possible it's both Funny how that law was on the books for 20+ years and no one bothered to do anything about it until THIS month.....

So I'll post updates here instead of the other thread. I launched a letter to my Delegates included Sickles on it this morning. The short version isI stated that if the County Attorney had time to talk to Sickels and convince him (pure speculation on my part) that an amendment was needed; the Attorney was by default acknowledging that the Fairfax County Code was unenforcable and needed to be removed. Every day that the code stands is a day the county is not complying with existing state law.

Even if the amendment goes through - which I hope it doesn't - the specific issue I have with the inspection will still exist. Even more reason for Fairfax County to just change the County Code and be done with it.

imported post

So here's what I received this afternoon from my delegate regarding the situation, based on an email i sent out yesterday morning.

"I wanted to respond to your e-mail concerning the issue you had raised about certain sections of the County Code not being in compliance with State Code. You had received a response from the County Executive indicating that it was being reviewed by the County Attorney's office. The Board was briefed on the matter in closed session two weeks ago with respect to the preliminary findings of the County Attorney's office. It does appear that there is a conflict with the State Code. Steps were taken to finish the review and initiate appropriate changes to the County Code as necessary.

[align=left][/align]
[align=left]However, there were members of the Board who believe the more appropriate course is to seek changes to the State Codeto allow the current County statute to remain. This action resulted in Delegate Sickle's bill, not any independent solicitation of the County staff. The staff does not set legislative policy, the Board does, and the outreach by the legislative staff was at the directive of a majority of the Board. [/align]

[align=left]Michael R. Frey[/align]
[align=left]Sully District Supervisor[/align]
[align=left]Fairfax County Board of Supervisors[/align]
[align=left]4900 Stonecroft Boulevard[/align]
[align=left]Chantilly, Virginia 20151[/align]
[align=left]703 814-7100"[/align]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

[align=left]However, there were members of the Board who believe the more appropriate course is to seek changes to the State Codeto allow the current County statute to remain. This action resulted in Delegate Sickle's bill, not any independent solicitation of the County staff. The staff does not set legislative policy, the Board does, and the outreach by the legislative staff was at the directive of a majority of the Board. [/align]

Click to expand...

Well that's certainly interesting, I'm glad that they admitted they were behind the bill. I guess we will soon see how sacred or vulnerable the preemption statute is. There is no better emotional plea than "do it for the children..."

Even on it's best foot, the idea is ridiculous, because if the state code already sets parameters for the restrictions they want (and by the specific text of the bill, they would have to), then there is no logical reason to circumvent the purpose of preemption, for a net-zero result.

TFred

imported post

It would serve us well to make sure every delegate on the Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee is made aware that this bill was submitted solely in response to a jurisdiction recently being made aware that they were in violation of 15.2-915.

TFred

imported post

Delegate Beverly J. Sherwood (R) - House District 29 - DelBSherwood@house.virginia.gov
Delegate H. Morgan Griffith (R) - House District 8 - DelMGriffith@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Terry G. Kilgore (R) - House District 1 - DelTKilgore@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Thomas C. Wright, Jr. (R) - House District 61 - DelTWright@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Charles W. Carrico, Sr. (R) - House District 5 - DelCCarrico@house.virginia.gov
Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter (R) - House District 31 - DelSLingamfelter@house.virginia.gov
Delegate David A. Nutter (R) - House District 7 - DelDNutter@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Clifford L. Athey, Jr. (R) - House District 18 DelCAthey@house.virginia.gov
Delegate William R. Janis (R) - House District 56 - DelBJanis@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Benjamin L. Cline (R) - House District 24 - DelBCline@house.virginia.gov
Delegate C. Todd Gilbert (R) - House District 15 - DelTGilbert@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Charles D. Poindexter (R) - House District 9 - DelCPoindexter@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Donald W. Merricks (R) - House District 16 - DelDMerricks@house.virginia.gov
Delegate James M. Scott (D) - House District 53 - DelJScott@house.virginia.gov
Delegate William K. Barlow (D) - House District 64 - DelWBarlow@house.virginia.gov
Delegate James M. Shuler (D) - House District 12 - DelJShuler@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr. (D) - House District 100 - DelLLewis@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Paula J. Miller (D) - House District 87 - DelPMiller@house.virginia.gov
Delegate David E. Poisson (D) - House District 32 - DelDPoisson@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Roslyn C. Tyler (D) - House District 75 - DelRTyler@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Dan C. Bowling (D) - House District 3 - DelDBowling@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Charniele L. Herring (D) - House District 46 - DelCHerring@house.virginia.gov

imported post

TFred - I plan on doing just that later tonight/tomorrow before this thing gets to comittee on Friday.

t33j - thanks for consolidating that.

imported post

bohdi wrote:

TFred - I plan on doing just that later tonight/tomorrow before this thing gets to comittee on Friday.

t33j - thanks for consolidating that.

Click to expand...

It looks like the bill has not been assigned to a sub-committee. I suspect that is probably because it was a late arrival. I don't know if they can or would kill it on Friday, or if they would want to assign it to a sub-committee first.

TFred

imported post

Interesting that Del. Sickles is sponsoring this.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Interesting that Del. Sickles is sponsoring this. He is normally on the right side of 2A issues.

Click to expand...

"But Mark, it's for the children!"

TFred