Two Gun bills die, HB32 and HB72

imported post

Just got the alert. These were not bills that concerned me so I didn't go. It's a shame the school bill died though.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Two pro-gun bills killed by "Pro-Gun" Democrat Delegates
2. House restaurant ban repeal to be heard tomorrow (Tuesday) morning!

*************************************************************
1. Two pro-gun bills killed by "Pro-Gun" Democrat Delegates
*************************************************************

Turnout was low tonight from our side in the Militia, Police, and Public Safety subcommittee #3 (Death Star), creating a pretty much even match between pro and anti-gun citizens for the first time in a long time.

Being heard were two bills: HB 32, Delegate Bob Marshall's bill to allow professors to carry at universities, and HB 72, Delegate Carrico's bill to reduced the charge for someone inadvertently carrying a firearm on K-12 school property from a Class 6 felony to a Class 1 misdemeanor.

I had predicted that both bills would most likely die by a vote of 2 to 3, along party lines.

And, sadly, I was 100% correct. In fact I had my twitter message already typed up and ready to go before the votes were taken. I only had to hit "send" after each vote.

Democratic Delegates Paula Miller and Roslyn Tyler both proclaimed to the audience that contrary to what VCDL alerts were saying, they were "pro-gun." They then proved it to everyone by voting against both bills.

Gee, I'm sure glad they're "pro-gun," aren't you?

Of course Democratic Delegate Jim Scott also voted against both bills, but he doesn't even pretend to be pro-gun.

Two members did understand the importance of self-defense: Republican Delegates Bill Carrico and Donald Merricks voted in support of both bills.

On our way out, who should step in the elevator, but Speaker Bill Howell! (The Speaker, among other things, creates and populates all committees and subcommittees in the House and determines which bills the committees and subcommittees hear.)

He casually asked how things were going.

Bad timing.

I said, "Well, subcommittee #3 of Militia, Police, and Public Safety did their assigned job and killed two excellent pro-gun bills."

An awkward silence followed for a few seconds, before someone changed the subject.

Channel 8 in Richmond (ABC) covered the hearing and interviewed me. Coverage should be on at 11 PM and possibly Tuesday morning.


*************************************************************
2. House restaurant ban repeal to be heard tomorrow (Tuesday) morning!
*************************************************************

Tomorrow morning, Tuesday, February 9th at 7 AM, the full Militia, Police, and Public Safety committee is going to hear only one gun bill: Delegate Gilbert's restaurant ban repeal, HB 505. They will be meeting in House Room C on the ground floor of the General Assembly Building.

I expect when the committee meets on Friday they will vote on all the gun bills that have cleared subcommittee over the last few weeks.

imported post

From VaAlert

Democratic Delegates Paula Miller and Roslyn Tyler both proclaimed to the audience that contrary to what VCDL alerts were saying, they were "pro-gun." They then proved it to everyone by voting against both bills.

Click to expand...

With "friends" like that who needs.......................

Truth of the matter, I think that these two delegates speak in fragments.
They are indeed pro-gun.....................control.

Yata hey

imported post

Oh, I thought they were pro-gum. Got any Beemans?

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Just got the alert. These were not bills that concerned me so I didn't go. It's a shame the school bill died though.

Click to expand...

Both bills had value to self-defense and libertarian objectives.

Now they're gone until next session.

I have already sent a letter to McDonnell about the stacked committees.

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Just got the alert. These were not bills that concerned me so I didn't go. It's a shame the school bill died though.

Click to expand...

Both bills had value to self-defense and libertarian objectives.

Now they're gone until next session.

I have already sent a letter to McDonnell about the stacked committees.

Click to expand...

HB72 is borderline, but the statute still exempts CHP holders partially.
HB32 is pure P4P and is just the foot in the door for SCCC next year, if it had passed.
In either case, I don't have a dog in that fight.
I didn't voice opposition at the GA to either but sure didn't (Don't) support them.

If this state's gun rights go California, it isn't going to be with my blessing.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

In either case, I don't have a dog in that fight.
I didn't voice opposition at the GA to either but sure didn't (Don't) support them.

Click to expand...

I didn't either, until I became an instructor at ODU, savvy?

I am for 100% carry freedom. Preemption which says - NOBODY can restrict lawful carry anywhere in any location open to the public.

Discriminating against law-abiding citizens exercising their God-given rights is no better than discriminating because of their color or religion.

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

In either case, I don't have a dog in that fight.
I didn't voice opposition at the GA to either but sure didn't (Don't) support them.

Click to expand...

I didn't either, until I became an instructor at ODU, savvy?

I am for 100% carry freedom. Preemption which says - NOBODY can restrict lawful carry anywhere in any location open to the public.

Discriminating against law-abiding citizens exercising their God-given rights is no better than discriminating because of their color or religion.

Click to expand...

The bill could have easily been worded to make it acceptable to everyone (Pro Gun That Is).

Discriminating against law-abiding citizens exercising their God-given rights is no better than discriminating because of their color or religion.

Agree 100%

imported post

peter nap wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

In either case, I don't have a dog in that fight.
I didn't voice opposition at the GA to either but sure didn't (Don't) support them.

Click to expand...

I didn't either, until I became an instructor at ODU, savvy?

I am for 100% carry freedom. Preemption which says - NOBODY can restrict lawful carry anywhere in any location open to the public.

Discriminating against law-abiding citizens exercising their God-given rights is no better than discriminating because of their color or religion.

Click to expand...

The bill could have easily been worded to make it acceptable to everyone (Pro Gun That Is).

Discriminating against law-abiding citizens exercising their God-given rights is no better than discriminating because of their color or religion.

Agree 100%

Click to expand...

Trouble is that this anti-chp thing is starting to sound like hunters who didn't care what happened to handguns as long as their rifles and shotguns were safe. Or self-defense carriers who don't care what happens to hunters.

We don't want to pit OCers against CCers. We are all in this together.

Some like to CC, but don't like to OC. Others don't like to CC, but like to OC.

I believe CCers would jump up to defend OCers if someone tried to say they couldn't carry openly in restaurants any more. And I would hope OCers are standing up for CCers right to carry in restaurants.

We are all proud Americans who have different interests in firearms.

VCDL is trying to keep the tent in each part of the law as large as possible. I can give example after example:

The glovebox bill helps OCers, but does NOTHING for CCers - VCDL supports it.

The restaurant ban bill helps CCers, but doesn't do anything for OCers - VCDL supports it.

The, now dead, K-12 felony reduced to misdemeanor helped both OC and CCers - it was put in for VCDL.

Let's not break into little splinter groups. Let's strive whenever possible to move the ball forward for everyone, but if not possible, to move it as far forward as we can for whatever subset of gun owners we can.

Hunters, target shooters, self-defense carriers, handgun or rifle or shotgun owners, we need to hang together or we shall most certainly hang alone.

imported post

VCDL President wrote:

peter nap wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Trouble is that this anti-chp thing is starting to sound like hunters who didn't care what happened to handguns as long as their rifles and shotguns were safe. Or self-defense carriers who don't care what happens to hunters.

We don't want to pit OCers against CCers. We are all in this together.

Some like to CC, but don't like to OC. Others don't like to CC, but like to OC.

I believe CCers would jump up to defend OCers if someone tried to say they couldn't carry openly in restaurants any more. And I would hope OCers are standing up for CCers right to carry in restaurants.

We are all proud Americans who have different interests in firearms.

VCDL is trying to keep the tent in each part of the law as large as possible. I can give example after example:

The glovebox bill helps OCers, but does NOTHING for CCers - VCDL supports it.

The restaurant ban bill helps CCers, but doesn't do anything for OCers - VCDL supports it.

The, now dead, K-12 felony reduced to misdemeanor helped both OC and CCers - it was put in for VCDL.

Let's not break into little splinter groups. Let's strive whenever possible to move the ball forward for everyone, but if not possible, to move it as far forward as we can for whatever subset of gun owners we can.

Hunters, target shooters, self-defense carriers, handgun or rifle or shotgun owners, we need to hang together or we shall most certainly hang alone.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely true, to a point. Now I certainly am NOT anti CHP. That would be silly. As long as Va law doesn't allow concealed carry without a permit, I feel anyone who wants or needs to carry concealed should get one. My wife and Son have one at my insistence.

My concern is using the CHP as a means to further gun laws at the expense of non VHP holders. Allowing special privilages for CHP holders does just that. A CHP is just permission to cover the gun up and should be nothing more.

While it's true that all gunowners need to vote together, they should not do it blindly nor should they support bills that they are sure will destroy the progress Virginia has made over the years. This isn't a trading session. Throwing a bone and expecting complete support in exchange isn't the right approach.

In an earlier post, you said all they had to do was pay their $50.00 and they could have all the privileges and nearly everyone could afford that (My words, not yours). That's not the issue. I spend nearly ten times that every year, paying VCDL dues for others. Money isn't the issue, the permit is.

One of my childish examples can address my concerns.
I hunt but don't have or need a hunting license.
Let's say that the General Assembly decides they want everyone who hunts to have a license.

They pass a law that says anyone with a hunting license can run a day care center without approval...Why? Because people with hunting licenses are more trustworthy than people who hunt on their own land without a license.

Well Gee, that makes a lot of sense to me???????????????:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Makes about as much sense as allowing CHP holders to buy more than one handgun a month or hiking in a WMA with a handgun.

The real problem is the precedent has been set and down the road the GA may say all Day Care Center owners have to have a hunting license because a few wouldn't take the bait.

Yes... hopefully ALL gunowners will vote as a block. It's a little unrealistic to expect us all to get along. But hopefully we all vote together. It is not realistic for all gunowners to support issues that we feel are dangerous and erode the RIGHTS we currently have.

It's NOT about Hunters or Target Shooter Vs. people who only carry concealed for protection. It's about introducing legislation for CHP holders only because it's easier to get through the GA that way.

imported post

There has been a precedent set for CHPs that go way back. Open carry is still alive and well and there would be one hell of an uproar from everyone,including CHP holders, if they tried to license open carry or restrict it further.