• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Newest wording for guns on employers' premises

Glock27Bill

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
821
Location
Louisa County, Virginia, USA
imported post

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.


[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. [\pvc]
The new wording pretty much excludes my being able to have my gun stored in my vehicle, as there is no place for me to park for work that is not dedicated parking for my employer or for other businesses.

I gotta think that this is an issue for most of us working for Beltway Bandits.

Maybe not an issue for those in other industries or outside of NOVA.
 

Glock27Bill

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
821
Location
Louisa County, Virginia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
See the update on the original thread for this bill:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/36245.html

Even more so, I believe section (v) effectively eliminates all federal contractors, no matter where they are located within the state, and whether or not they have gated parking.

The bill has been utterly gutted.

TFred
Daggonit, I looked for an existing thread.

Didn't look all the way back to Jan 6.

I agree that the bill is now meaningless.
 

doug23838

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
306
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

I loved this Bill until section D. Many employers have fences, or gates and (the way I read this) even if they don't and you have to "card in" to the building, no gun in the car.

Help me understand that: Access card to get in the building, means no gun in the car.

Folks we have to get the "Gun free zone property owner liability act" going.
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
imported post

crazydude6030 wrote:
Yep, rules me out too.


Some city fire stations have locked gates for their firefightersto park, but not all. So if you are a firefighter and your station has a locked gate too bad. You forfeit your rights.

This was the bill that I most wanted to see passed. This is garbage.
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

T Dubya wrote:
crazydude6030 wrote:
Yep, rules me out too.
Some city fire stations have locked gates for their firefightersto park, but not all. So if you are a firefighter and your station has a locked gate too bad. You forfeit your rights.

This was the bill that I most wanted to see passed. This is garbage.
How about, instead of complaining, you consider it a step in the right direction?

Remember, just because a law is passed, that doesn't mean in can't be amended in a year or two. ;)
 

SAvage410

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
187
Location
Falls Church, Virginia, USA
imported post

Yes, it's a step in the right direction - it's just that so many of us, myself included, were hoping to be able to protect ourselves (sort of) at the office or in transit to/from, that this is a serious letdown.

My office has controlled access with a security gate in the parking lot as well as via security card access to external (and even some internal) doors, so the bill is useless to me as it now stands.
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
imported post

"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;"

So basically, according to the section I underlined if the building you work in has doors which are controlled by badge reader or even a standard lock and physical key system you can't keep a firearm in your car while at work.

This bill with the new wording has nullified itself for 99.99% of the public. All that before even being passed, now THAT is a prime example of government asshattary. I'm cranking out a memo to my representatives. This wording makes the law moot. You might as well say "You are permitted to carry a firearm unless that firearm is designed to expel a projectile in which case it is prohibited."
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
imported post

AbNo wrote:
T Dubya wrote:
crazydude6030 wrote:
Yep, rules me out too.
Some city fire stations have locked gates for their firefightersto park, but not all. So if you are a firefighter and your station has a locked gate too bad. You forfeit your rights.

This was the bill that I most wanted to see passed. This is garbage.
How about, instead of complaining, you consider it a step in the right direction?

Remember, just because a law is passed, that doesn't mean in can't be amended in a year or two. ;)
How about, instead you do a reality check. This bill is poo poo.
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

The bill is absolutely worthless to me and my many co-workers right here in the Lynchburg area and no we are not Federal contractors.What a piece of garbage this has become.
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
imported post

From the VA Alert PVC:

http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/vadetail.html?RECID=4977025





As we are considering what to do with HB 171, Delegate Pogge's parking
lot bill, I wanted to get a handle ONLY on those of you that this bill
would HELP. I do NOT want to hear from those that it wouldn't help -
I know there are many of you.

For it to help you, your place of employment must have a parking lot
open to the public, not gated or with a guard controlling entrance AND
your employer either is not the only building that the parking lot
serves or your employer does NOT block public access to the building
(either by a security card or a guard at the entrance).



If he gets one phone callfrom a VCDLmember in support of thisand will helpthem I will be surprised.
 

Glock27Bill

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
821
Location
Louisa County, Virginia, USA
imported post

T Dubya wrote:
From the VA Alert PVC:

http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/vadetail.html?RECID=4977025





As we are considering what to do with HB 171, Delegate Pogge's parking
lot bill, I wanted to get a handle ONLY on those of you that this bill
would HELP. I do NOT want to hear from those that it wouldn't help -
I know there are many of you.

For it to help you, your place of employment must have a parking lot
open to the public, not gated or with a guard controlling entrance AND
your employer either is not the only building that the parking lot
serves or your employer does NOT block public access to the building
(either by a security card or a guard at the entrance).



If he gets one phone callfrom a VCDLmember in support of thisand will helpthem I will be surprised.
It's a step in the right direction.

I'm as disappointed as anybody, as it does nothing for me.

And the language regarding my building having access control is totally irrelevant to my 2A rights while commuting, or on any stops I make on my way to/from work.

But this is a base to build on. Gotta start somewhere. Better than having no new protections at all.

I don't believe that this bill helps no one in the entire state of Virginia.

And I REALLY hope that on one is giving Phil grief over this, but this alert implies otherwise. That's unacceptable, and pretty disappointing.

He works hard for us, and he's not stupid. He knows how limiting the language is. He's not the author of this piece crap.

/rant
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

No grief to Philip, but I think there are many folks who are very unhappy with this unexpected turn of events. Somehow in a committee that has generally been fairly friendly to self-defense issues, this went from a good bill that helps many Virginians, to a bill that has been gutted, and filled full of real loopholes (called "exceptions").

From the nature of the exceptions, it appears to me that someone got ahold of this bill who believes that crime can't happen near workplaces that have cleared employees, or near workplaces that limit access to the general public. But since the purpose of this bill was to allow employees to protect themselves to and from work, the nature of their fellow employees, or public access to the facility has nothing to do with it.

Someone was sold a barrel of rotten apples, and the entire pro-self defense community came away from this committee meeting with a large knife protruding from the middle of their backs.

I'm split on whether to support this bill or not. I'm incensed that these committee members think my life is not worth protecting, just because I work for a company that has a fancy-dancy badge reader on the door. But at the same time, if we can get it passed as it is now, then certainly next year we can go back and raise all kinds of ruckus and demand that these ridiculous exceptions be taken out. Where is my equal protection under the law here?

TFred
 
Top