Anthony_I_Am
Regular Member
imported post
Good luck on your endeavor.
Good luck on your endeavor.
Deal, but only if you check your tool box to fix that attitude of yours.AbNo wrote:How about, instead you do a reality check. This bill is poo poo.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.
This bill now sucks big time!!!!
I work for the shipyard in Newport News. WE are not allowed to have firearms in cars parked in the unsecured parking lots. The building I work in is located away from the main shipyard property. I work in a high crime area at night and have to drive through that area to and from work. I have had people walk up to my truck at intersections while stopped for traffic lights driving home after midnight wanting me to give them rides and trying to open my doors to get in. There have been several murders in the past few years within 5 blocks of the property in any direction. At least 50 percent of the murders in Newport News happen in this south end of the city.
At least 6 murders in the last couple years have been within 50 yards of the fences around the property. Someone working day shift got caught in the path of a bullit that was fired on the street outside the front of the building when they left work an hour early (30 minutes before I came to work). Someone on one side of his vehicle riding a moped shot at someone in a car on the other side of his car . The bullit came through his passenger window and lodged in his dash board. Twenty minutes later there was a murder 4 blocks down the street that may have been related.
The building I work in is inside a fenced lot with 4 gates to access the parking lot which is exclusive parking for my company. All of the gates are unmanned and 2 are open 24/7/365. I need an electronic coded badge to be able to enter the building. There are no guards working in the building day or night and no longer any guards that come from the main plant as of the first of the year to make rounds in the building at night. If anything happens in the building at night that involves fire or the need of police I am expected to call the guard service or company fire dept to respond which can take as long as 10 minutes for fire dept or longer for the guard force.
I have no idea WTF a badge for electronic entry to the building has anything to do with my $&*@%$# safety to and from work!!!!!!! :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
I realize someone could get fired by thier employer if they violate section D of the newly reworded bill. Suppose someone who has a CHPforgets to remove a firearm from a locked container within the vehicle before going to a place of employment as described in section D, does anyone know if there are any criminal penalties associated with violating section D? I did not see any, so I assume it could be a trespassing charge if you do not leave the property if asked or if fired? I would guess that if one doesn't have a CHP and a firearm was in the trunk they might face a concealed weapons charge for violating section D?
I tried saying that, and I people jumped all over me. :uhoh:I am wondering if maybe revising this bill might not meet less resistance than the whole bill would. Passing this version then strengthening it divides the business opposition into those that are effected now and those effected by the correction later. Those that the exemptions exclude wont fight the bill now, and those that are effected now wont really care if it is expanded later because it is old news and proved to be no big deal to them? Divide and conquer or wishful thinking perhaps.
Dont take it personally, it is a bitter pill for those that would be effected by the exceptions. It chaffs my butt and my work would not fall under the exceptions!DonTreadOnMe wrote:I tried saying that, and I people jumped all over me. :uhoh:I am wondering if maybe revising this bill might not meet less resistance than the whole bill would. Passing this version then strengthening it divides the business opposition into those that are effected now and those effected by the correction later. Those that the exemptions exclude wont fight the bill now, and those that are effected now wont really care if it is expanded later because it is old news and proved to be no big deal to them? Divide and conquer or wishful thinking perhaps.
T Dubya wrote:Deal, but only if you check your tool box to fix that attitude of yours.AbNo wrote:How about, instead you do a reality check. This bill is poo poo.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.
There's no need for you and I to be fighting, we're on the same side.
I believe he was trying to remove the blanket immunity from liability portion."HB 171S - Committee Substitute agreed to, Delegate Armstrong floor amendment rejected (Y-41 N-55), Engrossed"
What was Delegate Armstrong's rejected amendment?
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.
There's another possibility that many of you seem to be overlooking. Assuming the bill is passed as is and is sent to the Governor, McDonnell promised to support the interests of Virginia gun owners and was endorsed by both the NRA and VCDL.I am wondering if maybe revising this bill might not meet less resistance than the whole bill would. Passing this version then strengthening it divides the business opposition into those that are effected now and those effected by the correction later. Those that the exemptions exclude wont fight the bill now, and those that are effected now wont really care if it is expanded later because it is old news and proved to be no big deal to them? Divide and conquer or wishful thinking perhaps.