-
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.
-
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.
Senate passes gun bills
- Thread starter brokerbh
- Start date
imported post
HB 505 the House version has passed the House. HB 8 deals with mail renewal and HB 885 the locked container bill both have been passed out of comittee and engrossed I'm not sure if they have come up for final vote today yet.
HB 505 the House version has passed the House. HB 8 deals with mail renewal and HB 885 the locked container bill both have been passed out of comittee and engrossed I'm not sure if they have come up for final vote today yet.
CRF250rider1000
Regular Member
imported post
:celebrate
:celebrate
hometheaterman
Regular Member
imported post
So do they now combine these and re vote on them or what? Why don't the house and senate vote on the same bills?
So do they now combine these and re vote on them or what? Why don't the house and senate vote on the same bills?
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
After crossover day House bills go to the senate and senate bills go to the House for comparison and review.
I believe that similar (or identical bills) go for a general vote and then are put in front of the governor if passed.
Differing bills may be commented and returned from either chamber for amendment and reissue.
The process can sometimes drag on and on.
After crossover day House bills go to the senate and senate bills go to the House for comparison and review.
I believe that similar (or identical bills) go for a general vote and then are put in front of the governor if passed.
Differing bills may be commented and returned from either chamber for amendment and reissue.
The process can sometimes drag on and on.
hometheaterman
Regular Member
imported post
So when it crossover day? It does seem like it drags on and drags on.
So on crossover day when this goes to the house if the house passes it then it will be sent to the governor?
So when it crossover day? It does seem like it drags on and drags on.
So on crossover day when this goes to the house if the house passes it then it will be sent to the governor?
rlh2005
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Crossover day is Feb 17.
Crossover day is Feb 17.
hometheaterman
Regular Member
imported post
rlh2005 wrote:
From what I'm seeing this appears to have passed the house today
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+HB870
However, it says that this one
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+SB79
Was defeated yesterday in the Senate. Does that mean there isn't any hope of that passing?
rlh2005 wrote:
Just for the restaurant carry bill or for all of the ones that passed today?
From what I'm seeing this appears to have passed the house today
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+HB870
However, it says that this one
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+SB79
Was defeated yesterday in the Senate. Does that mean there isn't any hope of that passing?
rlh2005
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Cross-over Day is for all bills.
With some exceptions (e.g, budget), all bills not passed by the chamber where they were introduced are dead. After cross-over, only bills that were passed by the full Senate will be worked in the House and only those bill passed by the full House will be worked in the Senate.
This is the only place I found a good explanation by a governmental entity about cross-over.
Cross-over Day is for all bills.
With some exceptions (e.g, budget), all bills not passed by the chamber where they were introduced are dead. After cross-over, only bills that were passed by the full Senate will be worked in the House and only those bill passed by the full House will be worked in the Senate.
This is the only place I found a good explanation by a governmental entity about cross-over.
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
hometheaterman wrote:
From what I've observed, I have come to assume the following.
Members of each house (House of Delegates and the Senate) submit bills to their own body. The bills go through a process of weeding out and modification through the committees and subcommittees.
If they survive, they are "reported" out of the committee or sometimes committees back to the full body. Once there, a bill must be read and voted on three times. During the three votes, the members may discuss, debate, or even further amend the bills. It seems that at the end of the second reading, the bill is generally "engrossed", or "locked down" against further amendments, which means that the third reading is just a yes or no, with no changes allowed. If any of the three votes fail, then the bill is dead.
All the bills from each house must be passed that third time by "crossover day". If a bill is not "done" by that day, it doesn't make it out of the originating body, so it is dead.
Upon crossover, each bill that has passed the originating body is submitted to the other body. At this point, it seems to be treated just like a new bill was at the beginning, it goes through the same committee and subcommittee process, where it may be changed, etc. As before, if it is passes through the committees, it is reported back out to the full body for passage. I assume (but I'm not sure) that it would need three votes there again.
On a practical matter, I suspect that since the crossed over bills have actually been passed out of the one body already, they are probably treated a little more carefully than the mass of first time bills the first time around. A lot of the crazy bills get weeded out quickly, but once it's passed one house, I would think it certainly deserves a closer look by the second. Of course that does not prevent the anti-gun folks in the Senate from eagerly killing the pro-gun bills they hate.
[ETA: One point I left out... if a similar bill was defeated in the one house, then yes, it's probably a good bet that it'll be defeated if it comes over from the other. Generally they would go through the same path, and unless there was one particular thing different that gave a lot of them grief, it'll suffer the same fate. If it was something small that was different, they probably would have just fixed it rather than defeat it.]
If the bills are changed, then the differences must be resolved. I'm not sure of all the possible ways to do this at the state level, the federal level has a conference committee, as well as other rules (we're all aware of due to the national health care debate). Once the differences are resolved, and both houses have agreed to a final version of the bill, then it goes to the governor for signing. If he signs it, then it's law, usually on July 1st. If he vetoes it then the legislature has a chance to override the veto by a 2/3 super-majority, and make it law anyway.
Please feel free to correct anything I may have assumed incorrectly!
TFred
hometheaterman wrote:
I am not a lawyer, a legislator, or any other expert on the legislative system. I am fairly observant, and I know the basic concepts of a bicameral system.
From what I've observed, I have come to assume the following.
Members of each house (House of Delegates and the Senate) submit bills to their own body. The bills go through a process of weeding out and modification through the committees and subcommittees.
If they survive, they are "reported" out of the committee or sometimes committees back to the full body. Once there, a bill must be read and voted on three times. During the three votes, the members may discuss, debate, or even further amend the bills. It seems that at the end of the second reading, the bill is generally "engrossed", or "locked down" against further amendments, which means that the third reading is just a yes or no, with no changes allowed. If any of the three votes fail, then the bill is dead.
All the bills from each house must be passed that third time by "crossover day". If a bill is not "done" by that day, it doesn't make it out of the originating body, so it is dead.
Upon crossover, each bill that has passed the originating body is submitted to the other body. At this point, it seems to be treated just like a new bill was at the beginning, it goes through the same committee and subcommittee process, where it may be changed, etc. As before, if it is passes through the committees, it is reported back out to the full body for passage. I assume (but I'm not sure) that it would need three votes there again.
On a practical matter, I suspect that since the crossed over bills have actually been passed out of the one body already, they are probably treated a little more carefully than the mass of first time bills the first time around. A lot of the crazy bills get weeded out quickly, but once it's passed one house, I would think it certainly deserves a closer look by the second. Of course that does not prevent the anti-gun folks in the Senate from eagerly killing the pro-gun bills they hate.
[ETA: One point I left out... if a similar bill was defeated in the one house, then yes, it's probably a good bet that it'll be defeated if it comes over from the other. Generally they would go through the same path, and unless there was one particular thing different that gave a lot of them grief, it'll suffer the same fate. If it was something small that was different, they probably would have just fixed it rather than defeat it.]
If the bills are changed, then the differences must be resolved. I'm not sure of all the possible ways to do this at the state level, the federal level has a conference committee, as well as other rules (we're all aware of due to the national health care debate). Once the differences are resolved, and both houses have agreed to a final version of the bill, then it goes to the governor for signing. If he signs it, then it's law, usually on July 1st. If he vetoes it then the legislature has a chance to override the veto by a 2/3 super-majority, and make it law anyway.
Please feel free to correct anything I may have assumed incorrectly!
TFred
apollosmom
Regular Member
imported post
Unfortunately for freedom lovers in the 3rd District, Senator Tommy Norment (RINO-W&M) chose to sustain his record of denying freedom, by voting no, again, just like last year. Oh well, Tommy...you think your Dodge dealership in Grafton sank fast, we'll remember your sellout come primary and election time. Had sent him several nice notes asking for his support. Will be interested to see if he bothers to reply and explain his commitment to oppression. OTH, Del. Harvey Morgan's legislative assistant has followed up every email of mine with a personal note, ensuring we in Gloucester KNOW that he is Pro-Freedom and his voting record proves it.
Unfortunately for freedom lovers in the 3rd District, Senator Tommy Norment (RINO-W&M) chose to sustain his record of denying freedom, by voting no, again, just like last year. Oh well, Tommy...you think your Dodge dealership in Grafton sank fast, we'll remember your sellout come primary and election time. Had sent him several nice notes asking for his support. Will be interested to see if he bothers to reply and explain his commitment to oppression. OTH, Del. Harvey Morgan's legislative assistant has followed up every email of mine with a personal note, ensuring we in Gloucester KNOW that he is Pro-Freedom and his voting record proves it.
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
I guess this thread is the best place to post this.
I have a problem with the wording SB408.
From the NRA: SB 408, introduced by State Senator Jill Vogel (R-27), would allow any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private vehicle or vessel, to keep the firearm secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel. SB408 passed the Senate last week, 24-16.
Actual SB408: "10. Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel and such handgun is locked in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel."
I am assuming the NRA alert is wrong so the firearm will need to be locked inside a container or compartment. So my Ford Explorer has no trunk, the center console doesn't have a lock, the glove box doesn't have a lock. I believe the wording would have been alot better if "secured" was used so that you could simply place your gun in the glovebox or center console. For people without trunks or locking compartments this means they need to purchase some form of safe/lockbox. One of the points to allowing it in a glove box or center console was so that it wasn't freely moving around the car. Not sure how many people are going to buy lockboxes to be rolling around their car.
I hadn't been paying too much attention to this one since I have a CHP but want to understand it so when I have conversations with others and don't lead them astray. It seems like that one word "locked" has gutted this bill of its usefulness.
I guess this thread is the best place to post this.
I have a problem with the wording SB408.
From the NRA: SB 408, introduced by State Senator Jill Vogel (R-27), would allow any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private vehicle or vessel, to keep the firearm secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel. SB408 passed the Senate last week, 24-16.
Actual SB408: "10. Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel and such handgun is locked in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel."
I am assuming the NRA alert is wrong so the firearm will need to be locked inside a container or compartment. So my Ford Explorer has no trunk, the center console doesn't have a lock, the glove box doesn't have a lock. I believe the wording would have been alot better if "secured" was used so that you could simply place your gun in the glovebox or center console. For people without trunks or locking compartments this means they need to purchase some form of safe/lockbox. One of the points to allowing it in a glove box or center console was so that it wasn't freely moving around the car. Not sure how many people are going to buy lockboxes to be rolling around their car.
I hadn't been paying too much attention to this one since I have a CHP but want to understand it so when I have conversations with others and don't lead them astray. It seems like that one word "locked" has gutted this bill of its usefulness.
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
45acpForMe wrote:
I guess one important question to ask would be is there any case law that defines a distinction between "secured" and "locked".
TFred
45acpForMe wrote:
The Senate version says "locked", the House version (HB885) says "secured". If they both pass out of both sides, then they'll have to decide which one to send to the Governor.
I guess one important question to ask would be is there any case law that defines a distinction between "secured" and "locked".
TFred
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
TFred wrote:
So according to VCDL's update the Senate version (locked) made it out unchanged. If the house bill (secured) makes it through unchanged who gets to make the decision on which to sign into law? The gov? Murphy's law seems to be looming and I get tired of being bit. :-(
TFred wrote:
So according to VCDL's update the Senate version (locked) made it out unchanged. If the house bill (secured) makes it through unchanged who gets to make the decision on which to sign into law? The gov? Murphy's law seems to be looming and I get tired of being bit. :-(
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
House Bill 885, sponsored by Delegate Clay Athey (R-18), would allow any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private vehicle or vessel to keep the firearm locked in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel. Senate Bill 408 was not signed into law as the Governor seeks to amend it’s companion bill, HB885.
Governor McDonnell has recommended that the General Assembly insert the word “secured” for “locked”.
So the governor is trying one more time to allow us normal citizens to be allowed to put our gun in the average glovebox and center console that do not have locks built in. Anyone know if this has a chance of passing since the legislature agreed on "locked" container?
ACTION ITEMS:
You need to send a message to your Senator and your Delegate, asking
them to support Governor McDonnell's changes to HB885 and HB1217.
To send a message on HB885 and HB1217 to your Senator, click here;
http://tinyurl.com/y2pxp9h
To send a message on HB885 and HB1217 to your Delegate, click here:
http://tinyurl.com/yye2w6n
House Bill 885, sponsored by Delegate Clay Athey (R-18), would allow any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private vehicle or vessel to keep the firearm locked in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel. Senate Bill 408 was not signed into law as the Governor seeks to amend it’s companion bill, HB885.
Governor McDonnell has recommended that the General Assembly insert the word “secured” for “locked”.
So the governor is trying one more time to allow us normal citizens to be allowed to put our gun in the average glovebox and center console that do not have locks built in. Anyone know if this has a chance of passing since the legislature agreed on "locked" container?
ACTION ITEMS:
You need to send a message to your Senator and your Delegate, asking
them to support Governor McDonnell's changes to HB885 and HB1217.
To send a message on HB885 and HB1217 to your Senator, click here;
http://tinyurl.com/y2pxp9h
To send a message on HB885 and HB1217 to your Delegate, click here:
http://tinyurl.com/yye2w6n
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
45acpForMe wrote:
TFred
45acpForMe wrote:
Perhaps, since it doesn't have to go through the Saslaw/Marsh "death committee", it might have a chance. That might be a good point to make to those Senators who are on the fence... they have a small chance to right that wrong.
TFred