Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: OK here's your chance to re-word the K-12 school prohibition...

  1. #1
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    Lets say you work for a pro 2A Senator and have been given the task of writing a new, less restrictive version of the K-12 gun ban (actually Legislative Services writes the bills to the Senator's design specs). Since the good Senator only wants to take bites out of the law, and leave intact the central 'intent' of the ban to enhance the possibility of passage, you have your work cut out for you.

    How do you recommend the Code be amended?

    Here is the current Code section:


    § 18.2-308.1. Possession of firearm, stun weapon, or other weapon on school property prohibited.

    A. If any person possesses any (i) stun weapon as defined in this section; (ii) knife, except a pocket knife having a folding metal blade of less than three inches; or (iii) weapon, including a weapon of like kind, designated in subsection A of § 18.2-308, other than a firearm; upon (a) the property of any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds; (b) that portion of any property open to the public and then exclusively used for school-sponsored functions or extracurricular activities while such functions or activities are taking place; or (c) any school bus owned or operated by any such school, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

    B. If any person possesses any firearm designed or intended to expel a projectile by action of an explosion of a combustible material while such person is upon (i) any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds; (ii) that portion of any property open to the public and then exclusively used for school-sponsored functions or extracurricular activities while such functions or activities are taking place; or (iii) any school bus owned or operated by any such school, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony; however, if the person possesses any firearm within a public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school building and intends to use, or attempts to use, such firearm, or displays such weapon in a threatening manner, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years to be served consecutively with any other sentence.

    The exemptions set out in § 18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of this section. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) persons who possess such weapon or weapons as a part of the school's curriculum or activities; (ii) a person possessing a knife customarily used for food preparation or service and using it for such purpose; (iii) persons who possess such weapon or weapons as a part of any program sponsored or facilitated by either the school or any organization authorized by the school to conduct its programs either on or off the school premises; (iv) any law-enforcement officer; (v) any person who possesses a knife or blade which he uses customarily in his trade; (vi) a person who possesses an unloaded firearm that is in a closed container, or a knife having a metal blade, in or upon a motor vehicle, or an unloaded shotgun or rifle in a firearms rack in or upon a motor vehicle; or (vii) a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school. For the purposes of this paragraph, "weapon" includes a knife having a metal blade of three inches or longer and "closed container" includes a locked vehicle trunk.

    As used in this section:

    "Stun weapon" means any device that emits a momentary or pulsed output, which is electrical, audible, optical or electromagnetic in nature and which is designed to temporarily incapacitate a person.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    "with the intent to commit a crime."

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote:
    "with the intent to commit a crime."
    Simple enough.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Glock27Bill wrote:
    "with the intent to commit a crime."
    Simple enough.

    Yata hey
    </thread>
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    In the penultimate sentence of the second paragraph of subsection B, strike "and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school"
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    182

    Post imported post

    WVCDL wrote:
    In the penultimate sentence of the second paragraph of subsection B, strike "and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school"
    That would go 99% of the way, until we get FULL constitutional carry.

  7. #7
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    WVCDL has the right idea. The first 2 responses, while laudable, do not fit the parameters of the question:

    "Since the good Senator only wants to take bites out of the law, and leave intact the central 'intent' of the ban to enhance the possibility of passage, you have your work cut out for you.

    How do you recommend the Code be amended?"

    This is more an academic exercise than it is another opportunity to demand Constitutional Carry.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    182

    Post imported post

    Deleted - Apparently, I need to learn to read better.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Third para, at (vii), strike"and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    182

    Post imported post

    This is my number one legislative priority.

    Second would be a very strong Castle Doctrine.

    Third would be very strong constitutional carry.

    But is for me, schools is far and away #1.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    exemption vii: persons with a vaild concealed handgun permit, may posses firearms on school property.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    Fenris wrote:
    This is my number one legislative priority.

    Second would be a very strong Castle Doctrine.

    Third would be very strong constitutional carry.

    But is for me, schools is far and away #1.
    As to the first, I'd point out that the federal statute is far more restrictive. I think we need a statute pursuant to the Tenth Amendment stating that the federal statute bears no relation to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, nor does any provision therein attempt to regulate interstate commerce in any way; that the federal statute is an attempt to enact regulations in the areas of public health, education, welfare, safety, and to exercise the police power, all of which are reserved to the Commonwealth and which pre-empt federal regulations to the contrary; and that this present statute, as amended, shall be taken to completely occupy the field as regards the ownership, possession, and use of weapons in or around school property.

    As to the second, the Castle Doctrine is part of the common law of Virginia. It don't get no stronger than that.

    As to the third, Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia absolutely prohibits "any infringement" - the U.S. version was copied from the Virginia language. What we need is a judiciary that will take the Constitution seriously. That's a legislative function.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    182

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    Fenris wrote:
    This is my number one legislative priority.

    Second would be a very strong Castle Doctrine.

    Third would be very strong constitutional carry.

    But is for me, schools is far and away #1.
    As to the first, I'd point out that the federal statute is far more restrictive.* I think we need a statute pursuant to the Tenth Amendment stating that the federal statute bears no relation to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, nor does any provision therein attempt to regulate interstate commerce in any way; that the federal statute is an attempt to enact regulations in the areas of public health, education, welfare, safety, and to exercise the police power, all of which are reserved to the Commonwealth and which pre-empt federal regulations to the contrary; and that this present statute, as amended, shall be taken to completely occupy the field as regards the ownership, possession, and use of weapons in or around school property.

    As to the second, the Castle Doctrine is part of the common law of Virginia.* It don't get no stronger than that.

    As to the third, Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia absolutely prohibits "any infringement" - the U.S. version was copied from the Virginia language.* What we need is a judiciary that will take the Constitution seriously.* That's a legislative function.*
    1. Federal statute is exceptioned if you have a CCW/CHP regardless of whether you OC or CC, are in or out of your car, on the grounds or inside the building. Fed statute is probably not enforceable. Yes, I agree that it amounts to Federal over-reach, but then so does 95%+ (IMHO) of Federal statutes. But as I have the Magic CHP, none of it applies to me. I want the state laws relaxed so I don't have to disarm when I go to a parent teacher conference or have to go in to the school to sign my kids out of an after-school extra curricular activity or because someone forgot their band instrument or have gotten sick. I maybe go to the Post Office (which is a separate issue regarding "incidental to other lawful purpose")once or twice a month at most, but on school days I am at the school 2-3 or more times a day. So this is a major infringement for me and becomes a major PIA.

    2. It depends on how broadly you define Castle Doctrine (property vs life) and does not necessarily protect from civil judgement. While not an expert by any means, I am given to understand that the rules in Texas for example provide more protection than our common law.

    3. Yes, I agree the VA constitution, as WRITTEN, is very strong on gun rights. Unfortunately the legislature and the courts have seen fit to often ignore it, or creatively interpret it. I don't know whether repeating "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" 100 times in caps would make it more clear to them or not. But we could try. And no, as a matter of facts on the ground, we do not have what I consider constitutional carry, else why do we need a CHP to conceal carry. And why do we have the whole school issue to get back to #1.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    2. It depends on how broadly you define Castle Doctrine (property vs life) and does not necessarily protect from civil judgement. While not an expert by any means, I am given to understand that the rules in Texas for example provide more protection than our common law.
    Aha! The desire is for civil immunity, and not for castle doctrine.

    It really is a major peve when folks throw around one legal term when they mean another. Not only does it confuse us within our own discussions, it confuses the legislature and the courts - two groups who are used to trying to get things to mean what they say or say what they mean.

    C-I-V-I-L I-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y -- not getting sued by the BG or, if he fails to survive the criminal deed, his family, when you are cleared of criminal charges because your actions were either justified or excusable under law. More than likely you shot the BG because you were exercising the tenents of castle doctrine when the BG illegally entered your house and threatened you and/or your family with death or great bodily harm.

    Can we just get the difference between the two straight? OK? Then my head won't hurt so much.

    THanks.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    182

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    2. It depends on how broadly you define Castle Doctrine (property vs life) and does not necessarily protect from civil judgement. While not an expert by any means, I am given to understand that the rules in Texas for example provide more protection than our common law.
    Aha!* The desire is for civil immunity, and not for castle doctrine.

    It really is a major peve when folks throw around one legal term when they mean another.* Not only does it confuse us within our own discussions, it confuses the legislature and the courts - two groups who are used to trying to get things to mean what they say or say what they mean.

    C-I-V-I-L* I-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y -- not getting sued by the BG or, if he fails to survive the criminal deed, his family, when you are cleared of criminal charges because your actions were either justified or excusable under law.* More than likely you shot the BG because you were exercising the tenents of castle doctrine when the BG illegally entered your house and threatened you and/or your family with death or great bodily harm.

    Can we just get the difference between the two straight?* OK?* Then my head won't hurt so much.

    THanks.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    Skidmark, I did say "AND does not necessarily protect from civil judgement" I do think (possibly wrongly) that other states may have castle doctrines that are more protective than Virginia where it is an affirmative defense, and can not be used to protect property, and where they can bankrupt you with legal costs before you manage to escape the clutches of the justice system. Our common law heritage may offer some protection, but it could be strengthened AND offer civil immunity.

  16. #16
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    I have read differing opinions of VA's 'castle doctrine' as a result of case law. Whether or not it should be strengthened through legislation is a debate for people who know more about it than I. I do however see a need for civil immunity protection, and I hope some legislator gives us a bill for it next year.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  17. #17
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    Oops...
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  18. #18
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    Oops again...
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •