Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: VDOF has refiled

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    VDOF has refiled

    I haven't found the Town Hall filing yet but I just got this.

    The Department of Forestry has submitted a second proposed regulation regarding firearms on State Forests. The past, current and future actions and associated documents can be found on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website located at http://townhall.virginia.gov/
    The agency has submitted a new proposed regulation amendment which would essentially allow the carrying of open and concealed firearms on State Forests so long as the laws of the Commonwealth did not prohibit them.
    Because this proposal is significantly different from the original, we felt the prudent action was to submit a new proposed amendment for the public review, receive additional comments from the public, and then complete the final regulatory stage.
    I hope this reply is helpful. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Thanks for the notice.

    We expected it to fall out this way.

    Now all we have to do is mobilize once again and get the comments in. Short & sweet, folks. "I support the proposed change to allow carry of firearms in state forests" is all they need to decide which column your vote goes in.

    stay safe.

    ETA:

    The posting is here: http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/NowInProgress.cfm - about 1/4th of the way down the page - look for Dept of Forestry

    It's status is Stage: Proposed - At DPB - in other words not ready for comments yet.
    Last edited by skidmark; 09-30-2010 at 04:58 PM. Reason: add location of Town Hall filing & status

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    And the meek shall inherit the earth.

    Damn, I love being meek!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Ammunition only?

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Thanks for the notice.

    We expected it to fall out this way.

    Now all we have to do is mobilize once again and get the comments in. Short & sweet, folks. "I support the proposed change to allow carry of firearms in state forests" is all they need to decide which column your vote goes in.

    stay safe.

    ETA:

    The posting is here: http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/NowInProgress.cfm - about 1/4th of the way down the page - look for Dept of Forestry

    It's status is Stage: Proposed - At DPB - in other words not ready for comments yet.
    As I read it, it only permits firearms ammunition -- is that correct?

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    As I read it, it only permits firearms ammunition -- is that correct?
    I need to re read it

    Sure reads that way!
    Last edited by peter nap; 09-30-2010 at 05:41 PM.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
    That would mean there is no regulation of a weapon at all, other than ammunition which must be legal.

  7. #7
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    ???
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9-30-2010 5-47-37 PM.jpg 
Views:	134 
Size:	39.3 KB 
ID:	4146  
    Last edited by buster81; 09-30-2010 at 05:53 PM.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by buster81 View Post
    ???
    I have asked for clarification. It may just be a typo and can be corrected before the comment period.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by nova View Post
    once again I say next legislative session we should push to have state agencies added to preemption. Get college carry and state park and state forest (open) carry with one stone.
    That would cure some problems Nova.
    Talk to VCDL. Apparently they have a legislative agenda prepared, they just aren't sharing it until the next meeting.

    I'm not sure when the prefile period closes but I haven't seen much show up on the GA docket yet.
    Last edited by peter nap; 09-30-2010 at 06:27 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384
    Progress - I like it.
    Last edited by t33j; 09-30-2010 at 11:00 PM.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by t33j View Post
    Progress - I like it.
    The wheels of progress do turn s l o w l y sometimes though.

    Willing to bet that we will still be waiting for an official rule change come Lobby Day.

    Our governor could solve this with a stroke of his pen if he would only live up to his campaign rhetoric.
    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.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    The wheels of progress do turn s l o w l y sometimes though.

    Willing to bet that we will still be waiting for an official rule change come Lobby Day.

    Our governor could solve this with a stroke of his pen if he would only live up to his campaign rhetoric.
    Amen!

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I spoke to Ron Jenkins about an hour ago.

    After reading the revision he agreed it was not worded as well as it could be.
    He also insisted the purpose was to allow all legally carried firearms in state forests.

    I explained that Va was a weak legislative intent state and that Department rule intent was even weaker.

    He is sending it back for revision and asked I send an email with my suggested wording.
    Last edited by peter nap; 10-05-2010 at 01:49 PM.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    When the new wording arrives I'll post my support.

  15. #15
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I spoke to Ron Jenkins about an hour ago.

    After reading the revision he agreed it was not worded as well as it could be.
    He also insisted the purpose was to allow all legally carried firearms in state forests.

    I explained that Va was a weak legislative intent state and that Department rule intent was even weaker.

    He is sending it back for revision and asked I send an email with my suggested wording.
    I took a look at the web page.

    Here's the current text, right from the VAC website:
    No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, except commercial sporting firearms ammunition; explosives, explosive substances and firearms of all types are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.

    Using my best guess as to what the editing conventions are, strikeout means delete, underline means add, it appears that the final text would read:

    No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition. Explosives and explosive substances, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition, are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.

    There is no mention of "firearms" without "ammunition" directly after. I suppose by default as with all laws, barring the prohibition thereof, it is legal, so by removing the prohibition of firearms, it is making them legal. Prohibiting explosives could be interpreted to include ammunition, so that is probably why they specifically exclude ammo from the rule.

    It is probably good to keep with that convention, I would rather just remove the text prohibiting firearms, than to replace it with text that specifically allows them. Why break with convention for just this one circumstance?

    I'm confused as to why the last sentence in the proposed change about CHPs doesn't show up in the text that is on the LIS.

    TFred

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I took a look at the web page.

    Here's the current text, right from the VAC website:
    No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, except commercial sporting firearms ammunition; explosives, explosive substances and firearms of all types are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.

    Using my best guess as to what the editing conventions are, strikeout means delete, underline means add, it appears that the final text would read:

    No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition. Explosives and explosive substances, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition, are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.


    There is no mention of "firearms" without "ammunition" directly after. I suppose by default as with all laws, barring the prohibition thereof, it is legal, so by removing the prohibition of firearms, it is making them legal. Prohibiting explosives could be interpreted to include ammunition, so that is probably why they specifically exclude ammo from the rule.

    It is probably good to keep with that convention, I would rather just remove the text prohibiting firearms, than to replace it with text that specifically allows them. Why break with convention for just this one circumstance?

    I'm confused as to why the last sentence in the proposed change about CHPs doesn't show up in the text that is on the LIS.

    TFred
    Now having read the proposed text again... it does indeed need tweaking.

    There are two sentences, the second is unneeded, as it is the same prohibition as the first, but applies only to a subset of the area described in the first.

    1: No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition.

    2: Explosives and explosive substances, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition, are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.

    They can say everything they need to say with just the first sentence, since there is now no distinction in the rule between "forest" and "forest that is a recreational area".

    Unless there is something else I'm missing... this is just a grammatical analysis, I may not fully understand the forest system.

    TFred

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I took a look at the web page.

    Here's the current text, right from the VAC website:
    No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, except commercial sporting firearms ammunition; explosives, explosive substances and firearms of all types are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.
    Using my best guess as to what the editing conventions are, strikeout means delete, underline means add, it appears that the final text would read:
    No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition. Explosives and explosive substances, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition, are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.
    There is no mention of "firearms" without "ammunition" directly after. I suppose by default as with all laws, barring the prohibition thereof, it is legal, so by removing the prohibition of firearms, it is making them legal. Prohibiting explosives could be interpreted to include ammunition, so that is probably why they specifically exclude ammo from the rule.

    It is probably good to keep with that convention, I would rather just remove the text prohibiting firearms, than to replace it with text that specifically allows them. Why break with convention for just this one circumstance?

    I'm confused as to why the last sentence in the proposed change about CHPs doesn't show up in the text that is on the LIS.

    TFred
    My first thought was like yours TFred. Just leave Firearms out. Then reality hit and I knew that if they have any mention of ammunition, some damn fool like >>>>>>> would decide that firearms were not allowed, just ammo, and charge the carrier with a violation.

    What we discussed was just saying ammunition once and changing the second mention to "legally carried firearms".

    I know it could probably be beaten in court but why take the chance.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I'm confused as to why the last sentence in the proposed change about CHPs doesn't show up in the text that is on the LIS.

    TFred
    I found my misunderstanding, the CHP language was from the first proposed change to the rule, which is covered here.

    TFred

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    The need to apply the K.I.S.S. rule.

    All legally carried firearms and ammunition shall be legal to possess, transport etc. within Dept. controlled property. No exception for "recreation areas" either - no victim rich, GFZs.
    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.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    While I'm not a big conspiracy theory fan, it does make me wonder if this might not be a ploy to further delay the process - as it will require a withdrawal of the now-current proposed rule, time to gin up a corrected new-revised rule, and restart the comment period.

    Thoughts? Theories?

    stay safe.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    While I'm not a big conspiracy theory fan, it does make me wonder if this might not be a ploy to further delay the process - as it will require a withdrawal of the now-current proposed rule, time to gin up a corrected new-revised rule, and restart the comment period.

    Thoughts? Theories?

    stay safe.
    I don't think it was to delay it Skidmark but I had the same thought about the wording.

    McDonnell doesn't want to appear too Pro Gun. The childish grammar in this just looks like a way to allow ammunition but not address guns.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Should not the original proposal be continued through to a conclusion? Have they violated their own procedural rules?

    The only reason I can imagine why this was not completed is that THEY did not want it at this time.

    If they wish to make further changes after the fact, begin the process again.
    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.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Should not the original proposal be continued through to a conclusion? Have they violated their own procedural rules?

    The only reason I can imagine why this was not completed is that THEY did not want it at this time.

    If they wish to make further changes after the fact, begin the process again.
    No, there is an exclusion in the rulemaking ...I think it's called "Executive Intervention" I think.

    Any member of the General Assembly or Executive office can intervene and the wording changed.
    I had two Senators ready to move on it and had a 3rd do a little mediating with VDOF for me. NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY INTERVENED though.

    I assume it was McDonnell's office that did it.

    Anyway, when the wording is changed, it goes back to mama and restarts the comment process.

    There have been a tremendous number of behind the scenes discussions about this and it's considered a political hot potato.


    This is not over yet.
    Last edited by peter nap; 10-06-2010 at 12:40 PM.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    ............There have been a tremendous number of behind the scenes discussions about this and it's considered a political hot potato.


    This is not over yet.
    Baking a potato - that's when you stick a fork in it and wrap tight in foil before raising the heat - right?

    Fire the grill up!
    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.

Posting Permissions

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