VDOF is cleaning up the language

I got this email yesterday"

Does the change in red font clear up the confusion for you? Thanks.


4VAC10-30-170. Explosives, fires firearms , etc.
. 4VAC10-30-170. Explosives, fires firearms , etc.
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed ] firearms or ammunition [ . Explosives and ] explosive substances [ other than lawfully possessed ] firearms and ammunition, ] are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area

Click to expand...

Oh my god, I'm colorblind!

j/k

Are you saying that we may now carry in administrative areas, or that this is proposed language?

Glock27Bill said:

Oh my god, I'm colorblind!

j/k

Are you saying that we may now carry in administrative areas, or that this is proposed language?

Click to expand...

There wasn't any red when I got the email Bill and I just deleted the strike through wording (The strikes didn't show either).

This is proposed language. If you've been following this, the first filing only allowed permit holders to carry on VDOF property.

There are some unreasonable people out there that resented that:lol:

The initial proposal went through the comment period and stalled because of ....things.

A reworded proposal was put together and the wording was confusing even though VDOF insisted it was intended to allow all legally carried firearms in.

This is better IMO and appears to allow all legal carriers in Recreational areas. There is NO provision that prohibits carry in Administration areas (headquarters, etc), only recreational areas.

I don't see a problem with this wording but that's just my opinion. It will now need to go through another 30 day comment period and I'm sure there will be a number of them.

Hopefully Philip or another VCDL Board Member will jump in and give their side of it. I haven't discussed it with them so I don't know their views.

I don't understand the purpose of the first and the last right-brackets "]". They don't have matching left-brackets "[".

Other than that, if you remove or ignore all the brackets, and read the text using common English, it appears to me to fully exempt firearms and ammunition from all restrictions that this rule imposes.

The rule still appears to have redundancy. The first sentence says no explosives "in any forest". The second sentence says no explosives "in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area"

Unless I am missing something having to do with different kinds of forests, the second phrase is a subset of the first phrase, and is unnecessary. What am I missing?

It would be like saying "you can't bring a hand-grenade into my house" and then "you can't bring a hand-grenade into the kitchen of my house". Why do you need the second sentence?

Did the strike-throughs show up properly in your e-mail client? Maybe you could capture and post a screen shot that we can see.

TFred

peter nap said:

This is better IMO and appears to allow all legal carriers in Recreational areas. There is NO provision that prohibits carry in Administration areas (headquarters, etc), only recreational areas.

Click to expand...

much better!

TFred said:

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

I don't understand the purpose of the first and the last right-brackets "]". They don't have matching left-brackets "[".

Other than that, if you remove or ignore all the brackets, and read the text using common English, it appears to me to fully exempt firearms and ammunition from all restrictions that this rule imposes.

The rule still appears to have redundancy. The first sentence says no explosives "in any forest". The second sentence says no explosives "in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area"

Unless I am missing something having to do with different kinds of forests, the second phrase is a subset of the first phrase, and is unnecessary. What am I missing?

It would be like saying "you can't bring a hand-grenade into my house" and then "you can't bring a hand-grenade into the kitchen of my house". Why do you need the second sentence?

Did the strike-throughs show up properly in your e-mail client? Maybe you could capture and post a screen shot that we can see.

TFred

Click to expand...

Ignore the brackets TFred.They're the result of deleting them at 3AM.
It is redundant but after beating this thing with an ax handle all summer, I'm satisfied with it.

You'd be shocked to know what it took to get it this far.

peter nap said:

Ignore the brackets TFred.They're the result of deleting them at 3AM.
It is redundant but after beating this thing with an ax handle all summer, I'm satisfied with it.

You'd be shocked to know what it took to get it this far.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see, no biggie.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with redundancy, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Thanks for the update!

So you expect that this new version will be up for comments soon?

TFred

TFred said:

So you expect that this new version will be up for comments soon?

TFred

Click to expand...

I think before too long. Don't look for comments to start before the elections but Hopefully soon after.
I could make a soap opera out of this mess and in fact I may after the rest of Kaines papers are transferred to the state library.

peter nap said:

I think before too long. Don't look for comments to start before the elections but Hopefully soon after.
I could make a soap opera out of this mess and in fact I may after the rest of Kaines papers are transferred to the state library.

Click to expand...

Now that will make some very interesting reading!

The Kaine Papers - sounds like a stage production full of intrigue and suspense.
Hope we find out whodunit before dessert. :lol:

Dang, I was looking forward to blowing up some trees with my stash of C4.

paramedic70002 said:

Dang, I was looking forward to blowing up some trees with my stash of C4.

Click to expand...

Pssst - look out front. :uhoh: