Va Dept of Forestry - Major response needed.

Mr. Y said:

'stroke of the pen' cite to authority please?


"- you criticize the efforts, but offer no better means."

from the previous post:
"Focus on the targets we have influence over."

I'm not saying don't pursue DOF, I'm saying the state forester & DOF generally isn't where the respective target audience here is going to have the most impact.

Click to expand...

Never said that DOF was the only area of influence in this matter - quite to the contrary. Public reaction does carry over into other spheres though.

We differ as to whether the governor could direct a solution - did you read the response to t33j noted above?

In any event I don't think we are going to answer the question here, on this thread, as to the effectiveness of this particular approach. We may just need to agree to disagree as we fight for the same things.

Mr. Y said:

Differ too.

Gov. Bob McDonnell most assuredly could correct this with an executive order = stroke of the pen."
Cite to authority?

Efforts pursuant to an administrative action need to focus on where citizens can have influence. DOF is not directly answerable to the citizen now are they? Who do we know of that are?

Work smarter. Not harder.

Click to expand...

I've been working on this for a year. Grapeshot and others just as long. I didn't notice you doing anything at all. If it hadn't been for those efforts they would have already had CHP only and you'd still be talking about what we should do.

Grapeshot said:

Never said that DOF was the only area of influence in this matter - quite to the contrary. Public reaction does carry over into other spheres though.

We differ as to whether the governor could direct a solution - did you read the response to t33j noted above?

In any event I don't think we are going to answer the question here, on this thread, as to the effectiveness of this particular approach. We may just need to agree to disagree as we fight for the same things.

Click to expand...

I'm unclear what you're saying now. Previously you said the governor could undo this regulation with the stroke of a pen, I asked for a cite to authority and have reiterated it.

Above you say we differ on whether a solution can be directed by the Governor. That is not the same thing, the Governor can direct an agency to act --within the statutory framework--. We do not differ on this account, we differ on the 'stroke of the pen' striking of the regulation. That is a myth, urban legend, red herring, white elephant, flying pig. The governor is not vested with that authority. Directing an agency within the statutory scope? Yes. strike the regulation by 'stroke of the pen' / EO - again, cite to authority...

I may not have articulated my previous post sufficiently with regard to the target audience and their respective influences. This is a noble effort, DOF is just plain bad. That aside, they should not have their firearm prohibition, and efforts are underway to curtail them. Citizen activism comes in many forms and when properly focused can be a powerful tool against government. That said, citizen input is only minimally effective against the power of an unelected bureaucrat. It is highly respected by elected positions though. This kind of activism can pay dividends but history shows us that leveraging it against unelected bureaucrats is less than effective.

I'm honestly not sure what you meant in the first sentence by public reaction but that leads me to believe there is a PR effort behind this. That would be good if there was but that's really a separate issue.

You previously said: "- you criticize the efforts, but offer no better means."

I counter that I have offered suggestions to better leverage the influence of this target audience - that is, the user community here, yet you do not seem willing to consider it.

Rather than agree to disagree, why don't we both agree to at least try the other's respective suggestions? I would be happy to email the unelected bureaucrats if you would refocus to elected officials. Fair enough?

I smell a peace proposal.

I do not give a particular fig which effort results in getting this situation fixed, so long as it DOES get fixed. Until such time I support both paths to a solution. If I can remember, I will ask the Gov. the next time he is at my office. We see him here monthy more or less.

Got this response in reply to my email to the Secretary:

Thank you for contacting the Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry regarding the Virginia Department of Forestry’s proposed firearms regulation. This week, the Department of Forestry submitted a new form of the proposed regulation that will permit the lawful carrying of firearms, both open and concealed. You may find the text of the proposed regulation at: http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/ViewXML.cfm?textid=4805. Once the Department of Planning and Budget accepts the submitted language, a thirty-day public comment period will begin again. You may also follow its progress and comment at http://townhall.virginia.gov . Please let me know what, if any, questions you have regarding this process.

Thank you,

Matt Conrad
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry

Click to expand...

paramedic70002 said:

Got this response in reply to my email to the Secretary:

Click to expand...

Proposed Text

Action:
Amend Requirements for Carrying Handguns in State Forests
Stage: Proposed
11/1/10 3:54 PM

4VAC10-30-170. Explosives, fires firearms, etc.
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance [STRIKE] , 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 ]. [ This regulation shall not apply to the carrying of concealed handguns within state forests by holders of a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to § 18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia.[/STRIKE] This regulation shall not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms and firearms ammunition.
http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/ViewXML.cfm?textid=4805.

This is a cleaned up version of what they had months ago - the wheels turn slowly.

Grapeshot said:

Proposed Text

Action:
Amend Requirements for Carrying Handguns in State Forests
Stage: Proposed
11/1/10 3:54 PM

4VAC10-30-170. Explosives, fires firearms, etc.
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance [STRIKE] , 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 ]. [ This regulation shall not apply to the carrying of concealed handguns within state forests by holders of a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to § 18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia.[/STRIKE] This regulation shall not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms and firearms ammunition.
http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/ViewXML.cfm?textid=4805.

This is a cleaned up version of what they had months ago - the wheels turn slowly.

Click to expand...

That seems to be the best one so far. It makes carrying of firearms not a specifically addressed issue, and therefore, I would assume subject to other prevailing laws, just as OC and CC are now throughout the rest of the state.

TFred

TFred said:

That seems to be the best one so far. It makes carrying of firearms not a specifically addressed issue, and therefore, I would assume subject to other prevailing laws, just as OC and CC are now throughout the rest of the state.

TFred

Click to expand...

So it passes someday in the future they will allow guns? "explosive or explosive substance" They won't try anything TRICKY, like in the law code it says "or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material"
This is coming from § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.


the word explosion............... :uhoh:

TFred said:

That seems to be the best one so far. It makes carrying of firearms not a specifically addressed issue, and therefore, I would assume subject to other prevailing laws, just as OC and CC are now throughout the rest of the state.

TFred

Click to expand...

ocholsteroc said:

So it passes someday in the future they will allow guns? "explosive or explosive substance" They won't try anything TRICKY, like in the law code it says "or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material"
This is coming from § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.


the word explosion............... :uhoh:

Click to expand...

Here it is w/o the strike outs and underlining.

4VAC10-30-170. Explosives, fires firearms, etc.
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance. This regulation shall not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms and firearms ammunition.
http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/ViewXML.cfm?textid=4805.

Looks clean and to the point to me.

Grapeshot said:

Here it is w/o the strike outs and underlining.

4VAC10-30-170. Explosives, fires firearms, etc.
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance. This regulation shall not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms and firearms ammunition.
http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/ViewXML.cfm?textid=4805.

Looks clean and to the point to me.

Click to expand...

This regulation shall not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms and firearms ammunition.

Click to expand...

^ With this being said, they should make OC legal, Sign in
Proposed Text
Action: Amend Requirements for Carrying Handguns in State Forests Stage: Proposed 11/1/10 3:54 PM


So how long do things like this take to change? it seams like a minor change. I see they just started on 11/1/2010

Grapeshot said:

Here it is w/o the strike outs and underlining.

4VAC10-30-170. Explosives, fires firearms, etc.
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance. This regulation shall not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms and firearms ammunition.
http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/ViewXML.cfm?textid=4805.

Looks clean and to the point to me.

Click to expand...

ocholsteroc said:

^ With this being said, they should make OC legal, Sign in
Proposed Text
Action: Amend Requirements for Carrying Handguns in State Forests Stage: Proposed 11/1/10 3:54 PM


So how long do things like this take to change? it seams like a minor change. I see they just started on 11/1/2010

Click to expand...

And THAT is the original point of this thread! We have now come full circle. DOF actually started about a year ago and we finally had hearings last summer. Now we are starting the process all over again.

This change is only proposed. It has to be "approved", then put up for public comment (think for 30 days), then schedule public hearing(s), then have everything analyzed to make a determination on their part w/o a clear cut time schedule for any of this. I don't think they are even bound by the weight of the public comments and hearings. :banghead:

Could easily be another year.

Grapeshot said:

Looks clean and to the point to me.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Kicked the ball forward, I hope...

The "Gov" was at the office today and I engaged his Communications Director, Tucker Martin on the topic and followed up with an e-mail. It rang a bell with him as having been addressed as Attorney General. I reminded him we are still awaiting corrective measures. Who knows? Maybe it was the right skid to grease.

The Wolfhound said:

The "Gov" was at the office today and I engaged his Communications Director, Tucker Martin on the topic and followed up with an e-mail. It rang a bell with him as having been addressed as Attorney General. I reminded him we are still awaiting corrective measures. Who knows? Maybe it was the right skid to grease.

Click to expand...

Tucker is well aware of the issue and he is well aware of the tense atmosphere regarding VDOF.
He was the target of some of my prodding this year.

Just a few history notes.
Tucker gave us Tim Kaine. He was with the Kilgore campaign and while professing to be pro gun, made a very public statment that the VCDL President had NO CREDIBILITY with them.

"While we have great respect for the members of the VCDL, their President
Phillip Van Cleave unfortunately has no credibility on Second Amendment
issues and that is why we did not participate [in the VCDL Candidate Survey],"
Mr. Martin [Kilgore campaign spokesman] said, declining to elaborate.

Click to expand...

That caused a firestorm and Kilgore lost by about the number of VCDL members.
Tucker is no friend to gun owners.

When McDonnell decided to make a bid for Governor, he chose Tucker to be one of the lead men in his campaign.

Philip, being more forgiving than I am, asked the Gun Public to forgive the snake and not hold McDonnell accountable for his past comments.
While most did, I wrote several times about McDonnell's questionable gun record...and Tucker.

When we endorsed Cuccinelli I wrote that McDonnell was just the best of the bad and I would vote for him, but not endorse him.

McDonnell and his staff, including Tucker, have not disappointed me. Despite what they say, they have not been especially pro gun.

Other excuses from Martin about not returning VCDL Surveys were:

* Kilgore has never received the survey (but it was handed to him personally, sent certified mail, and emailed to him).
* There was one question that Kilgore didn't want to take a position on and that was why he declined to answer any of the questions.
* The survey was on Kilgore's desk awaiting his signature.
* Philip Van Cleave is too hard to work with.
* The NRA survey and the VCDL survey are the same and they didn't see why both needed to be answered. (I have seen the NRA survey and it is nothing like the VCDL survey.)
* Philip Van Cleave is antagonistic because he said the Kilgore campaign is following the Earley playbook. And now:

Click to expand...

There are some that sincerely hope that the governor will withdraw from public service after his present tour - he is thought to be less than stellar in keeping his campaign promises and hasn't proved to be a really good friend. The clock is still laboriously ticking on that one.

Some activists cannot tread so heavy down that path if they are to work effectively those in office.

Ugh... anything new?

t33j said:

Ugh... anything new?

Click to expand...

Same ol' slow boat, stuck in the mud.

Unofficial word is somebody is waiting on somebody to review, approve and return something so they can take the next step...........which should have been done months ago.

You didn't expect efficiency in non-elected officials did you? A promise made is a promise broken - looks a lot like we are being left standing at the alter. :uhoh:

Per NRA email dated 1/18

Governor Robert F. McDonnell has approved changes to the Virginia Department of Forestry’s Virginia State Forest Regulation 4VAC10-30-170 which will permit law-abiding Virginians to carry a firearm in State Forests. These changes will allow for both the lawful carrying of concealed firearms by those who possess a concealed carry permit, as well as open carrying for anyone in lawful possession of a firearm.

The new language to the Administrative Code is below:

4VAC10-30-170. Explosives, firearms, etc.
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance. This regulation shall not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms and firearm ammunition.


Within 14 days of the Governor’s approval, the Governor must submit the final regulation to the Virginia Registrar of Regulations. Once published in the Registrar, a final thirty-day adoption period begins and a public comment forum opens. After the final thirty-day adoption period closes, the regulation becomes effective.

Great news! I got the same email.

Getting ready to free up one more line on the OC info cards of places we can't carry.

One to check off, others to still work on.