Where is the VCDL 2011 Legislative Agenda? We need to watch for it and rate it.

Tess said:

Have you identified a patron to carry said bill?

Click to expand...

There is a week to go and I haven't seen any sign of a true parking lot bill.

peter nap said:

There is a week to go and I haven't seen any sign of a true parking lot bill.

Click to expand...

I actually like Delegate Pogge's bill better than many I've seen. It doesn't require anything of employers, but provides incentives for them not to prohibit firearms in vehicles. Fewer mandates are good, IMNSHO.

Tess said:

I actually like Delegate Pogge's bill better than many I've seen. It doesn't require anything of employers, but provides incentives for them not to prohibit firearms in vehicles. Fewer mandates are good, IMNSHO.

Click to expand...

Phil was talking about this tactic at the last meeting here in Charlottesville.

He was saying that presenting a requirement caused some businesses to saddle up their lobbyists and head to Richmond to oppose it.

Providing indemnification if businesses choose to allow it gives them no reason to oppose and increases the likelihood of passing.

Tess said:

I actually like Delegate Pogge's bill better than many I've seen. It doesn't require anything of employers, but provides incentives for them not to prohibit firearms in vehicles. Fewer mandates are good, IMNSHO.

Click to expand...

Yea, I heard you make that argument today in Richmond and I cringed. I have to say I was very confused and dismayed by that argument. I do not see it that way at all and I like to explain why. As far as I am concerned it is not a parking lot bill at all. It does not meet the objective of a "parking lot bill". All this does is protect the employers from being sued, which I am fine with, but it does not mandate or as I see it, protect the citizens rights at all. Sorry, but that protection is the point of the parking lot bill.

A very very very few employers might be moved by this bill to make any kind of P&P changes, but frankly I don't think any would. Making changes to P&P are not without cost and not done lightly. So most employees will remain, like me, having to decide between being unarmed every day to and from work or risking being fired. ...and that is a sucky @$$ choice to have to make. I truly would not be surprised if not one employer changed policy over it.

We cant have a firearm wile working without an employers blessing, but having to be unarmed when we stop for gas, make a deposit, or break down going to and from work is not acceptable, and we should not have to tolerate that infringement. To borrow a point a friend made today, "What do I pay on my car every year? Oh, yea PROPERTY TAX!". What we decide to keep in our property is our business. ...and what provisions we make for our safety to and from work is our business.

Anyway, give the bill does nothing to protect a citizens right to carry I just dont see how it is better than a bill that does. ...but maybe I am missing something. Now if we look at it from the employers stand point sure it is better! They get all of the protection and don't have to move one dang inch more to respecting employees property rights, gun rights, or basic safety.

Glock27Bill said:

Phil was talking about this tactic at the last meeting here in Charlottesville.

He was saying that presenting a requirement caused some businesses to saddle up their lobbyists and head to Richmond to oppose it.

Providing indemnification if businesses choose to allow it gives them no reason to oppose and increases the likelihood of passing.

Click to expand...

....and that is why I do support this "employer protection" parking lot bill. As I see it, the bill is simply tool to weaken the push back the business lobby will have in the future when a REAL parking lot bill is offered up. Heck, maybe next year we will get the parking lot bill passed and this bill will turn out to be the key to what got it done. I hope so, cuz right now I am very disappointed. I see the lack of a parking lot bill as the biggest gapping hole in my gun rights in Va. and i am looking at another year or more before that can be fixed.

Tess,
I re-read my post. I can see how my post might come across as harsh or critical...no offence is intended. Just pointing out a difference of opinion on this bill. It was good lobbying with you today.
Will

DonTreadOnMeVa were you part of the 14 person group that Tess and her family were in? If you were, then I was in the group too and you likely heard me make a similar statement to her own. If Delegate Pogge's bill is passed as is, this may at least get employers thinking about the fact that they may already be subject to civil liabilities by removing the firearm as a means of defense for their employees. Note that part (C) of the bill does not say that the bill absolves employers who ban firearms from civil liability it simply states that it is not intended to create any new ones. This bill may be used as a kernel of knowledge to employers and business owners that they may actually be responsible for civil damages for their policies, but if they are willing to remove these policies the General Assembly has provided them a pathway for protection. If nothing else it is a foot in the door to the type of legislation to be introduced that would hold an employer, business owner or event coordinator responsible for the safety of employees / customers when they refuse to let the employee / customer protect themself.

jmelvin said:

DonTreadOnMeVa were you part of the 14 person group that Tess and her family were in? If you were, then I was in the group too and you likely heard me make a similar statement to her own. If Delegate Pogge's bill is passed as is, this may at least get employers thinking about the fact that they may already be subject to civil liabilities by removing the firearm as a means of defense for their employees. Note that part (C) of the bill does not say that the bill absolves employers who ban firearms from civil liability it simply states that it is not intended to create any new ones. This bill may be used as a kernel of knowledge to employers and business owners that they may actually be responsible for civil damages for their policies, but if they are willing to remove these policies the General Assembly has provided them a pathway for protection. If nothing else it is a foot in the door to the type of legislation to be introduced that would hold an employer, business owner or event coordinator responsible for the safety of employees / customers when they refuse to let the employee / customer protect themself.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was in same group. I did not catch you make that same argument or I would mentioned that she was not the only one that held that view. ...and I still disagree with that take and I am not the only one in our group of 14 that does. Please tell me what in this bill will convince an employer that has a policy in place to not allow employees to have a firearm in personal vehicle to change that policy? Remember it cost money for a company to change P&P and they don't do so lightly. Is possible a company might make a change? Sure, but it is unlikley this bill will convince a single business to change P&P.

You say, "This may at least get employers thinking about the fact that they may already be subject to civil liabilities by removing the firearm as a means of defense for their employees.". Please tell me about the history of all these civil liabilities, truth is if there was a substantial risk of that to business they would be pushing for this bill and we would not have too. Note: I do think that companies 'should' be responsible for undermining an employee's ability to defend themselves. I also dont see the likelihood of that liability ever being compelling/real/large enough to change a businesses P&P without a law being put into effect opening them up to such liabilities in a very direct way. ...and good luck getting that passed, compared to a real parking lot bill. Again, Remember it cost money for a company to change P&P and they don't do so lightly. There is no compliance issue in this bill for companies, no increased liabilities, or anything else to compel them. Is possible it might get some HR person or owner thinking? Sure, and again I dont see it being likley to cause a change if P&P for them.

The only real value I see in this bill is, maybe in the future Business lobby will have less of a reaction to a real parking lot bill. For that reason alone I do support the bill, but I am hardly excited about it. The end goal should be a true parking lot bill. No Virginian should have to be unarmed commuting every working day of their lives. This bill does not fix that. ....other than that it is a freebie for businesses.

DontTreadOnMeVa said:

tell me what in this bill will convince an employer that has a policy in place to not allow employees to have a firearm in personal vehicle to change that policy? Remember it cost money for a company to change P&P and they don't do so lightly. Is possible a company might make a change? Sure, but it is unlikley this bill will convince a single business to change P&P.

.

Click to expand...

That's an easy question. You won't convince an anti gun company to change their mind using reason. It just won't happen. It's like trying to convince me that dog hunters are real hunters.

But....most companies don't come out and say they are anti gun. That would lose a lot of employees and customers. They know that.

Instead, they pass the buck to their insurance carriers or corporate lawyers who say they need it for liability protection.

Sure they can come up with another argument, but it gets harder after they've already used it as an excuse. Many will go the "Leave it in the car in accordance with Va. Law" routine.

What is in the bill to convince employers to change their minds? Liability risk mitigation, determined internally or externally. I think we all understand the general reason to operate a business is to make money. To make money you generally must spend some and in many cases that includes significant amounts of overhead costs for risk mitigation, whether it be risk mitigation in cleaning snow from sidewalks in a particular way, risk mitigation by having a minimum number of lumens per square inch for lighting, or taking other steps to mitigate financial risks based upon the advice of an expert in the field, such as one that might advise corporations of things they can do to lower their insurance rates, which are a form of necessary overhead just to do business in most cases. In tight financial times many businesses are looking for ways to reduce their overhead costs and this bill may help provide a reduction in overhead costs.

I'd dare to say that many of the businesses that ban firearms from their property altogether do so based upon a perceived liability of financial risks associated with having employees have their arms even in the parking lot. Insurance companies would certainly be ones that would advise on this issue. Now some employers, like a major competitor to my own employer don't mind the perceived risk of having employees have firearms in their cars or they may accept the perceived risks because they understand that they know their employees need to protect themselves on their way to and from work, or understand that many are sportsmen that like to hunt when they leave work. By removing the perceived financial risk associated with having employees keep their firearms in their vehicles, the General Assembly has provided a financial carrot to lead the way to potential lower overhead costs for an employer that would also ensure a means for employees to keep firearms in their cars for their protection or hunting. This does not mean that an employer still won't discipline someone for having the firearm outside of the car, while on their property, but it has the possibility of removing one financial burden from their overhead costs by removing a financial risk that they do not have to take.

*** One thing to note and watch here is the financial beating that Virginia Tech and its leaders take in the lawsuit pursued by the students who did not accept the large payout from the state after the massacre that occurred. The university tied the hands of students in regard to their personal defense options and did not step up to the plate to ensure that Cho (or other potential murderers) could not murder 30+ people, mostly unchallenged. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would think that this would have financial implications to private industry as well as other colleges who do not do enough to ensure the safety of their employees / students / customers.

peter nap said:

That's an easy question. You won't convince an anti gun company to change their mind using reason. It just won't happen. It's like trying to convince me that dog hunters are real hunters.

But....most companies don't come out and say they are anti gun. That would lose a lot of employees and customers. They know that.

Instead, they pass the buck to their insurance carriers or corporate lawyers who say they need it for liability protection.

Sure they can come up with another argument, but it gets harder after they've already used it as an excuse. Many will go the "Leave it in the car in accordance with Va. Law" routine.

Click to expand...

Your missing reading what I said. I am not talking about anti-gun company, but your simple run of the mill company that does not have a pro-gun stance already.

A pro-gun company does not need this bill

An anti-gun company will not be moved by this bill

The avg company with no real leaning will not be forced or imo motivated to make any change by this bill

All this bill does is remove some liabilities for companies, that does not in it self compel the companies to make any change. It MIGHT lower the amount of opposition business lobby has against a future parking lot bill....maybe.

It costs money and goes against standing policy to make a P&P change. Ask people that working in HR and with P&P compliance if they think this bill will motivate companies to change there policies. The answer I got, "No, increase the liability if they dont, or make it a compliance issue and you will get change....otherwise dont hold your breath".

Again, I support the bill....it does no harm. I think companies should not have any liabilities for not banning firearms in personal vehicles. It might make passing a future parking lot easier....maybe.

It is not "better" than a parking lot bill that actually protects gun rights of Virginians by not letting a company ban firearms in a private vehicle. I can tell you there is nothing in the bill offered that makes it harder for the company I work for to simply stay with the status que.

I am not trying to rain on the bill, I simply object to the idea that it is better than a real parking lot bill. IMO, thinking this bill will compel change in any number of company's P&P is extremal optimistic.

jmelvin said:

In tight financial times many businesses are looking for ways to reduce their overhead costs and this bill may help provide a reduction in overhead costs.

Click to expand...

Sadly that is why this bill will do little to nothing. It does cost money for a company to change P&P, I spoke with someone I know that has work a lot in HR and in P&P compliance. Her response was she did not think this would be enough to make most or maybe any company make a policy change. Again, I am not saying this is a bad bill....I am saying it is not even a beyond watered down version of a parking lot bill.

But, I will tell you what....lets make a deal! If this bill passes and the company I work for lifts it's ban on employees having a firearm in private vehicles before the next lobby day. I will buy you, Tess and Peter breakfast! Of course if they dont....it would only be fair for you to buy mine, just mine, fair?

Again, I am not saying the bill will do no good at all. Just tell me, how is it that a bill I am that confident wont allow me to keep a gun in my truck at work is better than a real parking lot bill that would????

I do hope that perhaps it might help reduce opposition to a parking lot bill next year. Maybe next year we will get a real parking lot bill.

jmelvin said:

*** One thing to note and watch here is the financial beating that Virginia Tech and its leaders take in the lawsuit pursued by the students who did not accept the large payout from the state after the massacre that occurred. The university tied the hands of students in regard to their personal defense options and did not step up to the plate to ensure that Cho (or other potential murderers) could not murder 30+ people, mostly unchallenged. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would think that this would have financial implications to private industry as well as other colleges who do not do enough to ensure the safety of their employees / students / customers.

Click to expand...

On that I do hope you are correct. Perhaps a high profile loss by VT might change the equasion for some companies and colleges.

DontTreadOnMeVa said:

Your missing reading what I said. I am not talking about anti-gun company, but your simple run of the mill company that does not have a pro-gun stance already.

A pro-gun company does not need this bill

An anti-gun company will not be moved by this bill

The avg company with no real leaning will not be forced or imo motivated to make any change by this bill

l.

Click to expand...

There isn't any middle ground IMO. You is or ain't...anti.

Complaining about the bill won't help right now. Unless a true parking lot bill has been introduced that I missed, it's either this one or nothing.

If you choose nothing, get ready for a long wait. A true PL law is a way in the future I think.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying this bill is better than one that forces employers to allow employees to keep a gun in their cars, I'm simply saying it's good. What challenge could their be to this law, or better said, what is the likelihood this bill would be challenged if passed? It's probably not likely there would be a challenge to this bill. You could bet your firstborn son (if you have one) that a bill that required employers to permit employees to keep their guns in their cars would be challenged in the courts as soon as the governor signed it. Once that happened you might find the courts put a hold on the bill's implementation until a decision is made regarding its legality or force years down the line. I think this has already happened in other states and to what end good is it for those hoping to see some protection immediately if it gets tied up in the courts without implementation?

I think the proof will be in the pudding if / when corporations see a way to reduce their insurance overhead. The long term overhead reduction may make it worth while to spend the money to make policy and procedure changes now.

DontTreadOnMeVa said:

A pro-gun company does not need this bill

An anti-gun company will not be moved by this bill

Click to expand...

^^^ That.

A bill which PREVENTS employers from exercising any dominion over the PERSONAL PROPERTY of their employees without a SWORN WARRANT is apparently necessary. The contents of my PRIVATE vehicle are just that - PRIVATE.

Indemnify the employer of civil liability by legislation, fine. Make that their concession for being PROHIBITED from making policy which permits them to invade the privacy of their own employees.

The language of Pogge's bill, as written, is abysmal. The comments I heard in support of it were discomforting, to say the least.

Additionally, the comments against the K-12 "Violent Felon" bill, while well-meaning, were unsubstantiated. Most all of them were tied to the instance of being directed onto school property as a "detour" by a uniformed police officer as part of a temporary road-closure.

Can someone help me find the code section which applies granting certain immunities to citizens obey an otherwise lawful order from a uniformed or properly identified law enforcement officer?

I believe you experience certain indemnity from criminal prosecution for performing an act that, while otherwise legal, may be illegal under certain circumstances.

peter nap said:

There isn't any middle ground IMO. You is or ain't...anti.

Click to expand...

Come one peter, there are people that give the issue little or no thought....sad but true. Being uninformed or uninterested in gun rights does not make on an anti. They still can pose a great obstacle to those of us that wish to promote our rights, but understanding the difference between them and those that are actively against our rights is in our benefit....

peter nap said:

Complaining about the bill won't help right now. Unless a true parking lot bill has been introduced that I missed, it's either this one or nothing.

Click to expand...

Really, complaining does not help??? ....sorry dont buy that. I want others that feel the same way about this issue to know they are not alone, I want the leadership in the VCDL to know that a real parking lot bill is important to many of us. To me personally it is a top issue. I will decide when I should complain...thanks!

As for its this bill or nothing argument...shrug. It is hard for me to get excited about this bill at all.

peter nap said:

If you choose nothing, get ready for a long wait. A true PL law is a way in the future I think.

Click to expand...

Well it going to be at lest another year, which is a crying shame. This bill will for most do nothing...or nothing.

It is not "better" than the real parking lot bills.

wylde007 said:

Indemnify the employer of civil liability by legislation, fine. Make that their concession for being PROHIBITED from making policy which permits them to invade the privacy of their own employees.

Click to expand...

Hmm...you raise an angle I had not thought of...

We are being told to giving up that "concession" in hopes that the business lobby might not fight us in the future. Is giving up that concession now with nothing gained by us really the best strategy?

This bill seams like mostly a give away to business.

I don't find anyone here saying give up the fight on a parking lot bill of your dreams, but unless you can convince a legislator to draft and introduce a bill or magically make yourself a Virginia senator or delegate and do it yourself, it ain't happening. What we have is what we have for now. Of course there is always time to play with the wording of what is already out there.

DontTreadOnMeVa said:

Come one peter, there are people that give the issue little or no thought....sad but true. Being uninformed or uninterested in gun rights does not make on an anti. They still can pose a great obstacle to those of us that wish to promote our rights, but understanding the difference between them and those that are actively against our rights is in our benefit....



Really, complaining does not help??? ....sorry dont buy that. I want others that feel the same way about this issue to know they are not alone, I want the leadership in the VCDL to know that a real parking lot bill is important to many of us. To me personally it is a top issue. I will decide when I should complain...thanks!

As for its this bill or nothing argument...shrug. It is hard for me to get excited about this bill at all.




Well it going to be at lest another year, which is a crying shame. This bill will for most do nothing...or nothing.

It is not "better" than the real parking lot bills.

Click to expand...

You might be right on two and a half of the above, but complaining should be to the right people.

I don't have a dog in this fight as far as usefulness. I own the parking lot my vehicle is in but like most here, I support the bill as a major step for others.

VCDL is the target you need to be looking at. They need to find a patron who will introduce it. Apparently, that has met with some resistance this year.

jmelvin said:

I don't find anyone here saying give up the fight on a parking lot bill of your dreams, but unless you can convince a legislator to draft and introduce a bill or magically make yourself a Virginia senator or delegate and do it yourself, it ain't happening. What we have is what we have for now. Of course there is always time to play with the wording of what is already out there.

Click to expand...

I do not believe I said anyone is telling me to give up the fight for a parking lot bill. The pogge bill is not a parking lot bill at all, IMO.

I will continue to argue for such a bill, even if I am not a legislator or don't have a legislator handy that will do my bidding as you suggest I need to make it happen. Do you always wait to have a legislator in your pocket before arguing for a bill? Even if the parking lot bill was a lost cause forever, I would still speak up and on its behalf, because that is what our freedom calls for.

I will also not accept, the "what we have now" argument, no now be nice quiet. I reject the idea that, one has to support fully or be silent on every bill that someone things is pro-gun rights. I dang sure, am not going to going to not object when a bill I consider defective and near meaningless is described as better than that I see as what is needed. Everyone here will not always see things the same way, but the more we understand each others arguments the better we will all be at promoting our rights.

THIS IS A GOOD PLACE to discuss bills, the good, the bad and the LACKING. ...this bill is LACKING!

Oh, and regardng the wording of this bill... There is no playing with the wording that will fix this bill, IMHO. Only completely changing it into a parking lot bill would do that.

I would rather fight the fight and fail rather than concede the field before the battle even starts.

Discuss, discuss and complain, I have no issue with it as that's the way to get your voice heard. Never did I suggest you have to have a legislator in your pocket, but this being a representative republic state government you'll only ever get a bill introduced if you can convince your representatives to introduce it. As you indicate this is not the parking lot bill many would hope for, neither was last years, but if this passes it will provide impetus for some to change (maybe not yours as your contacts seem to think before ever seeing what financial effect this will have, but mine might change and so might others that wouldn't have changed without the carrot).

This bill should have been introduced along with a full parking lot bill, but all I can do is talk to the legislators that represent me (my specific district and ideologically). How many took the time to sit down and write up a copy of the bill they wanted for their legislator so the legislators time impact would be minimal? This is another good thing to start with. Obviously each legislator has the whole purview of the state's business to attend to in a short period of time and if we can provide them something to run with then that makes their job easier so they can get done what we ask and can go home to their families in the evenings and weekends too.