Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: HB 2380: New Wording Likely Protects Business Owners & Screws Gun Owners

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    HB 2380: New Wording Likely Protects Business Owners & Screws Gun Owners

    ** NOTE THIS SHOULD BE HB2380 ** (jmelvin)

    I thought this deserved it’s own thread outside of the 2011 VCDL Agenda thread because this bill has changed from what I perceive to be an improvement in firearm law in Virginia to a deep threat to gun toters here in the commonwealth.

    *See wording in next post.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 01-27-2011 at 10:25 PM.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    From the other thread a quote from the VCDL Legislative Update:

    "HB 2380 - Delegate Pogge - gives certain civil immunities to businesses which allow their employees to store guns in their private vehicles on company property - VCDL Strongly Supports - was modified and passed out of subcommittee with new wording and heads to full committee on Monday.

    In subcommittee today some lobbyists for businesses were complaining that their clients who ban guns in employee's vehicles also want the same immunities. The decision that Delegate Pogge made was to offer immunities to all employers, whether they allow guns to be stored in employees vehicles or not.

    Now bear with me on this: the idea of doing so isn't actually bad (I had to chew on this one myself for a while). Many businesses that do not allow their employees to store guns in their vehicles only do so because they don't want to be civilly liable if something goes wrong ("Gee - it wasn't our fault that the vehicle was broken into and the gun stolen and used in a crime, we have a policy against employees having guns in their vehicles in the first place"). This bill would remove any advantage to having such a "no guns in vehicle" policy. Since all businesses would be equally immune, some businesses might therefore be more amenable to not barring employees from storing guns in their vehicles. The bill puts the blame for the misuse of a firearm on the criminal and not on any business owner."



    I do not agree at all with the VCDL stance on this and I believe if this is passed it will be noose around gun owners necks for years to come. With this change this has gone from a bill which provides potential financial incentives to employers who remove some of the restrictions on people's human right to self defense to a bill that is utterly worthless for protecting worker's human right of self defense (at least going to and from work) and is just a way to give businesses a protection without regard to worker safety. Although Phil's wording talks about ensuring businesses are not held liable for misuse of a firearm on company property it also provides them blanket liability protection if one of their workers is mugged or killed in a case where that mugging or death may not have occurred if an employee could've had their firearm at the ready in the car.

    For a realistic note on how a bill that provides liability protection to employers regardless of company policy toward employees keeping their firearms in their cars, how about asking Ohioans how similar protections have helped them in ensuring they can keep their firearms in the cars. Being a former Ohioan I can comment on this. IT HASN'T WORKED. In fact because employers have no incentive to change their policy Ohioans are now pushing for a bill that will force the hands of employers to make them permit employees to keep guns in their cars.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 01-27-2011 at 03:17 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    From the other thread a quote from the VCDL Legislative Update:

    "HB 2380 - Delegate Pogge - gives certain civil immunities to businesses which allow their employees to store guns in their private vehicles on company property - VCDL Strongly Supports - was modified and passed out of subcommittee with new wording and heads to full committee on Monday.

    In subcommittee today some lobbyists for businesses were complaining that their clients who ban guns in employee's vehicles also want the same immunities. The decision that Delegate Pogge made was to offer immunities to all employers, whether they allow guns to be stored in employees vehicles or not.

    Now bear with me on this: the idea of doing so isn't actually bad (I had to chew on this one myself for a while). Many businesses that do not allow their employees to store guns in their vehicles only do so because they don't want to be civilly liable if something goes wrong ("Gee - it wasn't our fault that the vehicle was broken into and the gun stolen and used in a crime, we have a policy against employees having guns in their vehicles in the first place"). This bill would remove any advantage to having such a "no guns in vehicle" policy. Since all businesses would be equally immune, some businesses might therefore be more amenable to not barring employees from storing guns in their vehicles. The bill puts the blame for the misuse of a firearm on the criminal and not on any business owner."



    I do not agree at all with the VCDL stance on this and I believe if this is passed it will be noose around gun owners necks for years to come. With this change this has gone from a bill which provides potential financial incentives to employers who remove some of the restrictions on people's human right to self defense to a bill that is utterly worthless for protecting worker's human right of self defense (at least going to and from work) and is just a way to give businesses a protection without regard to worker safety. Although Phil's wording talks about ensuring businesses are not held liable for misuse of a firearm on company property it also provides them blanket liability protection if one of their workers is mugged or killed in a case where that mugging or death may not have occurred if an employee could've had their firearm at the ready in the car.

    For a realistic note on how a bill that provides liability protection to employers regardless of company policy toward employees keeping their firearms in their cars, how about asking Ohioans how similar protections have helped them in ensuring they can keep their firearms in the cars. Being a former Ohioan I can comment on this. IT HASN'T WORKED. In fact because employers have no incentive to change their policy Ohioans are now pushing for a bill that will force the hands of employers to make them permit employees to keep guns in their cars.
    Philip is a busy guy these days, if you want him to see your thoughts, you should probably e-mail them directly to him.

    TFred

  4. #4
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    because employers have no incentive to change their policy
    Bingo.

    Passage of this law WILL NOT encourage existing ANTI-gun businesses to allow their employees to keep firearms in their PRIVATE VEHICLES.

    Guns are forbidden by corporate policy under some rubric of "employee safety" or "comfort" and has little, if anything, to do with whether or not the company would be civilly liable for damages if someone was injured on their property by a firearm owned by an employee.

    The ONLY way to protect the rights of the citizens is to extend exception to searches to private vehicles. It should not be a condition of employment to be coerced into giving up a fundamental right (actually, two of them).

    Give them civil immunity, but force them to leave employee property alone. It's already just one step from them being able to come to your house and search that, too, to see if you have anything they might consider undesirable.

    My private vehicle is an extension of my personal space. No one has any right to search it. Period.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    I have and he doesn't seem to agree from what I can tell. If others agree with my assessment it may be worthwhile for them to contact him as well. I've put this new wording past some of my workmates and they don't see anything good coming of it either. In my belief this is a very nasty bill that if passed will lead to long term regret for those that supported it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    I have.

    He believes this to be a "parking lot" bill.

    It is only masquerading as one in name.

    Like you said, there is no incentive for companies whose policies already prohibit lawful carry and storage in PRIVATE vehicles to change those policies.

    This bill would do more harm than good because there are enough people out there who believe this is a "good" bill and would not support amending it in future sessions.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    I believe it will do more harm than good because it will take off of the table our ability to hold businesses financially accountable for disarming us and not providing for our protection when someone is harmed and they may have been able to remain unharmed.

    With liability protection that this bill would provide how would the victims of Cho be able to sue Virginia Tech for not doing enough to protect them? Cho massacred 30+ people with a gun on Virginia Tech property where Virginia Tech required students to be disarmed!
    Last edited by jmelvin; 01-27-2011 at 03:43 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    I had not thought of it in those terms.

    It still supports my premise of staying the heck out of my business once I am inside my own vehicle. According to the government it is an extension of my home and under the 4th Amendment I am entitled to certain protections under the law.

    Why should I be forced to give up those protections in order to procure gainful employment?
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    This is a bill I had strongly supported in person to my delegate.

    Today I wrote him changing my stance to neutral -- it appears the modified bill is just another paper from Richmond. I copied Delegate Pogge.

  10. #10
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    I believe it will do more harm than good because it will take off of the table our ability to hold businesses financially accountable for disarming us and not providing for our protection when someone is harmed and they may have been able to remain unharmed.

    With liability protection that this bill would provide how would the victims of Cho be able to sue Virginia Tech for not doing enough to protect them? Cho massacred 30+ people with a gun on Virginia Tech property where Virginia Tech required students to be disarmed!
    +1

    Why would a business need immunity from something they already ban? This in itself smells very fishy. I think that a private vehicle should be that. A private vehicle. In NM your vehicle is an extension of your home, personal and private space.

  11. #11
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    I had not thought of it in those terms.

    It still supports my premise of staying the heck out of my business once I am inside my own vehicle. According to the government it is an extension of my home and under the 4th Amendment I am entitled to certain protections under the law.

    Why should I be forced to give up those protections in order to procure gainful employment?
    +1000

    I don't like the change and emailed Brenda Pogge.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DontTreadOnMeVa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    +1000

    I don't like the change and emailed Brenda Pogge.
    I emailed her has well. I am not neutral on the bill, I oppose it in its current form. I see no value in protecting businesses that refuse to leave us alone, so we can protect ourselves. IMHO, it will make getting a real parking lot bill even harder to pass. ...after all, it gives away a bargaining chip and we get NOTHING in return.

    Strongly opposed to this bill!

  13. #13
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Could somebody post her email, I would like to voice my oppositional position to her.

  14. #14
    Regular Member DontTreadOnMeVa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by nuc65 View Post
    +1

    Why would a business need immunity from something they already ban? This in itself smells very fishy. I think that a private vehicle should be that. A private vehicle. In NM your vehicle is an extension of your home, personal and private space.
    Why? Think about it. If the legislature is giving away civil immunity for the asking, why not take it as one more level of protection for all your clients if your a business lobbyist?

    If I was anti-gun rights I would support the new version of the bill. After all, when fight for a real parking lot bill comes up the gun rights side will have already given up the carrot of immunity for what little bit it is worth.

    If this bill has awakened the interest and the taste of the business lobby for civil immunity....then we should kill this bill dead. We should offer next year a real parking lot bill with immunity. If they want it, they can give us the respect of our rights we deserve.

    Quid pro quo or nothing should be our stance.

  15. #15
    Regular Member DontTreadOnMeVa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by nuc65 View Post
    Could somebody post her email, I would like to voice my oppositional position to her.
    DelBPogge@house.virginia.gov

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    nuc65 just do a google search for Virginia Delegate Pogge and it should show. Send a note to Del. Byron or Garret, whichever applies to you as well. I'm on BlackBerry or I'd help.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I happen to agree with you Jmelvin. While I support Private Property Owners Rights, I also consider the vehicle your private property and the owner of the company should have NO say in what's in it.

    I'm still not sure about Pogge's motivation or for that matter, her alliance. There are two sides to that woman. The Constitution reading, open minded friend of mankind...and the side of her that's mean as a snake and only interested in what's good for Madame Pogge.

    I've seen both.

    As to Philip, I'll comment on it with one of my usual "What the hell is he talking about" examples.

    Yesterday before talking to one of Chris Peace's staff, I got a call from an Old Virginia member who was mad as hell about the changes on one of the bills I'm working on.

    All I could say was "I'm not the General Assembly, I just try to convince them I'm right".

    I think Philip is in the same boat with this bill and I also think Pogge is doing what Pogge does best. Looking out for Pogge.

  18. #18
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121

    I plagurized and sent the following...

    I write to present my stance on HB2380. It is my opinion that the wording in this bill is very poorly chosen. With this change this has gone from a bill which potentially provides financial incentives to employers who remove some of the restrictions on people's human right to self defense, to a bill that is just a way to give businesses a protection without regard to worker safety. Although the wording talks not holding businesses liable for misuse of a firearm on company property it also provides them blanket liability protection if one of their workers is mugged or killed in a case where that mugging or death may not have occurred if an employee could've had their firearm at the ready in the car.

    Similar legislation in Ohio has not worked, because employers have no incentive to change their policy Ohio citizens are now pushing for a bill that will force the hands of employers to make them permit employees to keep guns in their cars.

    Passage of this law WILL NOT encourage existing ANTI-gun businesses to allow their employees to keep firearms in their PRIVATE VEHICLES.

    Guns are forbidden by corporate policy under the rubric of "employee safety" and has little to do with company civil liability if someone was injured on their property by a firearm owned by an employee.

    One way to ensure the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not infringed is to extend exception to searches to private vehicles. It should not be a condition of employment to be coerced into giving up a fundamental rights.

    My private vehicle is an extension of my personal space no one has any right to search it. Why should I be forced to give up those protections in order to procure gainful employment?

    I believe it will do more harm than good because it will take off of the table our ability to hold businesses financially accountable for disarming us and not providing for our protection when someone is harmed and they may have been able to remain unharmed.

    With liability protection that this bill would provide how would the victims of Cho be able to sue Virginia Tech for not doing enough to protect them? Cho massacred 30+ people with a gun on Virginia Tech property where Virginia Tech required students to forego their Constitutional Right.



    Dan Torres (BSNE)

    VCDL member
    Last edited by nuc65; 01-28-2011 at 03:53 PM. Reason: dyslexia damned

  19. #19
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    nuc65 just do a google search for Virginia Delegate Pogge and it should show. Send a note to Del. Byron or Garret, whichever applies to you as well. I'm on BlackBerry or I'd help.
    http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform
    Is represented in the Virginia State Legislature by:

    Delegate:
    T. Scott Garrett
    Preferred Name:
    Scott
    District/Party:
    023/Republican
    Capitol Addr1:
    P.O. Box 406
    Capitol Addr2:
    General Assembly Building
    City/State/Zip:
    Richmond, Va. 23218-0406
    Capitol Phone:
    (804) 698-1023
    District Address1:
    2255 Langhorne Road, Suite 4
    District Address2:

    City/State/Zip:
    Lynchburg, VA 24501
    District Phone:
    (434) 455-0243
    More about Delegate Garrett

    Senator:
    Stephen D. Newman
    Preferred Name:
    Stephen D.
    District/Party:
    023/Republican
    Capitol Addr1:
    P.O. Box 396
    Capitol Addr2:
    General Assembly Building
    City/State/Zip:
    Richmond, Va. 23218-0406
    Capitol Phone:
    (804) 698-7523
    District Address1:
    P.O. Box 480
    District Address2:

    City/State/Zip:
    Forest, VA 24551
    District Phone:
    (434) 385-1065
    More about Senator Newman

  20. #20
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490
    Guys FYI the bill number is HB 2380 and NOT HB 2038 which deals with the cigarette tax.
    Last edited by vt357; 01-28-2011 at 08:27 AM. Reason: Added links

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Thanks VT357, I realized last night that I screwed it up and asked the moderators to change it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Perks for Parking

    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    This is a bill I had strongly supported in person to my delegate.

    Today I wrote him changing my stance to neutral -- it appears the modified bill is just another paper from Richmond. I copied Delegate Pogge.
    In its amended form, I wonder if it should be described as:

    Perks for Parking: P4P

    Well, you get the idea.
    Last edited by Repeater; 01-28-2011 at 04:31 PM.

  23. #23
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by vt357 View Post
    Guys FYI the bill number is HB 2380 and NOT HB 2038 which deals with the cigarette tax.
    dyslexia will get you every time, I don't even know if I am agin' 2038 ...

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    In its amended form, I wonder if it should be described as:

    Perks for Parking: P4P

    Well, you get the idea.
    I'd just drop support for it although this may pass on it's own...and demand a proper bill next year.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Has anyone heard anything new on this ****?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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