2012 "Public safety agenda"

Saw an interesting article on Cuccinelli coming in tomorrow's Free Lance-Star. Wasn't going to post it, it seemed mostly political, but then I ran across this paragraph toward the end, which piqued my curiosity... This could go either way, good or bad for us. It certainly bears watching. Anyone have any scoop?

TFred


Cuccinelli says he didn't start battles

P.2

Cuccinelli will also spend the fall working on his ongoing lawsuits and preparing for the 2012 legislative session, in which he plans to help push the second required passage of a constitutional amendment on eminent domain. He’s interested in the state’s mental health system, especially as it relates to those in the jail system, and he plans to work with Gov. Bob McDonnell on a public safety agenda for the session.

TFred said:

Saw an interesting article on Cuccinelli coming in tomorrow's Free Lance-Star. Wasn't going to post it, it seemed mostly political, but then I ran across this paragraph toward the end, which piqued my curiosity... This could go either way, good or bad for us. It certainly bears watching. Anyone have any scoop?

TFred


Cuccinelli says he didn't start battles

P.2

Cuccinelli will also spend the fall working on his ongoing lawsuits and preparing for the 2012 legislative session, in which he plans to help push the second required passage of a constitutional amendment on eminent domain. He’s interested in the state’s mental health system, especially as it relates to those in the jail system, and he plans to work with Gov. Bob McDonnell on a public safety agenda for the session.

Click to expand...

Good catch TFred!
The governors public safety agenda for the session is still very fluid from what I understand. It won't be firmed up until after the elections.
That said, some of the plan will involve increased sentencing for existing crimes. Some of what I've seen seems to be directed toward satisfying the Virginia Tech lobby groups.

I don't want to say very much about this right now, for several reasons but the biggest one is because there are some trade-offs in the process that could benefit gunowners. There is a very large question mark about that right now and until I see exactly what the trade will be, I don't know whether it/they will be a good thing in the grand scheme of things, or bad.

VCDL is aware of at least some of the agenda, because at least a portion of their 2012 agenda will fall in place with the governors.

I really can't say a lot more simply because the governor's package isn't finished and won't be until shortly before the session, and other than a few generalities, I have no idea what VCDL has planned. Philip has given a few tidbits of information, but no specifics.

Primary and secondary schools will be one focus of both.

if my gut feeling means anything, I think that with the exception of making a few people feel better, the public safety agenda and any meaningful pro-gun legislation will be nonevents again this year. There are a lot of other things that have people's attention and as we all know politics is nothing but public-relations on steroids.

Agenda and VCDL

VCDL endorsed Garret for senate and yet he is the one that continuously tries to pass the stop and id laws. I wonder about this when it seems another candidate might not try to trample on individual personal rights and liberties. He also has mentioned that the way he couches things is that just add something that makes it for the children. I am not yet sure what VCDLs agenda is because it seems like they are heading toward the more perks for permits scheme.

nova said:

I would love to be able to carry on K-12 property.

Click to expand...

I think you will see that come up next session ;-)

We really need to work on a "Parking Lot" bill that prevents business and employers (including state and local government) from prohibiting you from securing your firearm in your vehicle.

streetdoc said:

We really need to work on a "Parking Lot" bill that prevents business and employers (including state and local government) from prohibiting you from securing your firearm in your vehicle.

Click to expand...

I think there's more chance of a Parking Lot Bill passing this year than any loosening of the school prohibitions.

nova said:

I would love to be able to carry on K-12 property. My polling place happens to be at my old elementary school, and I hate having to give up one constitutional right to exercise another. Especially no reason for it to be a class 6 felony.

Click to expand...

peter nap said:

I think there's more chance of a Parking Lot Bill passing this year than any loosening of the school prohibitions.

Click to expand...

People who work at K -12 schools already have a "Parking Lot Bill", as does any visitor.

2a4all said:

People who work at K -12 schools already have a "Parking Lot Bill", as does any visitor.

Click to expand...

Cite?

thebigsd said:

Cite?

Click to expand...

He's talking about the provision allowing an unloaded gun in the car. I'll have to look it up but at least part of that only pertains to CHiPpers.

Rather than looking up that cite he'd be better off looking up the phrase "Not even on the paper".:lol:

peter nap said:

He's talking about the provision allowing an unloaded gun in the car. I'll have to look it up but at least part of that only pertains to CHiPpers.

Rather than looking up that cite he'd be better off looking up the phrase "Not even on the paper".:lol:

Click to expand...

This has been discussed so often here that I didn't think anyone needed a cite. I was referring to the provision that let's anyone (CHP or no CHP) keep a loaded handgun in a secure compartment within their motor vehicle.

§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.
Except as provided in subsection J1, this section shall not apply to:
10. Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel and such handgun is secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel.

§ 18.2-308.1. Possession of firearm, stun weapon, or other weapon on school property prohibited.
The exemptions set out in § 18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of this section.

Who's "not even on the paper" now?

Thanks, I thought you were referencing something specific to K-12 schools that I was unaware of. Now I understand what you were saying.

2a4all said:

Who's "not even on the paper" now?

Click to expand...

You!

I thought you were joking...I can't believe you consider that a parking lot bill or loosening the school carry regulations.

BTW, unless you have a CHP, you'd better have your gun unloaded and locked up BEFORE you get on school property,

peter nap said:

You!

I thought you were joking...I can't believe you consider that a parking lot bill or loosening the school carry regulations.

BTW, unless you have a CHP, you'd better have your gun unloaded and locked up BEFORE you get on school property,

Click to expand...

So-called parking lot bills preclude the parking lot owner (aka employer) from prohibiting an employee from bringing a loaded firearm onto the premises in his/her vehicle. The exceptions to 18.2-308.1 (set forth in 18.2-308) do just that for a K-12 school.

peter nap said:

You!

I thought you were joking...I can't believe you consider that a parking lot bill or loosening the school carry regulations.

BTW, unless you have a CHP, you'd better have your gun unloaded and locked up BEFORE you get on school property,

Click to expand...

I thought the "secured in a container or compartment" provision allowed it to be loaded. No?

TFred

2a4all said:

So-called parking lot bills preclude the parking lot owner (aka employer) from prohibiting an employee from bringing a loaded firearm onto the premises in his/her vehicle. The exceptions to 18.2-308.1 (set forth in 18.2-308) do just that for a K-12 school.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I thought he was talking about. My current employer prohibits firearms anywhere on the property (for employees) including thr parking lot. I would love to see a parking lot bill passed this year.

2a4all said:

So-called parking lot bills preclude the parking lot owner (aka employer) from prohibiting an employee from bringing a loaded firearm onto the premises in his/her vehicle. The exceptions to 18.2-308.1 (set forth in 18.2-308) do just that for a K-12 school.

Click to expand...

My point is...and I really don't expect you to realize it (I think you argue with your shadow) is that IS NOT a parking lot bill, and it DOES NOT ease the school carry restrictions, just storage.

This is a PARKING LOT BILL:

10102079D
HOUSE BILL NO. 171 Offered January 13, 2010 Prefiled January 6, 2010 A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01, relating to firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability. ---------- Patrons-- Pogge, Carrico and Lingamfelter ---------- Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety ---------- Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01 as follows:
§ 18.2-308.1:01. Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability.
A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.
B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence that results from or is connected to the use of a firearm that was lawfully stored pursuant to subsection A, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity commits a criminal act involving the use of the firearm.
C. Any person may enforce this section by filing a petition for injunction in the court of record of the county or city in which the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity prohibiting the firearm is located. The court shall award actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
D. This section shall not apply to (i) § 18.2-308.1, relating to possession of firearms on school property and at school activities; or (ii) vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment.

---

Legislative Information System

2a4all said:

This has been discussed so often here that I didn't think anyone needed a cite. I was referring to the provision that let's anyone (CHP or no CHP) keep a loaded handgun in a secure compartment within their motor vehicle.

§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.
Except as provided in subsection J1, this section shall not apply to:
10. Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel and such handgun is secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel.

§ 18.2-308.1. Possession of firearm, stun weapon, or other weapon on school property prohibited.
The exemptions set out in § 18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of this section.

Click to expand...

Did we ever figure out if this was on purpose or an accident?

TFred

peter nap said:

My point is...and I really don't expect you to realize it (I think you argue with your shadow) is that IS NOT a parking lot bill, and it DOES NOT ease the school carry restrictions, just storage.

This is a PARKING LOT BILL:

10102079D
HOUSE BILL NO. 171 Offered January 13, 2010 Prefiled January 6, 2010 A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01, relating to firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability. ---------- Patrons-- Pogge, Carrico and Lingamfelter ---------- Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety ---------- Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01 as follows:
§ 18.2-308.1:01. Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability.
A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.
B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence that results from or is connected to the use of a firearm that was lawfully stored pursuant to subsection A, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity commits a criminal act involving the use of the firearm.
C. Any person may enforce this section by filing a petition for injunction in the court of record of the county or city in which the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity prohibiting the firearm is located. The court shall award actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
D. This section shall not apply to (i) § 18.2-308.1, relating to possession of firearms on school property and at school activities; or (ii) vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment.

---

Legislative Information System

Click to expand...

Well, there you go. Right in Paragraph D. This proposed "Parking Lot Bill" acknowledges that K-12 school employes already have benefit of a "Parking Lot Bill". If you quit going around in circles, your shadow will be able to catch up to you and explain things.

2a4all said:

Well, there you go. Right in Paragraph D. This proposed "Parking Lot Bill" acknowledges that K-12 school employes already have benefit of a "Parking Lot Bill". If you quit going around in circles, your shadow will be able to catch up to you and explain things.

Click to expand...

I think the section you bolded is saying exactly the opposite. I read it to say that K-12 schools are exempt from the parking lot bill meaning they CAN ban firearms locked in vehicles unattended. It also seems they would also allow employers to ban guns in company owned vehicles.

You're right 2A4All. We already have a parking lot law. If Philip wants to put in another this year, I'll cite you as a reference.

I have to go put up tree stands now. Deer season's right around the corner. Shouldn't you be putting the camo seat cushion and steadirest cup holder in your SMV?

You and your shadow have a real nice day!