Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 97

Thread: Survey on Self-Defense Legislation for 2012 Virgina General Assembly

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Survey on Self-Defense Legislation for 2012 Virgina General Assembly

    Survey on Self-Defense Legislation for 2012 Virgina General Assembly

    I've put together a survey on possible bills for the 2012 General Assembly session on self defense.

    It's a "ranking" survey, which will capture a much deeper snapshot of what is wanted than a simple "pick your one favorite" format.

    Seems fairly easy to use, click the link, drag each of the ideas over to the right side of the page, ranking them in the order you prefer.

    Once you're done, you must click the "Submit Answers" button at the bottom of the page.

    I'm posting this simultaneously on OCDO (Virginia), VaGunTrader and VaGunForum. Feel free to spread the link to the survey to any venues (e-mail, forums, websites, legislators) where you genuinely believe it will be welcome. Obviously we don't want to SPAM.

    The results link is displayed after you complete the survey.

    TFred

    Link text:

    http://kwiksurveys.com?u=Virginia2012

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606
    Will be very interested in the results of this. Particularly if you get enough volume to be representative of how people feel.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037
    Quote Originally Posted by nova View Post
    I didn't see constitutional carry on the list. I'd rather see that instead of the idea of a lifetiime CHP or CWP.
    100% agree.
    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.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I'll have to do it later TFred. I can't drag a field on this IPad without moving the whole screen.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I'll have to do it later TFred. I can't drag a field on this IPad without moving the whole screen.
    No problem, I don't have any set date to "finish" it. Hope to leave it up for at least a few weeks.

    TFred

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    100% agree.
    I think the idea is legislation that has a realistic chance of passing this year Wylde.

    Time to prefile bills is running out.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Time to prefile bills is running out.
    I forgot about that early deadline for pre-filing... yes... we need to get this survey spread around a bit more!

    Twitter'ers?

    TFred

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134
    Wouldn't state agency preemption eliminate hunting conflicts with defensive carry anyway?

    Roscoe
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  9. #9
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    18.2-308 seems to negate any other hunting v self defense regs, as long as you have a CHP. I could see changing it to remove the CHP requirement, and add something regarding actual use of the firearm being a violation versus just being in possession.

    6. Any person actually engaged in lawful hunting, as authorized by the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, under inclement weather conditions necessitating temporary protection of his firearm from those conditions, provided that possession of a handgun while engaged in lawful hunting shall not be construed as hunting with a handgun if the person hunting is carrying a valid concealed handgun permit;
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  10. #10
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Thumbs down

    The problem with that law being open carriers (such as those who supposedly populate this site) are left flapping in the breeze.
    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.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by roscoe13 View Post
    Wouldn't state agency preemption eliminate hunting conflicts with defensive carry anyway?

    Roscoe
    No, because the target regulations this year should be having a loaded shotgun/rifle in your vehicle. The Statute allows municipalities like Richmond, to use the hunting regulations to supersede preemption.

    Having a loaded long gun in your vehicle in the city of Richmond has nothing to do with hunting, it's self defense, however they are allowed to prevent it under the guise of preventing road hunting.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Thanks for the survey TFred! I'll be sure to pass it around to some other gun toters I know.

    Here’s mine, I only bothered with 10 of them. Addressing the first ones should take care of some of the issues that I listed later.
    1. “Preempt” ALL of state government like 15.2-915.
    2. Add civil liability for GFZ property owners.
    3. Churches – repeal state imposed restriction.
    4. Remove hunting conflicts with self-defense carry.
    5. Penalize all violations of 15.2-915.
    6. Remove restrictions on barrel threads and mag capacity.
    7. Repeal One-Gun-Per-Month.
    8. Parking Lot Law
    9. Privatize CHP info.
    10. Emergency shelters must allow handgun carry.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 11-30-2011 at 12:56 PM.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Done!

  14. #14
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213
    Done. Thanks TFred.

  15. #15
    Regular Member mk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    548
    done. thx!

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Finished!

    Quote Originally Posted by nova View Post
    I didn't see constitutional carry on the list. I'd rather see that instead of the idea of a lifetiime CHP or CWP.
    I agree.
    Last edited by since9; 12-02-2011 at 02:13 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    Just in case ConCarry fails, how about a little surgery on 18.2-308 and carve out the section that allows Sheriffs and Chiefs to block CHPs even though the citizen has passed every other check "because the applicant may use the firearm dangerously." This little item keeps VA from having reciprocity with a few states, as well as keeps VA from truly being "shall issue" as it retains the flavor of the bad old days when the Sheriffs and Chiefs had discretion.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Early results

    Here is a snapshot of the survey results so far. Much explanation below.



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VaSurvey2012.jpg 
Views:	1355 
Size:	99.1 KB 
ID:	7525

    Even after only 3 days of data collection and 75 responses, I am very pleased with the results of this survey. Not even particularly because of how the votes have come in, but by the breadth of information one can learn from doing a little bit of studying on the overall picture.

    As I stated in the introduction, the big deal with this survey is that it asks you to "rank" your preferences, which allows for a much deeper picture than a simple "pick your one favorite from a list." One analogy that I can think of to illustrate this is the NASCAR points race. (Although I'm not really particularly a NASCAR fan, I know a tiny bit about how the points race works.) If a different driver won every race, and that was the only result that "counted", you'd have a really big tie. But since you get points for every position you finish, you get a cumulative score over the season. If one driver came in 2nd or 3rd EVERY race, and never won, he would probably win the points race by a long shot.

    Same deal here, only with bills. Some of the easy pickings we can deduce so far is this:

    1. Castle Doctrine is very important to people. As often noted (even on a current thread) Virginia does already have a very good case history for castle doctrine protection. I take these results to mean that either people still don't understand that, or perhaps they really feel better about being able to read it in the Code of Virginia for themselves. Note: The second place bill actually got one more First place vote, but the overall concern represented by the lower position votes pushed this bill to the top.

    2. Preemption (15.2-915) is big. Coming in 2nd and 5th were the two bills adding preemption to ALL state government and adding penalties for localities that violate it.

    Filling out the top 5 were the Parking Lot Bill and Privatizing CHP information, no coincidence that all these top-5 issues get a lot of discussion on OCDO.

    Surprisingly low (to me at least), the idea to eliminate the VSP background check and use the Feds check instead came in next to last. I guess this means that the VSP program is not perceived to be very much of a problem.

    Also of interest is the next to last column, Total Votes, which at the lower end reveals what issues are simply not cared about by many people. The highest there was for the Castle Doctrine: 68 out of the 75 respondents included Castle Doctrine somewhere in their list of important bills. Compare to only 47 out of the 75 voting for the Subdivision bill as any concern at all.

    For those interested, a little bit about how these final scores and rankings were calculated. Each "vote" was assigned a weighted value, the inverse of the ranked position. Each #1 vote counted 18 points, #2 was 17 points, all the way down to the last vote, #18, which received 1 point. Add them all up, then divide that by the highest possible value (If that bill had received #1 votes from ALL the responses), and you get a percentage. The higher the percentage, the closer you are to EVERYONE voting that bill as their #1 issue.

    To sum it up... If you participated, THANK YOU! I think these are very interesting results, and I plan to leave the survey up for some time yet. I think if we can get a bigger sample, those in positions to lobby will have a very useful bit of information at their disposal.

    As before, please feel free to spread the link around to any outlets that will find it of interest.

    http://kwiksurveys.com?u=Virginia2012

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 12-02-2011 at 04:35 PM. Reason: Rearrange paragraphs to make more sense...

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606
    Full state preemption including agencies et al is right in there saying, "Me, me, me pass me."

    Castle Doctrine was a low priority for myself in that case law already has given us that. Passage of such is more in the line of a clean-up step, but could further cause problems if the wording is not spot on.

    The background check problem with VSP is huge and is effecting sales. It is the tip of the iceberg in providing a stumbling block to purchasers. It is about control, not about efficiency.

    IMHO - all of the gun bills and existing statutes need teeth/penalties for willful violation; otherwise enforcement is much more difficult and compliance is sometimes less than intentional.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213

    Red face School Building Issue

    One item I thought about is the school building for non-educational uses. Ie BOS meetings, Voteing, etc.. I would love to see the school issue go away completely, but in the mean time at least for non-educational uses.

  21. #21
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    On another school note, perhaps that law could be further reworded to only apply to standard/routine/usual educational activities. Maybe reference posted school hours. I don't think there is a school out there that doesn't define the hours that a student is expected to be in class. Or as in Texas, only apply in buildings, not on the open property.

    Basically, something that would allow permit holders to attend football games, PTA meetings, etc.

    I wonder at what point a school should no longer be considered a "sensitive place," whatever that is. I love how SCOTUS can mention sensitive places but not define what "sensitive" means.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  22. #22
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    On another school note, perhaps that law could be further reworded to only apply to standard/routine/usual educational activities. Maybe reference posted school hours. I don't think there is a school out there that doesn't define the hours that a student is expected to be in class. Or as in Texas, only apply in buildings, not on the open property.

    Basically, something that would allow permit holders to attend football games, PTA meetings, etc.

    I wonder at what point a school should no longer be considered a "sensitive place," whatever that is. I love how SCOTUS can mention sensitive places but not define what "sensitive" means.
    As I am inclined to post from time to time... that is exactly what they did, and on purpose. The anti-gun zealots, including most of the media, have taken that reference (the Heller opinion is what we are referring to, by the way) as a blessing on the legitimacy of sensitive places. In truth, they make the reference only for the purpose of stating that they did not evaluate what they presumed to be a lawful status quo. And they would have been stretching the merits of the case to do so. Most SCOTUS cases are decided on very narrow criteria, based very precisely on the merits of the issue before them. We will have to wait for additional cases to determine a more complete definition of "sensitive".

    Having said that.. the justices should have realized the word games that the liberal media would play with their opinion, and stated it more plainly, IMHO, of course. I fully believe that many lower courts are unduly influenced by the angles that the media chooses to apply to what should be more factual sides of a story. (IOW, the media is all over reporting that the SCOTUS declared "sensitive places" constitutional, so many lower courts will come to accept this as fact, even though that is nothing even close to what the opinion actually says.)

    TFred

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606
    The anti gun/freedom groups like the Violence Policy Center need to be caused to "follow (the will of the people) or get out of the way." They lead a numberless, paper army!

    A picture(s) is worth a thousand words, so here is a hat full:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

    So who is winning? Freedom is.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member B. Reddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Orange County, Virginia
    Posts
    110

    Nice work on the survey, TFred.

    Thanks for putting that together.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    1. Castle Doctrine is very important to people. As often noted (even on a current thread) Virginia does already have a very good case history for castle doctrine protection. I take these results to mean that either people still don't understand that, or perhaps they really feel better about being able to read it in the Code of Virginia for themselves. Note: The second place bill actually got one more First place vote, but the overall concern represented by the lower position votes pushed this bill to the top.
    I think a large part of this is actually the fact that if it is enshrined in statue, it makes it harder for the police/CA to charge you in the first place.

    Right now, because it is all based in case law, it can encourage a mentality of "charge them and let the courts sort it out". While you might win at trial due to the case law, you still are looking at significant legal fees to get that far. If there is a explicit presumption of protection enshrined in statute, it makes it harder for the police/CA to justify charging people as a SOP.

    While I'm aware of the strong case law in Virginia, I am also aware that statute trumps case law almost every time (constitutional interpretations notwithstanding). That's why I made Castle Doctrine my #2 item, right after state preemption.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •