• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB 375 Firearms; workplace rules by localities.

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Every day I check to see what the latest is. Everyday..... nothing. My prediction, and I hope I am wrong. This will not pass. Just like in years before. I would like to see freedom of all gun owners to protect themselves while traveling to and from work, but I will concede that this is a start. However this year just like in years past I see it (locked compartment in the workplace) fizzling. I have always thought that after preemption this was the most important right gun owners needed to secure. Not the restaurant bill, not the one-gun-a-month, not even Constitutional carry.
It was slated for action on Wednesday in the Senate's Courts of Justice Committee, but the Delegate was apparently out sick, so could not defend it.

At this time, I believe it is seriously broken, and needs to be fixed before it goes any farther. The amendment that they made on the floor of the House appears to restrict the scope of the entire law to only workplaces of localities, thus rendering our most valuable preemption essentially null and void, if it passes in its current form.

TFred
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
It was slated for action on Wednesday in the Senate's Courts of Justice Committee, but the Delegate was apparently out sick, so could not defend it.

At this time, I believe it is seriously broken, and needs to be fixed before it goes any farther. The amendment that they made on the floor of the House appears to restrict the scope of the entire law to only workplaces of localities, thus rendering our most valuable preemption essentially null and void, if it passes in its current form.

TFred

Agreed, I just don't feel like we had the gusto to push this through like the restaurant carry and the repeal of one-gun-a-month. Now that the GA is well into the legislative year all the delegates and senators are pissed off and tired of being in the company of all the freaks that stink up the place with their steady stream of BS. Why not amend a bill to death just to be an *** hole cause your bills aren't going to pass?
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Agreed, I just don't feel like we had the gusto to push this through like the restaurant carry and the repeal of one-gun-a-month. Now that the GA is well into the legislative year all the delegates and senators are pissed off and tired of being in the company of all the freaks that stink up the place with their steady stream of BS. Why not amend a bill to death just to be an *** hole cause your bills aren't going to pass?
I haven't heard any account that would point toward anything other than an honest mistake, although it is possible that the effort to amend came from someone on the other side. I don't think anyone, well at least not in the current majority, is trying to repeal preemption as we know it.

TFred
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I haven't heard any account that would point toward anything other than an honest mistake, although it is possible that the effort to amend came from someone on the other side. I don't think anyone, well at least not in the current majority, is trying to repeal preemption as we know it.

TFred

The process gets confusing as it moves through the system.
Usually the idea is given to legislative services and is written by them. It's adjusted by the legislator than reviewed by LS again. They catch most of the pitfalls.

As it goes through the Sub Committees, Committees, House, Senate and back through again, it gets amended on the fly, usually as part of a compromise and by people not a part of the initial preparation.
 

Ironside

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
103
Location
Ocoee, Florida
Some outside help ...

Peter Nap and TFred

Why don't you take a look at the measure passed in Florida for some ideas?

790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for
self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and
private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the “Preservation and
Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008.”
(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:
The Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate Page 72 of 97
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter790/All 9/16/2011
(a) “Parking lot” means any property that is used for parking motor
vehicles and is available to customers, employees, or invitees for temporary or
long-term parking or storage of motor vehicles.
(b) “Motor vehicle” means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility
vehicle, motor home, recreational vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, or any
other vehicle operated on the roads of this state and required to be registered
under state law.
(c) “Employee” means any person who possesses a valid license issued
pursuant to s. 790.06 and:
1. Works for salary, wages, or other remuneration;
2. Is an independent contractor; or
3. Is a volunteer, intern, or other similar individual for an employer.
(d) “Employer” means any business that is a sole proprietorship,
partnership, corporation, limited liability company, professional association,
cooperative, joint venture, trust, firm, institution, or association, or public
sector entity, that has employees.
(e) “Invitee” means any business invitee, including a customer or visitor,
who is lawfully on the premises of a public or private employer.
As used in this section, the term “firearm” includes ammunition and
accoutrements attendant to the lawful possession and use of a firearm.
(3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.—This act is intended to codify
the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a
constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional
right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles
for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not
abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of
a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen’s lawful
possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition
within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental
constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of selfdefense.
The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is
The Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate Page 73 of 97
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter790/All 9/16/2011
essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The
Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or
abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and
ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a
customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment
within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law.
(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.—No public or private employer may violate the
constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in
paragraphs (a)-(e):
(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee,
or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is
lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a
parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such
area.
(b) No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a
customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the
presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking
lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to
ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or
private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or
invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning
possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot
for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a
public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the
vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based
upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.
(c) No public or private employer shall condition employment upon
either:
1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not
hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or
2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that
prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to
The Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate Page 74 of 97
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter790/All 9/16/2011
a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful
purposes.
(d) No public or private employer shall prohibit or attempt to prevent any
customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the
employer’s place of business because the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s
private motor vehicle contains a legal firearm being carried for lawful
purposes, that is out of sight within the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s
private motor vehicle.
(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or
otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for
exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for
exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on
company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.
This subsection applies to all public sector employers, including those already
prohibited from regulating firearms under the provisions of s. 790.33.
(5) DUTY OF CARE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS;
IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—
(a) When subject to the provisions of subsection (4), a public or private
employer has no duty of care related to the actions prohibited under such
subsection.
(b) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action based on
actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity
provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or
inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with
this section.
(c) Nothing contained in this section shall be interpreted to expand any
existing duty, or create any additional duty, on the part of a public or private
employer, property owner, or property owner’s agent.
(6) ENFORCEMENT.—The Attorney General shall enforce the protections
of this act on behalf of any customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under
this act. If there is reasonable cause to believe that the aggrieved person’s
The Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate Page 75 of 97
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter790/All 9/16/2011
rights under this act have been violated by a public or private employer, the
Attorney General shall commence a civil or administrative action for
damages, injunctive relief and civil penalties, and such other relief as may be
appropriate under the provisions of s. 760.51, or may negotiate a settlement
with any employer on behalf of any person aggrieved under the act.
However, nothing in this act shall prohibit the right of a person aggrieved
under this act to bring a civil action for violation of rights protected under the
act. In any successful action brought by a customer, employee, or invitee
aggrieved under this act, the court shall award all reasonable personal costs
and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the violation of
rights under this act. In any action brought pursuant to this act, the court shall
award all court costs and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
(7) EXCEPTIONS.—The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:
(a) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115.
(b) Any correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47 or chapter 957.
(c) Any property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility
is located.
(d) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the
landlord of a public or private employer upon which are conducted
substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland
security.
(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the
landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business
conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible
or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property
owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under
18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in explosive materials on such property.
(f) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private
employer or the landlord of a public or private employer.
(g) Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer
or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a
The Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate Page 76 of 97
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter790/All 9/16/2011
firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is
prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government
entity, or general law of this state.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2008-7.
1Note.—Section 15, ch. 2011-119, provides that “[t]he amendments made to
ss. 509.144 and 932.701, Florida Statutes, and the creation of s. 901.1503,
Florida Statutes, by this act do not affect or impede the provisions of s.
790.251, Florida Statutes, or any other protection or right guaranteed by the
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Use in Good Health

YOS

Ironside
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Thanks Ironside.
I'll leave that to TFred and others. I supported the parking lot bill but it isn't one I have a special interest in. I have too many irons in the fire already.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
From what I have gathered sitting on the edge, peering over the rim, I believe that HB 375 was designed to take a step back from last year's (or perhaps the prior year to that?) effort that ultimately failed, but not before it had been butchered beyond all useful recognition by special interests (that is, large employers in the state) in the committee process.

That prior effort was a general parking lot bill, that would serve one and all, or at least most.

Having failed at that, I believe the idea for HB 375 was to tweak an already excellent "preemption" law, 15.2-915, by expanding the reservation of "General Assembly only" authority for firearms laws to include the cars of employees of the various localities. Currently, 15.2-915 specifically allows any workplace regulations on firearms that a locality may want to set up, including keeping firearms in cars. So this is a fairly small step.

At some point, this current bill was amended to exclude schools (why? if anyone can now drive onto school property as long as the gun is "secured") and another apparent attempt to ensure this change only applied to workplaces of the employees. This last change, however, was placed such that it appears to apply to the entire law, and not just this change, which renders the entire law virtually useless for its intended purpose.

If this bill can be fixed and passed to do what I believe it is intended to do, it will be a big "first step", ensuring that local government employees may store firearms in their cars while at work, and then, after a year or two when it is discovered that the opposition's prediction of "blood in the streets, and in the hallways, and on the desks" does not happen, then we can try to expand it to cover more.

That's my observation, no guarantees on its accuracy!

TFred
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
While I agree even small steps "forward" are a good thing I don't understand why the parking lot bill from last year (original form) wasn't resubmitted as it was.

It was modified and killed (partly by us after any usefulness was gutted). With the changes in control of committees and such it would have stood a much better chance of passing this year. With that said, can we predict the make up of the legislature two years from now? I don't think it is wise to wait two or three years.

The original bill from last year was good in that I believe that businesses ban weapons on their property mainly for liability reason, not because they are afraid of people going postal. The bill removed that liability if they chose to allow weapons to be stored in cars on their property.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
While I agree even small steps "forward" are a good thing I don't understand why the parking lot bill from last year (original form) wasn't resubmitted as it was.

It was modified and killed (partly by us after any usefulness was gutted). With the changes in control of committees and such it would have stood a much better chance of passing this year. With that said, can we predict the make up of the legislature two years from now? I don't think it is wise to wait two or three years.

The original bill from last year was good in that I believe that businesses ban weapons on their property mainly for liability reason, not because they are afraid of people going postal. The bill removed that liability if they chose to allow weapons to be stored in cars on their property.
Given the size of the employers who were calling the shots on the changes last year (I believe Newport News Shipyard was one of them, with tens of thousands of employees, and a lot of influence), I don't think I can say that I feel any more confident that this year's majority change would make much difference. And the GA make-up will not change between this year and next, other than unexpected attrition. Two + years on out, you are correct, who knows.

TFred
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
Given the size of the employers who were calling the shots on the changes last year (I believe Newport News Shipyard was one of them, with tens of thousands of employees, and a lot of influence), I don't think I can say that I feel any more confident that this year's majority change would make much difference. And the GA make-up will not change between this year and next, other than unexpected attrition. Two + years on out, you are correct, who knows.

TFred

It is sad that the employer is lobbying against their 10000 employees. I know a handful of people that work there (some on this forum) and I believe a large (very large) percentage of them would be for the bill. I love it when government, unions, employers, spend our money lobbying against our rights, NOT!!!!
 
Last edited:

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
Yawn...................

Anyone heard anything on this today? Did it get referred to the committee on committee committees for a committee review by THE committee?

Yawn...................

Let me guess, someone will say some stuff about some stuff which really means its dead.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
While I agree even small steps "forward" are a good thing I don't understand why the parking lot bill from last year (original form) wasn't resubmitted as it was.
Because last year's parking lot bill, in its original form (immunity from civil liability) was not a parking lot bill.

Two things a true "parking lot" bill should contain (at minimum) is the recognition of ones private vehicle as such and prohibit an employer from demanding an employee give up his Constitutional rights within the limits of their own vehicle as a condition of employment.

Secondly, many employment policies provide that an employer can search an employee's car or personal belongings while on company property, presumably to determine if they are in violation of some other policy?

Well, if an employer has reason to believe an employee is behaving in an ILLEGAL MANNER then logic dictates that it would be safer for everyone involved to NOT INFORM the employee and to contact the proper authorities to deal with the situation.

  1. Eliminate "authority/ability" of employers to prohibit or dictate contents of private vehicles
  2. Eliminate employer ability to randomly search employee property
 

mk4

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Messages
548
Location
VA
reported out of scoj with substitute, 9 to 6.
YEAS--Norment, Edwards, Obenshain, McDougle, Stuart, Vogel, Stanley, Reeves, Garrett--9.
NAYS--Saslaw, Marsh, Howell, Lucas, Puller, McEachin--6.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
reported out of scoj with substitute, 9 to 6.
YEAS--Norment, Edwards, Obenshain, McDougle, Stuart, Vogel, Stanley, Reeves, Garrett--9.
NAYS--Saslaw, Marsh, Howell, Lucas, Puller, McEachin--6.

Just passed the Senate.
 

mk4

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Messages
548
Location
VA
looks like the house didn't like Norment's floor substitute. didn't see any indication of conference request, so is it totally dead?

02/28/12 House: Senate substitute rejected by House (1-Y 97-N)

YEAS--Englin--1.

NAYS--Albo, Alexander, Anderson, BaCote, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Brink, Bulova, Byron, Carr, Cline, Cole, Comstock, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Cox, M.K., Crockett-Stark, Dance, Dudenhefer, Edmunds, Fariss, Farrell, Filler-Corn, Garrett, Gilbert, Greason, Habeeb, Head, Helsel, Herring, Hodges, Hope, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Iaquinto, Ingram, James, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, Keam, Kilgore, Knight, Kory, Landes, LeMunyon, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Lopez, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, McClellan, McQuinn, Merricks, Miller, Minchew, Morefield, Morris, O'Bannon, O'Quinn, Orrock, Peace, Plum, Pogge, Poindexter, Purkey, Putney, Ramadan, Ransone, Robinson, Rush, Rust, Scott, E.T., Scott, J.M., Sherwood, Sickles, Spruill, Stolle, Surovell, Tata, Torian, Toscano, Tyler, Villanueva, Ward, Ware, O., Ware, R.L., Watson, Watts, Webert, Wilt, Wright, Yost, Mr. Speaker--97.

ABSTENTIONS--0.

NOT VOTING--Morrissey, Yancey--2.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I don't know what the difference is between a "personal, private vehicle" and a "private vehicle." Unless someone can explain what that difference may be, there's no way to know.

At first I assumed it was to cover employees who drive government-owned vehicles to and from work, but I assume that would not be a "private" vehicle, so I don't think that is right.

TFred
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
A personal private vehicle is one which you own or another individual owns, and not a privately held company vehicle or government vehicle. A private vehicle could be one owned by a person or business, but still is not a government owned vehicle. A private vehicle could also include a vehicle that was rented or is for hire (such as a taxi with driver).

The governor's suggested change adds the option that government employees may leave a firearm in not only their personal vehicle or the personally held vehicle of a friend, but they may also leave the locked firearm in a rental car or in a business vehicle (for those who may run a side business in addition to their government job).
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
A personal private vehicle is one which you own or another individual owns, and not a privately held company vehicle or government vehicle. A private vehicle could be one owned by a person or business, but still is not a government owned vehicle. A private vehicle could also include a vehicle that was rented or is for hire (such as a taxi with driver).

The governor's suggested change adds the option that government employees may leave a firearm in not only their personal vehicle or the personally held vehicle of a friend, but they may also leave the locked firearm in a rental car or in a business vehicle (for those who may run a side business in addition to their government job).
But in either case, not a government employee who drives a government-owned car to and from work, it would seem.

TFred
 
Top