Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: SB245 Question (and HB20)

  1. #1
    Regular Member G0Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    13

    SB245 Question (and HB20)

    Apologies,
    Apologies,

    Could someone help by shedding light as to the effect of SB245. I am struggling with both this and HB20 and why we (VCDL and OPENCARRY.org) are so strongly supporting them. What I see is this law, 44-146.15, is on the books and accomplishes what the summary entails for both HB20 and SB245.

    What I see:
    Literally, in SB245, in section 3 of items this chapter will not be construed to enable:
    The verbage being added is precluding specific prohibition of "carrying, transportation" which I had suspected was previously present in the term "possesion." Also, adding "firefighting" instead of "fire fighting."

    HB20 goes a step further to strike "rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the..." (otherwise lawful possesion). I believed this to be a rather important component of this bill so as not to allow expedient shifts in law.

    SB245 doesn't really do it for me. I see a "happy" to "glad" situation. Please feel free to disabuse me of any misconceptions.

    ~G0Z
    -Reposted from sticky as it was unanswered.

  2. #2
    Regular Member G0Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    13
    Ok now. SB245 is on the floor of the Senate. I'm not against it, but I didn't feel the compulsion to "lobby."

    HB20 on the other hand seems, to me, to have a real issue. At best I think this should be a *Neutral*

    Please, someone, weigh-in.

    ~G0Z

  3. #3
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    What do you mean it doesn't do it for you?

    SB 245 would update Virginia’s Emergency Powers statute by adding lawful carrying and transportation to the list of actions that cannot be prohibited during a declaration of emergency.
    This is a great bill.
    What is the law that stands now? I cannot find it, could someone post a link please?
    Also, Thats a cool pic of Rex. Big fan of Metal Gear? I have like every Metal Gear game made, even ps1 ^^
    Last edited by ocholsteroc; 01-27-2012 at 02:06 AM.
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by ocholsteroc View Post
    What do you mean it doesn't do it for you?


    This is a great bill.
    What is the law that stands now? I cannot find it, could someone post a link please?
    Also, Thats a cool pic of Rex. Big fan of Metal Gear? I have like every Metal Gear game made, even ps1 ^^
    I don't know what the problem with the bill is either but I also haven't paid much attention it it either.
    I'm uploading the Audio from the MP Committee last night where it was discussed, in a little.

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Regular Member G0Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    13

    Virginia Code: 44-146.15

    When reading the full text of the bill, linked within the HB20 or SB245, you'll find in the first several lines a phrase to the effect of:

    "A BILL to amend and reenact 44-146.15 of the Code of Virginia, relating to emergency services and disasters; constitutional rights."

    Whereas the specific code being modified is linked as it currently stands.
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...+cod+44-146.15

    What is offered in the text of the bill is the text as it will be with additional words in italic and stricken words in strikeout.

    I shan't argue the necessity of such legislation. My objection is such that the intention exists in VA code. What is in these bills is not what the summary suggests. My objection is to support given to such bills, especially in the case of the House version, where "Strong Support" isn't necessarily warranted.

    ~G0Z
    MGS and railguns, FTW!
    A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
    ~Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Regular Member G0Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    13

    Clarification!

    Reply from Van Cleave:

    In HB 20 the idea was to elaborate better on what is protected. The Constitution references isn't as helpful as it might be considering the recent rulings by the Supreme Court which knocks out "sensitive" places and has not clarified our rights as to carrying OUTSIDE of our homes. I don't think it would have been harmful to leave that language in, but also it is not as helpful as we would like either. We just want it clear that we cannot be disarmed in any way during an emergency and this is a clearer step in that direction. There is more to do, however. We need to remove language that we can be disarmed at a shelter to complete the protections.

    Thanks Phil!

    ~G0Z
    A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
    ~Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by G0Z View Post
    Reply from Van Cleave:

    In HB 20 the idea was to elaborate better on what is protected. The Constitution references isn't as helpful as it might be considering the recent rulings by the Supreme Court which knocks out "sensitive" places and has not clarified our rights as to carrying OUTSIDE of our homes. I don't think it would have been harmful to leave that language in, but also it is not as helpful as we would like either. We just want it clear that we cannot be disarmed in any way during an emergency and this is a clearer step in that direction. There is more to do, however. We need to remove language that we can be disarmed at a shelter to complete the protections.

    Thanks Phil!

    ~G0Z
    Arrgghh! Is there nobody who understands and/or takes the time to state this correctly? The SCOTUS ruling does NOT do anything with regard to sensitive places other than to presume they are legal to establish. And when the SCOTUS "presumes" something, that means that it was not germane to the case, and that actual topic was not considered at all in the course of deciding the case at hand.

    TFred

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Arrgghh! Is there nobody who understands and/or takes the time to state this correctly? The SCOTUS ruling does NOT do anything with regard to sensitive places other than to presume they are legal to establish. And when the SCOTUS "presumes" something, that means that it was not germane to the case, and that actual topic was not considered at all in the course of deciding the case at hand.

    TFred
    Without looking at the case summary itself, I believe the use of "sensitive places" was part of the SCOVA ruling for the upholding of the GMU gun ban. It was improper for this to ever be part of the discussion to begin with, but I believe since it was entered as part of the argument, the court addressed it and concluded that for their consideration GMU buildings could be considered a "sensitive place". I don't believe PVC was specifically referring to the SCOTUS finding in McDonald v. Chicago.

  10. #10
    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
    Without looking at the case summary itself, I believe the use of "sensitive places" was part of the SCOVA ruling for the upholding of the GMU gun ban. It was improper for this to ever be part of the discussion to begin with, but I believe since it was entered as part of the argument, the court addressed it and concluded that for their consideration GMU buildings could be considered a "sensitive place". I don't believe PVC was specifically referring to the SCOTUS finding in McDonald v. Chicago.
    I don't have the text of the GMU opinion handy, but I seem to remember that they do reference Heller (and incorrectly, in my opinion), which is the one that I am referring to. The way the statement was written in Heller says to me that no conclusion should be drawn one way or the other, because the opinion neither confirms nor denies that the restrictions are lawful. It merely presumes that they are.

    In taking a cautious step to ensure that the pro-gun interpretation didn't go too far, the anti-gun folks are mis-interpreting that statement too far in the other direction, without justification.

    TFred

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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