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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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 ^^

ocholsteroc said:

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 ^^

Click to expand...

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.

Audio

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...olice-Committee-Meeting&p=1690534#post1690534

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/legp504.exe?000+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!

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

G0Z said:

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

Click to expand...

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

TFred said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

jmelvin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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