Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: HB 1223 Weapons; possession in legislative buildings.

  1. #1
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    HB 1223 Weapons; possession in legislative buildings.

    A bill by Delegate Patrick A.Hope (D-47), to limit firearms in the GAB?
    Be it enacted by General Assembly of Virginia:
    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2 as follows:
    Section 18.2-283.2. Possession of weapons in legislative buildings.
    A. With the exception of any person who lawfully posses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subdivision A of Section 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.
    B. Any person who enters the Capitol of Virginia or any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly shall be required to go through screening conducted by the Capitol Police or agent of the Capitol Police. The method of screening shall be determined by the Capitol Police.
    C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly, to the staff of the General Assembly, or to any law enforcement officer.

    Does this mean that a CHP will no longer be required?
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    A bill by Delegate Patrick A.Hope (D-47), to limit firearms in the GAB?
    Be it enacted by General Assembly of Virginia:
    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2 as follows:
    Section 18.2-283.2. Possession of weapons in legislative buildings.
    A. With the exception of any person who lawfully posses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subdivision A of Section 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.
    B. Any person who enters the Capitol of Virginia or any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly shall be required to go through screening conducted by the Capitol Police or agent of the Capitol Police. The method of screening shall be determined by the Capitol Police.
    C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly, to the staff of the General Assembly, or to any law enforcement officer.

    Does this mean that a CHP will no longer be required?
    This means that whatever the Capitol Police feel is adequate, is the rule.

    That will rule out most people with misdemeanors or even if they want, not guilty charges....or any thing else they consider suspicious!
    Last edited by peter nap; 02-08-2012 at 06:33 PM.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    That is on the MPP docket for tomorrow BTW.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    I'm confused on this.

    It appears to me that Section A says that a person may possess a handgun ("any person who lawfully posses a handgun"), and NOT possess any of the other weapons defined in the Concealed Weapon law, while Section B charges the Capitol Police with the screening. I would interpret screening to mean ascertaining what items a person is carrying.

    I don't see anything that would give them the authority (and even less the ability) to determine a criminal history of a visitor in real time like that, or the ability to use such information to override Section A' definition. They don't appear to be given the authority to redefine "lawful possession", do they?

    Am I missing something?

    TFred

  5. #5
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    This seems like a rushed, clandestine bill. The word "possess" should be "possesses."

    At first reading it seems to remove the requirement to have a CHP, and also prevents the Senate from having a rule against carry in the gallery. But as asked, how does the Capitol Police determine if the handgun is legal? This seems to run counter to the "No RAS" Constitutional protection on privacy and searches.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

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

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627

    Very bad bill

    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    A bill by Delegate Patrick A.Hope (D-47), to limit firearms in the GAB?
    Be it enacted by General Assembly of Virginia:
    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2 as follows:
    Section 18.2-283.2. Possession of weapons in legislative buildings.
    A. With the exception of any person who lawfully posses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subdivision A of Section 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.
    B. Any person who enters the Capitol of Virginia or any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly shall be required to go through screening conducted by the Capitol Police or agent of the Capitol Police. The method of screening shall be determined by the Capitol Police.
    C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly, to the staff of the General Assembly, or to any law enforcement officer.

    Does this mean that a CHP will no longer be required?
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    This means that whatever the Capitol Police feel is adequate, is the rule.
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    This seems like a rushed, clandestine bill. The word "possess" should be "possesses."
    Think that I have found the source of the ticking and its covered with fish hooks.

    Method of screening left to the Capital Police - therefore anything not otherwise covered by statute is up for grabs as being part of their "method."

    This could outlaw OC as there is no statutory protection/approval of open carry.

    Also do not believe that this bill prevents the GA from limiting where guns can be carried. It says "exception of any person who lawfully posses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon." We could be banned from all meeting rooms, not just the Senate Gallery.

    We could be left walking the halls of The People's House while CCing only - this bill gives the Capital Police cart blanche to whatever pleases them, including requiring recording the make, model, serial number and no extra mags.

    Of course they'd never do any of those things, right?
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 02-09-2012 at 10:14 AM. Reason: added
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    This is the kind of stuff that has me staring at my screen wondering what the heck....we all know what happened with the death star committee approach. And then we got the feel good rush this year as we saw some favorite issues bubbling to the top. But then, it would seem, that we're getting **some** things through that have been on the gripe list for some time (repeal one a month, but then not able to get constitutional carry through???), while at the same time we're staring down the barrel of what seems to be a very bad castle doctrine, and other things like this. Where at first and maybe even second glance you'd be trying to figure out if whatever it is was good, bad or potentially good/bad.

    It reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker:
    You're only paranoid IF they aren't out to get you.

    Maybe it's just me, but in some ways I feel like we're been fed crumbs from the table and being told it's the same as the meal. If this isn't the year to "fix things", with all of the stars, moon, and sun in fairly good alignment...then when exactly would that be?

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by drdan01 View Post
    This is the kind of stuff that has me staring at my screen wondering what the heck....we all know what happened with the death star committee approach. And then we got the feel good rush this year as we saw some favorite issues bubbling to the top. But then, it would seem, that we're getting **some** things through that have been on the gripe list for some time (repeal one a month, but then not able to get constitutional carry through???), while at the same time we're staring down the barrel of what seems to be a very bad castle doctrine, and other things like this. Where at first and maybe even second glance you'd be trying to figure out if whatever it is was good, bad or potentially good/bad.

    It reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker:
    You're only paranoid IF they aren't out to get you.

    Maybe it's just me, but in some ways I feel like we're been fed crumbs from the table and being told it's the same as the meal. If this isn't the year to "fix things", with all of the stars, moon, and sun in fairly good alignment...then when exactly would that be?
    The Death Star Committee is still alive and well. They just changed the number. It is now where Republicans send bills that they think are too sensitive or not time for them yet - they just don't get reported out - gotta keep the pressure up.

    The Governor waffles on pro gun promises, the Lt. Gov. doesn't want to endanger his quest to be #1 + other representatives trying to walk the middle of the road - so the heavens are not magically aligned. There's lots more work to do.
    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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    This Bill needs to be tanked

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Think that I have found the source of the ticking and its covered with fish hooks.

    Method of screening left to the Capital Police - therefore anything not otherwise covered by statute is up for grabs as being part of their "method."

    This could outlaw OC as there is no statutory protection/approval of open carry.

    Also do not believe that this bill prevents the GA from limiting where guns can be carried. It says "exception of any person who lawfully posses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon." We could be banned from all meeting rooms, not just the Senate Gallery.

    We could be left walking the halls of The People's House while CCing only - this bill gives the Capital Police cart blanche to whatever pleases them, including requiring recording the make, model, serial number and no extra mags.

    Of course they'd never do any of those things, right?

    Bills We Support

    Bill Summary Bill Status
    Possession of weapons in legislative buildings. Except those lawfully possessing a handgun, no person shall possess a weapon in legislative buildings and all persons, except General Assembly members, staff or any law enforcement officer.

    Yet this bill made it onto Bills we support on the legislative tracking tool.
    This and all castle doctrine/civil immunity bills should have been in the strongly oppose!!!!!!
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by drdan01 View Post
    This is the kind of stuff that has me staring at my screen wondering what the heck....we all know what happened with the death star committee approach. And then we got the feel good rush this year as we saw some favorite issues bubbling to the top. But then, it would seem, that we're getting **some** things through that have been on the gripe list for some time (repeal one a month, but then not able to get constitutional carry through???), while at the same time we're staring down the barrel of what seems to be a very bad castle doctrine, and other things like this. Where at first and maybe even second glance you'd be trying to figure out if whatever it is was good, bad or potentially good/bad.

    It reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker:
    You're only paranoid IF they aren't out to get you.

    Maybe it's just me, but in some ways I feel like we're been fed crumbs from the table and being told it's the same as the meal. If this isn't the year to "fix things", with all of the stars, moon, and sun in fairly good alignment...then when exactly would that be?
    It will be interesting tonight. This goes in Todd Gilbert's Committee at 5:00.
    When presented with another bill that would restrict carry in the GA last year, Gilbert said five words that killed it on the spot:

    "This is the Peoples House"

    Let's see wha he says tonight?

  11. #11
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Those who fear an armed populace....

    Should not endeavor to conduct business behind the back of said populace. Of course, these restrictions would NEVER apply to the legislative class. If they ever attempted to be honest, there would be no reason to fear us in the plebesite.

  12. #12
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    I just don't see it.

    I really don't see how this is a bad bill with the possible exception to the screening process not being well-defined.

    Section by section:


    Section 18.2-283.2. Possession of weapons in legislative buildings.

    A. [With the exception of any person who lawfully posses a handgun,] [no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subdivision A of Section 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.]


    The entire first phrase means that "any person who lawfully posses[es] a handgun" is not subject to the entire second phrase at all. Unless something drastic has changed, anyone who is not otherwise prohibited, may lawfully possess a handgun in the State of Virginia.


    B. Any person who enters the Capitol of Virginia or any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly shall be required to go through screening conducted by the Capitol Police or agent of the Capitol Police. The method of screening shall be determined by the Capitol Police.

    Legitimate question for the subcommittee meeting: What is meant by "screening?" It would be wise to define the word clearly. To me, a plain-text reading of this section simply means that they are tasked to determine what objects one is bringing into the building, and it is up to them to choose how they will do that. These tasks could certainly be more clearly restricted and described, and maybe they should.


    C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly, to the staff of the General Assembly, or to any law enforcement officer.

    Simple enough.


    Now after having written all that... I did look up a little information on Delegate Hope's past history. He introduced a bill last year that banned all firearms from the General Assembly buildings! That died in committee. Perhaps he sees this as a step in that direction? It's hard to say. If the screening process of the Capitol Police is well defined and there are no loopholes for any shenanigans, I don't see anything here that is worrisome.

    I've been wrong before, and will be again... happy to be educated, whenever needed.

    TFred

    ETA: Will be very interested in hearing/seeing the tape from the committee meeting tonight!
    Last edited by TFred; 02-09-2012 at 01:58 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    If you can lawfully carry what other screening is needed? At least with the chp requirement you knew what you had to have to get in the building. What now? You're carrying so we need to run a background check find out what school you went to who are you voting for. That is a dangerous term screening without having it defined and allowing them to determine what it means on the spot.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    That seems to be the million dollar question.

    What does the word "screening" mean?

    But... even if it did mean "run a background check"*, what authority does this bill give to act upon the results of that screening? The only thing I can see is that they might determine a person is "otherwise unqualified" to possess a firearm. A very low probability "hit" as the result of a massive effort.

    TFred

    * How do you run background checks in real-time with no delays on the hundreds of visitors per day who come to the GAB?

  15. #15
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    If it passed and they tried something like that I would propose a field trip on a day when they don't think too many people are going to be there. Back up the line quiet a bit.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    HB 1223 did NOT make it out of committee - it was tabled.

    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.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    HB 1223 did NOT make it out of committee - it was tabled.
    It was intended to even make lobbyists and media go through the detectors.
    Gilbert came through and slapped it right away.
    This is the same stupid bill he brings up every year.

  18. #18
    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
    It was intended to even make lobbyists and media go through the detectors.
    Gilbert came through and slapped it right away.
    This is the same stupid bill he brings up every year.
    It would seem that before one can correctly evaluate the impact of a new law, one must fully understand the way things work now. I clearly did not!

    TFred

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    It would seem that before one can correctly evaluate the impact of a new law, one must fully understand the way things work now. I clearly did not!

    TFred

    No, he tried to camoflage it this year.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    There was a distinct difference this afternoon when I entered: Showed my permit and photo ID and was waved through - no emptying of all pockets, no discussion about keeping my recorder while being wanded, no "fondling" of my BUG, nada, nothing - just a polite thank you.

    Are they learning or were they aware of the pending hearing on HR 1223 and didn't want any bad reports?

    Will say they all seem to remember me though - maybe my first impression was a good one.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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