• 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 1223 Weapons; possession in legislative buildings.

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Very bad bill

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.

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:

Glockster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Houston
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?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
This Bill needs to be tanked

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

[SIZE=-2]HB1223 Patron: Patrick A. Hope - all patrons [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]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.[/SIZE]
:confused:
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!!!!!!
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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?
 

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
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.:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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:

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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. :cool:
 
Top