• 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.

Big support needed now: VCDL "castle doctrine" position now "strongly oppose" !!!

Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
1911 Enthusiast said:
No need...

I had already discussed the subject with my Senator earlier when I decided VCDL had this one all cocked up (by being neutral) and wasn't representing my best interests. Glad to see some common sense finally prevailed. But I've got the same question as Felix--What the heck took so long? VCDL is operating like a rudderless ship where CD is concerned! Phil, are you listening to what the membership is saying? Because if you are, this decision could have been made some time ago.

And I'm not buying Grape's explanation. Haven't we seen too many cases of last minute, un-vetted (even on the floor) bill changes which go horribly wrong with unintended consequences? To think the bills could be made right on the fly just defies logic and past history.
Click to expand...

Your comments are not a little overboard and decidedly inflammatory. VCDL does not control the GA - we have some influence and a good working relationship with many. PVC especially spends countless, and I sometimes think thankless, hours striving to make things better. You only see the tip of the iceberg.

Bills have been "adjusted on the fly" (wording substituted, amended, voted down, tabled, carried over) and will continue to be as that is part of the legislative process.

BTW - I stand by my previous explanation - it was short/consolidated but accurate. The attorneys (LAC) contributed heavily to trying to get this worked out. If you have something positive to contribute, by all means do so - but see no reason to attack the man on point.

In a perfect world.............
 
2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Grapeshot said:
Think that there was confidence that the bills could be consolidated and fixed. There were a LOT of behind the scenes meetings and correspondence with our elected representatives - when it became obvious that wasn't effective enough, the shift in position was the only option left.

We do not need Castle Doctrine reduced to black letter law. Many however want this accomplished and I both understand and agree. Those members of VCDL that may have supported these bills on the surface probably did not see all of the ramifications at first blush.

The GA advocates/patrons really thought that they were doing a good thing. It's just such a complicated issue in Virginia to codify and retain all of the strengths and protections we now enjoy in a single statute w/o losing some of them along the way.

Many thanks to the LAC (Legal Action Committe) for their hard work, blood sweat and tears in digging so deeply into this issue and sharing their insight/expertise. BTW - their work started on this long before these bills were ever offered and continues today. A fully vented bill recommendation in 2013 makes the most sense - so there it is.
Click to expand...
What has me so confused is that there were six of these so-called "Castle Doctrine" bills submitted (2 Senate, 4 House) that the NRA claims to have initiated. All of these bills had the same set of conditions for a valid self-defense act (which is the problem), but yet VCDL remained mum, while the NRA pushed for its membership to urge passage.

With that going on, how could VCDL have expected these bills to either be neutered or fail?
 
B

Bob1

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
105
Location
Prince William County
Grapeshot said:
Your comments are not a little overboard and decidedly inflammatory.
Click to expand...

Cut the new guy a little slack, Dale. Certainly no more "inflammatory" than 'Nap's' thoughts quoted below in a different thread. He had a lot of support on the subject down at our end of the table last night.

I hope it's not too late Tfred!
Unfortunately, many members just take what VCDL says as the last word without question. When they shift in mid stride, the damage has already been done.

I don't understand VCDL's legal advisory team

They all claim to be Pro 2nd but the road to Hell is paved with false claims.

Dan Hawes has a proven track record and has always been honest about his position(s) and goals. I respect his opinion.

Not being an insider, I don't know all the advisers but one is an NRA lawyer or former NRA lawyer.
Another is the lawyer for the FOP. I don't give a Tinkers Damn what they think! I strongly suspect another traditionally sides with the Government mostly because they paid for his law degree.

Why in Gods name would VCDL even allow input from such biased sources, let alone actually give them a position with VCDL. When the enemy is at the gate, it's best not to invite him in for dinner!
Click to expand...
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
2a4all said:
What has me so confused is that there were six of these so-called "Castle Doctrine" bills submitted (2 Senate, 4 House) that the NRA claims to have initiated. All of these bills had the same set of conditions for a valid self-defense act (which is the problem), but yet VCDL remained mum, while the NRA pushed for its membership to urge passage.

With that going on, how could VCDL have expected these bills to either be neutered or fail?
Click to expand...

No confusion - that is what the NRA does - make any claim they like from Heller, to NPS land carry, to this - doesn't make it so.

VCDL was not sitting on their hands. To be neither for a bill nor against it in principle is to be what? = Neutral......until there was no other viable option remaining but to oppose. That ladies and gentlemen is where we are.

My suggestion: rather than find fault with the effort to fix this one, let's rally around the flag and get the job done. Which BTW I think we are doing.
 
2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Grapeshot said:
No confusion - that is what the NRA does - make any claim they like from Heller, to NPS land carry, to this - doesn't make it so.

VCDL was not sitting on their hands. To be neither for a bill nor against it in principle is to be what? = Neutral......until there was no other viable option remaining but to oppose. That ladies and gentlemen is where we are.

My suggestion: rather than find fault with the effort to fix this one, let's rally around the flag and get the job done. Which BTW I think we are doing.
Click to expand...
While you were being "Neutral", I and others did oppose - vigorously! Glad you could make it to the party.
 
Last edited:
peter nap

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Bob1 said:
Cut the new guy a little slack, Dale. Certainly no more "inflammatory" than 'Nap's' thoughts quoted below in a different thread. He had a lot of support on the subject down at our end of the table last night.
Click to expand...

Bob, What I say in person and what I don't say on line are usually pretty far apart.
You were exactly right in that the new fellow isn't any more negative than I was.

I shouldn't have said it on line because it does teach the new people bad manners and it is such a diverse and complicated issue, it would take a lot of bandwidth to really get it laid out.

I was also corrected in private for doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top