Oh, so now DGIF ARE empowered to infringe on our RKBA?!?!

From VCDL Legislative Update, HB1096 passed into law:
Whereas The forestry and park services were able to be challenged on their anti-gun policies based on no authority to restrict carrying, now the VA DGIF has been legislatively given the power to continue to do so, with the addition of:

"Such regulations may govern the possession, carrying, transportation, and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof."
<smh>
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+HB1096H1+hil

ChristCrusader said:

From VCDL Legislative Update, HB1096 passed into law:
Whereas The forestry and park services were able to be challenged on their anti-gun policies based on no authority to restrict carrying, now the VA DGIF has been legislatively given the power to continue to do so, with the addition of:

"Such regulations may govern the possession, carrying, transportation, and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof."
<smh>
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+HB1096H1+hil

Click to expand...

For us non-Virginians interested in states other than ours, what is DGIF?

BB62 said:

For us non-Virginians interested in states other than ours, what is DGIF?

Click to expand...

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

You're just now noticing this? I posted on this same issue one month ago today.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...tential-Issues-with-DGIF-Regulatory-Authority

Department of Game & Inland Fisheries

jmelvin said:

You're just now noticing this? I posted on this same issue one month ago today.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...tential-Issues-with-DGIF-Regulatory-Authority

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you for your heads up, but I've noticed too little too late with its announcement as already being passed by the general Assembly.

Take a look at the actual language of the bill. Note that the Senate provided one amendment that was engrossed into the language at Line 28:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+HB1096H1+pdf

Senate amendment:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+amd+HB1096ASE

The language is significant, because DGIF's authority to make regulations regarding firearms are purely related to hunting and fishing only.

jmelvin said:

Take a look at the actual language of the bill. Note that the Senate provided one amendment that was engrossed into the language at Line 28:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+HB1096H1+pdf

Senate amendment:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+amd+HB1096ASE

The language is significant, because DGIF's authority to make regulations regarding firearms are purely related to hunting and fishing only.

Click to expand...

riiiiight, because "transportation, and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof" is obviously hunting and fishing related?

I don't see how that Senate amendment cited had/has any effect on the DGIF issue?

If they're going to take the time to specifically legislate permission to DGIF to regulate the use of firearms as related to hunting and fishing, then they needed to further make the effort to delineate where they must stop, and not leave it to the Governor-appointed Board, that has already been over-reaching their mandate, to voluntarily decide that keeping and bearing should be left uninfringed.

ChristCrusader said:

riiiiight, because "transportation, and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof" is obviously hunting and fishing related?

I don't see how that Senate amendment cited had/has any effect on the DGIF issue?

If they're going to take the time to specifically legislate permission to DGIF to regulate the use of firearms as related to hunting and fishing, then they needed to further make the effort to delineate where they must stop, and not leave it to the Governor-appointed Board, that has already been over-reaching their mandate, to voluntarily decide that keeping and bearing should be left uninfringed.

Click to expand...

Or, you might try making an HONEST post, by including the entire section to reveal the context, instead of selectively posting just a part, which devoid of context, completely changes the meaning.

What do you think "Such regulations" is referring to here?

TFred


ETA: We have enough REAL issues to deal with here. We don't need folks "crying wolf," distracting attention and resources away from those efforts that would actually do us harm.

The REASON they added this particular section is to not REMOVE the existing authority DGIF has to regulate firearms within their hunting regulations. This bill removes overall authority from state agencies, but they were not prepared to take it away from DGIF, and their specific authority to regulate hunting use. This is really not a difficult concept.

TFred said:

Or, you might try making an HONEST post, by including the entire section to reveal the context, instead of selectively posting just a part, which devoid of context, completely changes the meaning.

What do you think "Such regulations" is referring to here?

TFred

§ 29.1-501. Promulgation of regulations; publication of proposed regulations or change therein; validation; evidentiary nature of publication.

A. The Board may promulgate regulations pertaining to the hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, and transportation of any wild bird, wild animal, or inland water fish, and the feeding of any game, game animals, or fur-bearing animals as defined in § 29.1-100, or the feeding of any wildlife that results in property damage, endangers any person or wildlife, or creates a public health concern. Such regulations may govern the possession, carrying, transportation, and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof.​

ETA: We have enough REAL issues to deal with here. We don't need folks "crying wolf," distracting attention and resources away from those efforts that would actually do us harm.

The REASON they added this particular section is to not REMOVE the existing authority DGIF has to regulate firearms within their hunting regulations. This bill removes overall authority from state agencies, but they were not prepared to take it away from DGIF, and their specific authority to regulate hunting use. This is really not a difficult concept.

Click to expand...

Without enumerated permission to infringe on the RKBA, the Board has done so. Now the GA has enumerated it, without the necessary defined limit on their authority to regulate the firing of certain firearms using certain ammunition and components when hunting certain animals at certain times in certain places.

Again, when the, "transportation, and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof," has absolutely no direct bearing on the action of hunting, yet the GA irresponsibly cuts and pastes the firearms clause in total to include that, it illustrates that they've irresponsibly left the door too far open for the Board to continue to do what has been rightly argued against, that they have no authority to do so, before without such enumerated permission.

They should have removed the Board's ability to restrict firearms kept in vehicles on their properties.
They should have specified that regulations overlapping keeping and bearing were off limits except in the regulation of what arms could be employed (fired) in the act of hunting, or generally fired within the restricted lands.

The Board has already been exceeding their mandate. This does nothing but further obfuscate their excess.

Politicians moving in - gonna have to ask permission, hire attorneys and lobbyists, etc...sad days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk