• 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 2380: New Wording Likely Protects Business Owners & Screws Gun Owners

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
** NOTE THIS SHOULD BE HB2380 ** (jmelvin)

I thought this deserved it’s own thread outside of the 2011 VCDL Agenda thread because this bill has changed from what I perceive to be an improvement in firearm law in Virginia to a deep threat to gun toters here in the commonwealth.

*See wording in next post.
 
Last edited:

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
From the other thread a quote from the VCDL Legislative Update:

"HB 2380 - Delegate Pogge - gives certain civil immunities to businesses which allow their employees to store guns in their private vehicles on company property - VCDL Strongly Supports - was modified and passed out of subcommittee with new wording and heads to full committee on Monday.

In subcommittee today some lobbyists for businesses were complaining that their clients who ban guns in employee's vehicles also want the same immunities. The decision that Delegate Pogge made was to offer immunities to all employers, whether they allow guns to be stored in employees vehicles or not.

Now bear with me on this: the idea of doing so isn't actually bad (I had to chew on this one myself for a while). Many businesses that do not allow their employees to store guns in their vehicles only do so because they don't want to be civilly liable if something goes wrong ("Gee - it wasn't our fault that the vehicle was broken into and the gun stolen and used in a crime, we have a policy against employees having guns in their vehicles in the first place"). This bill would remove any advantage to having such a "no guns in vehicle" policy. Since all businesses would be equally immune, some businesses might therefore be more amenable to not barring employees from storing guns in their vehicles. The bill puts the blame for the misuse of a firearm on the criminal and not on any business owner."



I do not agree at all with the VCDL stance on this and I believe if this is passed it will be noose around gun owners necks for years to come. With this change this has gone from a bill which provides potential financial incentives to employers who remove some of the restrictions on people's human right to self defense to a bill that is utterly worthless for protecting worker's human right of self defense (at least going to and from work) and is just a way to give businesses a protection without regard to worker safety. Although Phil's wording talks about ensuring businesses are not held liable for misuse of a firearm on company property it also provides them blanket liability protection if one of their workers is mugged or killed in a case where that mugging or death may not have occurred if an employee could've had their firearm at the ready in the car.

For a realistic note on how a bill that provides liability protection to employers regardless of company policy toward employees keeping their firearms in their cars, how about asking Ohioans how similar protections have helped them in ensuring they can keep their firearms in the cars. Being a former Ohioan I can comment on this. IT HASN'T WORKED. In fact because employers have no incentive to change their policy Ohioans are now pushing for a bill that will force the hands of employers to make them permit employees to keep guns in their cars.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
From the other thread a quote from the VCDL Legislative Update:

"HB 2380 - Delegate Pogge - gives certain civil immunities to businesses which allow their employees to store guns in their private vehicles on company property - VCDL Strongly Supports - was modified and passed out of subcommittee with new wording and heads to full committee on Monday.

In subcommittee today some lobbyists for businesses were complaining that their clients who ban guns in employee's vehicles also want the same immunities. The decision that Delegate Pogge made was to offer immunities to all employers, whether they allow guns to be stored in employees vehicles or not.

Now bear with me on this: the idea of doing so isn't actually bad (I had to chew on this one myself for a while). Many businesses that do not allow their employees to store guns in their vehicles only do so because they don't want to be civilly liable if something goes wrong ("Gee - it wasn't our fault that the vehicle was broken into and the gun stolen and used in a crime, we have a policy against employees having guns in their vehicles in the first place"). This bill would remove any advantage to having such a "no guns in vehicle" policy. Since all businesses would be equally immune, some businesses might therefore be more amenable to not barring employees from storing guns in their vehicles. The bill puts the blame for the misuse of a firearm on the criminal and not on any business owner."



I do not agree at all with the VCDL stance on this and I believe if this is passed it will be noose around gun owners necks for years to come. With this change this has gone from a bill which provides potential financial incentives to employers who remove some of the restrictions on people's human right to self defense to a bill that is utterly worthless for protecting worker's human right of self defense (at least going to and from work) and is just a way to give businesses a protection without regard to worker safety. Although Phil's wording talks about ensuring businesses are not held liable for misuse of a firearm on company property it also provides them blanket liability protection if one of their workers is mugged or killed in a case where that mugging or death may not have occurred if an employee could've had their firearm at the ready in the car.

For a realistic note on how a bill that provides liability protection to employers regardless of company policy toward employees keeping their firearms in their cars, how about asking Ohioans how similar protections have helped them in ensuring they can keep their firearms in the cars. Being a former Ohioan I can comment on this. IT HASN'T WORKED. In fact because employers have no incentive to change their policy Ohioans are now pushing for a bill that will force the hands of employers to make them permit employees to keep guns in their cars.
Philip is a busy guy these days, if you want him to see your thoughts, you should probably e-mail them directly to him.

TFred
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
because employers have no incentive to change their policy
Bingo.

Passage of this law WILL NOT encourage existing ANTI-gun businesses to allow their employees to keep firearms in their PRIVATE VEHICLES.

Guns are forbidden by corporate policy under some rubric of "employee safety" or "comfort" and has little, if anything, to do with whether or not the company would be civilly liable for damages if someone was injured on their property by a firearm owned by an employee.

The ONLY way to protect the rights of the citizens is to extend exception to searches to private vehicles. It should not be a condition of employment to be coerced into giving up a fundamental right (actually, two of them).

Give them civil immunity, but force them to leave employee property alone. It's already just one step from them being able to come to your house and search that, too, to see if you have anything they might consider undesirable.

My private vehicle is an extension of my personal space. No one has any right to search it. Period.
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
I have and he doesn't seem to agree from what I can tell. If others agree with my assessment it may be worthwhile for them to contact him as well. I've put this new wording past some of my workmates and they don't see anything good coming of it either. In my belief this is a very nasty bill that if passed will lead to long term regret for those that supported it.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
I have.

He believes this to be a "parking lot" bill.

It is only masquerading as one in name.

Like you said, there is no incentive for companies whose policies already prohibit lawful carry and storage in PRIVATE vehicles to change those policies.

This bill would do more harm than good because there are enough people out there who believe this is a "good" bill and would not support amending it in future sessions.
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
I believe it will do more harm than good because it will take off of the table our ability to hold businesses financially accountable for disarming us and not providing for our protection when someone is harmed and they may have been able to remain unharmed.

With liability protection that this bill would provide how would the victims of Cho be able to sue Virginia Tech for not doing enough to protect them? Cho massacred 30+ people with a gun on Virginia Tech property where Virginia Tech required students to be disarmed!
 
Last edited:

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
I had not thought of it in those terms.

It still supports my premise of staying the heck out of my business once I am inside my own vehicle. According to the government it is an extension of my home and under the 4th Amendment I am entitled to certain protections under the law.

Why should I be forced to give up those protections in order to procure gainful employment?
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
This is a bill I had strongly supported in person to my delegate.

Today I wrote him changing my stance to neutral -- it appears the modified bill is just another paper from Richmond. I copied Delegate Pogge.
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
I believe it will do more harm than good because it will take off of the table our ability to hold businesses financially accountable for disarming us and not providing for our protection when someone is harmed and they may have been able to remain unharmed.

With liability protection that this bill would provide how would the victims of Cho be able to sue Virginia Tech for not doing enough to protect them? Cho massacred 30+ people with a gun on Virginia Tech property where Virginia Tech required students to be disarmed!

+1

Why would a business need immunity from something they already ban? This in itself smells very fishy. I think that a private vehicle should be that. A private vehicle. In NM your vehicle is an extension of your home, personal and private space.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
I had not thought of it in those terms.

It still supports my premise of staying the heck out of my business once I am inside my own vehicle. According to the government it is an extension of my home and under the 4th Amendment I am entitled to certain protections under the law.

Why should I be forced to give up those protections in order to procure gainful employment?

+1000

I don't like the change and emailed Brenda Pogge.
 

DontTreadOnMeVa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
132
Location
, ,
+1000

I don't like the change and emailed Brenda Pogge.

I emailed her has well. I am not neutral on the bill, I oppose it in its current form. I see no value in protecting businesses that refuse to leave us alone, so we can protect ourselves. IMHO, it will make getting a real parking lot bill even harder to pass. ...after all, it gives away a bargaining chip and we get NOTHING in return.

Strongly opposed to this bill!
 

DontTreadOnMeVa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
132
Location
, ,
+1

Why would a business need immunity from something they already ban? This in itself smells very fishy. I think that a private vehicle should be that. A private vehicle. In NM your vehicle is an extension of your home, personal and private space.

Why? Think about it. If the legislature is giving away civil immunity for the asking, why not take it as one more level of protection for all your clients if your a business lobbyist?

If I was anti-gun rights I would support the new version of the bill. After all, when fight for a real parking lot bill comes up the gun rights side will have already given up the carrot of immunity for what little bit it is worth.

If this bill has awakened the interest and the taste of the business lobby for civil immunity....then we should kill this bill dead. We should offer next year a real parking lot bill with immunity. If they want it, they can give us the respect of our rights we deserve.

Quid pro quo or nothing should be our stance.
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
nuc65 just do a google search for Virginia Delegate Pogge and it should show. Send a note to Del. Byron or Garret, whichever applies to you as well. I'm on BlackBerry or I'd help.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I happen to agree with you Jmelvin. While I support Private Property Owners Rights, I also consider the vehicle your private property and the owner of the company should have NO say in what's in it.

I'm still not sure about Pogge's motivation or for that matter, her alliance. There are two sides to that woman. The Constitution reading, open minded friend of mankind...and the side of her that's mean as a snake and only interested in what's good for Madame Pogge.

I've seen both.

As to Philip, I'll comment on it with one of my usual "What the hell is he talking about" examples.

Yesterday before talking to one of Chris Peace's staff, I got a call from an Old Virginia member who was mad as hell about the changes on one of the bills I'm working on.

All I could say was "I'm not the General Assembly, I just try to convince them I'm right".

I think Philip is in the same boat with this bill and I also think Pogge is doing what Pogge does best. Looking out for Pogge.
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
I plagurized and sent the following...

I write to present my stance on HB2380. It is my opinion that the wording in this bill is very poorly chosen. With this change this has gone from a bill which potentially provides financial incentives to employers who remove some of the restrictions on people's human right to self defense, to a bill that is just a way to give businesses a protection without regard to worker safety. Although the wording talks not holding businesses liable for misuse of a firearm on company property it also provides them blanket liability protection if one of their workers is mugged or killed in a case where that mugging or death may not have occurred if an employee could've had their firearm at the ready in the car.

Similar legislation in Ohio has not worked, because employers have no incentive to change their policy Ohio citizens are now pushing for a bill that will force the hands of employers to make them permit employees to keep guns in their cars.

Passage of this law WILL NOT encourage existing ANTI-gun businesses to allow their employees to keep firearms in their PRIVATE VEHICLES.

Guns are forbidden by corporate policy under the rubric of "employee safety" and has little to do with company civil liability if someone was injured on their property by a firearm owned by an employee.

One way to ensure the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not infringed is to extend exception to searches to private vehicles. It should not be a condition of employment to be coerced into giving up a fundamental rights.

My private vehicle is an extension of my personal space no one has any right to search it. Why should I be forced to give up those protections in order to procure gainful employment?

I believe it will do more harm than good because it will take off of the table our ability to hold businesses financially accountable for disarming us and not providing for our protection when someone is harmed and they may have been able to remain unharmed.

With liability protection that this bill would provide how would the victims of Cho be able to sue Virginia Tech for not doing enough to protect them? Cho massacred 30+ people with a gun on Virginia Tech property where Virginia Tech required students to forego their Constitutional Right.



Dan Torres (BSNE)

VCDL member
 
Last edited:

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
nuc65 just do a google search for Virginia Delegate Pogge and it should show. Send a note to Del. Byron or Garret, whichever applies to you as well. I'm on BlackBerry or I'd help.

http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform
Is represented in the Virginia State Legislature by:

Delegate:
T. Scott Garrett
Preferred Name:
Scott
District/Party:
023/Republican
Capitol Addr1:
P.O. Box 406
Capitol Addr2:
General Assembly Building
City/State/Zip:
Richmond, Va. 23218-0406
Capitol Phone:
(804) 698-1023
District Address1:
2255 Langhorne Road, Suite 4
District Address2:

City/State/Zip:
Lynchburg, VA 24501
District Phone:
(434) 455-0243
More about Delegate Garrett

Senator:
Stephen D. Newman
Preferred Name:
Stephen D.
District/Party:
023/Republican
Capitol Addr1:
P.O. Box 396
Capitol Addr2:
General Assembly Building
City/State/Zip:
Richmond, Va. 23218-0406
Capitol Phone:
(804) 698-7523
District Address1:
P.O. Box 480
District Address2:

City/State/Zip:
Forest, VA 24551
District Phone:
(434) 385-1065
More about Senator Newman
 
Top