G0Z
Regular Member
Apologies,
Apologies,
Could someone help by shedding light as to the effect of SB245. I am struggling with both this and HB20 and why we (VCDL and OPENCARRY.org) are so strongly supporting them. What I see is this law, § 44-146.15, is on the books and accomplishes what the summary entails for both HB20 and SB245.
What I see:
Literally, in SB245, in section 3 of items this chapter will not be construed to enable:
The verbage being added is precluding specific prohibition of "carrying, transportation" which I had suspected was previously present in the term "possesion." Also, adding "firefighting" instead of "fire fighting."
HB20 goes a step further to strike "rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the..." (otherwise lawful possesion). I believed this to be a rather important component of this bill so as not to allow expedient shifts in law.
SB245 doesn't really do it for me. I see a "happy" to "glad" situation. Please feel free to disabuse me of any misconceptions.
~G0Z
-Reposted from sticky as it was unanswered.
Apologies,
Could someone help by shedding light as to the effect of SB245. I am struggling with both this and HB20 and why we (VCDL and OPENCARRY.org) are so strongly supporting them. What I see is this law, § 44-146.15, is on the books and accomplishes what the summary entails for both HB20 and SB245.
What I see:
Literally, in SB245, in section 3 of items this chapter will not be construed to enable:
The verbage being added is precluding specific prohibition of "carrying, transportation" which I had suspected was previously present in the term "possesion." Also, adding "firefighting" instead of "fire fighting."
HB20 goes a step further to strike "rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the..." (otherwise lawful possesion). I believed this to be a rather important component of this bill so as not to allow expedient shifts in law.
SB245 doesn't really do it for me. I see a "happy" to "glad" situation. Please feel free to disabuse me of any misconceptions.
~G0Z
-Reposted from sticky as it was unanswered.