VDOF has refiled

peter nap · Sep 30, 2010

I haven't found the Town Hall filing yet but I just got this.

The Department of Forestry has submitted a second proposed regulation regarding firearms on State Forests. The past, current and future actions and associated documents can be found on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website located at http://townhall.virginia.gov/
The agency has submitted a new proposed regulation amendment which would essentially allow the carrying of open and concealed firearms on State Forests so long as the laws of the Commonwealth did not prohibit them.
Because this proposal is significantly different from the original, we felt the prudent action was to submit a new proposed amendment for the public review, receive additional comments from the public, and then complete the final regulatory stage.
I hope this reply is helpful. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

skidmark · Sep 30, 2010

Thanks for the notice.

We expected it to fall out this way.

Now all we have to do is mobilize once again and get the comments in. Short & sweet, folks. "I support the proposed change to allow carry of firearms in state forests" is all they need to decide which column your vote goes in.

stay safe.

ETA:

The posting is here: http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/NowInProgress.cfm - about 1/4th of the way down the page - look for Dept of Forestry

It's status is Stage: Proposed - At DPB - in other words not ready for comments yet.

peter nap · Sep 30, 2010

And the meek shall inherit the earth.

Damn, I love being meek!:banana:

Repeater · Sep 30, 2010

Ammunition only?

skidmark said:
Thanks for the notice.

We expected it to fall out this way.

Now all we have to do is mobilize once again and get the comments in. Short & sweet, folks. "I support the proposed change to allow carry of firearms in state forests" is all they need to decide which column your vote goes in.

stay safe.

ETA:

The posting is here: http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/NowInProgress.cfm - about 1/4th of the way down the page - look for Dept of Forestry

It's status is Stage: Proposed - At DPB - in other words not ready for comments yet.

As I read it, it only permits firearms ammunition -- is that correct?

peter nap · Sep 30, 2010

Repeater said:
As I read it, it only permits firearms ammunition -- is that correct?

I need to re read it

Sure reads that way!

peter nap · Sep 30, 2010

I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
That would mean there is no regulation of a weapon at all, other than ammunition which must be legal.

buster81 · Sep 30, 2010

peter nap · Sep 30, 2010

buster81 said:
???

I have asked for clarification. It may just be a typo and can be corrected before the comment period.

peter nap · Sep 30, 2010

nova said:
once again I say next legislative session we should push to have state agencies added to preemption. Get college carry and state park and state forest (open) carry with one stone.

That would cure some problems Nova.
Talk to VCDL. Apparently they have a legislative agenda prepared, they just aren't sharing it until the next meeting.

I'm not sure when the prefile period closes but I haven't seen much show up on the GA docket yet.

t33j · Sep 30, 2010

Progress - I like it.

Grapeshot · Oct 1, 2010

t33j said:
Progress - I like it.

The wheels of progress do turn s l o w l y sometimes though.

Willing to bet that we will still be waiting for an official rule change come Lobby Day.

Our governor could solve this with a stroke of his pen if he would only live up to his campaign rhetoric.

peter nap · Oct 1, 2010

Grapeshot said:
The wheels of progress do turn s l o w l y sometimes though.

Willing to bet that we will still be waiting for an official rule change come Lobby Day.

Our governor could solve this with a stroke of his pen if he would only live up to his campaign rhetoric.

Amen!

peter nap · Oct 5, 2010

I spoke to Ron Jenkins about an hour ago.

After reading the revision he agreed it was not worded as well as it could be.
He also insisted the purpose was to allow all legally carried firearms in state forests.

I explained that Va was a weak legislative intent state and that Department rule intent was even weaker.

He is sending it back for revision and asked I send an email with my suggested wording.

jmelvin · Oct 5, 2010

When the new wording arrives I'll post my support.

TFred · Oct 5, 2010

peter nap said:
I spoke to Ron Jenkins about an hour ago.

After reading the revision he agreed it was not worded as well as it could be.
He also insisted the purpose was to allow all legally carried firearms in state forests.

I explained that Va was a weak legislative intent state and that Department rule intent was even weaker.

He is sending it back for revision and asked I send an email with my suggested wording.

I took a look at the web page.

Here's the current text, right from the VAC website:

No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, except commercial sporting firearms ammunition; explosives, explosive substances and firearms of all types are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.

Using my best guess as to what the editing conventions are, strikeout means delete, underline means add, it appears that the final text would read:

No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition. Explosives and explosive substances, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition, are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.

There is no mention of "firearms" without "ammunition" directly after. I suppose by default as with all laws, barring the prohibition thereof, it is legal, so by removing the prohibition of firearms, it is making them legal. Prohibiting explosives could be interpreted to include ammunition, so that is probably why they specifically exclude ammo from the rule.

It is probably good to keep with that convention, I would rather just remove the text prohibiting firearms, than to replace it with text that specifically allows them. Why break with convention for just this one circumstance?

I'm confused as to why the last sentence in the proposed change about CHPs doesn't show up in the text that is on the LIS.

TFred

TFred · Oct 5, 2010

TFred said:
I took a look at the web page.

Here's the current text, right from the VAC website:

No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, except commercial sporting firearms ammunition; explosives, explosive substances and firearms of all types are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.

Using my best guess as to what the editing conventions are, strikeout means delete, underline means add, it appears that the final text would read:

No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition. Explosives and explosive substances, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition, are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.

There is no mention of "firearms" without "ammunition" directly after. I suppose by default as with all laws, barring the prohibition thereof, it is legal, so by removing the prohibition of firearms, it is making them legal. Prohibiting explosives could be interpreted to include ammunition, so that is probably why they specifically exclude ammo from the rule.

It is probably good to keep with that convention, I would rather just remove the text prohibiting firearms, than to replace it with text that specifically allows them. Why break with convention for just this one circumstance?

I'm confused as to why the last sentence in the proposed change about CHPs doesn't show up in the text that is on the LIS.

TFred

Now having read the proposed text again... it does indeed need tweaking.

There are two sentences, the second is unneeded, as it is the same prohibition as the first, but applies only to a subset of the area described in the first.

1: No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition.

2: Explosives and explosive substances, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition, are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.

They can say everything they need to say with just the first sentence, since there is now no distinction in the rule between "forest" and "forest that is a recreational area".

Unless there is something else I'm missing... this is just a grammatical analysis, I may not fully understand the forest system.

TFred

peter nap · Oct 5, 2010

TFred said:
I took a look at the web page.

Here's the current text, right from the VAC website:
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, except commercial sporting firearms ammunition; explosives, explosive substances and firearms of all types are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.
Using my best guess as to what the editing conventions are, strikeout means delete, underline means add, it appears that the final text would read:

No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition. Explosives and explosive substances, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition, are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.
There is no mention of "firearms" without "ammunition" directly after. I suppose by default as with all laws, barring the prohibition thereof, it is legal, so by removing the prohibition of firearms, it is making them legal. Prohibiting explosives could be interpreted to include ammunition, so that is probably why they specifically exclude ammo from the rule.

It is probably good to keep with that convention, I would rather just remove the text prohibiting firearms, than to replace it with text that specifically allows them. Why break with convention for just this one circumstance?

I'm confused as to why the last sentence in the proposed change about CHPs doesn't show up in the text that is on the LIS.

TFred

My first thought was like yours TFred. Just leave Firearms out. Then reality hit and I knew that if they have any mention of ammunition, some damn fool like >>>>>>> would decide that firearms were not allowed, just ammo, and charge the carrier with a violation.

What we discussed was just saying ammunition once and changing the second mention to "legally carried firearms".

I know it could probably be beaten in court but why take the chance.

TFred · Oct 5, 2010

TFred said:
I'm confused as to why the last sentence in the proposed change about CHPs doesn't show up in the text that is on the LIS.

TFred

I found my misunderstanding, the CHP language was from the first proposed change to the rule, which is covered here.

TFred

Grapeshot · Oct 5, 2010

The need to apply the K.I.S.S. rule.

All legally carried firearms and ammunition shall be legal to possess, transport etc. within Dept. controlled property. No exception for "recreation areas" either - no victim rich, GFZs.

skidmark · Oct 6, 2010

While I'm not a big conspiracy theory fan, it does make me wonder if this might not be a ploy to further delay the process - as it will require a withdrawal of the now-current proposed rule, time to gin up a corrected new-revised rule, and restart the comment period.

Thoughts? Theories?

stay safe.

VDOF has refiled

Accomplished Advocate

Campaign Veteran

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Attachments

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran