I don't understand why the House rejected the Senate substitute. The House amendments "broke" the original law in a drastic manner. The Senate amendment "fixed" it back to be OK.It just went to Conference Committee so it's not dead...but probably won't go any further.
I don't understand why the House rejected the Senate substitute. The House amendments "broke" the original law in a drastic manner. The Senate amendment "fixed" it back to be OK.
TFred
The bold above is not quite accurate.Yesterday the Senate requested a conference with the House for HB375 and today the House agreed. Please e-mail your Senators and Delegates urging reconciliation and agreement to pass HB375. I realize that it does not help everybody but it does not hurt anybody either. For those of us the work for Local Government it will be a big help and a stepping stone to get this for others next year.
This morning I sent an e-mail to every Senator and every Delegate urging them to work together and pass HB375, please take a little time to do this also. This is what I sent them;
"I am urging you to reconcile your differences and pass HB375.
I live in Senator Reeves’ and Delegate Ed Scott’s District, Orange County and work in Fairfax County. I work for local government on 24 hour shift work. As such, they prohibit us as a condition of employment from possessing or securing a firearm in our vehicles on County Property. I leave my home at 4am to go to work and leave work the following day once I am relived at 7am. On my return to my home I may make stops for shopping, fuel, banking, hunting (in the appropriate season), etc. It is very important that we be afforded our rights to be able to provide for our own defense, or other lawful shooting sports, i.e. hunting or ranges, without having to return home to get our firearms. Local government employees should not be required to give up their rights just because we work for local government.
Please come to an agreement and pass HB 375.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Name & address"
Ah, you are right. Looks like the Senate also added these places where the new parking lot rule would be exempt:TFred, I agree the Senate version is worded better so we don't loose anything, however, they added some places were firearms would be prohibited. Hopefully, they can work out their differences and we can get an appropriately worded and passed version of HB375.
House version: [D. The provisions of this section shall apply only to workplaces of the locality.]
Senate version: [D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."]
As you can see, the House version virtually guts the scope of the entire law.
As best I understand it, "this section" refers to the entire section of code, 15.2-915, which is THE preemption law. Paragraph D of the House version limits the scope of the whole law to only workplaces of localities. That would leave localities free to impose any local ordinance that 15.2-915 currently prohibits, as long as that local ordinance did not apply to "the workplaces of the localities."House version: [D. The provisions of this section shall apply only to workplaces of the locality.]
Senate version: [D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."]
As you can see, the House version virtually guts the scope of the entire law.
I'm usually pretty good at parsing these things but I must be especially dense today because I'm having trouble understanding the difference between the two versions as you quoted above. I'd be appreciative of a brief explanation.
Best regards
As best I understand it, "this section" refers to the entire section of code, 15.2-915, which is THE preemption law. Paragraph D of the House version limits the scope of the whole law to only workplaces of localities.
TFred
The bill has been kicked around way too much. It won't pass.
The intent has already been approved by both Houses - it is some word-smithing that has been the battle currently. As long as the bill that comes out of conference committee has the original intent in place with properer wording, it should pass.
I have been working this issue with Delegate Pogge. Hopefully we will get the job done. We should know in a few days.
You are right, it is my opinion that this was a mistake created by an amendment made on the floor of the house. It was picked up on fairly quickly and always was intended to be corrected in the Senate version.As I understand things, Virginia does not reccognize "legislative intent". The law is what the law says it is, using plain language unless the courts want to twist it into some other meaning. User knows the Latin for this - I'll let him impress us all with attorney-speak.
The point is that
House version: [D. The provisions of this section shall apply only to workplaces of the locality.] does not mean exactly the same thing as
Senate version: [D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."].
stay safe.
I believe the Senate added those four exceptions to the House version. I suspect that this is the change under debate, not the correction of the poorly worded floor amendment from the House's version.Ah, you are right. Looks like the Senate also added these places where the new parking lot rule would be exempt:
"any college or university, or any community services board or behavioral health authority licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services."
As long as they keep the Senate version of Paragraph D, the rest is not critical.
Colleges, universities, community service boards and behavioral health authorities are all places where crazy people with violent tendencies are known to congregate. They are also places where (in the first two instances) students are to be found and (in the latter two instances) people who want their lives to be better are to be found.
The Senators apparently believes that the similarities between themselves and the folks at colleges, universities, community service boards and behavioral health authorities are too close to ignore.:uhoh:
stay safe.
You are right, it is my opinion that this was a mistake created by an amendment made on the floor of the house. It was picked up on fairly quickly and always was intended to be corrected in the Senate version.
However, see this earlier post:
I believe the Senate added those four exceptions to the House version. I suspect that this is the change under debate, not the correction of the poorly worded floor amendment from the House's version.
Although not critical to the value of the bill, I hope the House holds out on these four exceptions, those employees deserve protection no less than any other state employee. The type of work the person does, or where they do it, has no impact on whether they should be able to protect themselves on the drive to and from work.
The argument for these exceptions is the same anti-gun insanity as every other gun-control law.
TFred
The standard bill history page has a link to it, but it is not there yet.Has anyone read the Conference Report?