• 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 375 Firearms; workplace rules by localities.

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Kind of surprised you missed this one TFred.


HB 375 Firearms; workplace rules by localities.

Brenda L. Pogge | all patrons ... notes
| add to my profiles



Summary as introduced:
Control of firearms by localities; workplace rules. Prohibits localities from adopting a workplace rule that prevents an employee from storing a lawfully possessed firearm and ammunition in his locked motor vehicle. The firearm must be in a secured container or compartment in the vehicle. Full text:
01/10/12 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/12 12100430D pdf

Status:
01/10/12 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/12 12100430D
01/10/12 House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety

 

mk4

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Messages
548
Location
VA
that's sure the way it reads to me, too, TF.
i was hoping for the so-called 'parking lot' bill covering employees of private companies.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Perhaps it's an intentional first step. If the sky doesn't fall after a year of this, it may be easier to expand it a bit.

Just a guess.

TFred

Could be but it seems like a poor first step. There is often the hidden agenda (Which can be good or bad). That's another one I'll just have to see what Philip says about it.
 

DontTreadOnMeVa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
132
Location
, ,
So very disappointed....

The one bill that I want the most is a good parking lot bill. How many other Virginians are like me and and are forced to not carry wile communing back and forth to work most days of the year? I am disarmed about 240 times a year because of this. I can not even began to express my disappointment.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
The one bill that I want the most is a good parking lot bill. How many other Virginians are like me and and are forced to not carry wile communing back and forth to work most days of the year? I am disarmed about 240 times a year because of this. I can not even began to express my disappointment.
There are at least 6 different bills that poorly attempt to codify a Castle Doctrine... no reason to assume that there won't be another parking lot bill come along yet.

I haven't heard one way or another.

TFred
 

DontTreadOnMeVa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
132
Location
, ,
Could be but it seems like a poor first step. There is often the hidden agenda (Which can be good or bad). That's another one I'll just have to see what Philip says about it.

I guess if someone is a government employee ones right to be able to carry to and from work is more important and needs special protection....work in the private sector and forget about it.

This is the second time she has given us a crappy parking lot bill. Last year when discussing HB 2380 she said, "Virginia’s laws should be balanced and fair for all" so I must ask a question. How is HB 375 balanced and fair for all? Last year it was a bill that gave civil immunity to businesses that did not ban employees from storing a firearm locked motor vehicle but did not prevent them from having a policy that infringed on our rights. Again would have done nothing for most us.

I want a good parking lot bill, not just for me and not just for employees of local localities. Why cant we have a strait parking lot bill offered up? Is there a reason Pogge wont put forth a clean bill?

:(
 

DontTreadOnMeVa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
132
Location
, ,
There are at least 6 different bills that poorly attempt to codify a Castle Doctrine... no reason to assume that there won't be another parking lot bill come along yet.

I haven't heard one way or another.

TFred

I hope your right...I really do.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I guess if someone is a government employee ones right to be able to carry to and from work is more important and needs special protection....work in the private sector and forget about it.

This is the second time she has given us a crappy parking lot bill. Last year when discussing HB 2380 she said, "Virginia’s laws should be balanced and fair for all" so I must ask a question. How is HB 375 balanced and fair for all? Last year it was a bill that gave civil immunity to businesses that did not ban employees from storing a firearm locked motor vehicle but did not prevent them from having a policy that infringed on our rights. Again would have done nothing for most us.

I want a good parking lot bill, not just for me and not just for employees of local localities. Why cant we have a strait parking lot bill offered up? Is there a reason Pogge wont put forth a clean bill?

:(
Yes, there's a fairly obvious answer. As bad as the bill was last year, the private industry interests gutted it to beyond the point of useless. At least with this bill, private business has no dog in the fight, so maybe they will leave it alone... it's at least a foot in the door.

TFred, trying to find a less dark side... :)
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Interesting... it's just for city/county/town employees...

TFred

When VCDLPresident was at the VCDL Roanoke picnic back in October he mentioned that the VCDL had considered pushing a "parking lot bill" that started with localities and state agencies first. The idea behind this was to eliminate private business' objection to similar restrictions being forced on them when the government itself had no such binders.

Of course a bill could be drafter that made the restrictions on both.
 
Last edited:

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
I guess if someone is a government employee ones right to be able to carry to and from work is more important and needs special protection....work in the private sector and forget about it.

This is the second time she has given us a crappy parking lot bill. Last year when discussing HB 2380 she said, "Virginia’s laws should be balanced and fair for all" so I must ask a question. How is HB 375 balanced and fair for all? Last year it was a bill that gave civil immunity to businesses that did not ban employees from storing a firearm locked motor vehicle but did not prevent them from having a policy that infringed on our rights. Again would have done nothing for most us.

I want a good parking lot bill, not just for me and not just for employees of local localities. Why cant we have a strait parking lot bill offered up? Is there a reason Pogge wont put forth a clean bill?

:(

As others have mentioned, this removes the potential for opposition from private interests.

Remember, the government has multiple roles. When it is acting as an employer it has different powers than when it is acting in a legislative capacity. As a result, while the state doesn't have the authority to prosecute you for your on-the-job speech, they still have the authority to fire you if you are a state employee for that same speech.

For the state to require private businesses to allow firearms on their property (in any way, even inside a private vehicle) introduces potential constitutional challenges that don't apply when the state is regulating property that it controls. This bill seems to be working on the latter to weaken the case against the former.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
Last year it was a bill that gave civil immunity to businesses that did not ban employees from storing a firearm locked motor vehicle but did not prevent them from having a policy that infringed on our rights. Again would have done nothing for most us.
You and I were standing right next to each other whilst another member defended that bill, saying the language was "good". I don't know about you, but I almost became violently ill.

It was all I could do to hold my tongue.
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Maybe you shouldn't have....

Yup, I'd have liked to hear the argument as I can't recall what it was now. I think I was in the same group as Dontreadonme... and did offer some defense of it, but only from the perspective that it at least gave employers the chance to do the right thing without forcing them.
 

DontTreadOnMeVa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
132
Location
, ,
Yup, I'd have liked to hear the argument as I can't recall what it was now. I think I was in the same group as Dontreadonme... and did offer some defense of it, but only from the perspective that it at least gave employers the chance to do the right thing without forcing them.

That is the problem, it tossed a bone to employers but demanded nothing in return. If they want civil protection, I am fine with that as they should have it....but you can have it with the passage of a true parking lot bill. Why give away a bargaining chip for nothing? ...in hopes they will do the right thing when they have failed to do so in the past?



You and I were standing right next to each other whilst another member defended that bill, saying the language was "good". I don't know about you, but I almost became violently ill.

It was all I could do to hold my tongue.

I think we both came close to brain aneurysms over it. ...if a good parking lot bill does not come up this year, I may still have one.
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
That is the problem, it tossed a bone to employers but demanded nothing in return. If they want civil protection, I am fine with that as they should have it....but you can have it with the passage of a true parking lot bill. Why give away a bargaining chip for nothing? ...in hopes they will do the right thing when they have failed to do so in the past?





I think we both came close to brain aneurysms over it. ...if a good parking lot bill does not come up this year, I may still have one.

You have to remember that the initial version of the bill tossed a bone to employers, but only if they allowed employees to keep firearms and ammunition in their cars on the employer's property. The modified portion of the bill that became attrocious (and oddly was still supported by VCDL) game them civil immunity without regard to their stance. I've seen how that works in my former state of Ohio. It means employers can throw up No Guns signs at will and never have to worry about any repercussions.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
It only gave civil immunity, it did nothing to block employers from prohibiting firearms/weapons in personal vehicles.

The problem is that most of them who prohibit weapons aren't interested in civil liability. They are California liberals and don't want weapons on their property and believe that by prohibiting employees from having them they will somehow prevent criminal activity or make the workplace "safe". My boss is the same way.

What got me worst was the bill being described as "good"... and I was fresh out of duct tape.
 
Top