HB 375 Firearms; workplace rules by localities.

peter nap · Jan 13, 2012

paramedic70002 said:
Maybe they'll get around to defining the word "secured" since it seems to be gaining in popularity with gun bills.

Naps Practical Dictionary
Secured...used with object...Verb

Put somewhere where the cops can't see it and in a different location from license and registration.

Used in conjunction with:
Don't tell, even if asked.

Often associated with:
No sir Officer, I ain't got no guns!

scouser · Jan 13, 2012

Devil's Advocate time.

Let's say you want your firearm with you for your commute and any side trips on your way to and from work and leave it locked in your glovebox while you are working. If your employer has a no firearms policy how would they know you had one with you if you keep your mouth shut about it and avoid going places after work that a co worker whose stance on firearms is questionable might also be visiting?

It's not a concern for me, I'm lucky, my bosses are reasonable people and understand there is a difference between (1) having a firearm in your vehicle because it's there and (2) carrying it into work with you. (2) would be nice, but (1) is much better than many have.

TFred · Jan 13, 2012

scouser said:
Devil's Advocate time.

Let's say you want your firearm with you for your commute and any side trips on your way to and from work and leave it locked in your glovebox while you are working. If your employer has a no firearms policy how would they know you had one with you if you keep your mouth shut about it and avoid going places after work that a co worker whose stance on firearms is questionable might also be visiting?

It's not a concern for me, I'm lucky, my bosses are reasonable people and understand there is a difference between (1) having a firearm in your vehicle because it's there and (2) carrying it into work with you. (2) would be nice, but (1) is much better than many have.

The Law of Large Numbers tells us that if you do make enough stops on the way to or from work, eventually, someone from work will see you.

"Mathematician's advocate" at work.

TFred

45acpForMe · Jan 14, 2012

How about a "Respect for Private Property" bill that definies a persons car as PRIVATE PROPERTY not to be subject to employers search unless a legal search warrant were obtained (for a case of stolen property).

I am willing to respect a companies private property and not take my gun out of my car while on their property if they will respect my private property rights meaning they can take their hands/minds/rules off the contents of my car!!!!

To adhere to the law the gun would need to be unobservable from someone looking in through the window and the car locked while unattended.

TFred · Feb 2, 2012

Amendments added, removing schools from the scope of this bill, and adding a section to clarify it only applies to workplaces.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+HB375

As amended, passed the House 75-25 today.

TFred

peter nap · Feb 2, 2012

TFred said:
Amendments added, removing schools from the scope of this bill, and adding a section to clarify it only applies to workplaces.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+HB375

As amended, passed the House 75-25 today.

TFred

Yep....
I think you and MK found a new spectator sport!:lol:

TFred · Feb 2, 2012

peter nap said:
Yep....
I think you and MK found a new spectator sport!:lol:

I sure wish I could spend more time down there in person... following the LIS site is the next best thing. My work blocks the live stream from the floor sessions, so I can't even see that...

Will you be able to record the MPPS subcommittee today at 5? I am very curious to hear the anti's arguments against HB 25.

TFred

peter nap · Feb 2, 2012

TFred said:
I sure wish I could spend more time down there in person... following the LIS site is the next best thing. My work blocks the live stream from the floor sessions, so I can't even see that...

Will you be able to record the MPPS subcommittee today at 5? I am very curious to hear the anti's arguments against HB 25.

TFred

Yep, we'll be there tonight but I have to go back to the farm after. I have work to do and to be honest....between the Politcians and City people.....I'm about to go nuts:uhoh:

mk4 · Feb 2, 2012

peter nap said:
Yep....
I think you and MK found a new spectator sport!:lol:

It's quite the education, if nothing else.
Thankfully I've got a bit of downtime to be able to follow the feeds. I like being able to give back a little the Va forum.

aadvark · Feb 3, 2012

If The New Section 'D' is Allowed to Stand..., it WILL Destroy Virginias' Superior Preemption Statue.

'D' States: ...[T]his Code Section shall Apply to Workplaces ONLY..., or something to that Effect.

It goes without saying..., that will Render 15.2-915 Powerless for Non-Workplace Situations.

TFred · Feb 3, 2012

aadvark said:
If The New Section 'D' is Allowed to Stand..., it WILL Destroy Virginias' Superior Preemption Statue.

'D' States: ...[T]his Code Section shall Apply to Workplaces ONLY..., or something to that Effect.

It goes without saying..., that will Render 15.2-915 Powerless for Non-Workplace Situations.

You know, I think you may be right... and even more, with the addition of "or public school" to the list of exceptions along with jails, what's to keep a local school board from prohibiting carry within a mile of school property, or from enacting other carry restrictions not in the state code?

This is what happens when you let a committee modify a bill on the fly.

I will drop a note to User and PVC to ensure they are aware of this observation.

TFred

ETA: Oops, looks like the amendments were added on the floor of the House. Even worse.

40Cal_Fireguy · Feb 13, 2012

School Zones.

"what's to keep a local school board from prohibiting carry within a mile of school property... This is what happens when you let a committee modify a bill on the fly."

Granted, while a literal open carry argument may not hold up under scrutiny of law pertaining to a school zone, the law is absolutely clear regarding legally owned weapons while on school property. The Supreme Court voted the original Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 unconstitutional and it was rewritten accordingly. Currently, if you're a concealed carry permit hold you can be armed if you're going to pick up/drop off a kid.

Here's Virginia Code 18.2-308.1, "Possession of firearm, stun weapon, or other weapon on school property prohibited."

"The exemptions set out in � 18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of this section. The provisions of this section shall not apply to... (vii) a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school."

Now, with that precedent, a committee, on the fly or not, would have an enormous uphill battle to even waste their time arguing that an arbitrary expansion of a school zone overrules the second amendment rights of passerby's and dutiful parents. If, however, you're intending to attend a PTA meeting and don't wish to leave yourself at risk in leaving your weapon locked in a compartment -- albeit that *should* be reasonably covered by law -- then we're back to parking off of the school's parking lot and walking a little extra distance. But, once more, specifically regarding the concern of arbitrary expansions of what is or is not a school zone shouldn't be a concern where this lies, at least with the legal avenues available for permitting.

T Dubya · Feb 13, 2012

According to the legislative tracking tool the committee met this morning. I would like to know when this bill is going up for a full vote. I have not heard anything for over 10 days and I'm starting to get worried.

TFred · Feb 13, 2012

40Cal_Fireguy said:
"what's to keep a local school board from prohibiting carry within a mile of school property... This is what happens when you let a committee modify a bill on the fly."

Granted, while a literal open carry argument may not hold up under scrutiny of law pertaining to a school zone, the law is absolutely clear regarding legally owned weapons while on school property. The Supreme Court voted the original Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 unconstitutional and it was rewritten accordingly. Currently, if you're a concealed carry permit hold you can be armed if you're going to pick up/drop off a kid.

Here's Virginia Code 18.2-308.1, "Possession of firearm, stun weapon, or other weapon on school property prohibited."

"The exemptions set out in � 18.2-308 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of this section. The provisions of this section shall not apply to... (vii) a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school."

Now, with that precedent, a committee, on the fly or not, would have an enormous uphill battle to even waste their time arguing that an arbitrary expansion of a school zone overrules the second amendment rights of passerby's and dutiful parents. If, however, you're intending to attend a PTA meeting and don't wish to leave yourself at risk in leaving your weapon locked in a compartment -- albeit that *should* be reasonably covered by law -- then we're back to parking off of the school's parking lot and walking a little extra distance. But, once more, specifically regarding the concern of arbitrary expansions of what is or is not a school zone shouldn't be a concern where this lies, at least with the legal avenues available for permitting.

The point of the prior two posts is that the floor amendment is faulty, and needs to be corrected. Section D was probably intended to ensure that the parking lot ban applied to workplace locations only, but the way it is structured, it applies to the entire law. If Section D is passed into law, then the only place that localities will be prohibited from enacting local ordinances is in places where employees work, which is nonsensical, considering what the law is designed to do. This is why amendments should be left to committees, and not made on the floor.

TFred

TFred · Feb 13, 2012

T Dubya said:
According to the legislative tracking tool the committee met this morning. I would like to know when this bill is going up for a full vote. I have not heard anything for over 10 days and I'm starting to get worried.

The bill was not on their agenda for today's meeting. They meet again on Wednesday afternoon, but the agenda is not yet published.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+com+S03

TFred

VCDL President · Feb 13, 2012

Bill should get fixed in Senate

"Schools" should get removed and D. fixed to only define what a "workplace" is in this bill. I am coordinating with Delegate Pogge on this.

40Cal_Fireguy · Feb 13, 2012

"then the only place that localities will be prohibited from enacting local ordinances is in places where employees work, which is nonsensical, considering what the law is designed to do."

I must be missing something here because in my reading of the law, it seems that the bill is designed specifically for limiting prohibitions on carry to workplaces, and anything more would be wishfully reading into the proposal. Until a bill, such as another member proposed earlier, like a protection of personal property that would prevent searches without warrants from occurring in our vehicles at work comes into action, we're not going to get an overarching codification of carrying whenever/wherever/however (as wonderful as that would be in most circumstances). I'm not saying that I feel that my hands aren't tied about the issue of carrying up to the point of attending my daughter's PTA conferences which leaves me forced to either walk further to protect myself from legal vulnerability or make the decision to leave my pistol at home before going onto school grounds and leaving my vehicle. I'm saying that concerns to the point of hyperbole and paranoia, the horrid games of "what if/what next" are self-induced fear mongering. This bill is specifically about workplaces and does limit the provisions to workplaces only, unless you work in a jail/juvenile detention facility or, currently, a school. But, it's a start. We can work on the others from this point. Frankly, the reason I'm following this law so closely is for its specific design regarding local government workplaces.

As far as the amendments go, we can't ignore that speaking against a bill being open to amendments on the floor because of a concern that the floor shouldn't have the right to make changes is only a skip away from an equally limiting point of view that unless you're in the proverbial club, you don't have a say at all... ie, the police state. We get to differ on opinions here, we get to express them and perhaps change another's view if our point of view is persuasive. Our elected officials can't possibly be more constrained in their rights for each voice to count than we are as the public.

TFred · Feb 13, 2012

40Cal_Fireguy said:
"then the only place that localities will be prohibited from enacting local ordinances is in places where employees work, which is nonsensical, considering what the law is designed to do."

I must be missing something here because in my reading of the law, it seems that the bill is designed specifically for limiting prohibitions on carry to workplaces, and anything more would be wishfully reading into the proposal. Until a bill, such as another member proposed earlier, like a protection of personal property that would prevent searches without warrants from occurring in our vehicles at work comes into action, we're not going to get an overarching codification of carrying whenever/wherever/however (as wonderful as that would be in most circumstances). I'm not saying that I feel that my hands aren't tied about the issue of carrying up to the point of attending my daughter's PTA conferences which leaves me forced to either walk further to protect myself from legal vulnerability or make the decision to leave my pistol at home before going onto school grounds and leaving my vehicle. I'm saying that concerns to the point of hyperbole and paranoia, the horrid games of "what if/what next" are self-induced fear mongering. This bill is specifically about workplaces and does limit the provisions to workplaces only, unless you work in a jail/juvenile detention facility or, currently, a school. But, it's a start. We can work on the others from this point. Frankly, the reason I'm following this law so closely is for its specific design regarding local government workplaces.

As far as the amendments go, we can't ignore that speaking against a bill being open to amendments on the floor because of a concern that the floor shouldn't have the right to make changes is only a skip away from an equally limiting point of view that unless you're in the proverbial club, you don't have a say at all... ie, the police state. We get to differ on opinions here, we get to express them and perhaps change another's view if our point of view is persuasive. Our elected officials can't possibly be more constrained in their rights for each voice to count than we are as the public.

Suggest you read the original law without any modifications first: 15.2-915

It's one of the best laws in the entire Code of Virginia.

This bill is an attempt to get a toe of a parking lot law in the door, by starting with extending the existing prohibition on any locality from controlling firearms into the cars of the localities' workforces while their cars are parked at their place of work.

The bill is poorly constructed and the floor amendment damages the original law to the point of nearly useless.

As Philip posted, there are apparently efforts under way to correct the issues.

It goes without saying, if we lose the protections offered by 15.2-915, it would set back gun rights in Virginia by decades.

TFred

T Dubya · Feb 17, 2012

Every day I check to see what the latest is. Everyday..... nothing. My prediction, and I hope I am wrong. This will not pass. Just like in years before. I would like to see freedom of all gun owners to protect themselves while traveling to and from work, but I will concede that this is a start. However this year just like in years past I see it (locked compartment in the workplace) fizzling. I have always thought that after preemption this was the most important right gun owners needed to secure. Not the restaurant bill, not the one-gun-a-month, not even Constitutional carry.

jmelvin · Feb 17, 2012

T Dubya said:
Every day I check to see what the latest is. Everyday..... nothing. My prediction, and I hope I am wrong. This will not pass. Just like in years before. I would like to see freedom of all gun owners to protect themselves while traveling to and from work, but I will concede that this is a start. However this year just like in years past I see it (locked compartment in the workplace) fizzling. I have always thought that after preemption this was the most important right gun owners needed to secure. Not the restaurant bill, not the one-gun-a-month, not even Constitutional carry.

You and I agree T Dubya. Most people work and have a fixed place of employment that is not their own to determine the rules for carrying firearms. Unfortunately many of these employers bar employees from carrying firearms on site or even in the vehicle.

HB 375 Firearms; workplace rules by localities.

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Centurion

New member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member