Newest wording for guns on employers' premises

[Anthony_I_Am]

imported post

Good luck on your endeavor.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

T Dubya wrote:

AbNo wrote:

How about, instead of complaining, you consider it a step in the right direction?

Remember, just because a law is passed, that doesn't mean in can't be amended in a year or two.

How about, instead you do a reality check. This bill is poo poo.

Deal, but only if you check your tool box to fix that attitude of yours.

There's no need for you and I to be fighting, we're on the same side.

 

[mobeewan]

imported post

This bill now sucks big time!!!!

I work for the shipyard in Newport News. WE are notallowed to have firearms in cars parked in the unsecured parking lots. The building I work in is located away from the main shipyard property.I work in a high crime area at night and have to drive through that area to and from work. I have had people walk up to my truck at intersections while stopped for traffic lightsdriving home after midnightwanting me to give them rides and trying to open my doors to get in. There have been several murders in the past few yearswithin 5 blocks of the property in any direction. At least 50 percent of the murders in Newport News happen in this south end of the city.

At least 6 murders in the last couple yearshave beenwithin 50 yards of the fences around the property. Someone working day shift got caught in the path of a bullit that was fired on the street outside the front of the building when they left work an hour early(30 minutes before I came to work).Someone onone side of his vehicle riding a moped shot atsomeone in a car on the other side of his car . The bullit came through hispassenger window and lodged in his dash board. Twenty minutes later there was a murder 4 blocks down the street that may have been related.

The building I work in is inside a fenced lot with 4 gates to access the parking lot which is exclusive parking for my company. All of thegates are unmanned and 2 are open 24/7/365. I need an electronic coded badge tobe able to enter the building. There are noguards working in the building day or night andno longer any guards that come from the main plant as of the first of the year to make rounds in the building at night. If anything happens in the building at night that involves fire or the need of police I am expected to call the guard service or company fire dept to respond which can take as long as 10 minutes for fire dept or longer for the guard force.

I have no idea WTF a badge for electronic entry to the buildinghas anything to do with my $&*@%$# safety to and from work!!!!!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Ric in Richmond]

imported post

This is the type of story that Phil needs to go and show to the committee how the bizarre additions to an otherwise good bill have destroyed it.

I could only support this bill if we added a portion that made any employer who excluded guns from an employees vehicle in a lot strictly liable for said employees safety until such time they could take up arms.

Of course that won't happen....



mobeewan wrote:

This bill now sucks big time!!!!

I work for the shipyard in Newport News. WE are not allowed to have firearms in cars parked in the unsecured parking lots. The building I work in is located away from the main shipyard property. I work in a high crime area at night and have to drive through that area to and from work. I have had people walk up to my truck at intersections while stopped for traffic lights driving home after midnight wanting me to give them rides and trying to open my doors to get in. There have been several murders in the past few years within 5 blocks of the property in any direction. At least 50 percent of the murders in Newport News happen in this south end of the city.

At least 6 murders in the last couple years have been within 50 yards of the fences around the property.  Someone working day shift got caught in the path of a bullit that was fired on the street outside the front of the building when they left work an hour early (30 minutes before I came to work). Someone on one side of his vehicle riding a moped shot at someone in a car on the other side of his car . The bullit came through his passenger window and lodged in his dash board. Twenty minutes later there was a murder  4 blocks down the street that may have been related.

The building I work in is inside a fenced lot with 4 gates to access the parking lot which is exclusive parking for my company. All of the gates are unmanned and 2 are open 24/7/365. I need an electronic coded badge to be able to enter the building. There are no guards working in the building day or night and  no longer any guards that come from the main plant as of the first of the year to make rounds in the building at night. If anything happens in the building at night that involves fire or the need of police I am expected to call the guard service or company fire dept to respond which can take as long as 10 minutes for fire dept or longer for the guard force. 

I have no idea WTF a badge for electronic entry to the building has anything to do with my $&*@%$# safety to and from work!!!!!!! :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[DonTreadOnMe]

imported post

I too am split on whether to support this bill or not.

For me personally, none of the exceptions apply. I would be able to carry to and from work. As I see it the drive to and from work is the one time I can not carry now that is not my choice, unless I quit my job. This bill even as it is, would be a step forward.

The problem I have is it leave so many people behind. I am the kind of 2A supporter, I am as concerned as much about the rights of my fellow Virginian as my own. I see our collective rights making me safer as well. The more bad guys don't know if someone might be carrying the less likely they are to give me a go.

I guess the question for me is... Is it easier to fix the law or to try again from scratch. I know some that are 'left behind' will say of course and some will say it is easier to fix it, perhaps those like me the current weakened form of the law will still help.

I would love to get PVC and others who's experience and wisdom I respect regarding these issues to share their opinion on the strategy to get to the end game fastest. Anger and issues with the bill aside, is it better to.....improve it later or start over even if that means some wont in the mean time, that this bill would help. If fixing it is no harder than starting over....then let me carry till it is fixed.


That question is what has me split on this bill.

:uhoh:

 

[Glock27Bill]

imported post

There are two things about this that really tick me off:

(1) The bill has been neutered big time.
(2) My expectations for this legislative session, encouraged by the advancement of many other pro-2 bills, makes this incident a major letdown.

One thing that we have not discussed is the "why" behind the gutting.

Do you think that businesses pushed for their private property rights, and if so, how do you resolve the conflict between their rights and our rights?

I know that this will cause a $hit$torm, but if the government abrogates their personal property rights in favor of our 2A rights, might this not be a precedence for them to abrogate other personal property rights, including our own?

 

[streetdoc]

imported post

I have spent of good amount of time this morning looking up different references, state laws, HR Regulations and court cases to put together in a package to send to the General Assembly and to the Governor if this bill gets through. We still need to push it, then correct it with either the Governor making changes or changing it next year in the General Assembly. Making changes next year could be fairly easy depending on what comes out of the Supreme Court on the McDonald case.
From what I could find the following states have some version of employee parking lot laws: Alaska, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. States working on parking lot bills include Alabama, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia. I have a lot more work to do to put this in a presentable package anyway, here are some of the links to what I came up with if you want to put together your own talking points to the Senate and the Governor to fix HB171 to be better.

http://www.lawupdates.com/pdf/postings/employment/ConocoPhiilips_v._Henry.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/OSHAParkingLotLtr01162009.pdf

http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/court-reject-bans-on-guns-in-workplace-parking-lots-2681024-1.html

http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Health-Safety/Violence-in-Workplace/CarGun-Law-Compliance-Advice-for-Employers/

http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Health-Safety/Violence-in-Workplace/Parking-Lot-Gun-Bill-Resurfaces/

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2009/01/23/23-another-stohler-letter.aspx?sc_lang=en

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2009/01/01/caught-in-crossfire.aspx?sc_lang=en

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0184E&session=24

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC251.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0790-%3ESection%20251

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/pdf/hb998.pdf

http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=11&section=135

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/237-00/110.PDF

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=624.714

http://bizsecurity.about.com/b/2010/02/03/guns-in-the-workplace.htm

http://www.ebglaw.com/showclientalert.aspx?Show=10138

http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/pdf/ba81r/sb0730.pdf

 

[mobeewan]

imported post

I realize someone could get fired by thier employer if they violate section D of the newly reworded bill. Suppose someone who has a CHPforgets to remove a firearm from a locked container within the vehicle before going to a place of employment as described in section D, does anyone know if there are any criminal penalties associated with violating section D? I did not see any, so I assume it could be a trespassing charge if you do not leave the property if asked or if fired? I would guess that if one doesn't have a CHP and a firearm was in the trunk they might face a concealed weapons charge for violating section D?

 

[DonTreadOnMe]

imported post

mobeewan wrote:

I realize someone could get fired by thier employer if they violate section D of the newly reworded bill. Suppose someone who has a CHPforgets to remove a firearm from a locked container within the vehicle before going to a place of employment as described in section D, does anyone know if there are any criminal penalties associated with violating section D? I did not see any, so I assume it could be a trespassing charge if you do not leave the property if asked or if fired? I would guess that if one doesn't have a CHP and a firearm was in the trunk they might face a concealed weapons charge for violating section D?

Yes you could get fired and asked to leave. There is no criminal aspect to the bill, beyond if your asked to leave you have to leave(in cases where section D applies to the specific case) i.e. hello criminal trespassing charge.

 

[DonTreadOnMe]

imported post

I am wondering if maybe revising this bill might not meet less resistance than the whole bill would. Passing this version then strengthening it divides the business opposition into those that are effected now and those effected by the correction later. Those that the exemptions exclude wont fight the bill now, and those that are effected now wont really care if it is expanded later because it is old news and proved to be no big deal to them? Divide and conquer or wishful thinking perhaps.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

I am wondering if maybe revising this bill might not meet less resistance than the whole bill would. Passing this version then strengthening it divides the business opposition into those that are effected now and those effected by the correction later. Those that the exemptions exclude wont fight the bill now, and those that are effected now wont really care if it is expanded later because it is old news and proved to be no big deal to them? Divide and conquer or wishful thinking perhaps.

I tried saying that, and I people jumped all over me. :uhoh:

 

[DonTreadOnMe]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

I am wondering if maybe revising this bill might not meet less resistance than the whole bill would. Passing this version then strengthening it divides the business opposition into those that are effected now and those effected by the correction later. Those that the exemptions exclude wont fight the bill now, and those that are effected now wont really care if it is expanded later because it is old news and proved to be no big deal to them? Divide and conquer or wishful thinking perhaps.

I tried saying that, and I people jumped all over me. :uhoh:

Dont take it personally, it is a bitter pill for those that would be effected by the exceptions. It chaffs my butt and my work would not fall under the exceptions!

 

[T Dubya]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

T Dubya wrote:

AbNo wrote:

How about, instead of complaining, you consider it a step in the right direction?

Remember, just because a law is passed, that doesn't mean in can't be amended in a year or two.

How about, instead you do a reality check. This bill is poo poo.

Deal, but only if you check your tool box to fix that attitude of yours.

There's no need for you and I to be fighting, we're on the same side.

No one's fighting.Maybe if I would have used an emoticon you wouldn't have been rubbed the wrong way, but there is no emoticon for poo poo.

 

[TFred]

imported post

House is right now talking about this bill.. second reading.

http://legis.virginia.gov/streaming/hod_streams/hod_session_streaming.html

TFred

 

[rlh2005]

imported post

"HB 171S - Committee Substitute agreed to, Delegate Armstrong floor amendment rejected (Y-41 N-55), Engrossed"

What was Delegate Armstrong's rejected amendment?

 

[TFred]

imported post

rlh2005 wrote:

"HB 171S - Committee Substitute agreed to, Delegate Armstrong floor amendment rejected (Y-41 N-55), Engrossed"

What was Delegate Armstrong's rejected amendment?

I believe he was trying to remove the blanket immunity from liability portion.

TFred

 

[The Wolfhound]

imported post

I am severely disappointed in the current language of the bill. It will do me no good what so ever, when I had had my hopes up that I could carry to and from my place of employment That being said, it is not just about me. This bill will help some people withtheir commute. The opportunity to fix or improve it will exist down the road. It does make some positive change. I grudgingly support it. Much as we may want, we cannot get all the bad laws removed in one fell swoop.

 

[darthmord]

imported post

D. This section shall not apply to (i) property on which a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm by § 18.2-308.1; (ii) vehicles on property (a) to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station, or other means of restricting or limiting general access onto the property; or

(b) upon which a building occupied by a single employer and its affiliated entities is located and in which access to the building is restricted or limited by card access, a security station, or other means of restricting or limiting general public access into the building;

(iii) vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment; or (iv) personal vehicles while such vehicles are being used for the transport of consumers of programs licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services; (v) vehicles on property controlled by an employer required to develop and implement a security plan under federal law or regulation.

Formatting my own...

Given a re-read of this... I think it's lawful for me but only due to a quirk in how logic and the English language intersect.

1st: The building must be occupied by a single employer & affiliated entities. The building where I work is occupied by multiple businesses whose onlyrelationship is they all have the same landlord (leased office space). Otherwise all the businesses in this building have separate markets / purposes.

2nd: Acccess to our portion of the building is gated by a security badge system.

According to the bolded section above, both requirements must be true. Where I work, the logic fails because more than one entity unrelated to us / our business is in the same building.

Would it stand up in court? Maybe. I imagine a talented & creative lawyer / attorney could argue it successfully.

I am certain my home office would be exempt as well due to the badge system on the exterior door leading to the in-office lobby being disabled during working hours. Thus Joe Public could walk into my home office lobby without any problems... during working hours.

 

[Repeater]

imported post

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

I am wondering if maybe revising this bill might not meet less resistance than the whole bill would. Passing this version then strengthening it divides the business opposition into those that are effected now and those effected by the correction later. Those that the exemptions exclude wont fight the bill now, and those that are effected now wont really care if it is expanded later because it is old news and proved to be no big deal to them? Divide and conquer or wishful thinking perhaps.

There's another possibility that many of you seem to be overlooking. Assuming the bill is passed as is and is sent to the Governor, McDonnell promised to support the interests of Virginia gun owners and was endorsed by both the NRA and VCDL.

Therefore, he could recommend removing the offending language from the Enrolled version; his amendments would have to be approved during the Reconvened Session.

 

[livitup]

imported post

I thought of that, Repeater. It's the only hope for me as I currently work in a building with both a gated lot and a badge-access system.

Before I send an email off to the Gov, though, I wonder if some slightly more coordinated effort than each of us randomly sending emails would be beneficial?