Where is the VCDL 2011 Legislative Agenda? We need to watch for it and rate it.

[Tess]

Yea, I heard you make that argument today in Richmond and I cringed. I have to say I was very confused and dismayed by that argument. I do not see it that way at all and I like to explain why. As far as I am concerned it is not a parking lot bill at all. It does not meet the objective of a "parking lot bill". All this does is protect the employers from being sued, which I am fine with, but it does not mandate or as I see it, protect the citizens rights at all. Sorry, but that protection is the point of the parking lot bill.

A very very very few employers might be moved by this bill to make any kind of P&P changes, but frankly I don't think any would. Making changes to P&P are not without cost and not done lightly. So most employees will remain, like me, having to decide between being unarmed every day to and from work or risking being fired. ...and that is a sucky @$$ choice to have to make. I truly would not be surprised if not one employer changed policy over it.

We cant have a firearm wile working without an employers blessing, but having to be unarmed when we stop for gas, make a deposit, or break down going to and from work is not acceptable, and we should not have to tolerate that infringement. To borrow a point a friend made today, "What do I pay on my car every year? Oh, yea PROPERTY TAX!". What we decide to keep in our property is our business. ...and what provisions we make for our safety to and from work is our business.

Anyway, give the bill does nothing to protect a citizens right to carry I just dont see how it is better than a bill that does. ...but maybe I am missing something. Now if we look at it from the employers stand point sure it is better! They get all of the protection and don't have to move one dang inch more to respecting employees property rights, gun rights, or basic safety.




....and that is why I do support this "employer protection" parking lot bill. As I see it, the bill is simply tool to weaken the push back the business lobby will have in the future when a REAL parking lot bill is offered up. Heck, maybe next year we will get the parking lot bill passed and this bill will turn out to be the key to what got it done. I hope so, cuz right now I am very disappointed. I see the lack of a parking lot bill as the biggest gapping hole in my gun rights in Va. and i am looking at another year or more before that can be fixed.

My reasoning is simple. I believe this properly protects the rights of a property owner as well as a gun owner. I firmly believe that laws requiring a property owner to act my way is the same as telling him he has to believe in God. You can't legislate away his rights at the expense of mine. I believe this strikes the right balance.

 

[marshaul]

My reasoning is simple. I believe this properly protects the rights of a property owner as well as a gun owner. I firmly believe that laws requiring a property owner to act my way is the same as telling him he has to believe in God. You can't legislate away his rights at the expense of mine. I believe this strikes the right balance.

I appreciate and share your reasoning. It sounds to me like we've reached a necessary compromise between our rights and the rights of business and property owners.

 

[DontTreadOnMeVa]

Hmmm...

My reasoning is simple. I believe this properly protects the rights of a property owner as well as a gun owner. I firmly believe that laws requiring a property owner to act my way is the same as telling him he has to believe in God. You can't legislate away his rights at the expense of mine. I believe this strikes the right balance.

We will have to disagree. This bill does zero to protect my gun rights. I cant protect myself with a firearm to and from work now and I wont be able to after this bill passes, unless I wish to risk being fired that is. I dont see how me keeping a fire arm locked away in my property is in any way an infringement on an employer/property owner. Some balance!

Do I take it you will not be supporting a true parking lot bill when one is put forth??? I hope that is not the case. But if it is, I guess that would explain why you think the Pogge bill is "better" written.

 

[wylde007]

My reasoning is simple. I believe this properly protects the rights of a property owner as well as a gun owner. I firmly believe that laws requiring a property owner to act my way is the same as telling him he has to believe in God. You can't legislate away his rights at the expense of mine. I believe this strikes the right balance.

Disagree. It still allows an employer to mandate what an employee can or cannot have in his or her OWN VEHICLE.

They might as well come to my house and tell me that, by extension of being their employee, they have the right to search my home and see what I keep there, too.

Vehicles are, by and large (and recognized under the CONSTITUTION) as PERSONAL SPACE and one should not be required to give up rights in order to obtain or keep a job. It should not be a condition of employment in a FREE SOCIETY to sacrifice one's right to be secure in their persons (be it from government or employer) in order to procure gainful employment.

Even if the parking lot bill was a lost cause forever, I would still speak up and on its behalf, because that is what our freedom calls for.

This is a statement which I stand behind 100% - because there are far too many causes which have been deemed "lost"... one of which I STAUNCHLY DEFEND, despite mass ignorance, ridicule and deliberately propagandized disinformation.

Because that is what FREEDOM CALLS FOR.

 

[vt357]

Let's add a little bit more water

HB 2380 - Delegate Pogge - gives certain civil immunities to businesses which allow their employees to store guns in their private vehicles on company property - VCDL Strongly Supports - was modified and passed out of subcommittee with new wording and heads to full committee on Monday.

In subcommittee today some lobbyists for businesses were complaining that their clients who ban guns in employee's vehicles also want the same immunities. The decision that Delegate Pogge made was to offer immunities to all employers, whether they allow guns to be stored in employees vehicles or not.

Now bear with me on this: the idea of doing so isn't actually bad (I had to chew on this one myself for a while). Many businesses that do not allow their employees to store guns in their vehicles only do so because they don't want to be civilly liable if something goes wrong ("Gee - it wasn't our fault that the vehicle was broken into and the gun stolen and used in a crime, we have a policy against employees having guns in their vehicles in the first place"). This bill would remove any advantage to having such a "no guns in vehicle" policy. Since all businesses would be equally immune, some businesses might therefore be more amenable to not barring employees from storing guns in their vehicles. The bill puts the blame for the misuse of a firearm on the criminal and not on any business owner.

Well the "parking lot bill" has just been watered down a little more. Not that the content of the bill as it stands now is bad per se, but it's faaaaaaar from what I would call good. I'm surprised VCDL's stance is still Strongly Support. It ought to be Support at best. Aren't we giving up one of our few trump cards for getting a real parking lot bill passed later?

Seriously I will be absolutely shocked if one single company in VA changes their employee rules based on this bill. Even more so now that it is so diluted.

 

[jmelvin]

I just saw the VCDL legislative update that the bill to remove civil liability from employers who do not intrude on their employee's and visitor's ability to keep their firearm (personal private property) in their own vehicle (personal private property) while on company property has now been changed to offer liability protection for all companies without regard to whether they remove their restrictions on firearms kept in personal vehicles. This has gone from a bill which provides potential financial incentives to employers who remove some of the restrictions on people's human right to self defense to a bill that is utterly worthless for protecting worker's human right of self defense (at least going to and from work) and is just a way to give businesses a protection without regard to worker safety. Although Phil's wording talks about ensuring businesses are not held liable for misuse of a firearm on company property it also provides them blanket liability protection if one of their workers is mugged or killed in a case where that mugging or death may not have occurred if an employee could've had their firearm at the ready in the car.

With the new wording I will do my best to have the bill killed. This is crap.

 

[jmelvin]

For a realistic note on how a bill that provides liability protection to employers regardless of company policy toward employees keeping their firearms in their cars, how about asking Ohioans how similar protections have helped them in ensuring they can keep their firearms in the cars. Being a former Ohioan I can comment on this. IT HASN'T WORKED. In fact because employers have no incentive to change their policy Ohioans are now pushing for a bill that will force the hands of employers to make them permit employees to keep guns in their cars.

* I don't mean to scream, but this dang board doesn't have any way for me to bold or highlight my writing.

 

[vt357]

* I don't mean to scream, but this dang board doesn't have any way for me to bold or highlight my writing.

If you want to bold your text, surround it with "{B}" and "{/B}" except use a bracket [ ] instead of { }. Use {I} and you get italics. {U} for underline. {Color=red} gives you red.

 

[DontTreadOnMeVa]

With the new wording I will do my best to have the bill killed. This is crap.

Before I did not think this bill would do anything to help, now I gives protection to employers that violate our rights....it is indeed crap!

 

[jmelvin]

I just sent the following to my delegate. Feel free to use it if you like.

Good morning Delegate Byron,

I am writing to ask you to strongly oppose the most recent version of HB 2380 proposed by Delegate Pogge, which with the reported new wording will provide liability protections for employers and businesses from the use of firearms on their property without regard to their policy on personally kept firearms stored in locked vehicles on company property. The importance of the original wording of the bill is that it provided civil liability protection for those employers who permitted their employees to keep their firearms within their locked vehicles while on company property. As a result the bill provided a financial incentive to business owners, while allowing for employees to be able to keep a firearm in their locked personal vehicles for personal protection while travelling to and from work and potentially for use in hunting activities before or after work as well. This wording also had the advantage in that it was not a mandate from the state, but allowed companies and business owners to enjoy financial risk protection if they chose to take the step on their own that would allow their employees to defend themselves on their way to and from the workplace.

As a former Ohioan I have seen that removing the risk of civil liability to employers / business owners for firearms used criminally on their property without regard to their policy on privately kept firearms in personal vehicles has done nothing to help the millions of Ohioans who must travel to and from work day to day without a firearm or other tool for protection or take the chance of losing their jobs. Ohio law only protects the business owner and does nothing for the employee. As such I ask that you please oppose the version of HB2380 that provides liability protections for employers who also ban firearms kept in locked employee vehicles.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Thanks for your service,

jmelvin

 

[TFred]

SB 754 Preliminary protective order must include fining of abuse Neutral http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?111+sum+SB0754

This bill has been amended, and it appears that the criteria may be back to "alleged abuse", rather than "found abuse".

Someone more familiar with this law needs to take a closer look, VCDL may want to change their support status.

TFred