VA Constitutional Carry bill.

Status
Not open for further replies.

rromeo

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
562
Location
SW, VA USA
I got this from the VCDL.
Virginia House Bill 139:
Carrying concealed handguns; penalties. Provides that any person who may lawfully possess a firearm in Virginia may carry it hidden from common observation. The bill retains the procedures to obtain a permit that authorizes a person to carry a concealed handgun for those who wish to carry a concealed handgun in other states with reciprocal agreements with the Commonwealth. The bill creates Class 1 misdemeanors for carrying concealed handguns during the commission of certain drug-related crimes and makes carrying a concealed handgun during the commission of certain felonies a separate felony. This bill contains technical amendments.



This is a large bill... will take some time to read over.
This is the version that highlights the changes to existing law:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...+ful+HB139+hil

If this is to pass it needs the support here and on every pro gun board around.
Many elitist will oppose it.
We need to get involved, constant emails and calls just to get it on the floor....but it can be done!
Please call or email your delegates and ask them to support this.
http://www.dbava.com/vamap.html

Also, January 16 is Lobby day in Richmond at the general assembly. You can meet your delegates and senators. starts at 9:00 am until about 1:00 pm
 
Yes, it is 20/20 in the senate, but a few Democrats do have A or B ratings from the NRA.
 
Well, I hounded my reps about it. I also noticed on the VCDL website quite a few other promising bits of legislation in various stages of the legislative process, including some castle doctrine laws. Should be interesting to see what happens.
 
My prayers have been answered! Now all we need is to get rid of the mag cap limits on carried firearms and the 1 handgun a month law.
 
Indeed...I find it deplorable that the Old Dominion, which gave us the seminal thinkers of the Constitution in people like George Mason and James Madison, does not have a Castle Doctrine!

We have a very solid body of case law.

The only thing an actual 'castle law' might add is some type of restriction on civil suites, but Virginia has never had a real rash of them anyway.

And 'castle laws' that prevent the filing of a civil suite are not going to stand a significant challenge.
Ones that make the complainant pay if they lose the civil suite have a much better chance of being held valid.
 
We have a very solid body of case law.

The only thing an actual 'castle law' might add is some type of restriction on civil suites, but Virginia has never had a real rash of them anyway.

And 'castle laws' that prevent the filing of a civil suite are not going to stand a significant challenge.
Ones that make the complainant pay if they lose the civil suite have a much better chance of being held valid.

Interesting point about Virginia not needing a Castle Doctrine, on the basis that civil suits are not that big in this state. However, that also leads me to think that the legal lobby is having a huge impact on whether such a doctrine is implemented.

On balance, I have no issue with what you said. I guess I would just like to see VA enact such a doctrine on principle, as a statement on the growing number of states issuing such declarations.


.
 
I guess I would just like to see VA enact such a doctrine on principle, as a statement on the growing number of states issuing such declarations.

Outside of a limit on civil suites we already have the law, it is just common (case) law and not statute law.

One thing that was expressed in the legislature when it has been discussed is not wanting to in any way disturb the existing common law.

Statute law is NOT the only law.

Common (case) law is just as significant (though a little harder to research).
 
Outside of a limit on civil suites we already have the law, it is just common (case) law and not statute law.

One thing that was expressed in the legislature when it has been discussed is not wanting to in any way disturb the existing common law.

Statute law is NOT the only law.

Common (case) law is just as significant (though a little harder to research).

Okay, man -- I'll take your word for it! :)


.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top