House Bill 2069 ???

[Drumstix61]

Anyone have any Intel on this?

Just got it in an NRA/ILA Alert.

Source;

More Second Amendment Related Legislation Introduced in Virginia!

Thursday, January 13, 2011


With session underway in Richmond and with more legislation constantly being introduced, please continue to check your email and http://www.NRAILA.org, where we will continue to update you as the information becomes available. Below are three pro-gun bills and one anti-gun bill that could see action during this session.

House Bill 2062, sponsored by Delegate Rob Bell (R-58), would allow a correctional officer to carry a concealed handgun without a concealed handgun permit.

House Bill 2069, sponsored by Delegate Clay Athey (R-18), would allow an individual to carry a concealed handgun without a permit as long as the individual informs a law enforcement officer of his possession.

Senate Bill 1084, sponsored by Senator Emmet Hanger (R-24), would prohibit the Clerk of Court from disclosing a concealed handgun permitee's identifying information if requested by the applicant. The application for the concealed handgun permit shall include an area where the applicant can indicate that he would like to prohibit his information from public disclosure.

House Bill 2343, sponsored by Delegate Joe Morrissey (D-74), is a bill in search of a problem. This legislation would prohibit open carrying in public while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. We have seen no evidence that this is an activity taking place within the Commonwealth as gun owners are among the most law-abiding citizens in the state.

[vbrtrmn]

From VCDL

HB 2069 - Delegate Athey - Constitutional Carry. A person without a permit can carry concealed as long as they notify law enforcement of the fact they are carrying if they are DETAINED - VCDL Supports the bill, but we want the requirement to notify the officer removed before we will Strongly Support the bill

So, if you get pulled over, you are required to notify the officer that you are carrying.

[allingeneral]

My understanding is that the duty to inform would be only if you were DETAINED. I think I read that in a VCDL VA Alert a couple of days ago.

[totes6]

It gets worse, not only do you have to notify the officer, but you have to "secure the weapon at his/her request" i.e. disarm yourself.
You can see the full text on Virginia's legislative information system at:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604 ... val=hb2069

Now lets go back to Virginia's constitution:

http://legis.state.va.us/laws/search/constitution.htm

Section 10. General warrants of search or seizure prohibited.

That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.


So where is the evidence to seize my weapon?

Section 11. Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases.

That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, nor any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term "public uses" to be defined by the General Assembly; and that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination.

That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred. The General Assembly may limit the number of jurors for civil cases in courts of record to not less than five.


Again, the government cannot take my property without due process. i.e. court order needed based on evidence.


Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


So as if section 10 and section 11 were not enough, the Constitution even goes so far as to specifically state protection of its citizen's arms.


Maybe we need the Virginia Congress to read the Virginia Constitution to remind them what is in it.

[newdovo]

North Carolina has a provision similar to this.

...he/she must also inform any law enforcement officer who approaches him/her that he/she is in possession of a permit and a concealed handgun.

Not entirely sure what "approaches" means, but I wouldn't run up to the first LEO I saw and announce that I had a gun.
Since I've had my CHL, my car broke down during morning rush hour. No place to pull off the road and it jammed up a lot of traffic. Called the police and was glad when an officer arrived and got his car behind mine, lights flashing. We stood in the median, out of the way (more like a big ditch) and pleasantly chatted until the tow truck arrived. It may have completely changed the tone of conversation, and of a positive encounter with police when I was in need, if I had been required to inform the officer that I had a handgun in my pocket.

[vbrtrmn]

The highlighted area below is kind of disturbing, if I am interpreting it correctly (I'm no lawyer)... If you are detained you must notify the officer that you are carrying, at that point he may seize your property at his discretion. If you refuse you may be found guilty of a Class 1 Misdemeanor, a weapons charge.

Excerpt:

A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material, and when detained by a law-enforcement officer in his official capacity fails to inform the law-enforcement officer as soon as practicable of the possession, or fails to secure the weapon at the law-enforcement officer's direction or allow the law-enforcement officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart; or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second violation of this section or a conviction under this section subsequent to any conviction under any substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony, and a third or subsequent such violation shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony. For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature.

[gunderwood]

To quote a famous Virginian, "I smell a rat!"


/Patrick Henry concerning the constitutional convention which did away with the Articles of Confederation...

[davasmith]

The highlighted area below is kind of disturbing, if I am interpreting it correctly (I'm no lawyer)... If you are detained you must notify the officer that you are carrying, at that point he may seize your property at his discretion. If you refuse you may be found guilty of a Class 1 Misdemeanor, a weapons charge.

Excerpt:

A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material, and when detained by a law-enforcement officer in his official capacity fails to inform the law-enforcement officer as soon as practicable of the possession, or fails to secure the weapon at the law-enforcement officer's direction or allow the law-enforcement officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart; or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second violation of this section or a conviction under this section subsequent to any conviction under any substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony, and a third or subsequent such violation shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony. For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature.

Great there goes my CIA comb knife WTF???

[grumpyMSG]

From: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604 ... val=hb2069
"Carrying concealed handguns; penalty. Amends the section requiring a person to have a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun, making it legal for a person who may lawfully possess a firearm to carry a concealed firearm so long as he informs a law-enforcement officer of his possession as soon as practicable if detained and he secures the firearm at the officer's request or allows the officer to secure the weapon."

Laws are all about interpretation. If I am interpretting it correctly, The law allows all Virginians who may legally possess firearms to carry concealed, but they must inform an LEO as soon as possible if they are detained. They must secure the firearm at the officer's request or allow the officer to secure the weapon.

Let's break the concern down to the steps:
1. The LEO detains you.
2. You must notify the LEO.
3. The weapon must be secured, by you or him.

What is out of line with those expectations? Is it unreasonable for an LEO to know about your weapon? Nowhere in the Federal or Commonwealth's Constitutions does it say you have an explicit right to hide your arms. Terry VS Ohio allows an LEO to pat down an individual, not in a search for evidence, but to ensure the person he is interacting with does not present a danger. Is that unreasonable? In my opinion, the answer is hell no. This law is intended to legislate it, rather than wait for a court to find it between the lines. What I don't understand is, why do some folks here have a negative view of interacting with LEOs? Maybe it's just me, because I have friends and family in the profession. What about the LEOs and the former LEOs on this forum, are they they monsters you fear?

[Drumstix61]

So,
this would do away with the need to obtain a CHP/CCW ?

And we would be like a couple other states that allow its non-felon citizens concealed carry without a permit?

Must not be enough revenue generated from selling permits.

Thanks for the link Grumpy.

[zephyp]

I for one do not in any way shape or form agree with having to inform immediately. Lets suppose they pass this law and someone carrying concealed without a CHP stops at the scene of an accident to render assistance. You are busy applying first aid, etc when the cops get there. In all the excitement you forget. Afterwards you fess up. What if the LEOs on site decide to take you in? And before you disagree, how many times do we discuss right here how good samaratins end up getting shafted?

Too many variables regarding a law like this.

[Kreutz]

I for one do not in any way shape or form agree with having to inform immediately. Lets suppose they pass this law and someone carrying concealed without a CHP stops at the scene of an accident to render assistance. You are busy applying first aid, etc when the cops get there. In all the excitement you forget. Afterwards you fess up. What if the LEOs on site decide to take you in? And before you disagree, how many times do we discuss right here how good samaratins end up getting shafted?

Too many variables regarding a law like this.

No one would be detaining you in that situation though, so you would have no duty to inform.

[zephyp]

I for one do not in any way shape or form agree with having to inform immediately. Lets suppose they pass this law and someone carrying concealed without a CHP stops at the scene of an accident to render assistance. You are busy applying first aid, etc when the cops get there. In all the excitement you forget. Afterwards you fess up. What if the LEOs on site decide to take you in? And before you disagree, how many times do we discuss right here how good samaratins end up getting shafted?

Too many variables regarding a law like this.

No one would be detaining you in that situation though, so you would have no duty to inform.

In the current VA draft no, but some states (like NC) requires immediate notification. Gives me the willies every time I drive through there.

[totes6]

@ GrumpyMSG

Hell yes I find it completely unreasonable for a police officer to secure my firearm. The government has effectively denied me my right to bear arms without due process of the law. Please read my post above for 3 citations within the Virginia Constitution that would, if read strictly, make this law unconstitutional.

This comes back to the question of who will follow this "make people feel good law"? Felons who already have a gun and are the most likely to use it??? Definitely not, they are not even supposed to have a firearm to begin with so already breaking the law AGAIN. Why in the world would they notify the police officer that they are carrying??? The generally law abiding citizen is not the person who is going to pull the weapon out and start shooting at a LEO. But they are the ones that will notify and be rendered unarmed by the LEO. The second issue what happens when you tell the LEO you have a gun? Well the paranoid ones tend to reflexively reach for theirs and how many youtube clips have we seen where a citizen trying to follow the law by notifying the LEO has suddenly found himself facing a gun pointed at his head during a traffic stop?

I am sorry this law does not increase officer safety during a traffic stop (most common time this would occur) or during any other stop. All it does is potentially raise tension in a LEO who understandably faces a dangerous job. But he/she signed up for that job with the understanding that they are taking on additional risks.

[Yarddawg]

I am all for Constitutional Carry. Is this the best way to accomplish this? In my opinion, probably not.

Currently, when Joe Blow is pulled over for a traffic offense, IF he chooses to inform the LEO that he is carrying, the LEO may ask him to secure it. If I am Joe Blow, I would comply simply to put the officer at ease (and hope that he may give me a break!). If Mr. Blow does not comply with the officer's request, he probably will not like the outcome of this encounter.

If Mr. Blow does not inform the LEO that he is carrying, as long as he does nothing to raise the officer's suspicions, they both go on their merry ways following the traffic stop.

I really do not see the benefit of the currently written bill to force Mr. Blow to inform the LEO that he is carrying. It (to me) only serves to make an already stressful situation for the LEO even more stressful.

IANALEO, I do, however, have respect for most LEO's. (As with any occupation, there will be those few that will/do abuse their authority.) I have had several LEO encounters in my lifetime. All but one were positive encounters. The one that was not, involved two officers, one with an attitude, and one who maintained his professionalism at all times.

I have never been charged with any crimes, and I hope to keep it that way. The bill in it's current form, makes me worry though.

[gunderwood]

@ GrumpyMSG

Hell yes I find it completely unreasonable for a police officer to secure my firearm. The government has effectively denied me my right to bear arms without due process of the law. Please read my post above for 3 citations within the Virginia Constitution that would, if read strictly, make this law unconstitutional.

This comes back to the question of who will follow this "make people feel good law"? Felons who already have a gun and are the most likely to use it??? Definitely not, they are not even supposed to have a firearm to begin with so already breaking the law AGAIN. Why in the world would they notify the police officer that they are carrying??? The generally law abiding citizen is not the person who is going to pull the weapon out and start shooting at a LEO. But they are the ones that will notify and be rendered unarmed by the LEO. The second issue what happens when you tell the LEO you have a gun? Well the paranoid ones tend to reflexively reach for theirs and how many youtube clips have we seen where a citizen trying to follow the law by notifying the LEO has suddenly found himself facing a gun pointed at his head during a traffic stop?

I am sorry this law does not increase officer safety during a traffic stop (most common time this would occur) or during any other stop. All it does is potentially raise tension in a LEO who understandably faces a dangerous job. But he/she signed up for that job with the understanding that they are taking on additional risks.

+1

[mrjam2jab]

{side note: am i missing a multi quote function here? I don't see the option. I copied and pasted each response to a Word document, then copied pasted the whole thing here}

Source;

More Second Amendment Related Legislation Introduced in Virginia!

Thursday, January 13, 2011
House Bill 2069, sponsored by Delegate Clay Athey (R-18), would allow an individual to carry a concealed handgun without a permit as long as the individual informs a law enforcement officer of his possession.

.

Perhaps I'm just missing it...but where does it take away the need for the permit?

My understanding is that the duty to inform would be only if you were DETAINED. I think I read that in a VCDL VA Alert a couple of days ago.

A routine traffic stop is being detained.

Laws are all about interpretation. If I am interpretting it correctly, The law allows all Virginians who may legally possess firearms to carry concealed, but they must inform an LEO as soon as possible if they are detained. They must secure the firearm at the officer's request or allow the officer to secure the weapon.

Let's break the concern down to the steps:
1. The LEO detains you.
2. You must notify the LEO.
3. The weapon must be secured, by you or him.

What is out of line with those expectations? Is it unreasonable for an LEO to know about your weapon? Nowhere in the Federal or Commonwealth's Constitutions does it say you have an explicit right to hide your arms. Terry VS Ohio allows an LEO to pat down an individual, not in a search for evidence, but to ensure the person he is interacting with does not present a danger. Is that unreasonable? In my opinion, the answer is hell no. This law is intended to legislate it, rather than wait for a court to find it between the lines. What I don't understand is, why do some folks here have a negative view of interacting with LEOs? Maybe it's just me, because I have friends and family in the profession. What about the LEOs and the former LEOs on this forum, are they they monsters you fear?

LEO may or may not be familiar with your particular gun. Do you want a guy who has no idea what he is doing trying to make your gun safe?

@ GrumpyMSG


This comes back to the question of who will follow this "make people feel good law"? Felons who already have a gun and are the most likely to use it??? Definitely not, they are not even supposed to have a firearm to begin with so already breaking the law AGAIN. Why in the world would they notify the police officer that they are carrying???

a felon carrying would have no duty to inform as that would go against his 5th amendment right to not self incriminate.

The generally law abiding citizen is not the person who is going to pull the weapon out and start shooting at a LEO. But they are the ones that will notify and be rendered unarmed by the LEO. The second issue what happens when you tell the LEO you have a gun? Well the paranoid ones tend to reflexively reach for theirs and how many youtube clips have we seen where a citizen trying to follow the law by notifying the LEO has suddenly found himself facing a gun pointed at his head during a traffic stop?

I am sorry this law does not increase officer safety during a traffic stop (most common time this would occur) or during any other stop. All it does is potentially raise tension in a LEO who understandably faces a dangerous job. But he/she signed up for that job with the understanding that they are taking on additional risks.

exactly...if it's not germane to the stop...leo has no reason to know about it.

There are only 10 states that have "must Inform" laws...VA does NOT need to be #11.

[Kreutz]

HB 2069 sounds like a half-assed Vermont carry. Those socialists do have fine gun laws...barely any.