Liberalization of Gun Laws in Virginia

[dems4guns]

There has been a lot of good work done to liberalize the gun restrictions here in Virginia. Keeping a loaded handgun on the car seat or in the glove box is a good example, concealed carry on-demand is another.

So, what's next?

Here is what I would like to see passed: I propose the Virginia legislature pass legislation that would require any commercially zoned property to allow the storage of firearms in a private vehicle while parked on the property, but may allow property owners to enforce policies against open carry and concealed carry on their property. No requirement that it be unloaded while in the vehicle. We could also ask for State, County and Local government parking lots be required to do the same. (We can't do US gov't for obvious reasons)

This way I can lock my firearm in my vehicle while I shop or go to work without risk of violating the owner's rules that may ban firearms.

This is the kind of incremental change that Democrats can support.

Or how about making it a state law that self defense and protecting the life of another or protecting someone from serious injury and protecting your home from an invader would be justifiable use of a firearm?

Both?, Either?

Thoughts?
Dems4Guns

[Palladin]

While you're waiting you could search the threads in here with the term 'castle'...

Oh, and did you hafta call it Liberalization?

[dems4guns]

While you're waiting you could search the threads in here with the term 'castle'...

Oh, and did you hafta call it Liberalization?

From Wikipedia: "In general, liberalization (or liberalisation) refers to a relaxation of previous government restrictions, usually in areas of social or economic policy. In some contexts this process or concept is often, but not always, referred to as deregulation"

From Wiktionary: "6.(politics) Open to political or social changes and reforms in favour of increased freedom or democracy."

From Dictionary.com: (Liberalization points to liberal) "2. relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom "

Liberalization is actually the best word to use...you could use deregulation, but that has more with the technical application of liberalization.

Liberals want more personal freedom, mostly to spite Gunderwood. But we also want the "Minimal" level of regulation necessary to provide for the General Welfare. This is an opportunity that gun advocates can use to find common ground. You just might have to listen to us advocate marijuana and prostitution legalization as well.
Dems4Guns

[Jakeiscrazy]

Here is what I would like to see passed: I propose the Virginia legislature pass legislation that would require any commercially zoned property to allow the storage of firearms in a private vehicle while parked on the property, but may allow property owners to enforce policies against open carry and concealed carry on their property. No requirement that it be unloaded while in the vehicle. We could also ask for State, County and Local government parking lots be required to do the same. (We can't do US gov't for obvious reasons)

This was up last year:

HB 171, Delegate Pogge, prevents an employer and others from banning firearms in locked vehicles in a parking lot - passed house 72 to 27

It was later voted down:

HB 171, Delegate Pogge, allows someone to be able to keep a gun in
their locked vehicle on private property, prohibiting employers or
landlords from banning such guns. The bill died by 5 to 0, with even
Senator Quayle voting against it.

Those of you who use COMCAST might want to consider calling them to
CANCEL your service. Comcast had a representative there to speak
against your Constitutional right to self-defense by opposing HB 171.
Gun owners should not reward such behavior by remaining loyal
customers. And if you do cancel, be sure to tell them why.

[wally626]

State, County and Local government parking lots be required to do the same. (We can't do US gov't for obvious reasons)

State and local government lots already allow guns. They are only banned in Courthouses and in K-12 Schools not the parking lots. Schools lots do have a couple of more rules. As far as public land goes VA is very good on car carry now.

As said above, Delegate Pogge did submit a bill two sessions back about allowing guns in private parking lots along with a liability waiver for the businesses. It got watered down a lot in the house then killed in the senate. If you want a similar bill submitted the next session write your delegate and senator and encourage them to support or submit such a bill. If they say no vote for someone else this fall.

Some other areas that could use some help, is carry in National Forests, as well as concealed carry without permit, college carry, etc.

[TimberWolf]

Wish list:

1. Firearms allowed in any publicly accessible parking lot. (Personally, I believe that if your employer chooses to "ban" the law abiding from protecting themselves then that company should be liable for any crime committed against you on their property.)

2. Protecting from civil liability when you justifiably use your firearm or other defensive implement. (One form of the Castle doctrine.)

3. If someone has illegally entered your home that is a justifiable reason to use deadly force, regardless of that persons intentions. (The best form of Castle doctrine.)

4. The ability to use your firearm in protection of your property without the requirement to be in fear for life or some sort of imminent danger.

5. State supported colleges must allow carry by anyone who is legally allowed concealed carry in Virginia.

6. Concealed carry on K-12 schools.

[Yarddawg]

Liberals want more personal freedom, mostly to spite Gunderwood.

Why do you feel the need to attack another forum member on here when they have not attacked you in this thread? You have already stated your dislike for him more than adequately elsewhere. To do so again here just further erodes any remaining respect that others may have had for you.

NOT COOL!

[dems4guns]

Why do you feel the need to attack another forum member on here when they have not attacked you in this thread? You have already stated your dislike for him more than adequately elsewhere. To do so again here just further erodes any remaining respect that others may have had for you.

NOT COOL!

Well, please don't interpret it that way. I meant it as a joke.

I don't expect people to hold me in high regard unless they choose to do so.

However, I do expect people to provide me the common courtesies and dignities due any fellow neighbor and citizen, and supporter of gun rights, as I will for others here.

I apologize if anyone took my comment as an attack on Gunderwood. It was not meant that way. Although I will admit it hits at the heart of his complaints about the liberal agenda.

The bottom line is that we CAN AGREE on liberalizing laws and providing the American Citizens MORE FREEDOM. I am here to proclaim support for that agenda including firearms.

Let's talk about real issues and the reality we have to live with every day rather than theories and generalities.

Where do you stand on my proposal here?
Dems4guns

[dems4guns]

Wish list:

1. Firearms allowed in any publicly accessible parking lot. (Personally, I believe that if your employer chooses to "ban" the law abiding from protecting themselves then that company should be liable for any crime committed against you on their property.)

We agree then. Although not sure if I agree on the employer liability part...employers have enough lawsuits to worry about these days.

2. Protecting from civil liability when you justifiably use your firearm or other defensive implement. (One form of the Castle doctrine.)

Maybe. How do you write a statute that defines "justifiable use?"

3. If someone has illegally entered your home that is a justifiable reason to use deadly force, regardless of that persons intentions. (The best form of Castle doctrine.)

This goes too far IMHO. How about: "Brandishing a firearm or deadly weapon, or discharge of a warning shot is legal If someone has entered your home without permission, and after two verbal warnings, if the person has refused to leave the premises, use of deadly force is justified. Use of a deadly weapon on any person who is related by family or through personal relationship is justified only under self-defense."

4. The ability to use your firearm in protection of your property without the requirement to be in fear for life or some sort of imminent danger.

Not sure I can agree with this one. Killing someone over property is immoral IMHO, unless it involves an original copy of the Constitution or an irreplaceable world treasure. How about brandishing a weapon and discharge of a warning shot is justified to protect property?

5. State supported colleges must allow carry by anyone who is legally allowed concealed carry in Virginia.

This is very timely for me because my daughter is attending a Virginia college in the fall. I would agree to this if we add the following: Any Freshman may apply for concealed carry in their Sophomore and following years. Colleges and Universities are required to set up a program that licenses students for concealed carry after their Freshman year, and establish reasonable requirements for safety training and legal use of a friearm. The training program must include at least 16 hours of safety instruction, at least 1000 rounds of supervised practice at a range, and the firearms must be locked in an accessible safe when stored in any residential building. The students who carry must attend a monthly assembly under supervision of the school police department to inspect the firearms and their lockboxes, review safety procedures, demonstrate proficiency of safety and use of the firearm, and review any incidents for teaching purposes. That police review shall not exceed 5 hours in duration. Those who elect to carry shall be housed with other students who carry and no student will be required to share a room with someone who carries. Students may not carry on such occasions when possession of the firearm would be unsafe or a hazard while attending specific classes, as determined by the college administrators.The program shall be regulated by the State Board of Higher Education with an advisory council appointed by the Legislature.

6. Concealed carry on K-12 schools.

Generally, No. However, the Board of Education could authorize teachers and school employees, and volunteers or regular visitors to carry on a case by case basis based on gang or criminal actvity in or near the schools, special circumstances (death threats), and require attending a safety course and proof of proficiency and regular meetings with the school security officer to demonstrate safety and proficiency of use of the firearm and review of any incidents and general threat level at the school.

It's called compromise.
Dems4Guns

[Tweaker]

Who is this joker?

[zephyp]

Here's my wish list for federal and state gun laws:::

1. Keep the current restrictions regarding who cannot legally purchase posses or carry a firearm...STRICTLY enforced.
2. Wipe all ATF and federal/state regulations, policies, laws, etc off the books.
3. Focus efforts on enforcing no 1.

As a law abiding citizen I honestly believe I should be able to do whatever I want to with firearms providing of course that doesnt include crimes against people property or killing all the deer in 3 counties on opening day.

[Tweaker]

I have a suggestion to improve firearms freedom. Ensure former gov Timmy Kaine, ex-DNC chair remains unemployed by any level of government.

You all remember him as the pile of human excrement whose only two vetoes one year were to deny the expansion of firearms freedoms while that same year expanding them for the elites in the .gov (Law ENFORCEment occifers and Commonwelf attys).

Do you remember that, Cody? I do.

Your boy can take his head full (well what's left of it) of what looks like pubic hair and his elitist and deceitful attitude back to his ivy league roots. It sells well there.

Cody, do you recall Kaine campaigning as being a supporter of the second amendment? I do. I missed the asterisk that he meant only for .gov actors and not for the peons who vote and pay for his adminstration.

He can FOAD like all of your other DEMigods like King Daley in Chitgago. He just demanded a 5 man armed phalanx to accompany him for his remaining years at taxpayer expense until his not soon enough death. Huh. Did you know about that?

Zell Miller is gone, and so is any hope of fooling anyone who TRULY supports the most important civil right of all into your camp. You like democrats. That's great. Your credibility and my estimation for you is about akin to a negro who is a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan (another venerated Democrat institution)

Yes, that is how I really feel.

[Tweaker]

amiclear?

[Tweaker]

Tell me about your second amendment supporting Senators Webb and Warner.

Tell me about how they approved the nomination to the SCrOTUS of second amendment supporters Elena "all star female softball player" Kagan and wise (ass) latina who is better than a white man Sotomayor.

Talk about how they both decided to deny the civil rights contained in the second amendment to yet another negro in McDonald v US, maintaining a fine Dimocrap tradition. A 5-4 vote. 1 shy of denying individuals the second amendment. Who brought these two hag/trolls to the SCrOTUS? A Dimocrap.

How do you suppose the next challenge will go, after DEMigod Obunghole replaces one of the 5 (who you claim to agree with on gun rights) with another frumpy twunt who will make nice or refuse to answer direct questions in confirmation hearings only to come out of the gun banning closet when she gets her permanent black robe?

Tell me how you will can claim to support this Demicrap nonsense AS WELL as placing a priority on the second amendment freedoms. YOU CANNOT.

[VBshooter]

Dems4guns Wrote;

TimberWolf wrote:
3. If someone has illegally entered your home that is a justifiable reason to use deadly force, regardless of that persons intentions. (The best form of Castle doctrine.)
This goes too far IMHO. How about: "Brandishing a firearm or deadly weapon, or discharge of a warning shot is legal If someone has entered your home without permission, and after two verbal warnings, if the person has refused to leave the premises, use of deadly force is justified. Use of a deadly weapon on any person who is related by family or through personal relationship is justified only under self-defense."


TimberWolf wrote:
4. The ability to use your firearm in protection of your property without the requirement to be in fear for life or some sort of imminent danger.
Not sure I can agree with this one. Killing someone over property is immoral IMHO, unless it involves an original copy of the Constitution or an irreplaceable world treasure. How about brandishing a weapon and discharge of a warning shot is justified to protect property?

Gee how about we post the rules at the door and the bad guy can review them before he come into the house? maybe a little tea party to discuss the upcoming crime to be sure we;re all on the same page. That fair play crap may play elswewhere but in a self defense situation the only thing a possible threat should be aware of is they can get shot or killed for doing the crime in the first place. No rules, no warning shots, no mercy. Period!

[dems4guns]

How do you suppose the next challenge will go, after DEMigod Obunghole replaces one of the 5 (who you claim to agree with on gun rights) with another frumpy twunt who will make nice or refuse to answer direct questions in confirmation hearings only to come out of the gun banning closet when she gets her permanent black robe?

Mr. Tweaker,
President Obama is our President and deserves the minimal level of respect as President, not to mention the most basic human respect. He is the first black President and deserves respect for achieving that status. Your offensive remarks don't help the cause of the 2nd Amendment. Remarks like yours just reinforce the view of the left and the middle that right wing gun nuts are too extremist, and too rude and therefore unable to work in a civil manner with the other side of the aisle to compromise and agree on changes.

Learn to calm your language, show some civility, and you can make progress in liberalizing gun regulations and gun laws. But insulting the other side is not going to help the cause.

Where are the good Virginian manners and neighborliness your momma taught you?

How about actually agreeing or disagreeing with the proposals I made? That would be a good start to show you are interesting in getting along.

Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

Dems4guns Wrote;

TimberWolf wrote:
3. If someone has illegally entered your home that is a justifiable reason to use deadly force, regardless of that persons intentions. (The best form of Castle doctrine.)
This goes too far IMHO. How about: "Brandishing a firearm or deadly weapon, or discharge of a warning shot is legal If someone has entered your home without permission, and after two verbal warnings, if the person has refused to leave the premises, use of deadly force is justified. Use of a deadly weapon on any person who is related by family or through personal relationship is justified only under self-defense."


TimberWolf wrote:
4. The ability to use your firearm in protection of your property without the requirement to be in fear for life or some sort of imminent danger.
Not sure I can agree with this one. Killing someone over property is immoral IMHO, unless it involves an original copy of the Constitution or an irreplaceable world treasure. How about brandishing a weapon and discharge of a warning shot is justified to protect property?

Gee how about we post the rules at the door and the bad guy can review them before he come into the house? maybe a little tea party to discuss the upcoming crime to be sure we;re all on the same page. That fair play crap may play elswewhere but in a self defense situation the only thing a possible threat should be aware of is they can get shot or killed for doing the crime in the first place. No rules, no warning shots, no mercy. Period!

Well the problem with Timberwolf's proposal is that the stranger in your home may be completely unarmed and not acting in a threatening manner and under his proposal, you could shoot him/her dead. He could have alzheimers and thinks he lives there, or could be mentally ill or be ill and disoriented. The rules will not need to be written on the front door, as they will be enacted as laws that we are all obligated to know. Also, his proposal didn't say there was a self defense situation, but stimply any unauthorized person, "regardless their intentions." That's unacceptable. If this were law, people could put a sign on the front door saying "Strangers Welcome" and when they come in the house use them for target practice!
I am trying to find a compromise here....is there a middle ground on this?
Dems4Guns

[VBshooter]

Honestly I don't think so.. An intruder should be considered a threat by the mere fact they are in the house uninvited, The responsibility is on them IMHO simply for making the choice to enter the dwelling. Your what if's really do stretch the limit of what it could be, An assumption in the other direction is what if he doesn't have Alzheimers, or is drunk or whatever,,That time you take to diagnose the situation could cost you your life.IMHO by the mere fact of the outsiders presence it is a self defense situation and should be handled as such

[Tweaker]

lolz, Cody I will get back to you when I get back from work, but only because it amuses me.

Millions (of democrat voters) on welfare depend on me!

[Yarddawg]

+1 Spence

If you are in my house uninvited, you ARE a threat! As such, I need to do whatever I need to do in order to stop the threat!