Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/03/gov-mca ... -cars-bill

Not that this is a surprise; we knew that the Gov was hand-picked and funded by Bloomberg for his anti-2A views. McCulliffe tried to amend the bill, requiring guns to be in locked containers in the the car(was rejected by the House).

And it starts. I wonder how long it takes him to revoke the rest of our rights.

I knew as soon as he won he was going to go on the attack.

Uh huh..... Get used to this. He is Bloomys boy. The wretch.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Somebody please educate me.

The bill that the Gov vetoed was meant to solidify McDonnell's amendment that introduced the word 'secured' but left the working 'locked'.

So while I am disappointed that the Gov vetoed the bill (even though it passed the House with flying colors), nothing has changed when it comes to transporting firearms in your car.

Correct?

I think that is correct. The problem is the AG is also Bloomy's man so if he decided "secured" means "locked" there could be issues. Of course IANAL so I could be full of it.

bryanrheem wrote:Somebody please educate me.

The bill that the Gov vetoed was meant to solidify McDonnell's amendment that introduced the word 'secured' but left the working 'locked'.

So while I am disappointed that the Gov vetoed the bill (even though it passed the House with flying colors), nothing has changed when it comes to transporting firearms in your car.

Correct?

Correct. HB962 was simply to clarify/codify that the container didn't have to be locked. Governor's veto leaves current law intact.

here's the bill information:

SUMMARY: Carrying concealed handgun; secured container or compartment in vehicle. Provides that for purposes of the exception to the prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon if it is in a secured container or compartment in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel, the term "compartment" includes a console, glove compartment, or any other area within or on the vehicle or vessel that possesses the ability to be closed. The bill also provides that the term "secured" does not require that a container or compartment be locked, but merely closed.

HB-962

I hope this doesn't surprise anyone. NOVA elected a man to Governor who is tyrannical and doesn't care about the people, but instead about control and power.

As long as this person is in office, I challenge any man to show me a bill that he lets pass that is pro-bill of rights. I expect everything that passes while he is in office will have at least one line of code that degrades our freedom, regardless of how good the rest of the bill may seem.

mamabearCali wrote:I think that is correct. The problem is the AG is also Bloomy's man so if he decided "secured" means "locked" there could be issues. Of course IANAL so I could be full of it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

An AG's opinion does not have the force of law. I understand that at least some of the Virginia Circuit Courts have held that "secured" DOES NOT mean "locked", and HB 962 was merely to clarify that. I suppose a circuit COULD elect not to follow the circuits that have held "secured' not equal to "locked", and then the Va. Supreme Court would eventually have to rule on it to resolve the issue. But I don't think a new and contrary AG's opinion would not change the law where a circuit has ruled otherwise.

Really was not surprised. Hold on everyone its going to be a bumpy ride. Isn't this the one bill he sent back to be reworded, and then he vetoes it?

TMac....the new and improved Obama.
Just what we need.
Just think if Obama had Bloombergs money behind him.

This was disappointing, but not surprising.

Cheers,

KRvW


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I have a CHP; and I keep a .45 in my secured but not locked glovebox; is this an issue for me?

I believe you're good. But IANAL...

Cheers,

KRvW


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Kreutz wrote:I have a CHP; and I keep a .45 in my secured but not locked glovebox; is this an issue for me?

I thought the purpose of this was to give the option to non CCP holders such that they don't get a concealed weapons charge.

BertMacklin wrote:

Kreutz wrote:I have a CHP; and I keep a .45 in my secured but not locked glovebox; is this an issue for me?

I thought the purpose of this was to give the option to non CCP holders such that they don't get a concealed weapons charge.

Thats what I thought too.

Ive got CCW too, I either keep it in the console unlocked, or tucked under my leg, or on my hip in a holster...

C