Firearms; possession by certain persons who have had parental rights terminated. (HB1055)
Introduced By
Del. Jim Scott (D-Merrifield) with support from co-patrons Del. Bob Brink (D-Arlington), Del. David Englin (D-Alexandria), and Del. David Poisson (D-Sterling)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Possession of firearms by certain persons who have had parental rights terminated; penalty. Prohibits a person who has had his parental rights terminated based upon a finding of aggravated circumstances from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm. The bill defines aggravated circumstances as torture, chronic or severe abuse, or chronic or severe sexual abuse of a child of the parent or a child with whom the parent resided at the time such conduct occurred. A violation of this section would be a Class 1 misdemeanor. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
01/09/2008 | Committee |
01/09/2008 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 085911720 |
01/09/2008 | Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety |
01/23/2008 | Impact statement from DPB (HB1055) |
02/12/2008 | Left in Militia, Police and Public Safety |
Comments
The right to bear firearms has NOTHING to do with termination of parental rights. Parental rights are most often terminated due to the fact that the 'parent' never wanted the child in the first place, was blackmailed into paying child support by a predatory woman who got pregnant on purpose, or they weren't able to prevent the 'state' from interfering with their ability and or rights to raise their child. Sorry, this one isn't in 'the child's best' interest and it violates an adults fundamental right to bear arms.
If people under permanent restraining orders can't possess guns, why should people who have been found to have tortured or severely abused a child?