Firearms; possessing or carrying dangerous weapon in public buildings during official meetings. (SB832)
Introduced By
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Control of firearms; possessing or carrying a dangerous weapon in public buildings during official meetings of the governing body. Provides that localities may adopt an ordinance that prohibits firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof in community or recreation centers, administrative buildings, or public libraries owned or operated by the locality during an official meeting of the governing body. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 12/17/2008 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 094317256 |
| 12/17/2008 | Referred to Committee on Local Government |
| 01/27/2009 | Failed to report (defeated) in Local Government (5-Y 10-N) (see vote tally) |
Comments
I do not want to be a sitting duck. That is exactly what library patrons would be if we passed this law and then a Virignia Tech type shooter shows up at the local library (for example). Our police carefully screen the people who have concealed carry permits, so we have more to gain than to fear by letting them do just that. When was the last time a permittee was involved in a gun crime anyway? I like the outcome at Appalchian School of Law much better than the outcome at VA Tech. Note that even when called, the police rarely show up in time to stop violence. THey only clean up the mess and maybe arrest someone after the fact. Sorry if guns make you uncomfortable, but I want to be alive.
Sadly, this is the opposite of where we should be heading. It has no effect upon the existing statues regarding Universities (as Mr. Gray would imply) but more restrictions on legal carry do not solve problems.
More of the same legislation she put forward last year that failed. Ms Locke wants some feel good laws that will have no meaning what so ever. I am tired of her wasting taxpayer dollars on tripe like this. Can she explain how this will make the public safer?
I understand that if a law-abiding person has a gun, that they might theoretically be able to prevent gun violence. Obviously the VT case is a good example. But shouldn't that be something that local govt. be able to decide? What is the big objection to prohibiting the carrying of weapons into a Town Council chambers especially when there are armed deputies right there?
The localities should have the authority to say yea/nay on this matter. I understand that people are frightened and thus they want to be armed but a frightened person is the very last person who SHOULD be armed. Fear makes for poor decisions.