Concealed handguns; carrying with a valid protective order. (HB766)

Introduced By

Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock) with support from co-patrons Del. Terry Austin (R-Buchanan), Del. Jeff Campbell (R-Marion), Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg), Del. Jason Miyares (R-Virginia Beach), and Del. Michael Webert (R-Marshall)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Carrying concealed handguns; protective orders. Authorizes any person 21 years of age or older who is not prohibited from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm and is protected by an unexpired protective order to carry a concealed handgun for 45 days after the protective order was issued. The bill provides that if the person issued the protective order applies for a concealed handgun permit during such 45-day period, such person will be authorized to carry a concealed handgun for an additional 45 days and be given a copy of the certified application, which shall serve as a de facto concealed handgun permit. The bill requires such person to have the order or certified application and photo identification on his person when carrying a concealed handgun and to display them upon demand by a law-enforcement officer; failure to do so is punishable by a $25 civil penalty. Read the Bill »

Status

04/07/2016: vetoed by governor

History

DateAction
01/12/2016Committee
01/12/2016Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16100429D
01/12/2016Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
01/18/2016Assigned to sub: #1
01/18/2016Assigned MPPS sub: #1
01/21/2016Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (5-Y 0-N)
01/29/2016Reported from Militia, Police and Public Safety with amendment (16-Y 6-N) (see vote tally)
02/01/2016Read first time
02/02/2016Read second time
02/02/2016Committee amendment agreed to
02/02/2016Pending question ordered
02/02/2016Engrossed by House as amended HB766E
02/02/2016Printed as engrossed 16100429D-E
02/03/2016Read third time and passed House (68-Y 29-N)
02/03/2016VOTE: PASSAGE (68-Y 29-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2016Constitutional reading dispensed
02/04/2016Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/08/2016Impact statement from DPB (HB766E)
02/17/2016Reported from Courts of Justice (11-Y 4-N) (see vote tally)
02/19/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/22/2016Read third time
02/22/2016Reconsideration of Senate passage agreed to by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/22/2016Passed Senate (31-Y 9-N) (see vote tally)
02/24/2016Enrolled
02/24/2016Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB766ER)
02/24/2016Signed by Speaker
02/26/2016Impact statement from DPB (HB766ER)
02/27/2016Signed by President
02/29/2016Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 2/29/16
02/29/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, March 7, 2016
03/07/2016Governor's recommendation received by House
03/07/2016Governor's substitute printed 16106072D-H1
03/09/2016Passed by for the day
03/10/2016Passed by for the day
03/11/2016Communicated to Governor
03/11/2016Pending question ordered
03/11/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation (28-Y 71-N)
03/11/2016VOTE: REJECTED (28-Y 71-N) (see vote tally)
03/11/2016Passed in enrolled form (66-Y 33-N)
03/11/2016VOTE: ENROLLED FORM (66-Y 33-N) (see vote tally)
03/11/2016Motion to pass in enrolled form rejected (21-Y 19-N) (see vote tally)
03/11/2016Requires 2/3 affirmative votes of members voting to pass in enrolled form
03/25/2016Communicated to Governor
04/07/2016G Vetoed by Governor

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 4 clips in all, totaling 19 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.



Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock): MEASURES LIKE THIS BECAUSE OF THEIR UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION ON FIREARMS. MR. SPEAKER, THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENTS ESSENTIALLY GUT THE INTENTION OF THIS BILL. IT RENDERS THE BILL ALMOST A MEANINGLESS GESTURE IF WE ADOPT THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, MR. SPEAKER, IT REQUIRES -- THE AMENDMENTS REQUIRE IN-PERSON TRAINING IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO AVAIL ONE'S SELF-OF THE RIGHT TO CARRY FOR A BRIEF TIME WITHOUT A PERMIT. WE DO NOT EVEN REQUIRE IN-PERSON TRAINING, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, FOR REGULAR CONCEALED CARRY. THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS THAT YOU CAN ACHIEVE THE PERMIT, GET THE PERMIT WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE IN-PERSON TRAINING. I KNOW THAT'S A POINT OF CONTENTION WITH SOME VOKES, BUT WE'VE HAD NO PROBLEMS IN THAT AREA, MR. SPEAKER, WITH PERSONS BEING ABLE TO CARRY LAWFULLY, AND THEY DO IT EVERY DAY BY THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WITHOUT INCIDENT. MORE SPECIFICALLY AND PROBLEMATIC IS THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNOR HAD IT APPLY ONLY TO PERMANENT PROTECTIVE ORDERS. JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, AND THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW, THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS. ONE IS AN EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER, THE KIND THAT YOU GET FROM THE MAGISTRATE WHERE IN THE MIDST OF THIS CRISIS YOU SEEK AN EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER OR ONE IS ISSUED BECAUSE AN ACT OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HAS RESULTED IN AN ARREST. THAT'S ONLY GOOD FOR A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME, MR. SPEAKER, I THINK 72 HOURS, AND THEN SOMEONE HAS TO GO TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE THAT THEY WANT TO EXTEND THAT PROTECTIVE ORDER, WHICH IS THEN A PRELIMINARY PROTECTIVE ORDER UP UNTIL GENERALLY THE TIME IF THERE IS AN ARREST MADE THAT THE CASE IS CONCLUDED. AT THAT TIME, THE COURT MAY WELL ENTERTAIN THE PERMANENT PROTECTIVE ORDER, BUT OFTEN THAT IS WEEKS OR MONTHS AFTER THE INITIAL CRISIS HAS ABATED. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVOCATES WILL TELL YOU THAT THE CRITICAL TIME OF DANGER FOR ANY WOMAN TRYING TO LEAVE AN ABUSIVE SITUATION IS THE TIME IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEY LEAVE. AND THAT IS THE TRUE MOMENT OF VOLATILITY, I THINK, FOR WHICH THIS BILL WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, THE DANGEROUS TIME. NOW, ADVOCATES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE, MR. SPEAKER, WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT THE WAY TO RESOLVE THAT AND SOLVE THAT PROBLEM IS TO TAKE FIREARMS AWAY FROM EVERYBODY WHO IS SUBJECT TO AN EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER OR A PRELIMINARY PROTECTIVE ORDER, HAVING NEVER HAD THEIR DAY IN COURT. YOU MAY RECALL THAT PART OF OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNOR, OUR BROAD AGREEMENT ON FIREARMS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THIS YEAR CONTEMPLATED THAT WE WOULD ONLY APPLY THE PROHIBITION ON POSSESSING A FIREARM TO THOSE WHO HAD HAD THEIR DAY IN COURT AFTER A JUDGE HAD -- AFTER THEY HAD HAD THEIR DUE PROCESS, AND THAT MAKES SINCE, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT THAT WAY, THAT FOLKS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT, TO HAVE A LAWYER, TO HAVE THE CASE HEARD. MR. SPEAKER, THE ADVOCATES ON THE OTHER SIDE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT TAKING A -- TELLING SOMEONE THAT THEY MIGHT GET IN TROUBLE IF THEY POSSESS A FIREARM IS A WAY TO DETER THEM FROM COMMITTING THE MURDER OF THEIR FAMILY, AND THAT IS A FALLACY OF LOGIC THAT I'VE ALWAYS OBJECTED TO AND ALWAYS TRIED TO CALL OUT FOR ITS LACK OF COMMON SENSE, THAT SOMEONE WHO IS BENT ON MURDERING THEIR WIFE OR THEIR CHILDREN AND THEN IN MANY INSTANCES KILLING THEMSELVES IS GOING TO BE DETERRED BY THE FACT THAT THEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO YET ANOTHER MISDEMEANOR OR A CLASS 6 FELONY FOR POSSESSING THE FIREARM. WHAT I CONTEND AND WHAT THIS BILL INTENDS TO ACCOMPLISH IS THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU TRULY PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE IN THIS INSTANCE IS TO GIVE THEM THE MEANS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I SUGGEST LIGHTLY, AND I DON'T SUGGEST THAT IT'S FOR EVERYBODY, AND I THINK THE DEBATE CENTERED AROUND THIS SORT OF CONTENDS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND WILLY-NILLY WITH GUNS WHO HAVE NO EXPERTISE OR NO FAMILIARITY, ALL OF A SUDDEN ENDANGERING THEMSELVES FURTHER, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BILL DOES. THE BILL GIVES THEM THE OPTION, MR. SPEAKER, TO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO DO, WHICH IS POSSESS A FIREARM, CARRY A FIREARM, BUT IT ALLOWS THEM TO BE DISCRETE ABOUT IT. SO A WOMAN IN THIS SITUATION, WHO IS ALREADY IN CRISIS CAN CERTAINLY HAVE A GUN IN HER HOME ALREADY. SHE CAN CERTAINLY CARRY A GUN WHEREVER SHE WANTS ALREADY. WE'RE JUST SUGGESTING THAT IT WOULD BE A NICE THING IF THAT PERSON COULD ALSO PUT IT IN THEIR POCKET OR IN THEIR PURSE SO THAT WHEN THEY'RE OUT AND ABOUT, IF THEY'RE SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY -- THEIR KIDS' BALL GAME, AND THEY KNOW THEIR FORMER SIGNIFICANT OTHER IS GOING TO BE THERE WATCHING THEM, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO WEAR A GUN ON THEIR HIP TO DISCRETELY TAKE ACCOUNT OF THEIR OWN PERSONAL SAFETY AND THE SAFETY OF THEIR CHILDREN. SO THIS IS NOT AN ENORMOUS EXTENSION OF THE RIGHTS FOLKS ALREADY HAVE. IT JUST ALLOWS SOMEONE THE COMFORT AT THEIR DISCRETION AND AT THEIR OPTION TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THIS DANGEROUS TIME PERIOD AND BE ABLE TO CARRY IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILY UNTIL THEY CAN SECURE THE PERMIT THROUGH THE NORMAL APPLICATION PROCESS. IT DOESN'T CONTEMPLATE THAT THEY GET TO DO IT WITHOUT A PERMIT FOREVER. IT'S JUST FOR THIS CRITICAL TIME PERIOD THAT THEY BE ABLE TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THIS RIGHT. SO THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION APPLIED ONLY TO THE PERMANENT PROTECTIVE ORDER, WHICH AGAIN IS MANY WEEKS OR MONTHS LATER, AND NOT TO THIS CRITICAL DANGEROUS TIME PERIOD, MR. SPEAKER. SO YOU KNOW, ALL WE'RE DOING IS EMPOWERING PEOPLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CHOOSE TO BE EMPOWERED BY THIS. I WOULD ASK THE BODY TO REJECT THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENTS IN THAT RESPECT, AND I THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MR. SIMON.

Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church): MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENTS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church): MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, WE WENT BACK AND FORTH OVER THIS BILL A LITTLE BIT A FEW WEEKS AGO, AND I RAISED A NUMBER OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM SHENANDOAH ANTICIPATED HERE. WHAT IT BOILED DOWN TO WAS, I CONCEDED. I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT WE WANT TO SAVE LIVES. WE WANT TO EMPOWER PEOPLE, AND WE SHARE A CONCERN FOR PROTECTING THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE -- PETITIONERS WITH PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND THEIR FAMILIES. THE CONCERN THAT I RAISED AT THE TIME AND THAT MANY FOLKS ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE HAD AT THE TIME THE BILL WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WAS THAT WITHOUT ANY TRAINING, WITHOUT ANY VETTING, WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL SUPERVISION OF THE PROCESS, YOU ACTUALLY CREATED THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU WERE CREATING A SITUATION THAT WAS LESS SAFE, THAT WAS MORE DANGEROUS FOR PEOPLE, PETITIONERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES. I HAD A LIST OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ABOUT YOUNG CHILDREN FINDING THEIR PARENTS' GUNS AND USING THEM ON THEIR BROTHERS, THEIR SISTERS, THEIR PARENTS. WE JUST HEARD THE OTHER DAY ABOUT A CHILD WHO FOUND A GUN IN THE BACK OF THE CAR AND SHOT THEIR MOTHER IN THE BACK WHILE SHE WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET. WE HEAR THESE STORIES ALL THE TIME. ALL THE TIME WE SAY, IF ONLY THESE PEOPLE HAD BETTER TRAINING ABOUT THE PROPER AND SAFE HANDLING OF FIREARMS, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO HEAR THESE TRAGIC STORIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, THE GOVERNOR'S DID FOUR BASIC THING. THE FIRST IS TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE PERMANENT PROTECTIVE ORDERS WHICH REQUIRE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, SO THERE IS A JUDGE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, JUST LIKE A JUDGE AND COURT IS INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT. THE SECOND THING, THE JUDGE HAS TO CERTIFY ON THE PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER WILL, IN FACT, BE A DE FACTO CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT, AND THE PETITIONER HAS TO ASK FOR THEY HAVE TO WANT FOR IT TO BE A IT. CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY, BECAUSE WITH EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDERS, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY -- WE ACTUALLY ASKED THE LAST TIME WE DEBATED THIS BILL. HOW MANY PROTECTIVE ORDERS ARE THERE? THERE ARE OVER 50,000 EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDERS ISSUED IN ANY GIVEN YEAR WITH NO JUDICIAL SUPERVISION. THEY CAN BE GIVEN OUT VERY EASILY. ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON WITHOUT GETTING A PERMIT CAN GO AND FILE FOR AN EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER. IT'S GRANTED ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY. IF WE LIMIT THIS TO PERMANENT PROTECTIVE ORDERS, WE TAKE THAT NUMBER DOWN TO AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, TO ABOUT 5,000. THE THIRD THING THE GOVERNOR DOES, IT SAYS TO BECOME A -- FOR THE PROTECTIVE ORDER TO BECOME A DE FACTO CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT, THEY HAVE TO ALREADY HAVE APPLIED TO A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. THIS HAS GOT TO BE SOMEONE WHO SAID I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, I DECIDED THAT I NEED A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT. I NEED THIS TO BE SAFE. I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, GIVEN SOME WEIGHT TO THE COSTS AND BENEFITS, AND I'M PREPARED FOR THAT. AND FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, MR. SPEAKER, IT REQUIRES THAT THE PERSON PETITIONS FOR THE PROTECTIVE ORDER HAVE IN-PERSON, HANDS-ON, FIREARMS SAFETY TRAINING. THAT WAS THE BIGGEST CONCERN OF FOLKS LIKE ME AND FOLKS ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE, THAT WHEN YOU DO THIS, IF YOUR GOAL IS, IN FACT, TO INCREASE SAFETY TO, PROTECT PETITIONERS AND THEIR FAMILIES IN THIS IMPORTANT TIME OF CRISIS, THAT YOU ACTUALLY DO THAT. YOU DON'T CREATE A SITUATION THAT MAKES THEM LESS SAFE. IT CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACCIDENTS. IT CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, WE CARE VERY, VERY DEEPLY ABOUT THE SAFETY OF VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE. I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS HOUSE WE JUST HAVE A DISAGREEMENT DOES. ABOUT WHAT IS THE SAFEST WAY TO PROCEED IN THESE SITUATIONS. THE GOVERNOR AND FOLKS ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE THINK THE SAFEST WAY TO PROCEED IS CAUTIOUSLY AND LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WITH JUDICIAL SUPERVISION AND WITH THE APPROPRIATE TRAINING. THAT'S WHAT THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENTS WILL ALLOW. I ENCOURAGE THE BODY TO APPROVE THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

[Unknown]: THE. FROM VIRGINIA BEACH, MR. DAVIS. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO SPEAK TO THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU. MR. SPEAKER, WE HAVE A LOT OF BILLS THAT COME THROUGH THIS BODY EVERY YEAR, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A FEW THAT STAND OUT. THERE'S THAT COUPLE OF BILLS THAT MAKE A REAL, IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF THEM EVERY YEAR THAT ACTUALLY SAVE A PERSON'S LIFE. MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD CONTEND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE BILLS. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ACROSS THE AISLE ABOUT WANTING TO NOT DO THINGS THAT MAKE SOMEONE LESS SAFE. IF WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT A PERSON SHOULDN'T CARRY A HANDGUN BEFORE THEY ARE TRAINED TO USE A HANDGUN, THAT WOULD BE A VALID DEBATE. MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD BE TRAINED IN CARRYING A HANDGUN WHEN THERE IS AN ELEVATED STATE BECAUSE OF THEIR EMOTIONAL STATE, BECAUSE THEY COULD BE BEING STALKED BY SOMEONE THAT EVEN THE COURTS PERCEIVE POSE AS DANGEROUS THREAT, AND THAT'S A VALID CONCERN, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT. BUT MR. SPEAKER, LET'S TALK ABOUT ONLY THE THINGS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION. YOU SEE, MR. SPEAKER, A LADY CAN HAVE A FIREARM ALREADY. SHE CAN ALREADY CARRY A FIREARM WITHOUT TRAINING. SHE CAN ALREADY CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE SHE'S IN AN ELEVATED EMOTIONAL STATE. THOSE THINGS CAN ALREADY EXIST, AND I WOULD ARGUE, MR. SPEAKER, THAT WHEN SOMEONE IS SCARED FOR THEIR LIFE AND THEY FEEL THEY'RE BEING STALKED BY SOMEONE THAT EVEN THE COURTS HAVE DEEMED POSES A THREAT, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THAT STATE, AND THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO CARRY THAT FIREARM. THE ONLY UNIQUE THING ABOUT THIS BILL, MR. SPEAKER, IS DOES THAT LADY, DOES THAT WOMAN, DOES OUR WIFE, DOES OUR SISTER, DO THEY HAVE TO CARRY THAT GUN OPEN OR CAN THEY CARRY IT CONCEALED? NOW, MR. SPEAKER, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HERE BELIEVE THAT CARRYING AN OPEN FIREARM WHEN WE BELIEVE SOMEONE IS STALKING US THAT POSES A SIGNIFICANT VIOLENT THREAT IS A SAFE THING TO DO, A SMART THING TO DO OR A RIGHT THING TO DO, BUT MR. SPEAKER, IN THE STATUS QUO, THAT'S THE ONLY OPTION THAT OUR SISTERS AND OUR WIVES HAVE, IS IF THEY'RE THREATENED AND IN THE COURSE THAT SOMEONE POSE AS SIGNIFICANT VIOLENT THREAT, THEY HAVE TO CARRY OPEN. AND THAT OPENS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT PERSON TO WALK UP AND REALIZE ONE OR TWO THINGS THEY NEED TO DO, OH, MY GOD, SHE'S CARRYING OPEN. NEXT TIME WHEN I COME BACK, I BETTER HAVE A WEAPON ON ME, OR I NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT I GET CONTROL OF THAT WEAPON, AND MR. SPEAKER, I THINK THAT IF WE WANT TO PROTECT A WOMAN'S LIFE, WE NEED TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO CARRY CONCEALED WHEN THEY'RE UNDER THIS TYPE OF THREAT, AND I ASK THIS BODY TO APPROVE THIS. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM FREDERICK, MR. COLLINS.

Del. Chris Collins (R-Winchester): SPEAKING TO THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER. NEVER MIND. I'LL YIELD. MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE THE PENDING QUESTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM FREDERICK MOVES THE PENDING QUESTION. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION, SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE PENDING QUESTION IS CALLED FOR. SHALL THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS BE AGREED TO? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Del. Chris Collins (R-Winchester): AYES 28, NOS 71.

[Unknown]: AYES 28, NOS 71. MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE AMENDMENTS ARE REJECTED. HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER. GENERAL FROM SHENANDOAH.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE THAT THE BILL BECOME LAW IN ITS ENROLLED FORM. MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM COME CHARLOTTESVILLE.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. PARDONPARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN MAY STATE IT.

[Unknown]: I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION THE GENTLEMAN HAS MADE.

Comments

marshamaines writes:

IF SB49 is passed as written, then - Dept of Social Services employees who work for their private debt collection office DCSE, (off the state's Dept of Treasurer's books and NEVER Audited by Auditor of Public Accounts per Va. Code) - who ARE the "only" State Employees who can practice law without a license (UPL) - and are currently AUTHORIZED by the GOVERNOR and ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE and Va Code, to
DRAFT PROTECTION "ORDERS" - ADMINISTRATIVELY - ON "ANYONE" -
will then have the Authority to TAKE YOUR 2nd Amendment Right - WITHOUT Legal Notice, or Warning, or Due Process.
..... Just Sayin.