Motor vehicle safety inspection; Superintendent shall provide information upon written request. (HB2269)
Introduced By
Del. Ron Villanueva (R-Virginia Beach)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✓ |
Passed Committee |
✓ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
✓ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Motor vehicle safety inspection data. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Passed
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
01/11/2017 | Committee |
01/11/2017 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/17 17103970D |
01/11/2017 | Referred to Committee on Transportation |
01/17/2017 | Assigned Transportation sub: Subcommittee #1 |
01/24/2017 | Impact statement from DPB (HB2269) |
01/30/2017 | Subcommittee recommends reporting (7-Y 0-N) |
02/02/2017 | Reported from Transportation (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/03/2017 | Read first time |
02/06/2017 | Read second time and engrossed |
02/07/2017 | Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (97-Y 0-N) |
02/07/2017 | VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (97-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/08/2017 | Constitutional reading dispensed |
02/08/2017 | Referred to Committee on Transportation |
02/15/2017 | Reported from Transportation with amendment (9-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/17/2017 | Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/20/2017 | Read third time |
02/20/2017 | Reading of amendment waived |
02/20/2017 | Committee amendment agreed to |
02/20/2017 | Engrossed by Senate as amended |
02/20/2017 | Passed Senate with amendment (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/20/2017 | Reconsideration of Senate passage agreed to by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/20/2017 | Passed Senate with amendment (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/21/2017 | Placed on Calendar |
02/21/2017 | Senate amendment agreed to by House (95-Y 0-N) |
02/21/2017 | VOTE: ADOPTION (95-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/24/2017 | Enrolled |
02/24/2017 | Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB2269ER) |
02/24/2017 | Signed by Speaker |
02/24/2017 | Signed by President |
02/27/2017 | Impact statement from DPB (HB2269ER) |
02/28/2017 | Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 2/28/17 |
02/28/2017 | G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, March 27, 2017 |
03/13/2017 | G Approved by Governor-Chapter 322 (effective 7/1/17) |
03/13/2017 | G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0322) |
Video
This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 1 minute.
Transcript
This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.
Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT.
Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.
Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): I MUST HAVE MISSED SOMETHING, MR. SPEAKER.
[Unknown]: I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK -- AND THEN -- THAT IS OKAY. GET FROM PRINCE WILLIAM. OKAY. MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARLINGTON TAKE THE ADVICE OF THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX AND READ THE SECTION OF THE CODE HERE FOR EVERYBODY TO HEAR. IF HE IS REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT IT, THEN JUST READ IT. THERE SHOULD BE NO SHAME, SHAME,INHIBITION OR RELUCTANCE TO DO THAT.
Comments
This mandate should be repealed, not modified.
In a hand full of states the resident's constitutional right to travel has been repealed and replaced with driving is a privilege.
However, in 34 of the United States of America where this law does not apply those residents who still possess the constitutional right to travel can bring these vehicles accross state lines unencumbered by this law.
Therefore, this law is ineffective with a growing tourism industry.
So this law should be fairly applied to all of the vehicles traveling on our state highways or we should all be free of this requirement and our Federal Constitutional right to travel should be restored.
I have a couple of additional points about vehicle inspection and emission testing laws. The 1st point is that an antique vehicle, a vehicle 25 years old or older, can receive a waiver as an antique vehicle. So clearly new cars with air bag, abs brake systems, daytime running lights and so on are not safe but older vehicles are safe. This is based on a CNU logic class.
In a similar fashion emission testing is performed on OBDII and CAN compliant vehicles because vehicles from 1994 and up can have a simple computer scan performed rather than actually testing the vehicle emissions with a tail pipe sniffer like the NHTSA did for the Volkswagen and Fiat Chrysler fraud cases but ollder vehicles are presumed to be okay because you can't run a scan on them.
A friend of mine visited me from Florida and he said he wished his state offered these inspections because he sees junk on the highways on a daily basis. I pointed out that he took his car to a shop for a brake light repair but the light did not last long before it went out. Therefore, based on Virginia law and his own observations when he drove accross state lines he brought a junk vehicle on to our highway. But the law does not apply to him because he lives in one of the 34 states that have a constitutional right to travel but Virginians have a driving privilege that must be earned unless they possess a waiver.
And this brings up another point. Many states have military bases. So in the states that do not require inspections does the federal government force the issue so that a terrorist doesn't use this as an IED to set off military ordinances and kill innocent people or not. If they do then it is in contrast to state rights and the federal government allowing state legislators to impose this mandate discriminately as opposed to the way the speed limit laws are applied. And if the federal goverment doesn't require these inspection on military basis why do legislators in a handfull of states feel the need to impose it on state residents.