Motor vehicle safety inspection; Superintendent shall provide information upon written request. (SB1250)

Introduced By

Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson)

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

DateAction
01/10/2017Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/17 17103924D
01/10/2017Referred to Committee on Transportation
01/18/2017Reported from Transportation (13-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/20/2017Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/23/2017Read second time and engrossed
01/24/2017Read third time and passed Senate (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/25/2017Impact statement from DPB (SB1250)
01/31/2017Placed on Calendar
01/31/2017Read first time
01/31/2017Referred to Committee on Transportation
02/09/2017Reported from Transportation with amendment (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/10/2017Read second time
02/13/2017Read third time
02/13/2017Committee amendment agreed to
02/13/2017Engrossed by House as amended
02/13/2017Passed House with amendment BLOCK VOTE (97-Y 0-N)
02/13/2017VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (97-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/15/2017House amendment agreed to by Senate (38-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
02/20/2017Enrolled
02/20/2017Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB1250ER)
02/20/2017Impact statement from DPB (SB1250ER)
02/20/2017Signed by Speaker
02/21/2017Signed by President
02/21/2017Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 2/21/17
02/21/2017G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, March 27, 2017
03/13/2017G Approved by Governor-Chapter 332 (effective 7/1/17)
03/13/2017G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0332)

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 2 minutes.

Transcript

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

INJURY AND THAT WAS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT THE BILL REQUIRES. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE SENATE CONCUR WITH THE HOUSE AMENDMENT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILLD NO. HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? UP CHANGE CHANGE. THE SENATOR FROM RUFFIN COUNTY, NOR CHAFITS. I MOVE THAT IT CONCUR WITH THE HOUSE AMENDMENT. IT IS A SILLY LITTLE AMENDMENT. THEY ADDED A PERIOD TO A PARAGRAPH THAT WASN'T THERE. I MOVE THAT WE AGREE TO IT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE YES IS SHALL THE SENATE CONCUR WITH THE HOUSE AMENDMENTS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL. ARE ALL THE SENATORS READY TO V? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO C THEIR VOTE? HANGE

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: HB2269.

Comments

John C Jackson writes:

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.

John C Jackson writes:

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.