« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

February 27, 2007

The Culture Wars

by Robert Russo

As Libertarians we keep our ears pricked from the start of the campaign season to the end of the lawmaking process asking "so how does that change the way things are?" or "how does this preserve what few rights I still have?". Take the General Assembly for example, there is so much that needs to be done to keep ahead of the widespread fleecing of Richmond, and yet the most newsmaking resolution that has come from the current session to date is on the issue of slavery. The state of Virginia now officially "regrets" its role in the institution of slavery and the mistreatment of Native Americans over its entire history (as opposed to outright apologizing), becoming the first and only state to do so. Former candidate for attorney general Del. Donald McEachin sponsored this resolution along with "Juneteenth Freedom Day", a state holiday set for the third Saturday of June, saying "This session will be remembered for a lot of things. But 20 years hence, I suspect that among those things will be the fact that we came together and passed this resolution.".* Really? Is there not room for more pressing issues or those more indicative of this year or even this century?

Being neither descended from slaves nor slaveholders I don’t know whether to cheer that such a long-awaited admission has finally come, or to question its relevance beside bills of immediacy and necessity. Do the people of Richmond not get ripped off and disadvantaged daily regardless of race or culture, and those in minority neighborhoods more so than most? Is their civic protection not a better expense of the Assembly’s time? And if one wants to fight slavery, there are parts of the world in which it is practiced right now along with child labor and terrorism. Does admitting to the mistreatment of Native Americans mean we’ll start giving them their land back? It is impossible for me to fully understand the depth of an injustice against an entire race, whose memory is passed down through family lines and revived by social triggers throughout our society. I can't speak with any authority on it and I want nothing to do with it.

Simultaneously Richmond’s Museum of the Confederacy will likely be changing its name because of its "negative perceptions", to the chagrin of historians and citizens alike.** Virginia’s culture is swiftly being erased from the once-proud capital of the South to a suburb of DC. The fear of offense is the most rampant political tool of the modern age, and by rampant I mean that it is managed and monitored by no one, not even those who put it to use. They simply unleash it to end careers and transform institutions. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could come forward and say with authority that no misspoken reference to women or Blacks is going to offend them, and rid the 2008 election of that whole distraction from the issues, but they won’t. They will simply watch all this hoopla go on around them as if they can’t stop it.

It was uncovered yesterday that Rev. Al Sharpton is descended from slaves owned by the family of Sen. Strom Thurmond.*** To understand why such a thing is even newsworthy one must know that people act and vote based on the full range of human emotions. Most people who write or speak on politics want practical leadership, ways to make their lives and businesses better. Al Sharpton provides cultural leadership, representing the interests of an ethnic group just by being himself. (And party members seeking platforms aren't necessarily different people from those who want representation of their culture, race or values. Many voters want both.) Mass injustice and mistreatment require great lengths to resolve, which is hard to grasp for those with the responsibility of trying to make society and economy run smoothly because it is an issue outside the box.

In my piece on the State of the Union I spoke of how demoralized people can’t be represented unless their core issue is faced. For some it is abortion, for others religion, and we Libertarians are one of innumerable such groups calling for the one change we can’t yield on. So how do we even address such strong, subjective motives? I had a long traumatic experience in my life, in which the things I value most and consider my birthright were taken from me with great prejudice by those who were supposed to protect such sentiments. Because of this there are people I can’t speak to or even acknowledge because the things that make us who we are have the highest priority and if they are not healed there is no point. We must remind the custodians of formula in government that without justice (even a gesture of regret) there is no consent from the people. Del. Frank Hargrove of Hanover who said of slavery "our Black citizens should get over it"*, was correct, sooner or later people will need to put it behind them. But you can’t just tell people to do so, that’s easy when you haven’t felt the issue first-hand.

*http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193380480
**http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/02/20/confederate.museum.ap/index.html
***http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/25/sharpton.thurmond.ap/index.html

Question of the Week: As a party do you believe the LPVA represents just one culture, or do we have sufficient diversity of cultures and ethnicities among our ranks? If we had a more diverse base would it give us less cultural identity? Send your opinions to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input.

February 26, 2007

Victory on Property Rights

From the Virginia Property Rights Coaltion:

All of your Calls and E-mails made a difference

Kelo Protective Legislation Passes!!!
The House and Senate have agreed
to and passed the strong language in

HB2954, SB782 & SB1296
Link to conforming Language

without the amendment which allowed non-blighted
property to be taken along with blighted property

The Conference Committee, made up of Delegates Rob Bell, Clay Athey, and Johnny
Joannou from the House and Senators Mark Obenshain, Stephen Newman, and John
Edwards from the Senate insisted on strong Kelo language and did not accept Senator
Marty William's housing authority amendment. When their recommendations were
made to the Senate and the House overwhelming majorities voted for this language.

If any of the Conferees is your representive, let them know you are grateful.
Also contact your Senator and Delegate and let them know you appreciate their
vote. If they voted against these measures let them know of your displeasure

Senate Contact Information
http://sov.state.va.us/SenatorDB.nsf/$$Viewtemplate+for+WMembershipHome?OpenForm


House Contact Information
http://dela.state.va.us/dela/MemBios.nsf/MWebsiteTL?OpenView


________________________________


More........

Senate Vote on:

HB2954

YEAS--Bell, Blevins, Chichester, Colgan, Cuccinelli, Deeds, Devolites Davis, Edwards, Hanger, Hawkins, Herring, Houck, Howell, Lambert, Lucas, Marsh, Martin, McDougle, Miller, Newman, Obenshain, O'Brien, Potts, Puckett, Puller, Quayle, Reynolds, Ruff, Saslaw, Stosch, Ticer, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins, Whipple, Williams--36.

NAYS--Locke, Rerras--2.

RULE 36--Norment, Stolle--2.

NOT VOTING--0.

SB781:

YEAS--Bell, Blevins, Chichester, Colgan, Cuccinelli, Deeds, Devolites Davis, Edwards, Hanger, Hawkins, Herring, Houck, Howell, Lambert, Locke, Lucas, Marsh, Martin, McDougle, Miller, Newman, Obenshain, O'Brien, Potts, Puckett, Puller, Quayle, Reynolds, Ruff, Saslaw, Stosch, Ticer, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins, Whipple, Williams--37.

NAYS--Rerras--1.

RULE 36--Norment, Stolle--2.

NOT VOTING--0.

SB1296:

YEAS--Bell, Blevins, Chichester, Colgan, Cuccinelli, Deeds, Devolites Davis, Edwards, Hanger, Hawkins, Herring, Houck, Howell, Lambert, Lucas, Marsh, Martin, McDougle, Miller, Newman, Obenshain, O'Brien, Potts, Puckett, Puller, Quayle, Reynolds, Ruff, Saslaw, Stosch, Ticer, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins, Whipple, Williams--36.

NAYS--Locke, Rerras--2.

RULE 36--Norment, Stolle--2.

NOT VOTING--0.

House Vote:

HB2954

YEAS--Abbitt, Albo, Alexander, Amundson, Armstrong, Athey, Barlow, Bell, Bowling, Bulova, Byron, Callahan, Caputo, Carrico, Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Cox, Crockett-Stark, Dance, Dudley, Fralin, Frederick, Gear, Gilbert, Griffith, Hamilton, Hargrove, Hogan, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Hull, Hurt, Iaquinto, Ingram, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, S.C., Kilgore, Landes, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Lohr, Marsden, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., May, McQuigg, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Moran, Morgan, Nixon, Nutter, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Phillips, Poisson, Purkey, Putney, Rapp, Reid, Rust, Saxman, Scott, E.T., Shannon, Sherwood, Shuler, Sickles, Suit, Tyler, Valentine, Waddell, Wardrup, Ware, O., Ware, R.L., Watts, Welch, Wittman, Wright, Mr. Speaker--84.

NAYS--BaCote, Brink, Ebbin, Eisenberg, Englin, Hall, Jones, D.C., McClellan, McEachin, Melvin, Plum, Spruill, Toscano, Ward--14.

ABSTENTIONS--0.

NOT VOTING--Scott, J.M., Tata--2.

SB781

YEAS--Abbitt, Albo, Alexander, Amundson, Armstrong, Athey, Barlow, Bell, Bowling, Bulova, Byron, Callahan, Caputo, Carrico, Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Cox, Crockett-Stark, Dance, Dudley, Fralin, Frederick, Gear, Gilbert, Griffith, Hamilton, Hargrove, Hogan, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Hull, Hurt, Iaquinto, Ingram, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, S.C., Kilgore, Landes, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Lohr, Marsden, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., May, McQuigg, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Moran, Morgan, Nixon, Nutter, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Phillips, Poisson, Purkey, Putney, Rapp, Reid, Rust, Saxman, Scott, E.T., Shannon, Sherwood, Shuler, Sickles, Suit, Tata, Tyler, Valentine, Waddell, Wardrup, Ware, O., Ware, R.L., Watts, Welch, Wittman, Wright, Mr. Speaker--85.

NAYS--BaCote, Brink, Ebbin, Eisenberg, Englin, Hall, Jones, D.C., McClellan, McEachin, Melvin, Plum, Spruill, Toscano, Ward--14.

ABSTENTIONS--0.

NOT VOTING--Scott, J.M.--1.

SB1296

YEAS--Abbitt, Albo, Alexander, Amundson, Armstrong, Athey, Barlow, Bell, Bowling, Bulova, Byron, Callahan, Caputo, Carrico, Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Cox, Crockett-Stark, Dudley, Fralin, Frederick, Gear, Gilbert, Griffith, Hamilton, Hargrove, Hogan, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Hull, Hurt, Iaquinto, Ingram, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, S.C., Kilgore, Landes, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Lohr, Marsden, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., May, McQuigg, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Moran, Morgan, Nixon, Nutter, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Phillips, Poisson, Purkey, Putney, Rapp, Reid, Rust, Saxman, Scott, E.T., Shannon, Sherwood, Shuler, Sickles, Suit, Tata, Tyler, Valentine, Waddell, Wardrup, Ware, O., Ware, R.L., Watts, Welch, Wittman, Wright, Mr. Speaker--84.

NAYS--BaCote, Brink, Dance, Ebbin, Eisenberg, Englin, Hall, Jones, D.C., McClellan, McEachin, Melvin, Plum, Spruill, Toscano, Ward--15.

ABSTENTIONS--0.

NOT VOTING--Scott, J.M.--1.

Still no Privacy in Virginia

The following is a message from the Virginia Watchdog (BJ Ostergren) :

I guess you know all the privacy bills this session were KILLED! It's a
shame. The only thing that has passed has to dowith the Clerks' records.
The GA is forcing ALL clerks of Circuit Courts to go online by JULY 1, 2008
but yet they will have until JULY 1, 2010 to get SSNs (only) off the
internet version of the records. Nothing else will be protected. Take a
look at the BILLS TO WATCH THIS SESSION on my website and you'll see some.

Also you do know about DPPA...well, there is a section there which
specifically deals with TOW TRUCK DRIVERS from getting our information.
http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/DPPA1.htm

(b) Permissible Uses -- Personal information referred to in subsection (a)
shall bedisclosed for use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or
driver safety and theft, motorvehicle emissions, motor vehicle product
alterations, recalls, or advisories, performancemonitoring of motor vehicles
and dealers by motor vehicle manufacturers, and removal of non-owner records
from the original owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers to carry out
thepurposes of the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, the Motor Vehicle
Information and CostSaving Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966, the Anti-Car Theft Act of1992, and the Clean Air Act,
and may be disclosed as follows:

(1) For use by any government agency, including any court or law
enforcementagency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or
entity acting on behalf of aFederal, State, or local agency in carrying out
its functions.

AND....

(7) For use in providing notice to the owners of towed or impounded
vehicles.

AND....
Section 2725. Definitions

In this chapter --

(1) "motor vehicle record" means any record that pertains to a motor
vehicleoperator's permit, motor vehicle title, motor vehicle registration,
or identification cardissued by a department of motor vehicles;

(2) "person" means an individual, organization or entity, but does not
include aState or agency thereof; and

(3) "personal information" means information that identifies an
individual,including an individual's photograph, social security number,
driver identification number,name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code),
telephone number, and medical or disabilityinformation, but does not include
information on vehicular accidents, driving violations,and driver's status.

Have you read this about that asinine REAL ID ACT which I am totally
against?????

http://www.dmvnow.com/webdoc/temp/pdf/realidreport.pdf

I am driving to Portsmouth this AM to speak to a luncheon group . While I'm
there I'm collecting records from teh Circuit Court Clerk's office in
Portsmouth and Norfolk to post. I want records for every Clerk and DEL/SEN
in this state. If they are hell bent on having the records online, then
theirs will be on my website complete with SSN if I can find it.

BJ
--End--

Related Link:
http://www.opcva.com/WATCHDOG/

February 24, 2007

Patrick Henry Supper Club - March 6 - UPDATED

The Patrick Henry Supper Club Presents:

Mark J. Fitzgibbons
"Attempts by Congress to outlaw the 1st Amendment"

Fitzgibbons will detail the latest efforts by Congress to restrict grassroots groups and other 1st Amendment activities.

As usual the PHSC meets at:
Eastern Buffet
7586 W. Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23294
(in Merchants Walk Shopping Center)

6:00pm Dinner 7:00pm main event.

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising, Inc., Manassas, Virginia, the company that pioneered cause-related and political direct mail and direct marketing, and writes for GrassrootsFreedom.com. Besides his experience in direct marketing since 1993, his expertise is in constitutional and grassroots law as well. He has written for various national publications about constitutional, direct marketing and public policy matters. He has litigated nonprofit solicitation, postal and direct marketing cases in federal district and appellate courts, and has written briefs for cases before the United States Supreme Court.


Mark is a 1987 graduate of The Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America. He is licensed with the Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland Bars.

February 21, 2007

Re: The Libertarian Reform Caucus

I just saw your piece on richmondliberty.org. Good writing. I greatly
appreciate it when the opposition takes the time to look at our
positions and debate them in a gentlemanly fashion.

May I suggest this article for your contemplation.
http://reformthelp.org/strategy/nonElectoral/protest.php

Political Party or Protest Organization?
The Libertarian Party is operating under two conflicting business
plans. It is time to decide which business plan to pursue and create
another organization to pursue the other.
by Carl Milsted Jr.
Posted August 20, 2006
"Welcome to Bubba's Auto Parts and Day Spa, the one-stop source for
your car, truck, and personal beautification needs. We got yer rubbing
compounds and exfoliating facial scrubs, motor oils and scented oils,
paste wax and bikini wax. Relax in our steam room while we steam clean
your engine. Soak in beauty mud while we install new mud flaps on your
four-wheeler. And check out our specials on aisle seven: buy one Fram
oil filter and get a free loofah sponge."
Bubba has an unusual business plan—one that is not very appealing.
Both auto parts stores and day spas are viable businesses, but put the
two together and the results are...not pretty. The Libertarian Party
suffers from the same fundamental problem; it has two conflicting
business models operating under the same roof.
To some, the Libertarian Party is a true political party, an
organization dedicated to electing libertarians to public office. This
is the model codified in our mission statement.
To others the Libertarian Party is a protest organization. Its purpose
is to take a stand on the hard issues and to promote a radical
long-term vision. This model is codified in the membership pledge and,
until recently, in the platform.
Either model would work independently. However, trying to be both a
political party and a protest organization has been a disaster.
A political party needs to build a large coalition. It needs to shy
away from the more unpopular positions, focusing instead on those
libertarian positions that the voters are ready for today. A political
party needs to behave with a certain degree of decorum in order to
maintain credibility.
A protest organization, on the other hand, can thrive on controversy.
Outrageous positions, statements, and street theater can attract
attention and get people to think in new ways.
Put the two together in the same organization and both efforts are
hampered. A big tent dilutes the message. Radical positions and
outrageous street theater hurt the chances of the serious candidates.
The Libertarian Party needs to decide which role it should take. If we
are to be a protest organization, let's do it up! Let us stop wasting
money on 50 state ballot access requirements and paper candidates. Let
us put forth far out confrontational press releases and have a blast
doing street theater. Who needs credibility? PETA doesn't. Greenpeace
doesn't.
On the other hand, if the LP is to be a true political party, then the
membership pledge needs to go, and the platform needs to focus on
winnable near term goals.
Whichever way the LP goes, the libertarian movement needs another
organization to take on the dropped role. If the LP is to be a
political party, then we need radical protest organizations to turn
today's far-out positions into tomorrow's winning issues. On the other
hand, if the LP is to be a protest organization, then we need a new,
more moderate, pro-freedom political party to cash in on the successes
of the libertarian protest organizations and think tanks. These days,
the Democratic and Republican politicians tend to be more
authoritarian than the general public, so voter education alone is
insufficient.
Whichever way the LP goes, some will walk out. But a greater number
will walk in. A coherent business plan would make participation in the
LP more fun and more effective.
I think the LP should be a political party. Why have the overhead of a
political party in order to be a protest organization? Why bother with
petitioning and FEC compliance? Setting up a new protest organization
is much easier than setting up a new political party. And members of
the new radical protest organization(s) can continue being members of
the more moderate LP at the same time, just as many members of PETA
and Greenpeace are also members of the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, the LP has done much of its best work historically
as a protest organization. More importantly, there are quite a few
libertarians who grow quite hysterical at the thought of the word
"libertarian" being associated with an organization that is moderate
enough and compromising enough to win elections. Perhaps those of us
who want to do elect pro-liberty politicians should start a new party
under a different name just to avoid the acrimony.
So, which shall it be?

Red-light camera option approved

Coming soon -- perhaps -- to an intersection near you: surveillance cameras to catch dangerous drivers.

Now headed to Gov. Tim Kaine: legislation giving local government the option of setting up cameras to watch for motorists who run red lights. Kaine likes the idea and is expected to sign it into law.

Full Story from the RTD

Related Links:
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/index.html
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+sum+HB1778
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+sum+SB829

Now would be a good time to contact the Governor. He can be reached at:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm


Guantanamo detainees denied access to court

In a victory for President Bush, a divided federal appeals court ruled yesterday that Guantanamo Bay detainees cannot use the U.S. court system to challenge their indefinite imprisonment. A Supreme Court appeal was promised.

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismisses hundreds of cases filed by foreign-born detainees in federal court and also threatens to strip away court access for millions of lawful permanent residents currently in the United States.

It upholds a key provision of the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a Defense Department system to prosecute terrorism suspects. Now, detainees must prove to three-officer military panels that they don't pose a terror threat.
http://timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193303961&path=%21news&s=1045855934842">Full Story from the RTD
| | TrackBacks (0)

Move essentially kills minimum-wage bill

Using a parliamentary maneuver, the House of Delegates yesterday essentially killed a proposal to raise the state's minimum wage.

Colgan's legislation - one of several bills introduced this year to increase the wage - sought to boost minimum pay from $5.15 to $6.50 an hour.

House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said the bill should go to appropriations because it would have a $5 million fiscal impact on the state.

Full Story from the RTD

February 20, 2007

Patrick Henry Supper Club - March 6, 2007 UPDATED

Back in October, I finalized arrangements with Kit Gage from the First Amendment Foundation (http://www.firstamend.org/) to speak at the March PHSC. However I have been informed that Kit has a Board meeting scheduled at the same time as the PHSC.

These things do happen. However as usual the PHSC will have an interesting speaker for the next meeting, so please make sure you plan to attend.

Also as usual the PHSC meets at:
Eastern Buffet
7586 W. Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23294
(in Merchants Walk Shopping Center)

February 18, 2007

Towing Companies a Menace To Richmond Drivers

by Robert Russo

A democracy is supposed to allow a private citizen to fight government corruption, or through civic action fight special interests and big business, but what happens when government and corporations work together to bilk the public? Welcome to Richmond, the crossroads of capitalism.

Classifieds are a great way to find a deal on a used vehicle, especially if one is in financial straits or has little time to spare. (After all, free press is an entitlement just as doing friendly business, so long as it doesn't actually hit the road.) Typically the car is available for purchase after working hours, and the seller wishes to keep his tags saying how easy it will be to get new ones transferred by the DMV in the morning. Then the car which has probably been sitting there for months is driven away into a gauntlet of uniformed and private sharks. If it is not pulled over on the way home, an urban resident must choose between having it towed from his parking space overnight for not having a sticker, or from the street for not being registered yet. If the buyer put his own plates on the car he can expect them to be confiscated and destroyed. This can be made worse by the fact that the buyer has no other means of transportation, and the unknown quality of privately bought vehicles in the first place.

Perhaps the police think a sale goes something like this: The first thing a buyer does is call a tow truck to have the car moved to the DMV because an unregistered car can't be driven. Or this business about going to the DMV before the sale and registering a car that hasn't been purchased yet. This was the recommendation I received on Friday when this happened to me, before paying $115 to get my new vehicle back and $75 to replace the plates and title. I should note that when my old vehicle broke down in the first place, a tow truck did not arrive to help me until four hours later.

When looking at the boom in towing companies since 1995 (when towing became unregulated) and abuse of this franchise one finds that Northern Virginia saw the full circle of this gambit before Richmond (probably because of the massive amount of DC commuters and parking), from which Rep. Jim Moran of Arlington founded the State and Local Predatory Towing Enforcement Act, which failed nationally but then partially succeeded as an earmark and local ordinance followed in 2006.* This predatory behavior includes housing developments making arrangements with towing companies to remove resident cars overnight (i.e. for having one wheel over the line) in exchange for a cut of the profits,** hiring private snitches to peruse the streets for similar kickbacks, charging holding fees for the time the yard was closed (i.e. on Sunday), and tow trucks cherrypicking vehicles downtown waiting for the moment the meter has expired or watching to make sure the driver actually enters the store he has parked at, not releasing the chain until the driver pays cash.*** Arlington Del. Bob Brink says of his colleague "He cited one case of a company with four tow trucks that was able to remove 12 cars from a parking lot in front of a bar in twenty minutes. When a citizen reported this to the Association, they called the owner of the trucks who told them in no uncertain terms what they could do with their reprimand."****

Last April a state bill was finally approved by Gov. Kaine, establishing a board to regulate the towing industry.***** This is just the tip of the iceberg however. The problem is not just that companies exceed their bounds, those responsibilities themselves must be reduced. Imagine if law enforcement required the services of your company so that its financial future was guaranteed for life, but with a binding contract that required you to be on call to confiscate people's livelihood and deal with their anguish. By passing on enforcement to a private business, police can issue fines at the price of profit. The contractor has to obey and the state can't prevent them from being paid. It's like hiring a thug to push people around so that if they resist, it violates his rights. Hampering these contracts would put a major curb on the enforcement of victimless road violations and force cops to be more lenient. For details of the current regulations go to http://www.namic.org/insbriefs/060522VaTowing.pdf.

*http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/Communications/6009.aspx
**http://www.dailyping.com/archive/2000/08/07/
***http://dls.state.va.us/pubs/legisrec/2005/sjr330c.htm
****http://www.bobbrink.org/february15_04.php
*****http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:tSj5Fjc3ARQJ:www.namic.org/insbriefs/060522VaTowing.pdf+Virginia+towing+legislation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Question of the Week: Do you have any horror stories to share about your experience with a towing company? Send them to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

February 14, 2007

Libertarians latest group to oppose Misdemeanor Arrest Bill

Libertarians latest group to oppose Misdemeanor Arrest Bill

RICHMOND-- Virginia Libertarians joined a growing number of groups opposed to HB2943, a bill now before the Virginia Senate that would allow police officers to arrest citizens for Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors.

Current Virginia law already provides police the flexibility to arrest persons suspected of committing misdemeanors if the police can articulate why they suspect the individual: (1) is intoxicated; (2) is not likely to show up for the hearing listed on the summons; (3) is refusing to discontinue the allegedly unlawful conduct; or (4) is likely to hurt himself or others. HB2943 would allow police to arrest without meeting this standard.

"Arrest carries a major consequence in Virginia -- once a citizen is arrested, officers may search them without consent," noted LPVa chairman Leonard Harris. "With hundreds of misdemeanors on the books in Virginia, HB2943 would give officers virtually unlimited discretion to go on 'fishing expeditions' for relatively minor infractions."

Groups ranging from the ACLU to the Virginia Citizens Defense League are already opposing the bill, and Virginia Libertarians were quick to join the chorus of opposition. "This bill represents an unacceptable compromise of Virginians' Fourth Amendment rights," stated Harris.

HB2943 has already passed the House, leaving the Senate as one of the last lines of defense for civil liberties on this issue. "Virginia Libertarians call on the state Senate to uphold the basic protections of privacy and property for all Virginians," said Harris. "Law and order are critical to society, but police don't need limitless search powers to keep the streets safe."

# # #

Patrick Henry Supper Club - March 6, 2007

The Patrick Henry Supper Club presents
Kit Gage
"Government and Dissent"

As usual the PHSC meets at:
Eastern Buffet
7586 W. Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23294
(in Merchants Walk Shopping Center)

6:00pm Dinner 7:00pm main event.

Meetings are open to the public, please purchase a meal at the hosting restaurant.

Kit Gage has directed the First Amendment Foundation and the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation (NCARL, www.ncarl.org) since April 2001. She is president and a founder of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF, www.ncppf.org). She has worked with the Foundation and NCARL since 1987.

Ms. Gage writes regular newsletters and articles, is a frequent public speaker, has worked extensively with the media, and works in coalition with many civil liberties, civil rights and immigrant rights groups across the country. In 2003, she helped coordinate the Grassroots America Defends the Bill of Rights First National Conference that brought together activists and experts working on bill of rights resolutions and defense. She continues to help bring together diverse activists doing bill of rights restoration work. She has been an activist for decades, focused on defending the right of political expression, but also she has taken up women’s rights, environmental, and human rights issues.

She has been in the national leadership of National Lawyers Guild (as a legal worker) and has been active with the NLG for several decades, and was on the board of the Guatemala Human Rights Commission/USA for many years. She has a BA (1973) from Grinnell College with an independent major in Women, Socialization and Conflict, is married to Steve Metalitz and has two remarkable adult daughters.

First Amendment Foundation: focuses on educating people on the difficult history of political dissent, the First Amendment Foundation has published three books, including FBI vs. the First Amendment by Richard Criley and Terrorism & the Constitution, Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security by James X. Dempsey and David Cole. First Amendment Felon, a biography written by Robert Sherrill, about Frank Wilkinson and the Red Scare, is due out in November 2005.

NCARL: started as the National Committee to Abolish HUAC (the House UnAmerican Activities Committee), and has since worked to defend the right of political expression, particularly from government abuses.

NCPPF: was formed in 1997 following the passage of the 1996 Antiterrorism act. It protects the right of political expression, association and due process for immigrants and citizens alike. In particular it focused on eliminating the use of secret evidence in deportation-related proceedings.

Who's the head of homeland security? You are!

Homeland security begins in your home not in Washington D.C. Help the Richmond area Libertarians remind Richmond area citizens at the upcoming gunshow at the showplace on March 3rd and 4th.

You get free admission if you work a shift and you get to talk about freedom and guns with people that care about both.

To volunteer contact gunshow@richmondliberty.org

Location:
The Showplace
3000 Mechanicsville Turnpike.

Shifts:
9:00-1:00 and 1:00-5:00 on Saturday
10:00-1:30 and 1:30-5:00 on Sunday

The Libertarian Reform Caucus

by Robert Russo

       I'm interested in getting some opinions on this subject which I have never seen mentioned on this site but was covered extensively by columnist Carl Milsted on lpva.com, although the question is timeless.  Should the LP moderate itself so we have a more realistic chance of competing in today's world and the two-party game, or strive for purity even if it means never winning a national election?  The LRC is a group within the party (or some would say a manifestation of all common sense libertarians) which has given a name and a motion to the desire to change our platform from the party of principle to a party that's practical.  It proposes a renovation of our objectives to those "that can plausibly be enacted in the next term in office", and an upgrade of our appearance to make it more publicly acceptable and recognizable, saying "It is simply inappropriate for a political party that wishes to win elective office to suggest radical changes in government that non-Libertarians neither endorse nor even understand."*  They successfully laid down some of these "planks" at last year's national convention.  I have mixed feelings about it.

            Just reading the "old" platform as described on reformthelp.org reminds me of why I joined in the first place.  It is a thing of beauty, an absolute truth, and the more they complain about "purists" the fonder it becomes.  I have believed for the past decade however that we must adapt and appeal to the general public or none of our aspirations will become reality.  Milsted says "Whenever a likeable, moderate Libertarian candidate gets traction, the opposition party publishes a few zingers from the LP platform. Defeat of our candidate is then assured."**  I think the problem is that the LP serves two different functions, it is not just a party or a platform (which is the reason it is more qualified than any other party). The LCR suggests "Where libertarians disagree, the platform should be silent. The party should be a tool for all libertarians."**. In other words the LP should be a part of a libertarian society with wide goals, high ideals and full representation beyond any platform.

The LCR says it has come under fire by purists for not being true libertarians. Other moderate movements calling themselves neo-libertarians or "mainstream" libertarians are harsh toward purists and see them as the political enemy. This kind of infighting is crippling to a party and sews hatred and judgment within our cause. The LCR advocates using the caucus system and promotional booths at LP events to spread moderation which I disagree with. I have always felt the party needed a kick in the pants to get back on track, both in political success and a return to true libertarianism, and that this could be accomplished by a strong leader. An author, educator or celebrity who has earned public attention on his own merits outside the LP (not someone from within the LP with close friends but no public identity) so that the public can know libertarianism through him, not the other way around. It is the human personality in which purists and moderates can find common ground (along with independents, Green party etc.), because a talented representative is both radical in his views and moderate in his words, believing there is no contradiction, and not letting anyone feel left out. The presentable platform and the greater underlying agenda are both seated in him as he takes office, one foremost in his thoughts, the other in his heart. I was reminded of the words to a song I once wrote entitled "The Politician":

Where are your goals now you self-made fanatic?
And the ideals you held when you were young?
Where are your noble thoughts and convictions,
that were so in style when you first begun?
How did you get here lost in the jungle
of impressive words with no regret?
Did they just float away like so much aroma
or did you think them not the best you could get?
Woe to the soul of the politician!
Have mercy on the man who is forced to choose!
Will he ever succumb to his ambitions,
or keep his dreams alive even though he'll lose?

For those who have not yet seen reformthelp.org I would recommend it along with Carl Milsted's articles at http://www.lpva.com/Archives/Editorial/Milsted/20050403.shtml.

*http://reformthelp.org/
**http://www.lpva.com/Archives/Editorial/Milsted/20050403.shtml

Question of The Week: Do you believe using caucuses to reform the party would divide the LP and if this choice is forced upon us, would you support or oppose the LCR? Please send your thoughts to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians let us know. We welcome your input!

February 13, 2007

Roy's General Assembly Report - Feb 13, 2007

GA130207.odt ­ General Assembly 13 FEB 07

------------------------------------------------------------
** sigh **
It's time for what's becoming an annual
rant. If you've heard it before, you should
probably hit the key a time or two.
I do this stuff at the General Assembly as a
public service. No one pays me for my time. No
one reimburses me for bus-fare, or lunch, or
late-night pizza or taxi-fare when meetings
extend past the time that the bus stops
running. No one subsidizes the printing, or the
courier service, or the dry-cleaning, or the
other costs. It all comes out of my pocket.
That means that no one is entitled to berate me
for not doing whatever he or she thinks that I
should do. It also means that when I get emails
accusing me of profiteering, or defrauding the
readers, that I contemptuously delete them, since
the senders have shown themselves to be either stupid or willfully ignorant.
I do this because I think that someone needs to
do it, and no one else has stepped up to do
it. I concentrate on things that interest me and
things that I think are important. These include
the classics: sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, and guns.
(You may think of me as a less-talented but
slightly-more-sane Hunter S. Thompson.)
If you have constructive criticism, please feel
free to let me know. I make mistakes, and I
overlook things that I should have noticed. Your input is welcome.
OTOH, if you wish to accuse me of selling out,
or being politically incorrect from your
viewpoint, don't bother. If I fail to meet your
standards, or if you disagree with what I do or
how I do it, I very sincerely invite you to do
better. I've been doing this, mutatis mundatis,
since 1972, shortly before Jeff, Dick, and I
founded “Virginians for Study of Marijuana Laws,
Inc.”. For a number of years I was “Virginia's
only registered marijuana lobbyist.” It's been
some time since I had to register (only required
if you're getting money), and my interests have expanded beyond marijuana.
One of the more encouraging developments in the
last few years, pretty obviously connected with
the rise of the Internet, has been the emergence
of other self-funded or micro-funded
lobbyists. Just a few of these ­ and I mean no
disrespect to those omitted, nor do I mean to
imply that I approve all the aims of those who are listed ­ are:
B.J. Ostergren - “The Virginia Watchdog” -
Privacy -
Hal Macklin - General sanity & deep legal research
Jim Kaddison ­ American Motorists Association ­ Drivers' rights
Lennice Werth ­ Virginians Against Drug Violence ­ Drug law reform
Mike Krawitz ­ Virginia NORML ­ Marijuana law reform
Mike Stollenwerk ­ Fairfax County Privacy
Council ­ Privacy rights -
Philip Van Cleave ­ Virginia Citizens' Defense
League ­ Second-amendment rights -
Now that I have all of that off my chest, we'll go on with the report.
-- Roy
------------------------------------------------------------


There was an 8:30am meeting of House Health,
Welfare and Institutions which I did not
attend. They had two bills of interest, but
nothing to which I could usefully
contribute. Will find out tomorrow what happened to them.


The Senate Committee on Local Government met
shortly before the scheduled 2pm. They have a
firearms bill (also a "photo-red" bill).

HB1778 (Cosgrove) to allow photographic
enforcement of red-light running, was transferred
to the Senate Committee on Transportation.

HB2547 (Carrico) would clarify current law, which
says that a person may not carry a loaded firearm
on a public road unless he or she has permission
to hunt from the landowners on both sides of the
road. The bill makes it clear that this applies
only to hunters, not to people who are legally
transporting a firearm with no intention of hunting.

The bill had not come up when I had to leave for
P&E Committee. Not to worry, Philip Van Cleave
from VCDL is here to cover this bill. [4:30
pm: Philip just came across the hall and told me
that the bill was reported from the Committee with only one dissenting vote.]


The Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections
is scheduled to meet at 3pm. They have one bill of particular interest.

HB3157 (Waldrup) requires independent and primary
candidates running for office to pay a filing
fee equal to two percent of the annual salary
for the office, or at least $50, to be listed on
the ballot. There are exceptions for some small
offices, and if the candidate provides an affidavit that he is indigent.
The short version here is that the bill died of
its own weight. Stricken from the docket without
objection from anyone, including the
patron. Those interested in details can look at
the very bottom of this report, after the website reminders.
The Committee rose a bit about 5:30pm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow's significant meetings include:
noon: House and Senate convene; Patrick Henry Building
2:00 pm: Senate General Laws and Technology; Senate Room B
+ 1/2 hr: Senate Courts of Justice; Senate Room A
+ 1/2 hr: House Courts of Justice - Criminal Law Sub.; House Room C
+ 1/2 hr: House Courts of Justice - Civil Law Sub.; 7th Floor W Conf. Rm.
("+ 1/2 hr" means "half an hour after House [or Senate] adjourns")
Unless otherwise noted, all meetings are in the
General Assembly Building, SE corner of 9th and
Broad, and are open to the public.


-------------------------------------------------------

DETAILS:
To see the summary, text, status, estimated
cost, votes, or other details on any bill, go to:
. Click on:
“Bills & Resolutions ­ status of individual bills and related information”.
At the text-entry block, enter the bill and type
just as I have it listed above. (Use “SB921”, not “S.B. 921”, for example.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMINDER:
and
These are the two websites where you can access
nearly anything you want to know about
practically anything related to the General Assembly. Use them!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

HB3157 boring details for the politics junkies out there:
[Fleshed out, over a beer at the Village, from my hasty notes at the time.]

4:33pm, the bill finally comes up. There's a
substitute version -- this is a different
substitute, to replace the other substitute
version which passed the House -- with a lot more verbiage.
The new version, it turns out on inspection, is
identical in all respects to the House Committee
Substitute version, PDF online at:
,
except that it also amends/reenacts §24.2-114,
"duties of registrar". Adds new duty:
"At the request of any person who intends to file
a candidate petition under §24.2-506 or 24.2-521,
provide to the extent practicable a written
statement of (i) the number of signatures of
qualified voters required, and (ii) the amount of the filing fee required."
Subcommittee chairman explains that they were
worried that a potential candidate might have bad
information, get too few signatures, and find
this out only when it was too late to correct the
problem. (Presumably, they might also discover
at the last minute that they have to pay for the
privilege of being on the ballot.)
Subcommittee report says independent candidates
can get on ballot too easily, particularly in
small localities, so this bill is needed. Vote
in sub was 3-2. Repeated worry expressed that
some sort of "performance standard" is needed for
independents. Otherwise, you could have 30-40
candidates on the ballot! [At which point
civilization as we know it would presumably crumble.]
Chair asks why sub version needed.
Patron says he "just want[s] to go after these
independents." Sub version needed because
Supreme Court says must treat all
equally. Committee counsel says that's "uniform
within the class of candidates".
Devolites Davis points out that lines 27-29 p 5
mean that every single district will have
different requirements; should be uniform. (This
language identical to lines 47-49 in on-line PDF version referenced above.)
Deeds - What is the problem that this bill is meant to address?
Waldrup: "The idea behind this bill is to raise
the hurdle for independent candidates." [. . .]
"You'll have lots and lots of people who file
just so they can have their name on the same
ballot as the president of the United States,
particularly in the larger jurisdictions."
Patron says he has no great interest in the
bill, and is peeved that Legislative Services
made it more complicated, and that he's tired of
messing with it, and the Committee can kill it if they wish.
Counsel and patron go to hall to try to fix bill
about 4:45. Patron never returns, insofar as I
saw. When Committee rose, I asked Chair about
the bill, and was told that, on behalf of the
patron, he struck it from the docket. I
congratulated him on right action, and for saving
me the task of speaking to the bills
flaws. (Didn't mention that it would have been a
nice idea to have announced that action.)
All this may be more detail than anyone needs,
but some of the statements quoted here may come
in handy when a similar bill is actually passed
in a future Assembly, and we need to go to court.
-- Respectfully submitted,
-- Humble Scrivener

end

- - Roy B. Scherer

Roy's General Assembly Report - Feb 12, 2007

GA120207.odt – General Assembly 12 FEB 07


There was a very brief meeting of the House
Courts of Justice Committee immediately after the
House adjourned this afternoon, simply to parcel
out the new bills between the subcommittees.

The Criminal Law Subcommittee of House Courts of
Justice Committee met this afternoon, about
1:30pm. They can kill bills on their own
initiative, subject to override by the full
Committee. They can make recommendations to the
full Committee for amendments or passage.
Other committees met this morning, and are also
meeting now, with bills of interest, but I'm
still under the weather, so this is the only one I'm attending.

-----------------------

SB876 (McDougle) adds first-offense drug
distribution to the list of crimes that are used
to define a group as a "criminal gang"; current
law includes only repeated offenses.
I spoke against the change, but the majority of
the subcommittee agreed with the
patron. Recommendation is to report the bill and
re-refer it to Appropriations. Cost is estimated
at over a quarter-million dollars over the next few years.

SB880 (Deeds) deals with expungement of criminal
records after writ of actual innocence. (See
SB1223, HB2959). Held over until Wednesday's meeting.

SB1071 (McDougle) adds requirements and penalties
for registered sex offenders and child
pornographers; will be conformed to the similar
HB2749; recommended for reporting.

SB1168 (Stolle) removes present cap on
compensation of court-appointed attorneys. Will be held until Wednesday.

SB1223 (McDougle) Expungement of criminal records
after a pardon or writ of actual innocence. (See
SB880, HB2959). Carried over to Wednesday's meeting.

SB1237 (Obenshain) increases penalties for
violation of protective orders, with mandatory
minimum sentences for repeated offenses. Will be held until Wednesday.

SB1234 (Obenshain) provides increased penalties,
with mandatory minimums, for
distribution/manufacture of an ounce, or eight
ounces, of methamphetamine. Will be held until Wednesday.

The Subcommittee rose about 4:30pm.

-----------------------

Tomorrow's significant committee meetings include:
8:30 am, House Health, Welfare and Institutions, House Room "D"
2:00 pm, Senate Local Government; Senate Room B
4:00 pm, Senate Privileges and Elections; Senate Room "A"
Unless otherwise noted, all meetings are in the
General Assembly Building, SE corner of 9th and
Broad, and are open to the public.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DETAILS:
To see the summary, full text, status, estimated
cost, votes, or other details on any bill, go to:
. Click on:
“Bills & Resolutions – status of individual bills and related information”.
At the text-entry block, enter the bill and type
just as I have it listed above. (Use “SB921”, not “S.B. 921”, for example.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMINDER:
and
These are the two websites where you can access
nearly anything you want to know about
practically anything related to the General Assembly. Use them!


end

- - Roy B. Scherer

February 12, 2007

Roy's General Assembly Report - Feb 11, 2007

GA110207.odt – General Assembly
11 FEB 07

[Warning: Very long. Hope it reads more quickly than it was
written! -- Roy]


ERRATA:

I seem to have misidentified two lobbyists -- sorry, I mean "legislative liasons" -- in at least one of my recent reports.

Hope Amezquita works with ACLU-VA, while

Mira Signer works with Planned Parenthood.


In my last report, I wrote:

'HB2954 (Bell) deals with Eminent Domain, addressing the
“Hilo” decision'
That was a
mistake on my part; I should have referred to the “Kelo” decision,
properly known as “Kelo v. New London”. Sorry about that.


HB1969 (Albo) is included below; Some previous references were to HB1769.
HB2622 (Reid) likewise. Some previous references were to HB2662.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This week has been lacking in significant Committee action -- which is
good, because I've been laid up at home nursing what I hope is only a
cold. I've gotten some email and phone business done, and also this
will be a good time to write up an overview of Assembly action.


The short version is that every change in the law starts with a bill in either the House or Senate. Each bill is assigned to a committee, and usually to a subcommittee. The public is invited to testify on the bill, and the committee either kills it, or reports it (often with amendments) to the floor (the full House or Senate). On the floor, the bill is considered again, and again may be killed or amended. If it survives this process, it goes to the other chamber, where it has to go through the same process. (For more detail, see .)

We're now just over halfway through that process. (Procedurally, not timewise; the session is set to end on the 24th.) As of this past Wednesday, each body can act only on bills that originated in the other chamber. Many bills have dropped by the wayside since the Assembly convened on January tenth. Here's the status of all the bills I've mentioned in these reports so far, plus a few that are important but that I wasn't able to get to.


Note that I've reported which committee each bill is before. Find when these meet online at < http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+oth+MTG>.


The following bills have not been previously reported here. You may find them important.

SB 1242 (Whipple) would allow self-insured localities to extend coverage under their health care program to any class of persons that may be mutually agreed upon by the locality and the policy holder [Being translated, this means that localities could offer benefits to unmarried domestic partners of their employees.] It passed the Senate easily, but is likely to be in trouble in the House.

[Equality Virginia says: "This bill passed the Senate by a vote of 36-4. It passed the House Committee of Counties, Cities and Towns by a vote of 11-10 on Friday, February 9. Please write to your Delegate today and urge them to support thi[s] bill when it is debated on the House early next week."]

HB1727 (Lohr) and HB3047 (Cole) are attempts to stifle controversial school groups such as Gay-Straight Alliances -- although the patrons deny any such motive, of course.

At present, local school boards may adopt pretty much whatever policies they find appropriate for their localities in dealing with "non-curriculum-related" student clubs and activities in middle and high schools. These measures would require that every school board notify parents of details on each and every such club, and either require written permission from parents, or give parents an opportunity to deny such permission for any group.

[EV says: "Designed to suppress participation in Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), this bill could prevent at-youth risk from being able to participate in a critical support network, and would provide an unnecessary and costly bureaucratic burden on school boards and educators."]

At first, HB1727 was defeated by a tie vote of the House Committee on Education, but then five days later it was reconsidered. The two bills were combined into a substitute bill, which was reported to the House. This was then argued about for a week, before yet another substitute was adopted by the full House. This was passed, 82-15, and is now before the Senate Committee on Education and Health. The Subcommittee on Public Education met Friday morning, and (by a 3-2 vote) passed yet another version, which I have not yet seen. This should be considered by the full Committee on Thursday at 9am in Senate Room B.


HB3047 (Cole), anti-GSA, was incorporated into HB1727.


HB3157 (Waldrup) imposes prohibitive fees on independent and third-party candidates for public office, in order to make the elections safe for Demlicans and Republicrats.

This bill was rewritten by the House Privileges and Elections Committee, and passed the House 70-29. It's been referred to the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, subcommittee on Campaigns and Elections.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These bills have been previously reported.


SB754 (Miller) mandates child-friendly visiting rooms in state correctional facilities. Amended to remove provisions for toys and breastfeeding, then passed without opposition. Now before House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety.


SB767 (Locke) would allow localities to prohibit carrying
firearms into libraries.
We killed
it in Senate committee, 9-5.


SB773 (Miller) child-friendly visiting rooms. Dropped in favor of SB754.


B827 (Devolites-Davis) so-called “gun-show loophole”.
Killed in
committee, 10-4.

SB835 (Devolites-Davis) allows continued TANF (family aid) after drug
possession.
Substitute
version incorporates SB934 (Ticer) and is contingent upon an
appropriation of funds. (See HB2612) No opposition in senate,
referred to House Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions.

SB858 (Reynolds) -- anti-SLAPP -- Incorporated into SB1250.

SB876 (McDougle) includes first-offense drug distribution as a
"predicate crime" in establishing membership in a
"criminal gang". Marijuana distribution/manufacture will
still not be included in these “predicate offenses” except for a second
felony offense.) Estimated cost over the next five years is over a
quarter-million dollars.
No
opposition in Senate, before House Courts of Justice subcommittee on
Criminal Law.

SB879 (Deeds) Electronic logs of methamphetamine precursors (seeSB978).
Dead in
Senate Courts.

SB905 (Rerras), says that it is not child abuse/neglect if the parent of
a mature child, in agreement with the child, chooses some medical
treatment which is against the recommendation of the medical
establishment. (See HB2319).
Much
fooferaw in committee and Senate, multiple substitute versions.
Finally passed, now before House Committee for Courts of Justice, Civil
Law subcommittee.

SB934 (Ticer) -- continued TANF after
drug possession. Incorporated into SB835. (See HB2612)

SB978 (Edwards) Electronic logs of methamphetamine precursors (seeSB879).

Dead in Senate
Courts.

SB1007 (Saslaw) bans firearms from secure areas of police buildings and
other law enforcement establishments.
Substitute
version reported after our objections in Committee; no opposition in
Senate. Now before House Committee on Militia, Police and Public
Safety.


SB1071 (McDougle) addresses child
pornography and the Net (See HB2749).
Multiple
substitute versions, from different committees, in an effort to reduce
costs from originally-estimated $1.5 million. Does not include
half-hour registration of email accounts inserted in HB2749 at my
recommendation. Substitute version passed with no Senate
opposition, now before House Committee for Courts of Justice,
subcommittee on Criminal Law.


SB1079 (Puckett) would have established a “Therapeutic Incarceration Program”.
Died in Courts, 9-7.


SB1168 (Stolle) removes the limit on compensating court-appointed attorneys. (See HB2361.)

Amended in Senate Courts, no opposition in Senate, now before House Committee for Courts of Justice, subcommittee on Criminal Law.


SB1234 (Obenshain) increased penalties, mandatory minimums, for distribution of either one ounce or eight ounces of methamphetamine.

Finance Committee dropped maximum penalty from "life" to 40 years for an ounce, and substitute bill was reported, and passed, without opposition. Estimated cost $705,140; will not become effective unless funds are appropriated. Now before House Committee for Courts of Justice, subcommittee on Criminal Law.


SB1237 (Obenshain) increases penalties for violation of protective orders, with mandatory minimum sentences for repeated offenses.

Finance Committee rewrote this as a substitute to lower the costs. Reported, no opposition, now before House Committee for Courts of Justice, subcommittee on Criminal Law.

SB1250 (Herring) -- Anti-SLAPP.

Courts substitute version incorporates SB858. Protects those who speak out at public hearings from being sued. No opposition, now before House Committee for Courts of Justice.


SB1364 (Howell) would ban all private firearms from child day care facilities.

Killed in Senate Courts, 8-5.


================================================================================


HB1626 (Janis) is a self-defense bill, allowing deadly force
against an unlawful intruder who actually done something that puts the
lawful person in imminent danger. The lawful occupant is also
shielded from civil liability for such actions.
Substitute
version incorporates HB2458; the language is unchanged from the
subcommittee version. It was reported to the House 20-1, passed
91-6, then was reconsidered and passed again 95-4. Now beore Senate
Courts of Justice.

HB1632 (Morgan) would have lowered prices imposed on prisoners' phone
calls.
We got it
passed from Commerce and Labor (13-1), but Appropriations killed it
because the state makes millions of dollars each year from these
extortionate charges.

HB1665 (Marshall) would have made it a crime to force or coerce a woman
to have an abortion.
House
substitute has the objectionable language and concepts from the original
bill removed, reported 11-5, passed House 71-27, and was referred to
Senate Committee on Education and Health, where it died on a 9-6 vote.

HB1772 (Cosgrove) would allow police officer to pull over a car for
speeding, even when out of uniform and in a private car, by displaying a
badge.
Killed in
House Courts.

HB1857 (Wittman) would have increased the penalty for possession of
marijuana on school property, even for first offense.
Killed in
House Committee for Courts of Justice.

HB1866 (Wittman) would have made it a felony to possess a BB gun on
school property.
Died in
House Committee for Courts of Justice.

HB1914 (Ward) HPV vaccination (Incorporated into HB2035)

HB1960 (Hargrove) would have abolished the death penalty.
Died in
House Courts.

HB1969 (Albo) outlaws false ads for concerts, using the name of a band
without justification.
Amended
version passed House 95-3, now before Senate Commerce and Labor.

HB2035 (Hamilton) requires vaccination against HPV (Human Papilloma
Virus) for school girls.
Substitute
version incorporates HB1914, reported 19-2. Amended on House floor
to allow parental opt-out for personal choice; passed 80-17. Now
before Senate Committee on Education and Health.

HB2106 (Carrico) attempts to eliminate some red tape associated with CHP
permits.
Substitute
version much weaker, passed without opposition, now before Senate
Committee for Courts of Justice.


HB2110 (Carrico) would restrict use of deferred judgement. Incorporated into HB2481.

We killed this in
House Courts.

HB2173 (BaCote) would have allowed localities to ban legal weapons in libraries. (See SB767.)
Killed in House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety.

HB2279 (Watts) rewrites the law dealing with sexual offenses
against children, increasing some penalties and attempting to make the
law easier to understand and enforce.
Substitute
version reported from House Courts, but killed in Appropriations.

HB2300 (Cole) would establish uniformity across State institutions on gun
laws.
Died in
House Militia, Police and Public Safety.


HB2319 (Welch) allows alternative medical choices for mature children (See SB905), even when this is against the advice of the medical establishment.
We got this through the House Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions 15-7, then it was amended on the floor (might be a major loophole, nullifying the bill), and passed 87-9-1. Now before Senate Committee on Rehabilitation and Social Services


HB2324 (Gilbert) would have increased methamphetamine penalties (See SB1234).

Died in House Courts.


HB2337 (Gilbert) would make drug use by a pregnant woman felony child-abuse, and specified blood tests as sufficient proof.

Killed in House Courts.


HB2361 (Putney) removes the present limit on compensation of court-appointed attorneys. (See SB1168)

Substitute version passed House 96-1-1, now before Senate Committee for Courts of Justice.

HB2404 (Athey) Imposes, on registered sex offenders whose victim was a minor, a lifetime ban on moving into a place within 1,000 feet of [a laundry list of places where kids might be].

Substitute version was reported from House Courts 19-1, passed House 98-0, now before Senate Committee for Courts of Justice.

In my opinion, this bill needs amendment. As passed, it would apply to people who were convicted, even as a minor, of having had oral sex with someone their own age, as well as an 18-year-old who had oral sex with a 17-years-and-11-months-old partner.


HB2405 (Athey) would allow law-abiding citizens to carry
concealed weapons without a permit, if they followed procedures designed
to protect law-enforcement officers.
Died in
House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety.

HB2406 (Athey) would allow carrying
weapons in locked compartment of vehicle.
Died in
House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety.

HB2410 (Athey) expands the reach of the Amber Alert system to include
young adults who are still enrolled in school.
Substitute
reported from two committees, passed 97-1, now before Senate Courts of
Justice Commttee.

HB2456 (Cline) would require a physician to offer to anesthetize the
fetus before terminating a pregnancy, and to inform the pregnant woman of
certain things that are alleged to be facts. Applies only where
gestational age of fetus appears to be 20 weeks or more.
Reported
from House Courts 15-5, passed House 69-29, now before Senate Committee
on Education and Health.

HB2458 (Cline) is a self-defense
bill. Has been combined with HB1626 as a substitute, which has been
reported.

HB2481 (Crockett-Stark) would restrict use of deferred judgement.
(See HB2110)
We killed
this in House Courts.

HB2520 (Iaquinto) would allow and require medical records to be made more
available to police and other authorities.
House
Courts Committee reported a substitute version of this bill which expands
the circumstances where information must be released. This was
passed by the House, and is now before Senate Committee on Education and
Health.

HB2532 – Landes –
Would establish willful misconduct which unintentionally causes the death
of a fetus as a Class 5 felony.
A
substitute version, minus much objectionable language, was reported 16-2
from House Courts, approved by the Appropriations Committee, and passed
the House 90-7. It's now before the Senate Committee on Education
and Health.

HB2547 (Carrico) clarifies current law, that only hunters have to have permission to hunt on both sides of the road if they are carrying a loaded firearm on that road.
HouseMilitia, Police and Public Safety reported the bill 17-4, and it passed the House 79-20. Now before Senate Committee on Local Government.

HB2585 (Janis) would allow adults to ride motorcycles without helmets on scenic byways.

Reported from House Militia, Police and Public Safety 14-7, then defeated 39-59.


HB2586 (Janis) would define looting (stealing during a
declared emergency)


Died in House Courts.

HB2593 (Janis) would let judges carry concealed weapons, without a permit, even after acts that would cancel the permit of an ordinary citizen.

Reported from House Militia, Police and Public Safety 20-1, then killed in House.

HB2596 (Rapp) would have increased the mandatory loss of
driver's license for possession of marijuana or controlled substances
from six months to one year.
We killed
it in House Courts of Justice.

HB2612 (Watts) would amend the law so that families who are receiving
Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) would no longer be kicked out of
the program for drug possession. (See SB385, SB934.)
Reported
from House Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions 21-1, then
killed in House Appropriations because it would have cost some $200,000
next year.

HB2622 (Reid) makes it illegal to move, conceal, or hide illegal aliens.


House Courts crafted a far better substitute, applying only to “commercial enterprise and with intent to violate the immigration laws”, which was reported 15-4, then passed House 89-9. Bill is now before Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice.

HB2648 (SC Jones) specifically includes a pregnant woman in the law against causing an abortion or miscarriage.

House Committee for Courts of Justice approveded it 19-0 with amendment specifically excluding medically approved methods of birth control; Appropriations reported it 17-6. Passed House 72-25, now before Senate Committee on Education and Health.


HB2653 (Lingamfelter) makes it a Class 6 felony to solicit or otherwise entice a firearms dealer to illegally convey a firearm, except fore law enforcement officers. This would appear to apply, in any future instance, to civilians working for the mayor of some big city up north.

House Militia, Police and Public Safety reported with amendments 21-0, passed House 91-5, now before Senate Committee for Courts of Justice.

HB2730 (Englin) requires hospitals to allowing patients to
designate any individual as next of kin for visitation purposes, and to
change the designation at any time.
House
Health, Welfare and Institutions reported substitute 22-0, to specify
that the provision applies only to adult patients. Passed House
97-0-1, now before Senate Committee on Education and Health.

HB2749 (Hurt) is the child pornography, and sex offender registration
requirements bill.


House Courts of Justice wrote a substitute which fixes most of the problems of the original version, and it also incorporated the change in email-reporting that I suggested at the subcommittee meeting.
Unfortunately, it still has the the provision that “possessing” child-porn can be as inadvertent as having viewed an image online even once, and then not having cleared that image from your computer's cache. (I never have any confidence in the idea that the system will not prosecute trivial cases.) It also retains the provision that a teenager who has been in a sexual relationship for several years with a partner just a year – or a few days – younger becomes guilty of a felony if the older teen, a day after turning eighteen, emails the younger partner and suggests the sort of special sex that Virginia still outlaws. It turns out that this is a provision of current law, and is merely re-enacted in this bill. No opposition in Committee or House to the bill; now before Senate Committee for Courts of Justice.


HB2754 (Hurt) would impose a tax on Schedule I and II illegal substances, and marijuana, and illegal booze.

We killed this bill before the House Committee on Finance.


HB2790 (Gilbert) deals with questioning technicians and such in drug cases.

The original bill would have required defendants to give advance notice if they wished to do this. House Committee for Courts of Justice rewrote it as a substitute, saying that if the defendant asked to question such a person, then he or she is entitled to a continuance.

Reported, passed House with only one dissenting vote, now before Senate Committee for Courts of Justice.


HB2808 (Byron) requires that a woman be given the opportunity
to view an ultrasound image of her unborn child before giving informed
consent for an abortion.
House
Courts of Justice crafted a substitute much less onerous (and less
expensive) than the original, which was reported 13-8. Passed House
60-38, now before Senate Committee on Education and Health.

HB2811 (Sickles) would require State Police to provide safe storage for
firearms, and require mental health facilities to provide safe storage
brochures.


Died in House Militia, Police and Public Safety.

HB2821 (Sickles) would have exempted individuals' Social
Security numbers from information made available in response to FOIA
requests.
House:
Committee on General Laws killed the bill, but is supposed to ask for a
study of the problem.

HB2842 (Hall) would require that licensed pharmacies sell and dispense
drugs and devices regardless of any owners' or employees' religious or
other personal beliefs.
Died in
House Health, Welfare and Institutions.

HB2844 (O'Bannon) would add Salvinorin A to the list of Schedule I drugs. (“No currently accepted medical use” and heaviest penalties. Salvinorin A is a powerful hallucinogen obtained from the plant Salvia divinorum.
Died in House Health, Welfare and Institutions.


HB2895 (Phillips) would allow county conservators of the
peace assigned to litter control to have access to criminal-history
information.
House
Committee for Courts of Justice made a substitute version, which sailed
through the House with no objections. Now before Senate Committee
for Courts of Justice.

HB2900 (Spruill) would have prohibited firearms in Capitol Square.
Died in
House Militia, Police and Public Safety.


HB2937 (Hamilton) would prevent spending any state or local funds on charitable/nonprofit groups which provide services to people who are not eligible for government funds, specifically people who are in the United States illegally.
House Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions reported the bill with an amendment to allow Medicaid assistance, 13-8. This was rejected in the House, and a substitute version was passed 70-29. Bill is now before Senate Committee on Rehabilitation and Social Services.


HB2943 (Miller) would modify the law regarding police
response to misdemeanors. Virginia law was changed, in
1974, to say that a police officer responding to someone committing a
misdemeanor SHALL issue a summons to the individual, rather than
arresting him, in most cases (there are commonsense exceptions).
The important part of this – as is so often the case, unforeseen when the
law was enacted – is that if an officer makes an “arrest”, he is entitled
to search the subject, while if he merely issues a summons he is not
entitled to do so. A recent Supreme Court decision made this
abundantly clear. This bill would change the law to say that an
officer MAY issue a summons for serious misdemeanors (Class 1 and 2,
which are punishable by time in jail).
This means
that an officer is allowed to search an individual for even very minor
offenses, and use anything found in such a search to bring mre serious
charges. Opponents warn that leaving the arrest/summons decision
completely up to the arresting officers, without even any guidelines,
will inevitably result in discriminatory enforcement. We've seen
this across the country, and across the decades.
[It is
possible that my writeup on this bill may lead some readers to suspect
that I am not an entirely neutral reporter, and that perhaps I have
strong feelings about it. You're absolutely damn tootin' I
do! If this bill becomes law, we go back to the bad old days when a
cop can see you spit on the sidewalk or step outside the dotted lines
while crossing the street, and use that as a pretext to arrest you, and
search you, and use anything found in your pockets to charge you with
other crimes. As evidenced in the Moore case, the arrest may even
allow a search of your residence. (Of course, we're absolutely sure
that not a single one of the many thousands of police officers in the
Commonwealth would ever use such discretion in any sort of a
discriminatory manner. Not a single one of them would ever
specifically target muslims, or gays, or blacks, or Jews, or hippies, or
Hispanics. If that were ever to occur, then in a year or two when
this issue comes back before the Assembly {which it will, I
guarantee!}, we're sure to hear, from the legislators who are now voting
for this measure, that they are “Shocked! -- Shocked!” that
there has been any abuse. (Not that I'm cynical or anything, of
course.) This bill would be a major step backwards for personal
liberty and for freedom in general, in my none-too-humble opinion.]
House
Courts of Justice reported the bill 17-3, it passed the House 74-23, and
is now before Senate Committee for Courts of Justice.

HB2954 (Bell) deals with Eminent Domain, addressing the “Kelo” decision
which held that it was proper for a local government to take one person's
land and home in order to give or sell it to developers, so that there
would be more taxes paid.
House
Committee for Courts of Justice crafted a substitute version of the bill
that seems to prohibit most abuses of this major government power;
reported 17-3, and passed House 87-10. Now before Senate Committee
for Courts of Justice, Eminent Domain Subcommittee.

HB2959 (Bell) would make it quicker and easier for a person to receive an
expungment of criminal records in cases where there's a clear need for
one.
House
Courts of Justice wrote a substitute, which was reported, and passed the
House, without dissent. Now before Senate Courts of Justice.


HB2964 (Bell) would have made it illegal to enter someone else's vehicle without permission.
House Courts of Justice amended the bill and reported it 18-2, then it was killed on the floor of the House.

HB2971 (Bell) would have restricted the use of Drug Treatment
Courts to cases involving possession of drugs or marijuana, and cases
involving probation violations following conviction of drug or marijuana
possession. At present, the Courts can deal with “drug and
drug-related” cases.
We killed
the bill in House Courts of Justice.

HB2983 (Janis) Sets rules for discovery in drug forfeiture proceedings.
Reported
18-2 from House Committee for Courts of Justice, then died in House.

HB2998 (Scott) prohibits people who have had their parental rights
terminated from owning firearms. It applies only in cases of
"torture, chronic or severe abuse, or chronic or severe sexual
abuse" (although "chronic abuse" can be an elastic term).
Opponents
point out that the termination of rights is a civil matter, and should
not affect the right to keep and bear arms.
Both House
Militia, Police and Public Safety, and House Committee for Courts of
Justice, reported the bill, with amendment, with no dissent. It
passed the House 85-14, and is now before Senate Committee for Courts of
Justice.


HB3013 (Wittman) would have made it a crime to possess a BB gun on school property.
At the patron's request, died in House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety.


HB3023 (Fralin) attempts to deal with the purported issue of people attempting to defeat urine analysis; it would make it a crime to use synthetic urine in an attempt to beat a drug test, and would also block an offender from obtaining a Commercial Drivers' License. For a first attempt, the disqualification would be a year; for a second offense, the disqualification would be for life.

House Courts of
Justice made a substitute without reference to synthetic urine or the
life-time disqualification provision. Reported and passed with no
dissent, now before Senate Committee on Transportation.

HB3049 (Albo) would have tightened the test-interpretation procedures for
Virginia's law on DUI law, to remove a potential defense.
House
Committee for Courts of Justice defeated it after much discussion.

HB3077 (Abbitt) changes the penalty for riding a motorcycle without a
helmet to a $25 civil fine, rather than a traffic infraction with a $250
maximum fine.
House
Militia, Police and Public Safety reported the bill 13-7, passed the
House 51-48, now before Senate Committee on Transportation.


HB3082 (Lingamfelter) would protect the free exercise of religion.
The bill broadens the rights of citizens so that if any (state or local)
governmental action places a burden on their exercise of religion, the
burden is on the government to show that the restriction is necessary,
rather than being on the citizen to prove that the burden is
unreasonable. It doesn't apply to institutionalized people, and
would not allow monetary damages, and has penalties for frivolous
claims.
Opponents
say that, without a nondiscrimination clause, the law could be used to
bad ends.
Amended
version reported by House Courts of Justice, 15-4. Passed House
67-30, now before Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology.

HB3108 (Janis) prohibits "inquiring of a minor or mentally
incompetent person as to the exercise of constitutionally protected
rights”.

House Courts made a
substitute version, crafted to allow reasonable statistical information,
which had no opposition. Now before Senate Courts of Justice.

HB3184 (Kilgore) “Spaceflight Liability and Immunity Act" says, in
essence, that space flight is still dangerous, and you take advantage of
efforts at such entirely at your own risk – but you must be warned
first.
House
Courts made a substitute version, which had no opposition. Now
before Senate Courts of Justice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HJ683 (that's House Joint Resolution #683) (Landes) would
direct JLARC (the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission) to
“study the actual cost of substance abuse to the Commonwealth to
determine the financial savings available to the Commonwealth as a result
of providing treatment to offenders diverted from incarceration.”
No opposition in the House; now before Senate Committee on Rules.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DETAILS:
To see the
summary, text, status, estimated cost, votes, or other details on any
bill, go to:
<
http://leg1.state.va.us/>. Click on:
“Bills & Resolutions –
status of individual bills and related information”.
At the text-entry block, enter the bill and type just as I have it listed
above. (Use “SB921”, not “S.B. 921”, for example.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMINDER:
<
http://leg1.state.va.us/> and
<
http://legis.state.va.us/>
These are
the two websites where you can access nearly anything you want to know
about practically anything related to the General Assembly. Use
them!

end

- - Roy B. Scherer

February 08, 2007

Real Estate Assessments- hoodwinked

We get hoodwinked on an annual basis when it comes to real estate assessments. 58.1-3321 in the Code of Virginia is an arcane provision relating to local real estate assessments that is a well-kept secret. It is difficult to explain simply in a sound bite.

This law provides that if the local real estate assessments rise so that the total real estate tax revenue collected by the locality goes up by more than 1 %, the real estate tax rate will automatically adjust downward so that the tax collections remain revenue neutral to the previous year unless the local governing body proactively intervenes to counteract the automatic reduction. Whew. What a mouthful!

In order to prevent the automatic tax rate adjustment, the governing body must hold a public hearing and then vote to set the rate. So if the county-wide assessment goes up 16.6% as it did in Chesterfield, if the supervisors did nothing, the tax rate would drop approximately 16.6%. So to some degree, most property owners would not experience an increase in their out-of-pocket tax paid. Most localities would still experience increased revenue collections because of new construction, both residential and commercial, added to the tax rolls.

My unsubstantiated understanding of the purpose of this law was to prevent locally elected officials from passively allowing inflation and increasing property values to allow existing rates to remain unchanged while property values went up, which was in effect a de facto tax increase. This requires them to go on record voting, even if the old rate is maintained, which is a tax increase. At election time,this allows incumbent candidates to claim that they never voted to raise taxes, or even voted to lower taxes, blurring the line between voting for maintenance or lowering of the rate versus real tax lowering. Contrary to their claims, taxes have usually been raised.

Public hearings are held regarding the real estate tax rate. But almost invariably, the new tax rate has been decided in advance between the county administration and the governing body. The public hearing is usually going through the motions to satisfy the state code requirement. The tax rate usually ends up being what has been publicly proposed in advance. If it is lower than proposed, I am cynical enough to believe that this has also been decided before the meeting, and the public orchestration of lowering the rate from that which has been requested by the administration is for show. When the gavel falls calling the meeting to order, the new tax rate has been pre-ordained, regardless of the public input at the meeting.

When I spoke at the last public hearing in my locality, I pointed out that to my recollection, I did not recall a single year during the service of any of the existing board members that taxes did not go up, regardless of where the rate had been set. A board member conceded my point as being accurate and then denigrated my remarks by saying he was proud of his voting record regarding always raising taxes. He then proceeded to tick off a long list of accomplishments and projects in the county over the last twenty years which could not have been accomplished without the transfer of wealth from the private citizenry to the public trough (my words, not his). So much for a public hearing and citizenry input.

Will we ever see the day when a locally elected body allows the automaticity of 58.1-3321 to kick in and keep the real estate collections revenue neutral except for the inevitable increased collections from new growth?

Max Maizels
Henrico County

February 07, 2007

We're the Government and You're not

A number of people have sent this in. Thanks to all of you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvsADU2OOWM

Y'all be a good citizen now ;-)

Personal Retirement Accounts Are Back: Count Us In!

From the National Taxpayers Union:

You've heard it again and again: Social Security needs to be
reformed, and soon. With the retirement of the baby-boom
generation and the changing composition of America's workforce,
the government's own analysts have determined that Social
Security will be insolvent in less than a generation.

Rather than forcing us into paying higher taxes or enduring huge
benefit cuts, the President has proposed "personal retirement
accounts" as a way to secure the financial futures of millions
of Americans.

You've probably read about this proposal before, but now the
plan for personal accounts has been included in the recently
released 2008 budget.

The President's budget contains resources for voluntary,
individually owned accounts that could be funded by a portion of
a worker's Social Security payroll taxes starting in 2012.
Participants could contribute up to four percent of their Social
Security taxable earnings (up to a $1,300 limit, which would
increase by $100 each year through 2017). This would be money
with your name on it, not an unfunded government IOU stored away
in some dusty filing cabinet.

However, some in Congress would prefer to raise taxes or simply
let the system slide toward its collapse. That's why a group of
dedicated activists called Students for Saving Social Security
has launched a new website
(http://ga1.org/ct/gdLp-In17QcQ/countusin) to unite grassroots
supporters of personal retirement accounts.

National Taxpayers Union is a partner of the
http://ga1.org/ct/gdLp-In17QcQ/countusin drive for personal
accounts, and I encourage taxpayers of all ages to sign their
petition in support of the President's proposals
(http://ga1.org/ct/g1Lp-In17QcP/petition_page). The stacks of
petitions collected will be delivered to Congress when
grassroots pressure in favor of reform is needed most.

Speak out today! Don't let Congress turn a blind eye to this
problem. Let lawmakers know that you support reforming Social
Security, by signing the
whttp://ga1.org/ct/gdLp-In17QcQ/countusin petition
(http://ga1.org/ct/g1Lp-In17QcP/petition_page)!

Sincerely,

John Berthoud
President

We need to stop HB 2943

From VA-ALERT:

HB 2943 is Jackson Miller's bill that would allow police to perform a
custodial arrest on someone at will for a Class 1 or Class 2
misdemeanor (and then go on a fishing expedition).

There is some seriously misleading information going around in the
General Assembly on this bill and that bad information is causing it
to get traction where it shouldn't be getting any.

I need you to contact your Senator with the following email, which
gives them more information about the bill so they can make a good
decision on it:

http://tinyurl.com/2es6ca

Your House Is About To Be Photographed

From: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/06/188251

"Photographers from a Canadian company are going house to house, shooting pictures of every house in America, in hopes of building a giant database that can be sold to banks, insurance companies, and appraisal firms. While this activity is legal (as long as the photographers don't trespass on private property to get their shots), there are obviously concerns about security and privacy. Considering that an individual can be detained and questioned by the FBI for photographing a bridge in this country, why should this Canadian company get a free pass? Tinfoil hat aside, something seems very, very fishy here."

US Set on Expansion of Security DNA Collection

From the NYT:

"The Justice Department is completing rules to allow the collection of DNA from most people arrested or detained by federal authorities, a vast expansion of DNA gathering that will include hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, by far the largest group affected."

Thanks to Matt Siegel for the link.

More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses

A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states.
Full Story at:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/02/05/133210.shtml

Now if we can just get Virginia to jump on this bandwagon.

Thanks to Matt Siegel for the link.

February 05, 2007

The Unending Battle For States' Rights

by Robert Russo

The so-called Real ID Act of 2005 which calls for national ID cards to cut down on illegal immigration and domestic terrorism was challenged almost unanimously by the state of Maine on January 26 and in the week since then six other states have followed in its footsteps. The law states that compliance is required by May 2008 or state-issued driver's licenses can no longer be used as ID to enter federal buildings, board airplanes or open certain bank accounts, unless they meet the new standards (i.e. include a fingerprint). Rep. James Guest of Missouri currently heads a coalition of lawmakers from 34 states to pass bills opposing this, saying "This is almost a frontal assault on the freedoms of America when they require us to carry a national ID to monitor where we are".*

This makes one wonder as we approach 2008 who is advocating the states' rights platform, which some would say is only to be found in history books, and beyond taboo in an election in which minority candidates are so prominent there is a word police watching every potential misstatement. Groups like www.southerncaucus.org fill this role, outside the view of the regular public or particular political/ethnic groups and locales, mainly because those who talk about states’ rights are associated (either in reality or the public mindset) with regional areas where those views are preserved because of isolation, or certain activities (like historic reenactments). There is no real Southern Caucus, however the respect for states’ rights is still universal as evidenced by the first North American Secessionist Convention in Vermont last November, representing such groups as the League of the South, the Confederate Legion and New Hampshire’s own Free State Project.** It may be that just as minority groups and their candidates enjoy special credence today, we will enjoy the same once our own civil rights movement has passed.

The many arguments against national ID cards include the fact that it will cost $11 billion to implement including new equipment that may not be in place by the deadline, and the probability that it will increase the severity of identity theft because these cards are more than just driving permits, they can get into anything. Once that door is open, "the victim is never going to be able to undo this" says Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU.*

Every generation of watchmen assigned for our protection strives to make their jobs easier, which sounds indisputable, but this is why our elected and appointed leaders must be told what that job is, not just electing a choice of personalities to conduct the same job, if it is done without foresight beyond the holder’s term, a respect for individual liberty or understanding that no one trusts government anymore. In a world where tracking devices are hidden within coins and cockroaches are wired for surveillance, our protection is the fact that every state uses its own system. Do we have any reason to think a national database would not be used for other purposes?

Some states such as Maryland and Indiana are expected to comply with the law but it remains to be seen whether there’s any point in congress trying to enforce it if even one legislature refuses. One would expect states’ rights to be a leading doctrine in a country whose legislators are only ever chosen by their states, even to the national assembly. Who then effectively opposes states’ rights? Perhaps this is a question as old as the Civil War. No candidate would speak outright against states’ rights, and those who support it may only be pacifying the existing rights delegated to states, not the increase of those rights. One only chooses the "nation" over their home state if they believe it is stronger, morally superior, a higher calling or has more to offer them. If dissent increases in this country these challenges will continue to cross the line until there is a unified platform again. To learn more about the Real ID Act go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_id.

*http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/states-challenge-national-drivers/20070204125809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
**http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/15939133.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation

Question of the Week: Advocates for states' rights are not necessarily Libertarians. Would you support a merger of our party with other groups under this platform if it meant victory? Send your opinions to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

February 04, 2007

Take Action to Stop March to Police State!

From VA-ALERT:

First the good news: Delegate Janis and Delegate Cline's combined
bill, HB 1626, which is a "Castle Doctrine" bill to protect a
homeowner from a civil suit if that homeowner has to protect himself
or herself from a home invasion, passed out of the House Courts of
Justice Committee late yesterday! The bill now heads to the Floor.

Now for more bad news:

Delegates who are normally quite sane on guns and other liberties
have now voted TWO bad bills out of committee.

Perhaps someone has slipped something into the water at the General Assembly?

HB 2998, anti-gun Delegate Jim Scott's bill to permanently disarm a
parent if they have their parental rights terminated was passed out
of committee **unanimously!**

So, a CIVIL matter that has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS is used to disarm
someone FOR LIFE?

The gun banners are laughing at this one.

What is going on here? All I've been hearing is that "it's an
election year, we can't do anything controversial." Oh, yeah - but
they sure can put an effort behind baloney like this.

And if our march toward a police state isn't happening quickly enough
for the Democrats and Republicans, they have also decided to pass HB
2943 (by pro-gun Jackson Miller nonetheless) out of the same
committee.

HB 2943 allows a police officer to ARREST someone for simply
committing a Class 1 or Class 2 MISDEMEANOR. Under current law a
person is given a citation and sent on his way, unless the officer
believes that the person is going to continue the illegal behavior,
then the officer can arrest him.

This is just another brick in the wall, treating misdemeanors like felonies.

Why does the growing police state want this legislation? As an
excuse to go on a fishing expedition, giving them grounds to search
you and your vehicle.

--

We need to act NOW to try to derail the bad bills:

Send a message to YOUR Delegate about opposing HB 2998:

http://tinyurl.com/3dtn57

Send a message to YOUR Delegate about opposing HB 2943:

http://tinyurl.com/2qba6p

Patrick Henry Supper Club - Feb 6, 2007

The Patrick Henry Supper Club is pleased to present:

Jim Bacon - "A Train Wreck for the 21st Century: How Republicans and Democrats are Derailing Virginia Transportation Policy."

Jim Bacon publishes the Bacon's Rebellion web site and authors the column by the same name. Raised in Washington, D.C., and Norfolk, he attended the University of Virginia and has spent virtually his entire adult life in the Old Dominion. He now lives in Richmond. Though far from perfect, Virginia, in his opinion, is the greatest place in the universe.

February 03, 2007

Roy's General Assembly Report - FEB 02, 2007

GA020207.odt – General Assembly Fri 02 Feb 07


Friday, just after 3pm, the House Courts of
Justice Committee met. They have 110 bills on
their docket (plus the inevitable surprises), and
they hope to get out before 1 am.

In a departure from the procedure in past years,
a block of over sixty bills that have been
recommended for reporting by one or the other
subcommittee will be considered as a block,
except that any member may request that a bill be
removed from the block. This was done, and a
dozen bills were pulled. For the rest, the bills
were reported in block in whatever form they had
come out of subcommittee. This has been done at
breakneck speed, faster than I can type, so I
don't guarantee that this account is
complete. (Then again, I never do.) Bills not
in the block are dealt with in numerical order
below. Those that were in the block will be
picked up after the actions are posted on the
Web, probably Monday but possibly as soon as
Saturday. As usual, I report only the bills that
I find of interest – and not all of those,
because I'm lazy and unreliable (and a slow typist).


HB1626 (Janis) has a substitute version. It a
self-defense bill, specifically allowing the
lawful occupant of a dwelling to use any degree
of force, including deadly force, against an
unlawful intruder who actually done something
that puts the lawful person in imminent
danger. The lawful occupant is also shielded
from civil liability for such actions.
This is a substitute only in order to combine it
with HB2458; the language is unchanged from the
subcommittee version. It was reported to the House.

HB2404 (Athey) Prohibits an adult who is
convicted of an offense requiring registration as
a sex offender, where the victim was a minor,
from residing within 1000 feet of the premises of
[a laundry list of places where kids might
be]. Violation is a Class 6 felony. Exception
for cases where the facility was
built/established after the conviction and after
the offender established residence.
A substitute version of the bill was presented,
which I haven't seen as I type. The bill seems
likely to apply to some inappropriate cases, but
I can't yet say. Delegate Watts offered an
amendment to make the provisions apply only where
the minor victim was 15 or younger; it was
rejected. Delegate Toscano suggested more review
of all the applicable statutes; this was
rejected, although the patron said that he'd be
open to discussing amendments on the floor.
(I SHALL go through the reported version with a
fine-tooth comb; I received a copy at the end of
the meeting. The bill refers to other sections
of the Code, which in turn refer to still other
sections. I know how to thread this
labyrinth. Results after I've had a chance to do so.)
Bill was reported to the full House.

HB2410 (Athey) expands the reach of the Amber
Alert system to include young adults who are
still enrolled in school. (A recent Virginia
occurrence resulted in the death of an
18-year-old high school student, whose life might
have been saved if an Amber Alert had been issued.)
Discussion in subcommittee had dealt with the
possibility of 18-year-olds, still in school, who
deliberately leave home or school, but are
nonetheless reported as being abducted. Delegate
Griffith says that he hopes to have proper
language crafted, in cooperation with the State
Police, in time for floor action.
Reported.

HB2456 (Cline) Requires doctors to offer to
anesthetize a fetus prior to abortion and to
include in informational materials required to be
presented to the prospective mother several
statements about fetal development. These
include that a fetus at 20 gestational weeks has
the physical structures necessary to feel pain
and react to physical stimuli in a manner that,
in an infant or adult, would be interpreted as a
response to pain. The bill waives that
requirement in emergencies, and when the
physician believes that the fetus is younger than 20 weeks.
This bill was brought up earlier, but had not
been placed on the subcommittee's agenda, so
neither supporters nor opponents have had an
opportunity to address it. The Committee allowed
five minutes for each side this evening.
There have been attempts to enact similar
legislation in the past, but these have generally
required anesthesia to actually be administered
to the fetus. None of those bills have made it through the General Assembly.
A representative of the Family Foundation spoke
for the bill, and introduced the physician who is
the Chair of OB-GYN department at MCV. He agreed
that the mandated statements are true, and that
he has used fetal anesthesia in his practice, and
taught the procedure to others. A representative
of the Va. Society for Human Life supports.
Audrey Dubois of NARAL-VA opposed the bill as
not needed, since there's no good evidence that
fetuses can feel pain during the first trimester,
when the vast majority of terminations are
performed. Mira Signer of the ACLU of VA likewise testified against the bill.
Delegate Watts asked Delegate Cline to clearly
state that he had no intention to change the bill
to require that the information be presented if
the fetus appears to be younger than 20 weeks. He agreed that this was so.
The bill was narrowly reported to the full House
(See website this weekend or Monday for itemized vote.)

HB2458 (Cline) has been combined as a substitute
with HB1626, which has been reported.

HB2520 (Iaquinto) affects patient privacy. This
allows and requires hospitals to release patient
information to the State Police in what would
normally be a violation of patients' rights to
privacy. The stated reason for the bill is to
allow State Police access to residence
information on people who are required to register as sex offenders.
In subcommittee, the bill was expanded (over my
objections) to grant even greater access.
The Committee decided, with no debate, to
abandon the expanded version, and revert back to
the original bill. In my opinion, it's still far
too broad, but it's much less bad than the
version approved by the subcommittee. The bill was reported to the full House.

HB2808 (Byron) deals with ultrasound examinations
of pregnant women. The original bill would have
required that all places performing abortions
have an ultrasound scanner, and perform such a
scan on the woman and the “unborn child”, and
that she be offered an opportunity to see the
image, and that she sign a card that she had
either seen the image or refused to do so.
Subcommittee made a number of changes to the
bill. It still requires that a woman sign a form
that she has been granted the opportunity to see
such an image and has either accepted or
declined, but the other requirements have been
deleted. References to “unborn child” have been replaced with “fetus”.
Delegate Watts spotted an addition that had
somehow wandered into the new version of the bill
since it had last been discussed, and it was removed.
The bill was reported on a narrow vote.

HB2943 (Miller) would change Virginia law to
allow officers to make a custodial arrest even
when issuance of a summons would be required
under present law. The difference is absolutely
crucial, in that if an arrest is made, the
officer has the right to search the subject, and
anything found can be used as evidence. In the
case of a summons, the officer is allowed to make
only a “carefully limited pat down of the outer
clothing to determine the presence or absence of weapons.”
Officers have frequently ignored the clear
wording of the law ever since it was passed in
the seventies (as a bill introduced by A.L.
Philpott of fond memory.) However, a recent
court case (“Moore”) resulted in a case being
thrown out because the summons law had been
ignored. The case depended on evidence found
during a search incident to an arrest – but the
police in the case were only authorized to issue
a summons, so the search was illegal.
Supporters of the bill say that without it, the
police won't be able to make searches in some
cases where doing so might turn up evidence of a
crime. Opponents say, “That's right -- But you
say it as though it was a BAD thing!”
Opponents point out that there are several
exceptions already in the current law, and these
should be quite sufficient. In the case that
went to the Virginia Supreme Court, the officers
were asked why they used arrest-and-search rather
than the summons procedure, and instead of citing
any of the exemptions already in present law,
they answered that it was basically their whim.
Opponents warn that leaving the arrest/summons
decision completely up to the arresting officers,
without even any guidelines, will inevitably
result in discriminatory enforcement. We've seen
this across the country, and across the decades.
Jane Chittom, from the Appellate Defenders
Office, who handled the appeal that led to this
bill, was present to explain the
circumstances. The subject, D.L. Moore, was
pulled over on a traffic stop, and charged with
driving on a suspended license. According to the
law, the officers should have issued him a
summons to appear in court, and allowed him to
either call someone else to drive him home or
taken other transportation away from the
scene. They also had the alternative to arrest
him, if – and only if – they thought that one of the exceptions applied.
If they thought that he was likely to disregard
the summons and fail to appear in court, or if
they thought that he was likely to drive again,
or if they thought that he was likely to cause
harm to himself or to others, the officers would
have been authorized to take him into custody and
before a magistrate. Failing any of those
circumstances, though (and neglecting other
exemptions which were clearly not applicable in
the Moore case), they were legally required to
write him a summons, have him sign it to promise
to come to court, and then release him. If he had
refused to sign the summons, then again they
would have been authorized to take him into custody.
Instead, the officers decided, just because they
felt like it, to handcuff him, hold him for about
an hour, then drive him to his hotel room and
search it. They found a half-ounce of drugs in
the hotel room, and charged him with possession with intent to distribute.
Although the appellate court upheld the case,
the Virginia Supreme Court overturned it,
explaining that the law means what it says, and
therefore the arrest, thus also the search, were illegal.
[It is possible that my writeup on this bill may
lead some readers to suspect that I am not an
entirely neutral reporter, and that perhaps I
have strong feelings about it. You're absolutely
damn tootin' I do! If this bill becomes law, we
go back to the bad old days when a cop can see
you spit on the sidewalk or step outside the
dotted lines while crossing the street, and use
that as a pretext to arrest you, and search you,
and use anything found in your pockets to charge
you with other crimes. As evidenced in the Moore
case, the arrest may even allow a search of your
residence. (Of course, we're absolutely sure
that not a single one of the many thousands of
police officers in the Commonwealth would ever
use such discretion in any sort of a
discriminatory manner. Not a single one of them
would ever specifically target muslims, or gays,
or blacks, or Jews, or hippies, or Hispanics. If
that were ever to occur, then in a year or two
when this issue comes back before the
Assembly {which it will, I guarantee!}, we're
sure to hear, from the legislators who are now
voting for this measure, that they are
“Shocked! -- Shocked!” that there has been any
abuse. (Not that I'm cynical or anything, of
course.) This bill would be a major step
backwards for personal liberty and for freedom in
general, in my none-too-humble opinion.]
The bill was reported to the House, with only three “Nays”.

HB2954 (Bell) deals with Eminent Domain,
addressing the “Hilo” decision which held that it
was proper for a local government to take one
person's land and home in order to give or sell
it to developmers, so that there would be more taxes paid.
The substitute version of the bill seems to
prohibit most abuses of this major government power.
Several people opposed the bill, including Bill
Axselle, former delegate and presently
representing the Chesterfield County Housing
Authority. They wanted broader authority to
condemn and seize “blighted” property.
Fortunately, the substitute version was reported.

HB2959 (Bell) would make it quicker and easier
for a person to receive an expungment of criminal
records in cases where there's a clear need for one.

HB2998 (Scott) was not on the docket, but was
referred here this morning by the House Committee
on Militia and Police. It revokes the right to
keep and bear arms for people who have had their
parental rights terminated by a court for
particularly bad abuse of their children. An
amendment was offered and accepted.
I spoke to the bill, since there was no one from
VCDL to do so, asking if the ban would apply to
both parents when only one had been convicted – a
questionable matter, given the wording of the bill and the amendment.
The Chairman (convincingly) assured me that this was not the case.
Bill was reported without objection.

HB3049 (Albo) would change Virginia's law on
DUI. Even in cases where a test shows that a
driver has a greater Blood Alcohol Content than
the limit specified in the law, several courts
have begun accepting defense arguments that the
BAC at the time of the test does not prove the
BAC while the subject was driving. (The
rationale here is that it takes a significant
amount of time for alcohol to be absorbed into
the bloodstream; the alcohol from the last drink
taken before leaving the bar may not have been
absorbed during the drive home, but in the hour
or so between an arrest and a blood test may well have risen above the limit.)
The bill would say that it's illegal to drink
enough so that, at any time during or following
the drive, the BAC passes the legal limit. This
would fix the problem that was the basis for the
bill, but opens up an entirely different can of
worms. The change would allegedly jeapordise all
DUI cases that are now in the pipeline, by
seeming to show that there is a flaw in the
present law. It also, undeniably, means that you
could be arrested hours after safely driving home and parked your car.
Considerable discussion back and forth on these
issues. In the end, the bill was tabled (killed)!

HB3082 (Lingamfelter) would protect the free
exercise of religion. The bill stems from an
effort by Fairfax County to restrict school
employees from speaking at some private baccalaureate exercises.
The bill broadens the rights of citizens so that
if any (state or local) governmental action
places a burden on the exercise of religion, the
burden is on the government to show that the
restriction is necessary, rather than being on
the citizen to prove that the burden is unreasonable.
It doesn't apply to institutionalized people,
and would not allow monetary damages, and has penalties for frivolous claims.
Mira Signer of ACLU-VA says that, without a
nondiscrimination clause, the law could be used to bad ends.
The bill looks very good on its face, though I'm
suspicious about hidden motives, based merely on
the socio/political orientations of the sponsors. Cynical of me, I admit.
Debate, amended to include civil commitments, more debate. Reported 15-4.

HB3108 (Janis) would “prohibit any person from
inquiring of a minor or mentally incompetent
person as to the exercise of constitutionally
protected rights”. The aim is to keep school
official and others from prying into private
affairs, which apparently has been a problem in
the past. [Emphasis here is on guns and
religious practices. It also appears (to me) to
be an offshoot of an earlier concern about
pediatricians asking about gun ownership.]
Substitute version crafted to allow reasonable
statistical information. Reported unanimously.

HB3184 (Kilgore) is a bill that had been
absolutely underneath my radar. It adds a
section to the Code of Virginia entitled
“Spaceflight Liability and Immunity Act.”
It says, in essence, that space flight is still
dangerous, and you take advantage of efforts at
such entirely at your own risk – but you must be
warned first. This is in immediate support of
spaceflight efforts at Virginia's facility.
The only gripe that I had about this bill when I
read it is that it applies only to suborbital
flight – but then I read the definition of
“suborbital”: “a distance at or above 62.5 miles
from the Earth's mean sea level.” I LOVE it! A
flight to Alpha Centauri is defined as “suborbital”!
Substitute version of the bill was reported!


*******************************
With three more bills to be heard, about 8:10, Chairman Albo
asked me to come to the podium. When I did, to my surprise,
he announced that he had been told that today is my birthday,
and the Committee – and audience – proceeded to sing me a
chorus of Happy Birthday!
A few minutes later, as I was returning to the Committee
room from a visit down the hall, I passed Bob McDonnell, our
esteemed Attorney General, who was speaking to a small group,
and he had also gotten the word, and wished me a Happy Birthday.
Gee, you know, I don't really schmooze with these guys
. . . but this was sort of nice . . .
It was a gracious gesture for my 65th birthday.
*******************************

Committee adjourned at 8:30.


TOMORROW:

The House of Delegates will meet at noon, long
enough for committees to make their
reports. This is needed to meet the deadlines adopted earlier.

House Courts of Justice Committee will have an
extremely short meeting at the Chairman's desk
immediately after the House adjourns.

-------------------------------------------------------

DETAILS:
To see the summary, text, status, estimated
cost, votes, or other details on any bill, go to:
. Click on:
“Bills & Resolutions – status of individual bills and related information”.
At the text-entry block, enter the bill and type
just as I have it listed above. (Use “SB921”, not “S.B. 921”, for example.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMINDER:
and
These are the two websites where you can access
nearly anything you want to know about
practically anything related to the General Assembly. Use them!

end

February 02, 2007

Religious Freedom Act Passes

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+sum+HB3082