RichmondLiberty.org

file GA08-01-31
General Assembly, Thursday January 31st, 2008

The important meeting today is House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee, Subcommittee #1, Firearms.

Very smooth meeting, very little controversy. A number of firearms bills, and the subcommittee did the right thing on every one of them. There were spokespersons there from the Virginia State Police, the Virginia Center for Public Safety, Virginia Citizens' Defense League (Philip Van Cleave), and Fairfax County Privacy Center (Michael Stollenwerk), as well as private citizens Jim Kaddison, Hal Macklin, and myself.

HB709, Janis, mental health questions on application to buy a firearm

After a few minutes of discussion, this was postponed to allow some revision. Quite a while later, Delegate Janis returned with a modified bill, which addressed the concerns of the gun-owners' rights activists. This was the first bill called, and the last one acted upon.

Everyone spoke either for or against it. Same arguments.

As passed out from the subcommittee, it adds questions to the form required to be filled out when applying to purchase a handgun three additional questions:
Have you ever been acquitted by reason of insanity;
Have you ever been ordered into involuntary mental health treatment;
Have you ever been adjudicated to be incompetent.

There ARE provisions to cover cases in which there has been a temporary disability which has later been cleared. (One of the big sticking points, for rights advocates, has been that the Federal system has had clear procedures for restoring the rights of people who were temporarily disabled, but who have recovered. The procedures existed, in law, for years . . . but the anti-gun faction in Congress explictitly dened any funding to implement them. The practical effect of that, until this year's changes in Federal law, is that if you came back from Iraq with PTSD, you could never in your life own a gun again.)

The bill, as amended, was passed out of subcommittee with a recommendation to be reported to the full House.

HB734, Caputo, would have banned firearms from public libraries, except for police and licensed security guards who are on-duty.

The spokesperson for the Virginia Center for Public Safety supported the bill, citing the possibility of tragedies if a gun "falls out of someone's pocket."

I opposed the bill, citing my very good experience with the Richmond Public Library, and the dangers faced by people walking to/from the library.

Mr. Partridge of NRA opposed the bill, emphasising the pre-emptive status of Virginia laws.

Delegate Caputo tried to support the bill by citing a case when someone entered a public library, openly carrying a firearm, with his kids. Some of the other patrons were "taken aback".

No action on bill; it will still be technically alive at the next meeting of the full Committee, but resusication is unlikely.

HB746, Caputo, would prohibit firearms in daycare centers, except for police and licensed security guards who are on-duty.

Patron explains that kids shouldn't be around firearms.

Discussion points out that guns already aren't allowed in churches, which commonly have daycare centers (actually, this is not a universal prohibition), and that private daycare centers already have the right to ban firearms on their premises if they choose to do so.

PVC, and Mike S.,and I all spoke against the bill, using all the usual arguments.

Patron says licensed security guards exempt. Subcommittee members point to expense of small centers hiring professional guards, and to Colorado incident where NON-paid, NON-professional volunteer security guard stopped massacre.

No motion made on bill. It's dead, but might theoretically be revived by full committee.

HB835, Janis, mental incompetence and firearms

Substitute version of this bill was considered. New version is better; approved and re-referred to House Courts of Justice Committee.

Subcommittee adjourned, all went home. Busses still running; this is GOOD.

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

Next significant meetings are:

9:00 a.m. House Militia, Police and Public Safety; House Room C, General Assembly Building -- Firearms bills

House and Senate meet at eleven am.

1/2 hr aft House Courts of Justice; House Room C, General Assembly Building
-- Dope, Guns, Sex, Constitutional rights, Arrest instead of summons, Stealing cats, misc.

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

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!

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 09:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"This city is saturated. It's like an overripe fruit that's begun to stink." -Akira

If you've ever handled a pet snake (as opposed to one that will immediately bite you and wriggle away), you know that the head end is constantly looking for an escape route while the tail end is always wrapped around something for security. You can't just pick it up or put it down, you have to use both hands to manipulate it. The federal government is like this, rampant yet entrenched. There is a "hunter-seeker" dept. and a "cover our tracks" dept. The Democratic Freedom Caucus and the Republican Liberty Caucus both promote (or purport to) libertarian-like sentiments within their parties acting as the "conscience" of the party, as opposed to its political action committee.

Textbooks illustrate government as being a trio of overlapping circles which share authority or a hierarchy like a family tree in which it is passed down, but any institution is a series of concentric circles or insulation designed to prevent actions and collaboration from taking place. No task proceeds directly, in the General Assembly almost no bill can be passed by any one person no matter how much support it has. It must endure a gauntlet of subcommittees which protect the law from decision-making like the layers of an onion (as Roy Scherer explained in his Wednesday report a "lockbox" financial committee makes even total approval not approval). The only sure course is rejection, the only undisputed statement is silence. Our presidential contenders debate the choices and alliances they would make as if it won't require superhuman ability to establish this "overlap" with congress. When was the last time the Executive and Legislative branches acted in synchrony even when one party held them both?

If legislation is the electricity that makes a republic work, the process has been covered with circuit-breakers. If it is the highway through which needed actions reach the citizen it is full of roadblocks. Even in the smallest institutions (a community meeting, a volunteer event committee) have you noticed increasing layers of people who have no definable job except to make sure point A gets to point B, drawing no joy from this but reacting belligerently when something messes it up? There is no decision-making except to decide to keep things the way they are. There is no freedom for any individual who took on this job, unless you count executive privilege.

The LP's official response to Monday's State of the Union address by chairman William Redpath is at www.lp.org/media/article_562.shtml. LP candidate Steve Kubby posted his own preemptive response at www.kubby2008.com before the address, saying Bush will be "putting lipstick on a pig".* The powers recognize what we libs know that in a stagnant environment the only way to get anything done is throw a wrench in the works, whatever can make a hole is our window to change. (In the words of the evil empire from Star Wars, "I've analyzed their attack sir and there is a danger".) The safeguards prevent individual action by any citizen, so even the maintainers of this system are forfeiting their own ability to act on any agenda. We can see the frustration of everyone who runs for office whether they are senators beyond dissatisfaction with the Bush administration or bickering presidential candidates, and yet they endorse this sedentism. A union is a group of consenting individuals. An onion is something inert that just keeps growing in the interest of self-preservation. Regardless of what one wants to accomplish we can either allow it to keep adding to itself or we can bust it open. And like an onion, it smells and makes you want to cry.

*www.kubby2008.com

If you have responses to this thread send them to russo@richmondliberty.org and they will be posted. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 10:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-01-30
General Assembly, Wednesday January 30th, 2008

[This report is being sent out Thursday morning, rather than Wednesday afternoon. Feel free to invent some plausible excuse, other than "He's just lazy." Sorry, people. -- Roy]

Two important committee meetings today, at effectively the same time.
2:00 p.m. Senate Courts - All the bills from yesterday's subcommittee, AND ALSO SB88, expungement of marijuana convictions.

1/2 hr. after House adjourns - House Courts Criminal Sub. - DRUG BILLS nonresident pharmacies, drug-caused death, Waiver of Constitutional rights, indecent exposure, castle doctrine, sex offenders

As I type, Lennice Werth is at the Senate hearing, while I'm on the House side. We'll try to coordinate with each other.

House subcommittee finally gets a quorum and begins just about 2 pm, with 33 bills on the docket. ALl the bills that have a fiscal impact (will cost the State money over the next five years) should be done today. Bills of interest below are in numerical order.

HB491, Amundson: Indecent exposure; penalty.
There was another try at rewriting this bill, so that it could cover outrageous behavior even in one's own home but still not reach into normal conduct. This was a nearly complete rewrite of the current law. Point raised that we have decades of experience, and case law, invested in deciding exactly what is meant by the words in the current statute, and if we rewrite now then that process will have to start all over again, so a rewrite had better be really good. After another hour of discussion, they gave it up as a bad job.

Bill was tabled, presumably dead but it could be taken up again if anyone gets a bright idea.

HB710, Janis: Self defense and defense of others; person occupying dwelling may justify when unlawful entry.

Provides that any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling, has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily harm. The bill also provides that a person who uses justifiable force against an intruder shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person.

This is another try at the "Castle doctrine" (As in, "a man's home is his castle.") Would have liked to stay for it, but since it has no fiscal impact we aren't even sure that it will be heard tonight.

I left for the Senate committee, but Philip Van Cleave from VCDL and courts expert Hal Macklin were there and covering the issue. (For those who would like to receive VCDL's e-newsletter, see:
http://www.vcdl.org/.

[Thursday morning, Philip informs me that this bill was indeed passed out of subcommittee to the full Committee for approval.]

HB1147, Phillips: Controlled substances; nonresident pharmacies reporting and approval requirements.

Controlled substances; nonresident pharmacies; penalties. Adds new penalties and increases existing penalties related to controlled substances including: (i) a medical practitioner wrongly prescribing or dispensing a Schedule I or II drug shall be imprisoned for not less than five nor more than 40 years and fined not more than $500,000, and upon a second or subsequent conviction, may be sentenced to imprisonment for life and be fined not more than $500,000, and for Schedule III through V drugs, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony; (ii) a pharmacist violating any provision of the Drug Control Act shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony for the first offense, and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense; and (iii) any person wrongfully obtaining a drug through fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, etc., shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony for the first offense and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense, rather than the current Class 6 felony for all such offenses. Also adds new reporting and approval requirements for nonresident pharmacies doing business over the internet and via electronic mail.

This bill attempts to stop what is alleged to be a major problem of Virginians buying pharmaceutical drugs for the purpose of abuse from out-of-state pharmacies. We heard tales of crowds of people waitin in downtown parking lots to meet the UPS truck, getting their drugs, and the local police being powerless to stop them. (In spite of my requests, none of the proponents of the bill explained why law enforcement didn't just arrest these people for obtaining drugs through fraud, which is already a felony. Certaily that's done routinely with cocaine and marijuana, with autorities working closely with FedEx and UPS and Post Office to set up controlled deliveries of contraband.) One of the provisions raises the penalty for a second offense of obtaining drugs through invalid prescriptions from the present Class 6 felony (up to five years) to a Class 5 felony (up to ten years).

The bill had been held up pending word from the AG's office on the constitutionality of what is essentially a scheme to regulate interstate commerce, which is reserved for the Federal government. We were told here that the AG has given his OK.

A representative from a large mail-order pharmacy explained how the requirement for a Virginia-based resident pharmacist would cost his company large sums; the cost of hiring fifty new pharmacists to satisfy similar legislation across the country would substantially raise the prices they must charge consumers.

Robert Bushnell, representing the Commonwealth's Attorneys Association, quite responsibly suggests that the prohibition of pharmacists filling fraudulent prescriptions should say that the pharmacist must have known that the 'scrip is bad. This sparked many questions about how one can tell real 'scrips from phoney ones, during the course of which we learned that the Feds are in the process of implementing a requirement that all 'scrips be written on special tamper-proof paper. [I predict that when this process becomes final, which is supposed to be "within months", there will be a great number of problems as many doctors will not have gotten the word, and valid prescriptions are rejected.]

I spoke, questioning any real need for bill since we have existing laws against frauulent prescriptions, and opposing increased penalties for repeat offenders.

The bill was passed by for the moment, to allow it to be reworked yet again. An hour or two later, the new version is ready.

It's much better than the previous versions, and most importantly no longer has the doubled penalty for using bad 'scrips.

Recommended for reporting to the full House.

HB1156, Phillips: Drug distribution; penalties if results in death or serious bodily injury.

Penalties for drug distribution resulting in death or serious bodily injury. Imposes mandatory minimum punishments of from one to ten years for drug manufacturing or distribution and requires that sentences be served consecutively.

This finally comes up, only an hour and a half into the meeting.
The bill makes it a specific crime, with increased penalties including mandatory minimum sentences, when illlegal drugs cause serious injury or death. This is another substitute version, and now covers only cases where the illegal drugs cause death, and has no provision for 'man-mins' (these typically must be served over and above any other sentences, and are not subject to probation, parole, or reduction of any time.

I spoke against the bill, saying that we already have a law on the books making anyone who commts a felony (such as distribution of drugs) guilty of felony manslaughter if a death results from that act. I also made a pitch for personal responsibility, asking why I should be held responsible if I sell someone something which he then uses stupidly in such a way as to kill himself. If I sell you an aluminum ladder, and you use it to climb up and mess with the power lines and kill yourself, that is your fault, not mine. Likewise, if I sell you sleeping pills, and you then drink alcohol and use a triple dose of the pills to kill yourself, that is your fault. Freedom requires responsibility; each person must be responsible for his own choices and actions.

There's much discussion, including descriptions of several cases where people had died following inappropriate use of illegal drugs, and the difficulties of proving that those deaths had in fact been caused by, not merely followed, the drugs.

Finally, on a motion from a most unlikely member, the bill was PBIed. Barring unexpected action by the full Committee, it is dead.

HB1366, Cline: Probation; waiver of fourth amendment rights as condition.

Probation; waiver of Fourth Amendment rights as condition of probation. Provides that among the conditions the court may impose upon a probationer is that the person, vehicle or home of the defendant shall be subject to search without a warrant during the period of his probation when the search derives from a violation of other conditions imposed upon the defendant by the court or arises out of a suspicion that the defendant is engaged in conduct the same as that or substantially similar to that for which he was convicted, provided that such condition may be imposed only upon a defendant convicted of a felony violation under Article 1 (§ 18.2-247 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 (controlled substance violations) or a violent felony as defined in § 17.1-805.

Had to leave for the Senate committee before this came up. More later.

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

At the Senate Courts of Justice Committee meeting, there had been action on a number of items, but a snag in the marijuana-expungement bill. Most actions reflected subcommittee decisions.

SB3, indecent exposure, was PBIed.

SB88, Lucas, would have set up a procedure for expungement of criminal records for people who have had charges of marijuana possession dismissed under the conditional-discharge statute. We had an amendment prepared to expand that provision to people who had actually been convicted of possession in the past.

Suddenly, there was a "fiscal impact statement" associated with the bill. The analysis claimed that the bill would require hiring a new State employee at $90,000 per year, and setting up servers and databases, for a cost of $100,000 for the first year, and maintaining that database at a cost of $2,500 per year. This analysis is subject to challenge on several grounds, and although we're working on it, nothing could be done Wednesday because the necessary people had already gone home when we discovered the new data.

The bill was not heard by the Committee.

SB175, prohibiting registered sex offenders from being near recreation centers, was passed by for the day.

SB270, Indecent exposure, was folded into SB3, which was PBIed.

SB382, selling guns to illegal aliens, had a substitute version reported to the full Senate.

SB397, Edwards, Electronic log for cold medicine, was stricken from the docket at the request of the patron.

SB405, Puckett, Out-of-state pharmacists, had a substitute version reported from Committee and re-referred to Senate Finance Committee. This is the Senate version of HB1147, written up above. Eventually, the two bills will have to be reconciled.

SB556, Obenshain, requires jail time for disregarding right-of-way and killing someone. A substitute version was reported from the Committee, and that version should be on the Web later today.

SB590, Howell, Sex Offenders Registry, had a substitute version reported and sent to the Finance Committee. Substitute version should be on the Web later today.

SB678, Puckett, authorizes a Drug Court for Tazewell County. Reported, re-referred to Finance.

Lennice and I both left before six pm, while Committee was still sitting.

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

Next significant meetings are:

8:30 a.m. Senate Education and Health; Senate Room B, General Assembly Building
-- Public smoking, HPV vaccinations

House and Senate meet at noon.

5:00 p.m. House Militia, Police and Public Safety - Subcommittee #1, Firearms; 7th Floor West Conference Room, General Assembly Building
-- Numerous firearms bills, including prohibitions for libraries and day-care centers

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

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!

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 08:26 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-01-29
General Assembly, Tuesday January 29th, 2008

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

*** Question (from e-mail):
"You keep talking about changing words and commas. Can you just quote the whole law instead of trying to translate it? We can read it for ourselves!"

*** Answer:
Yep, you can, and if you're interested then you should!
I'm not going to quote entire bills in these reports, nor entire sections of the law. They're both available online, 24/7/52. (Well, maybe 23.5/7/52!)

Go to the URL given at the bottom of this message, under "DETAILS". This is the Legislative Services website. These professionals (by which I mean, NOT politicians) do an astoundingly good job at making what the politicians do visible, and even somewhat understandable.

Follow my instructions in "DETAILS" to see the actual text of different versions of any bill, or the projected cost ("impact statement") to the Commonwealth, or any of the recorded votes; all of these links are on the screen in blue.

Other information is available from that screen also; the options are pretty self-explanatory. I'll explain just the one about which I was asked: what is the law now?

To see what the law says now, click on "Code of Virginia" on the bottom half of the screen (under "Searchable Databases"). Follow the prompts to navigate to whatever Code section interests you. For what it's worth, my most usual route is "Table of Contents", "Title 18.2", "Chapter 7", and then whichever statute I'm looking for. Your routes may vary.

This is a GREAT resource! You should use it if you're at all interested in these things -- and you SHOULD be interested, if for no other reason than that these bills are why your taxes are so high, and why your buddy got busted.

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

I also remind you that these politicians represent YOU.
If you want them to do something, then you need to tell them.
Member information is available from the site above, by clicking on "General Assembly Members". If you aren't sure who represents you, then first slap yourself on the wrist, and then go to http://legis.state.va.us/ and click on "Who's My Legislator?"

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

The House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee met at 8:30 this morning, without me because I was too tired. The bill in which I was interested is:

SB1400, Pogge, Disclosure of minor's drug test results. Provides that a minor shall not be deemed an adult for the purpose of consenting to a drug test when the minor is not receiving outpatient care, treatment or rehabilitation for substance abuse and that a parent, legal guardian or person standing in loco parentis may obtain the results of a minor's drug test.

The intent of the bill is to allow parents to know about their child's drug use. This would be a reversal of a policy decision made many years ago, which is that for some health-related matters, a minor must be free to seek help in confidence, without the knowlege of their parents. (See the bill, but briefly those matters are sex, drugs, and mental illness.) In all too many cases before this policy was adopted, minors were scared to talk to their parents, and scared to seek professional help because if they did, their parents would be informed.

The bill as originally written said that a minor would no longer be considered an adult for the purpose of consenting to a drug test unless they are already in treatment for substance abuse. Note the exquisite logic: if a minor is in treatment, he can consent to the test; if he is not already receiving treatment, he is not allowed to consent to the test which could show the extent and nature of his problem.

The original bill also would have changed the law to say that parents/guardians of the minor are allowed access to the results of any drug test, whether or not the minor is in treatment, unless there was a professional determination that this "would be reasonably likely to cause substantial harm"; even this last provisio seems to apply only if the minor is already in treatment.

Since I'm not the only one who spotted some of the flaws in the bill, a substitute version was offered. The details of this have only been online for a few hours. (It's one of the reasons I delayed this report.)

The substitute version isn't particularly better. The only change consists in relocating one sentence of new language.

Both the policy problem -- do we want kids to be afraid to seek help? -- and the practical problem of not being able to consent to be tested to see what treatment is required, if any, unless you're already in treatment, remain.

The bill will be heard in the House this week; if it passes, it will go to the Senate.

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

Senate Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee met around 2pm. Numerous bills, including most importantly SB88, allowing expungement of decades-old marijuana charges.

The 3rd Floor East Conference Room in the General Assembly Building boasts not the size, nor the airconditioning capacity, nor the audio systems of the larger chambers on the first floor. It's jammed, SRO, with people crowded in the hallway outside (all talking loudly, of course, so that it's very difficult to hear the proceedings). Lennice Werth from VADV is here with me, and we're waiting for the bill to come up. Have to shut down now; now accessible power, and low battery.

Well, the short version is that the Expungement bill, SB88, never came up. The patron, Senator Lucas, is also chair of a different subcommittee which was meeting at the same time, and she wan't able to break away long enough to present her bill to the subcommittee. Lennice and I sat there for a bit over three hours waiting, of course, because the first thing you learn when you do this is that, when you leave early, THEN they will take up the bill in which you're interested. Not malice (at least, very seldom), just Murphy's Law in action.

Other matters of interest:

SB3, Puller, indecent exposure.

Another bill reacting to the event described earlier in relation to a House bill, HB491. In this case, Counsel Steve Benjamin had crafted new language to replace the existing statute, which the House Courts committee had found to have some serious flaws as it's now written. I thought that it was a rather nice job, myself, but there were still problems.

After much discussion (and jokes), the bill was PBIed (killed).

SB88, Lucas, Expungement of marijuana charges.

There is a woman in a midwestern state, once a resident of Virginia, who back in '75 was convicted -- in absentia -- of possession of marijuana. Thirty years later, fully qualified, trained, and certified as a teacher, she finds that she is not allowed to teach because of that conviction. She asked the Governor for executive clemency, which was refused on the grounds that there's nothing unusual about her case.

She appealed for help, and both Senator Lucas and Delegate Morgan responded with bills that can, with a bit of modification, allow her conviction, and those of others, to be expunged. I've crafted the change needed in the bill, and when it's finally heard in committees we'll do our best to convince the members that it's a good change.

The bill wasn't heard today. It won't be easy; last year a similar bill was shot down in the Senate Courts committee because it might possibly have alowed someone to be treated as a first-offender, and then, horror of horrors, ten years later they could DO IT AGAIN!

SB175, Blevins, Sex offenders prohibited proximity to children.

Another bill to bar people on the registry of sex offenders from coming anywhere near places where children might congregate. This is a substitute version, less restrictive than the original.

It was opposed by LeeLee Lawless, whose son is now a registered sex offender for having consensual sex when he was a teenager. She made an excellent presentation or what's wrong with the way these laws are now written. (Under Virginia law, if two kids under 18 exchange emails about affair, and swap pictures -- or only invitations -- then they are BOTH guilty of child pornography, and can be forced to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.)

None of us heard any motions being made on the bill, but we found out later that it's going to the full Committee for action.

SB270, Deeds, Indecent exposure.

Same concept as SB3, same arguments, same treatment. PBI

SB309, Reynolds, Restricted Driver's License
SB310, Reynolds, Restricted Driver's License

These bills would allow the issuance of a restricted drver's license (to and from work, in the course of work) to people whose license had been suspended.

These recognise that a license is a virtual necessity for many jobs, and that offenders must be able to keep their jobs in order to pay their fines and support their families.

Each approved by subcommittee (SB310 after amendmendment).

SB397, Edwards, cough syrup and cold pills

Methamphetamine precursors; electronic log. Requires that the log currently required to be maintained by sellers of products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or any of their salts or isomers or any salts of isomers must be kept in electronic format. The Board of Pharmacy is required to establish and maintain the log and ensure that the log is capable of checking compliance against all state, local, and federal laws, including interfacing with other states to ensure comprehensive compliance.

Stricken from the docket at the request of the patron.

SB556, Obenshain, Motorcyclist protection

Reckless driving; violation of right-of-way resulting in death of another. Provides that a person is guilty of reckless driving if he violates the right-of-way of any motor vehicle causing the death of another. The court must sentence the driver to 90 days in jail and suspend his driver's license for not less than six months or more than three years, although the court may suspend the penalties if the person completes 24 or more hours of community service.

Most accidents involving a motorcycle and a car are the fault of the car driver. Over and over, car drivers drive into motorcycles. Often, it's what I personally heard one idiot say, who had pulled up to a stop sign, looked both ways, then pulled out directly in front of a bike: "Yes, officer, I saw him, but it was only a motorcycle!" "Only" almost a half-ton of bike and rider, traveling at 45mph. The motorcyclist died in that incident.

The bill requires that in such cases, where a motorist violates the right-of-way of another and causes a death, the court MUST sentence the driver to at least 90 days in jail.

In spite of some dissent, the bill was approved. I had to shake Senator Obenshain's hand and thank him (a new experience for each of us).

SB678, Puckett, Drug treatment court in TAzewell County

Authorizes a special court, like many others that seem to be working well.

Approved.

The subcommittee rose around 5:30 pm, with more still to do.

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

Next significant meetings are:

House and Senate meet at noon.

2:00 p.m. Senate Courts of Justice; Senate Room A, General Assembly Building -- All the bills from today's subcommittee,
*** AND ALSO SB88, expungement.

1/2 hour after house adjourns - House Courts of Justice - Criminal Subcommittee; House Room C, General Assembly Building
DRUG BILLS nonresident pharmacies, drug-caused death
Waiver of Constitutional rights
Indecent exposure, castle doctrine, sex offenders,

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

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!

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 12:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From the Virginia Watchdog (www.thevirginiawatchdog.com):

They [Our General Assembly Members] have introduced two bills again this year
which will take away MY First Amendment rights.

HB 633 and SB 133 I believe the numbers are. They are trying to stop me
from publishing SSN which appear on PUBLIC RECORDS that the Clerks hold.
So since legislation failed last year and the year before because it
wouldn't pass constitutional muster, then Houck and Joe May are trying
again.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=081&typ=bil&val=sb133 Set t
heard in subcommittee Feb 4th and I can't even be there.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=081&typ=bil&val=hb633 Set
to be heard Jan 31.

These bill would make it okay for a "state agency" to publish SSNs but not
ME!

They should be trying to stop those idiot Clerks from doing it.

By the way, legislation was put in last year that would have mandated that
all Clerks redact SSNs from online records by July 1, 2010. But I only
discovered in Sept that there was an ENACTMENT clause which basically killed
that. So that is out the window and what came out of the bill instead was
just permissive mush allowing clerks to publish the SSNs instead of removing
them. AND most legislators think (like me) that it passed. Boy was I
fooled.

There is NO DATE for clerks to remove SSNs. There is no law mandating that
they remove SSNs.

But if the two bills pass then I can't publish a PUBLIC record with a SSN on
it, but the CLERKS CAN!!!!!!

Posted by Leonard Harris at 04:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-01-28
General Assembly, Monday January 28th, 2008

(It was 11 pm before I got home, after walking from the nearest bus line still running. Ate, fell asleep before getting this finished and sent. Sorry.)

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

*** Question (from e-mail):
"Is it possible for me to attend one of these meetings and listen in and take some notes? I am not any sort of government official; simply a citizen activist."

*** Answer:
OF COURSE you can attend these meetings. This is why I list time and place in my reports. Every single one of them is open to the public. The schedule of times and locations is online, at:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+oth+MTG. For most meetings, there's a link to the right labeled "committee info". Click it, and it will lead you to listings of the members of the committee, and a list of all bills which they have on their plate, and one or more "dockets" showing the bills that they intend to work on during a particular meeting. See the "DETAILS" and "REMINDER" sections at the end of each of these reports.

Not only can you attend, but at most of them you may speak out on the issues which concern you. Let me clarify that, though. You can't just go in and start spouting off on how your local politician is a jerk (true though it may be). What you can do is to wait until a bill about which you're concerned is being considered by the committee, and listen.

The chair will announce the bill, then the patron will explain it and possibly ask other people to speak in favor of it. Then the chair will ask if there are any members of the public who would like to speak in support of the bill. After that, s/he'll ask if there are any members of the public who would like to speak against the bill.

Your chance to speak is during one of those latter two moments. Just walk to the lectern, point the mike at your mouth, tell "Mr. [or Madam] Chairman and members of the committee" your name and any group which you may be representing, and then talk. When you finish talking, thank them for listening, and say that you'll be happy to answer any questions they may have.

You should remember that talking to your legislator while they are NOT in session is more effective than trying to hook up during the session, or just testifying before a committee. The websites are up all year round, and show you how to find and contact your Delegate and Senator.

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

There was an 8:30 am meeting of Senate Courts of Justice Committee. They're dealing with the mental-health bills, and I didn't need to be there, so I wasn't.

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

1/2 hr after House adjourned, the House Courts of Justice met.

Most bills noncontroversial.

HB1556, Cline, requires an ultrasound examination before performing an abortion. Proponents say it avoids problems stemming from bad estimates of gestational age; opponents say it's another attempt to make abortions more difficult and expensive.

Reported.

Committee adjourns, 2:50 pm.

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

2:52 pm, House Courts of Justice Criminal Law Subcommittee met.
Chairman estimates meeting will last until 9 or 11 pm. They have over fifty bills on their docket. Notes below are bills in numerical order, not the order in which they were considered.

HB159, Albo. Provides that if a law-enforcement officer tells a person in possession of stolen property that the property is stolen, the person shall be charged with the knowledge that the property is stolen.

Yep, that's what it actually says. You buy (or find in an alley) something, in all good faith, and then a cop comes along and tells you that it's stolen property . . . and then arrests you for KNOWINGLY possessing stolen property. This one needs a bit of work.

Later this afternoon, we get a substitute version of the bill. This one makes clear what the original bill did not; if the cops are doing a sting, using stuff that they're pretending was stolen but actually isn't, if they tell the suspected fence that it's stolen property and he buys it anyway, it's still illegal.

They're still re-working the language; bill passed by for the moment.

Two hours later, new substitute version, better worded. Argument over one comma takes over five minutes. (Can't really gripe about that, though, given that a misplaced comma in a criminal statute can put people in the pen or keep them out.) Amended.

Recommended.

HB296, Hargrove, Death penalty; 5-year moratorium on executions.
HB299, Hargrove. Death penalty; abolishes for all Class 1 felonies committed on or after July 1, 2007.

These two are being heard together. Delegate Hargrove has pushed this issue for years, without success and without flagging.

Numerous speakers, including me, in favor of the bills.
Jack Knapp (Independent Baptist Assn.), and representative of Commonwealth's Attorneys speak for.
Same old arguments on each side.

Delegate Gilbert opposes bills, reaffirms respect for Del. Hargrove, agrees with him that eventually the moritorium will pass. Gilbert moves to "gently lay on the table"; Armstrong makes a substitute motion to PBI (kill) it. Without objection, HB299 is dead.

After a moment of additional discussion, HB266 follows it.

HB436, Miller, Gives a law-enforcement officer the choice of issuing a summons and releasing the person or arresting him for Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors. Under current law, the law-enforcement officer must release the person on a summons for most Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors unless the person fails to stop the unlawful act or indicates that he will not appear as directed in the summons. The bill also requires the officer to arrest the person if he fails to stop the unlawful act; currently arrest is discretionary when the person fails to stop the unlawful act.

This is another attempt to change the law that we got passed back in the seventies. The significant thing about it is not merely that an "arrest" lets the man haul you off to jail and make you post bail, but more importantly an "arrest" means that you can be searched, and anything found can be used as evidence against you.
In the case which led to this bill, a man named Moore was stopped by police for a minor offense which should have resulted in a summons. Instead, police arrested him, searched him and also searched his hotel room, making more serious charges as a result of that search. Virginia Supreme Court overturned that conviction, creating earthquakes among law enforcement agencies who had been routinely ignoring the law for decades.

This bill has been here before, where it passed this committee 17-3, and passed the House easily, but died in the Senate. This year may well be a repeat.

Proponents say that the police need this to do their jobs, though let us not forget that in last year's testimony they admitted that they want the power to search people whom they think may have something illegal on their person.
Opponents say that there are enough reasons laid out in the law to allow arrest whenever there's a real reason to do so, and that allowing at the unfettered discretion of the officer is to invite abuse.

AG's office in favor.
Bushnell, C.A. Henry County, pro
Bob Devon, State Police, pro. Says no abuse by VA cops.
Hope Amezquita, ACLU against, (also Virginia Organizing Project).
Latino People's Coalition against -- profiling.
Philip Van Cleave, VCDL, opposed.
D. J. Geiger, Indigent Defense Commission, against -- discriminatory enforcement.
Jane Chittom, Appellate Defender -- who handled the appeal that gave rise to this case -- against; gives background.
Claire Gustanaga Latino Peoples' Coalition against -- profiling, discriminatory enforcement.
Mark [ Sorry, did not catch last name or affilation] against.
I spoke against the bill.

Delegate Gilbert moves report, second. Miller repeats that this is important, and that police officers will not abuse their powers. Vote. Bill is recommended, 2 noes.

HB491, Amundson, Indecent exposure; penalty.

Extends indecent exposure laws to being nude in your own home. Discussed at previous meeting, many faults, there should be a fix offered today.

Not heard at this meeting.

HB574, Watts, Child sex offenses. Creates a number of new crimes labeled "indecent liberties with children" that mirror, and expand upon, existing offenses but with new victim age classifications and specific offender classifications. The bill also provides that any person who is convicted of such an offense and was previously convicted of such an offense or of any offense set forth in subsection B of § 18.2-67.5:2 (felony sexual assaults) shall upon conviction be sentenced to the maximum term authorized for the offense and shall not have all or any part of his sentence suspended.

I had been concerned about this bill, since it appeared to make no dispensation for the case where the "adult" is only days older than the "child", but it turns out that this is covered. It would still be a crime, but there's no penalty specified in simple cases.

Approved and to lockbox.

HB710, Janis, Self defense and defense of others.Provides that any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling, has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily harm. The bill also provides that a person who uses justifiable force against an intruder shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person.

Proponents say that you shouldn't have to worry about being sued, or arrested, when someone breaks into your house to rob or assault you. Opponents say that that hardly ever happens, and that if this bill is passed you could invite an enemy into your home, then murder him and claim that he had assaulted you.

Passed by twice, waiting for patron.
Expected to be heard at Wednesday's meeting.

HB876, Loupassi, DUI Court; establishing in City of Colonial Heights and Chesterfield County. Allows Chesterfield and Colonial Heights General District Courts to use a special docket to run a driving under the influence court based on the state drug court model. Participants will be those who violate ASAP program requirements, but participation will not result in a reduction of charges.

A DUI courts is similar to drug courts, which have proven to be useful in rehabilitating drug users. After considerable discussion, some of it heated, the subcommittee rejected the notion of extending the concept to DUI offenses. PBI.

HB893, Lohr, Juvenile detention facility employee; assault and battery against, penalty.

Makes it a felony to commit A&B against yet another "special" class of people, who's lives are so much more important than our.

Not heard at this meeting.

HB931, Gilbert Methamphetamine; manufacturing, selling, giving, and distributing thereof, penalty.

Raises penalties, adds mandatory minimums, because this is the drug of the year, much more dangerous than any other drug. Next year it'll be a different drug.

Recommended for approval, and into the lockbox, without any real chance to object. This was the Borg -- resistance is futile.

HB932, Gilbert, Firearms; reckless handling, penalty.

Provides a Class 6 felony if the reckless handling of a firearm unintentionally causes the serious bodily injury of another person resulting in permanent and significant physical impairment.

Substitute version better worded, less likely to be misused in cases of simple accident. No opposition.

Recommended.

HB1043, Watts Sex offense victims; use of polygraph examination.

Substitute version adopted, reflecting previous hearings.

Provides that no complaining witness of any alleged offense involving criminal sexual activity shall be requested to submit to a polygraph examination as a condition of proceeding with an investigation of the offense. This is needed to comply with federal guidelines.

Much discussion of technicalities in language. Bill passed by for the moment to allow more work. No decision yet.

HB1488, Sherwood, incorporated into this bill.

Sorry, my notes don't show whether this bill was finally approved or is still being worked on.

HB1044, Watts, Crimes Against Minors & Sex Offender Registry;

Sex Offender Registry. Makes it perfectly clear that persons convicted under certain Code sections that were amended by the 2007 General Assembly must register even though the sections have been rewritten. The bill requires the registration of any conviction of certain crimes involving use of a communications system to facilitate certain offenses involving children rather than current law which requires registration only when the victim is a minor or is physically helpless; because the crime exists only if the victim is a minor. The bill also revises definitions to make it clear that an out-of-state conviction for a registerable offense has the same status as a Virginia conviction.

Recommended.

HB1126, Jones, Abortion or miscarriage; intent to destroy unborn child, penalty.

Provides that any person, including the pregnant female, who causes abortion or miscarriage is guilty of a Class 4 felony. The bill excepts medically approved contraceptives as a means of producing abortion or miscarriage.

Planned parenthood against the bill, as being a slippery slope toward outlawing abortion. I spoke against, pointing out that it covers traditional abortifacients such as herbs or tea, and that some grandmothers, shamans, and healers will be made criminals.

Delegate Watts attempts, without success, to remove language about drugs and substances. Points out that it even outlaws some exercises.

Recommended for approval, and to lockbox.

HB1156, Phillips, Penalties for drug distribution resulting in death or serious bodily injury. Imposes mandatory minimum punishments of from one to ten years for drug manufacturing or distribution and requires that sentences be served consecutively.

Too expensive.
Never in 400 years of law -- per counsel
Spoke against -- personal responsibility.
Will be toned down considerably to make it cheaper
Only lukewarm support on Committee
Revised version on docket for Wednesday.

HB1366, Cline, Probation; waiver of Fourth Amendment rights as condition of probation. Provides that among the conditions the court may impose upon a probationer is that the person, vehicle or home of the defendant shall be subject to search without a warrant during the period of his probation when the search derives from a violation of other conditions imposed upon the defendant by the court or arises out of a suspicion that the defendant is engaged in conduct the same as that or substantially similar to that for which he was convicted, provided that such condition may be imposed only upon a defendant convicted of a felony violation under Article 1 (§ 18.2-247 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 (controlled substance violations) or a violent felony as defined in § 17.1-805.

In other words, this says that drug offenders could be required to allow searches for as long as they're on probation. It would also allow search of ones car or home. As Committee discussions brought out, this includes searches of the residences of other people, as when a probationer is staying at hs parents' home.

This would appear to be a flagrant violation of rights, but in fact these conditions are already routinely part of many "voluntary" plea bargains.

Sorry, notes don't show final action here. I THINK, but do not guarantee, that it's being re-worked to cover only personal searches, not car/home.

HB1488, Sherwood, was incorporated into HB1043, Watts.

Committee adjourns about 9:45. next meeting Wednesday.
42 bills tonight. Hope to have no after meeting Friday.

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

Next significant meetings are:

8:30 a.m. House General Laws; House Room C, General Assembly Building -- Mostly ABC laws

8:30 a.m. House Health, Welfare and Institutions; House Room D, General Assembly Building -- Drug test results for minors

House and Senate convene at noon.

1/2 hr aft Senate Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee; 3rd Floor East Conference Room, General Assembly Building -- Numerous bills, including most importantly SB88, allowing expungement of decades-old marijuana charges.

5:00 p.m. House Health, Welfare and Institutions - Subcommittee #3, Institutions; 5th Floor West Conference Room, General Assembly Building -- no docket yet

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

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!

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 08:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It's almost the first Tuesday of the month, and you know what that means? Yes that's right it is time for the Patrick Henry Supper Club! On Feb 5, the PHSC will meet at its usual location, Eastern Buffet, 7586 W. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23294 (in Merchants Walk Shopping Center). Dinner is at 6pm and the main event is 7pm.

We will be discussing the current General Assembly session. The following speakers will be featured:
Matthew T. Martin, Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party of Henrico County
Allen Neal - Virginians against Real ID
Alex Blakemore - Verified Voting Coalition
Roy Scherer - Citizen Activist
Hope Amezquita - ACLU of VA
Jamie Ford - Advance America - Payday Loans

Posted by Leonard Harris at 10:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-01-25
General Assembly, Friday January 25th, 2008

Other committments forced me to miss a meeting this morning, House Militia, Police and Public Safety. They had requested that someone from the City of Norfolk be present to explain how it was that at the last Harbor Fest, they arrested a man for violating an ordinance that they already knew was illegal. Turns out that the Norfolk spokesman never showed up, so I suppose I didn't really miss much. (The Committee pretty much followed the recommendations of their subcommittees on the various gun bills reported previously.) I have had the honor of meeting Chet Szymecki, the VCDL member who was dragged away from his wife and children by armed police, after having violated no laws.

The Senate Courts of Justice and Education and Health Joint Subcommittee on Proposed Mental Health Legislation is meeting as I type. They're dealing with the same mental health issues that the House Courts of Justice Committee Subcommittee on Mental Health has already worked on for many hours. There will be strong pressure on them to go along with what's been done in the House, and if there are any differences in the measures passed by House and Senate they'll have to be reconciled eventually. Unless something happens that I think is important, I won't be covering this any more.

I'm at the House Courts of Justice Committee, which is dealing with all the bills sent to them from the subcommittee (Yes, this means that the House is ahead of the Senate by a week or so; there are those who would say that this is the natural order of things.) Committee is mostly going along with subcommttee recommendations, though making a few technical amendments. So far, no changes in basic concepts.

Shortly after 3, the Committee has finished all of its work except HB499, which still needs some more staff work, and which will be dealt with at the next meeting of the Committee.

I have to say that this has been a smooth, polite, cooperative meeting. Pleased to see no echos of the unseemly argument that occurred yesterday on the floor of the House.

The Criminal Law subcommittee started at 3:15, just moments ago. The only matters on their docket are three critter-fighting bills, which I don't need to attend.

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

Next significant meetings are on Monday:

8:30 a.m. Senate Courts of Justice; Senate Room A, General Assembly Building

House convenes at noon.
Senate not mentioned on schedule; perhaps they'll be on vacation?

1/2 hr after House adjourns - House Courts of Justice; House Room C, General Assembly Building

Immediately upon adjournment of full Committee -
House Courts of Justice - Criminal Subcommittee; House Room C, General Assembly Building

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

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!

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 05:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-01-24
General Assembly, Thursday January 24rd, 2008

The main meeting Thursday was 5:00 pm, the House Militia, Police and Public Safety - Subcommittee #1, Firearms. They have numerous bills regarding weapons. The Chair announces that they'll attempt to group bills into groups that address similar issues. This is a SUBcommittee meeting, so they will only be making recommendations to the fill committee, which will take a recorded vote on each bill.

HB608, Eisenberg, was incorporated into HB281.
HB281, Toscano, would prohibit persons who are subject to protective orders from possessing a firearm. They are presently prohibited from purchasing or transporting one, but may keep one at their home or business if one is already there.

Patron explains past case where man subject to protective order was waiting near his wife's apartment, drunk, with a gun. There was a protective order requiring him to keep away from her, but she wasn't present so it didn't apply; likewise, he wasn't IN her apartment.

Police finally arrested the man for being drunk in public. They would have liked to have been able to haul him back to court for violating the protective order.

Philip Van Cleave (VCDL) and Mike Stollenwerk (FFPC) opposed the bill. Neither wanted to see someone stripped of their means of defense, at home or at work, without a very good reason. Stollenwerk pointed out that there's no procedure laid out for what to do with weapons, how to either return them or dispose of them, etc.

Discussion: Delegate Griffith explains why present law doesn't prevent possession -- self-defense, as noted by opponents. Other members ask why not other charges as well, with suggestions.

Motion to report fails for lack of a second. [This means that no action has been taken on the bill. Since the subcommittee has moved on to other things, the bill is effectively dead. OTOH, there might always be a successful motion in full Committee to bring it back, and if that does not happen there might still be a successful motion before the full House to "discharge the Committee of its responsibilities and consider this bill directly". There are many rules here, starting with Mr. Jefferson's and only then proceeding to Roberts and more . . . like the man said, "You have to know the territory!"]

HB814, Ward: Protective orders to include information on whether or not respondent possesses firearm.

Patron explains that this is how the Federal government does it, and that it might protect police or other personnel who are called upon to serve the notice or to respond to violation of it.

Questions: How would you know whether or not the person owns a firearm? Is this _de_facto_ registration? Perhaps just ASK the person whether or not they own a firearm? Perhaps ask the complainant? Maybe check the database to see whether the subject has a CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit)? Why pry into this anyway in absence of trouble?

Motion to report fails for lack of a second.

HB370, Carrico
HB653, Wright
HB843, Sherwood
HB982, Nutter
All deal with protecting the rights of privacy of people who hold CHPs.
All four bills are incorporated into HB982, which grew out of the FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) Council recommendations.

At present, these are a matter of public record, available to anyone who goes down to the courthouse in each locality. In addition, the State Police maintains a master electronic record, which has been open for public inspection.

The problem appeared when a Roanoke paper accessed the State Police file, and published on their website the names and addresses of all 135,000 people in Virginia who hold CHPs. Included among these were people who are retired after serving in law enforcement, and people who have permits because they have been the targets of death threats or attempted murders.

These bills would each add privacy protections.

Discussion: Should nonprofit groups have access to the list for public-education purposes? should State Police be in business of providing this info even for such groups? Should private contractors (i.e. Lexis/Nexus) have access? How about when they're dong contract work for law enforcement? Should only the state-level list be withheld, while various local lists be left as public information?

After technical amendments (we'll see them when the full Committee meets), the motion to recommend passes.

HB535, Mathieson
HB657, Griffith
HB10544, Scott
These bills deal with guns and court orders.

Delegate Griffith requests that his bill be rereferred to the House Courts of Justice Committee, which has already spent many hours dealing with these issues. Delegates Scott and Mathieson agree for their bills to also go there.

Done.

HB1414, Scott, Concealed handgun permits to be revoked by issuing court and State Police to be notified.

Questions about when this would take effect -- apparently after appeals are exhausted. Agreement.

Approved for full Committee.

HB899, Scott: Semiautomatic handguns; sale thereof, microstamping.

This would require that new automatics be made with tiny codes in the breech and firing pins, which would stamp information on any cartridge fired from the weapon. This is already law in California, taking effect in two years, and most large manufacturers plan to be in full compliance. Some small manufacturers plan to forgo the California market rather than go to the expense of modifying their equipment.

The law would not apply to weapons manufactured before January 1, 2010.

Questions on effect of the law, how likely these weapons are to be used by criminals, could they be filed off, would they last, etc.

Philip Van Cleave (VCDL) has several points, including one that i hadn't thought of: empty shells from a firin range could be picked up and later used by criminals to mislead law enforcement.

Motion to approve fails -- no second.

HB529, Pogge, Affects Concealed handgun permits; renewal and replacement.

Makes two sensible changes in the CHP laws. Permit is good for five years before needing to be renewed; this makes the renewed permit expire five years after the old one expires, rather than five years from the date it's issued. Other change allows replacement permit to be issued showing new address if you move. $10 fee for this.

Everybody likes it. Substitute version accepted, approved.

HB873, Johnson, Deals with the "proof of competency" required for issuance of a CHP. These are required, and there are several ways specified in the law to demonstrate this, including having been honorably discharged from the armed services.

The bill was prompted by a situation where a judge refused to issue a CHP to a WWII veteran, on the grounds that his discharge wasn't recent enough. Instead, he had to go to the trouble and expense of taking a course to relearn what he already knew. (The veteran in question had travelled several hundred miles to be present at today's hearin, and received a round of applause.)

Philip Van Cleave (VCDL) had a technical amendment to suggest, which was adopted.

After a bit more discussion, bill was approved for full Committee.

HB1220, Bowling, Concealed handguns; allows law-enforcement officers on long-term leave to carry without permit.
Patron explains that some police officers may be on long-term leave recuperating from injuries, and that they may and do run into people whom they've arrested.

Approved with very little discussion.

HB169, Albo, Concealed weapons; adds box cutters to list.

Patron has requested that it be stricken from docket.

Done.

HB588, Marsden, Includes pneumatic guns among the "deadly weapons" that are not allowed to be carried concealed without a permit.

Explanation that these weapons are increasingly being used by gangs, and at schools, in the Fairfax area. They can be and are being pumped up to the point where they can be deadly.

Chesterfield police officer shows recent local activity involving these.
State Police officer points out that the Baskin-Robbins shooting was instigated by a robber who was carrying a pneumatic gun. He also relates an incident in which he nearly killed a person who was armed with what turned out to be a "toy" gun.

Delegate Griffith points out problems with the scope of the bill, in that as written it will almost certainly end up catching kids with BB guns. Work needed, no time to do that now. Suggests carrying the bill over to next year.

Done.

HB697, BaCote, yet another attempt to allow localities to ban guns from public libraries

Same arguments in favor.
Same arguments against.

Motion to report fails for lack of second.

HB810, Ward, Machine gun registration; Superintendent of State Police to be notified of change of address within 24 hours.

Police say they want it. They provide COA form, but cannot compel use. They say very simple.

Chuck Williams, private citizen, opposes. Shows Federal paperwork requirements, considerably more onerous.
PvC, VCDL, oppose as useless, redundant in view of Federal database already in place.
Mike Stollenwerk opposes because of non-help from State Police.
Both ask why 24 hour requirement.

Sorry, but I wasn't able to record the action on this one; we'll see at the meeting of the full Committee.

Griffith asks for redo on referral of HB carryover, pending action by full Committee. Done. Bill is now still alive and before subcommittee.

Committee adjourned just after 7:30. Blistering pace, too fast for my typing.

All of these bills will be before tomorrow's meeting of the full HMPPS Committee.

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

Friday meetings of interest:

9 am, House Militia, Police and Public Safety; House Room C, General Assembly Building

House and Senate meet at eleven.

1/2 hr after adjournment, Senate Courts of Justice and Education and Health Joint Subcommittee on Proposed Mental Health Legislation; Senate Room B, General Assembly Building -- Mental health bills such as House subcommittee has been dealing with.

1/2 hr aft House Courts of Justice; House Room C, General Assembly Building -- Mostly mental health bills

Immediately upon adjournment of the full committee: House Courts of Justice - Criminal Subcommittee; House Room C, General Assembly Building -- Animal fighting

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

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!

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 10:43 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-01-23
General Assembly, Wednesday January 23rd, 2008

In response to two questions, no, I do not include in these reports various private conversations with members of the Legislature. These are important, to be sure, but they are also private -- and must be, if they are to have any chance of being effective.

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

Unbeknownst to me at the time, during Wednesday's House session there was a floor vote on a measure to bar firearms from the grounds of the Capitol. This appears to have been a resolution offered by Delegate Spruill, who also has a bill (currently before the House Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee) that would do the same thing. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the measure was defeated 77-18.

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

We have several committee meetings at the General Assembly this Wednesday afternoon. The first one that I'm attending is the Senate Courts of Justice, which will be finally voting on Senator Marshe's version of the "gun show loophole" bill, which was heard on Monday. The Committee also has other significant bills before it.

Monday, according to people who were in the hearing room, there was considerable heckling from the audience, and accusations were made that this was allowed when directed to one side of the issue. We'll see if there is any such misbehaviour today.
*** LATE NOTE ***
In fact, there was no problem with audience behavior.

Committee gets underway just about on time. We'll hear a law-enforcement bill (funding for fighting Internet-based child exploitation), and then we'll hear SB109, the "gun-show loophole" bill . . . that bill passed, after gut-wrenching testimony from a victim.

HB109, Marsh, would require background checks for sales from private citizens when conducted at gun shows, and sets up a procedure for doing so.

Senator Deeds offers an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which is a bit more narrowly drawn and which would exempt from its requirements people who hold CHPs, since they've already been subjected to background checks. After it's distributed and we have a chance to read it, the Chair decides that they'll hear one speaker from each side on the new version. The plan seems to have been that al public comments (on the original bill) were to have been received at Monday's meeting.

The anti-gun guy, Andrew Goddard, dislikes it on the grounds that in the interval between issuance of a CHP and attending the gun show, the CHP-holder might have become a felon or insane, but concedes that it is better than nothing.

Partridge from the NRA spoke, said it was better than the original bill but still was bad.

Considerable discussion among the Committee members as to the scope of the bill -- Does it extend to parking lots near a show? If so, which ones and how near? What does "Virginia dealer" mean? Technical amendments. More discussion.

The motion was to report, and it failed 6-9, not quite on a party-line vote.

Normally at this point a bill would be killed, or "passed by indefiinitely", but Senator Stolle suggested that the Committee ask the State Crime Commission to study it. There were more than a few sharp words in the Committee as this idea was discussed. Some bills that have been referred to the Commission for study have never been heard from again, but in most cases the Commission has studied the matters and issued a recommendation. After promises from Senators Stolle and Norment that it would absolutely not be allowed to be ignored, but would be acted upon this year, the motion to refer and request a study was passed, 14-1, over Senator Marsh's objection.

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

Although there's another committee meeting at this moment, I'm staying with this one. Among the other measures that will be considered this afternoon are bills that would set up even bigger mandatory minimum sentences for some drug distribution, and would register some sub-teens as sex offenders for the rest of their life. If I can help derail these stupid -- sorry, of course I meant to type "ill-advised -- ideas, my time will have been well-spent.

SB164, Lucas, Prohibits requiring victim of sexual offense to submit to polygraph examination as a condition of proceeding with an investigation of the offense.
This policy is required under Federal standards, and I must say is a pretty good idea. Apparently in some cases victims of rape and similar crimes have been subjected to polygraph examinations, with the attendant humiliating questions, before the criminal justice system condescends to investigate their plights. Of course, similar exams are not required in other "he said, she said" situations that do not have sexual overtones.
As the subcommittee recommended, reported w/o objection.

SB562, Obenshain: Methamphetamine; manufacturing, selling, giving, and distributing thereof, penalty.
Provides that distribution or manufacture of an ounce or more of any substance containing any detectable amount of methamphetamine gets a mandatory minimum sentence of three years, served in addition to any other sentences, and that ten ounces gets a man.min. of five years. One of numerous mandatory-minimum bills throughout the decade.
No testimony allowed; bill is reported.

SB372, Stuart: Sex offender registry; placement of certain juveniles required.
Placement of juveniles on the sex offender registry. Provides that juveniles adjudicated delinquent for an offense for which registration on the sex offender registry is required and who are 12 years of age or older at the time of the offense shall be required to register.

This is a terrible bill, in my none-too-humble opinion. The sex-offender registry concept certainly has many good points, but there are already too many offenses included. This bill is a case in point. While there may be situations where a twelve-year-old commits a crime that would properly condemn him or her to lifelong registry as a sexual offender, this bill would REQUIRE such registry for ridiculous offenses.

As an example, a boy and girl may exchange emails suggesting sex, and perhaps including suggestive photos. Under this bill, if this is done between two 12-year-olds, then BOTH of them become registered sex offenders for the rest of their lives, with all the attendant restrictions on where they can live, work, and walk.

I had been informed that the subcommittee had recommended the bill for passage. Fortunately, that is incorrect. While the bill was not killed outright, it is carried over to the 2009 session of the Assembly (at which point it will very probably be quietly killed).

SB590, Howell, Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry; makes various amendments thereto.

Senator Howell's bill did not come up during the meeting.

Committee adjourned.

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

The other afternoon committee meeting that I'd wanted to attend,
House Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee, had bills on sex, drinking, drugs, and guns. It was over by the time we left Senate Courts.

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

Thursday meetings of interest:

There are several committee meetings with bills of interest -- drug testing of welfare recipients, guns, and more -- between 7:30 am and 9 am this Thursday morning, but I will not be able to attend any of them.

House and Senate meet at noon.

5:00 pm, House Militia, Police and Public Safety - Subcommittee #1, Firearms; 7th Floor West Conference Room, General Assembly Building.
Numerous bills regarding weapons.

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

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!

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 11:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-01-21
General Assembly, Monday January 21st, 2008
-- HIGHLY DELAYED --

It's the morning of Tuesday, 22jan08, as I type this. Yesterday was very busy, from 8:30 am until about 11 pm, and I'd had only an hour and a half of sleep before it began. I got home and went to bed, rather than polishing up the report that I'd been typing at all day. Now it's a new day, and I'll get this report off before going down for another tilt at the windmills.

[Well, it's after 5 pm of the new day, and I'm just now finishing the report. Just after typing the sentence above, I discovered that everything I'd entered yesterday evening is gone completely. I was able to recover the earlier notes from backup, but will have to re-do the last two subcommittee meetings. No idea what happened. As for today (Tuesday), the windmills lost for a change. More in today's report, GA08-01-22, but first I need to finish this.]

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

It promises to be a busy day at the Virginia General Assembly. It's Martin Luther King day, so many people are off work . . . and available to come to the General Assembly Building. This is Legislative Advocacy Day for several groups on each sides of the gun-control issue, and for Virginia CURE, and the NAACP, and the parents and friends of people with disabilities, and I think for some other groups. Long lines at the metal detectors, and the halls so crowded at times that you had to sidle, and wait five minutes for an elevator.

The Senate Committee on Courts of Justice met at 8:30 a.m. this morning. They have nearly 20 bills on their docket, but the only one with which I'm concerned is the last of the "gun show loophole" bills. This might get tricky, since the chief patron of the bill is also the Committee Chairman.

The hearing room is jammed to more than capacity, and Capitol Police aren't letting anyone in except when someone leaves. The word is that the bill will not be heard until ten am, and will not be voted upon until Wednesday's meeeting. Considering the number of people already inside, and mobbing the halls on both sides of the issue, I'm going for coffee and breakfast.

(Much later: I'm informed that, as I expected, there were no new arguments presented on either side. The Committee is expected to vote on the measure on Wednesday.
(I've had some fun asking people with "No Gun Show Loophole" stickers if they would explain to me their understanding of what that is. All conversations were polite on each side, but of six or seven people to whom I spoke, exactly ONE understood what the current law is. The others thought that, at a gun show, NO ONE had to have a background check.)

Here's the summary of the bill, if you're interested:
SB109, Marsh, Criminal history record information; required for transfer of firearms.

Transfer of firearms; criminal records check; penalties. Adds a definition of "firearms show vendor" and requires that a criminal history record information check be performed on the prospective transferee before the vendor may transfer firearms at a gun show. Under current law, only licensed dealers must obtain such a check. The bill also adds a definition of "promoter" and requires that the promoter of a gun show provide vendors with access to licensed dealers who will conduct the criminal background check.

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

House and Senate convene at noon. After they adjourn, the House Courts of Jstice Committee will meet, followed immediately by meetings of their criminal-law and civil-law subcommittees. Then at seven pm, the subcommittee on mental health will meet to consider one bill (although a very complicated one).

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

In the meantime, some random snatches of House action, noticed from the CCTV screens that are available in the GAB rooms:

HB188, Bob Marshall, was passed 57-39, and will now go to the Senate. As now written, the bill will delay until July 2010 the date when vaccinations are required of sixth-grade girls for HPV virus, which causes not only venereal warts but also cervical cancer. That deadline had been set at October of this year. The argument against the bill is that the vaccine will save lives, and will contribute to public health by reducing the reservoir of infection that now has HPV infection at around 30%. The argument against is that there are some known problems with the vaccine, and possibly some more serious problems as yet unknown, and so it makes sense not to require all girls to have the shots until we have more experience, since parents can get the vaccine for their kids now if they choose to do so.

Largely unspoken are two other arguments on each side. This vaccine protects against something that is almost exclusively spread by sexual activity, and so giving it to kids tells them that they are expected to have sex. OTOH, not all sex is consensual, and contracting an incurable and potentially fatal disease from being raped, when the disease could have been prevented by a shot, is unconscionable.

HB894, Lohr, would require that abortion clinics meet the regulations for ambulatory surgery clinics, other than a "certificate of need". It allows some exceptions, but is generally understood to greatly increase the expense of providing a safe place for termination of pregnancy. It was engrossed by the House, which sets it for third and final vote tomorrow.

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

*** "LOCKBOX" ***

I need to introduce a concept here.
The House Courts of Justice Committee uses the concept of a "lockbox".

You must first understand that House Courts has by far the highest workload of any of the standing committees in either the house of Delegates or the Senate of Virginia. They are required to consider and pass on nearly every bill that makes or changes criminal penalties in the Commonwealth.

The money committees must also approve any bill that will have a fiscal impact on the state, and of course that includes anything that will put more people in the pen. In the past, there have often been more bills passed by Courts than the assembly was willing to pay for, and the money committees have made the decisions about which bills would be killed. Some of these decisions have meant that bills the Courts committee decided were important (after hours of testimony and deliberation) were killed, while others that the Courts committee thought were good ideas, but of minor importance, were passed.

To counter that, the Courts committee has for several years adopted the practice of thoroughly examining and deliberating upon bills, and after killing the ones it found unacceptable, putting aside the ones which would have to be submitted to the Appropriations Committee. Then, after all the bills have been considered, they look at the ones that they've approved, and at the estimated cost of each one, and at the money available, and choose which ones they'll send on to the money people. Think of it as window-shopping and making a list, and then deciding what you can actually afford to buy.

So, when in these reports I say that a bill is "passed, to lockbox", it's shorthand for "The full Committee has approved the bill, but realizing that enactment is subject to the realities of funding requirements, will hold the bill in committee until better knowlege is obtained about which other bills may be competing for scarce financial resources. After this knowlege is available, the Committee will decide which bills to pass on with recommendations that they will be funded, and which to allow to expire because there are no resources available to pay for them."

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

About 2:30, the House Courts of Justice Committee met. They disposed of almost 20 bills in ten minutes where there was consensus on the actions before moving on to the docket.
The only actions I thought interesting here is that three bills dealing with "deferred judgement" were carried over to the last meeting of this Committee (which will be in December, so they're dead for this year but may be revived for next session). The bills are HB553, HB1209, and HB1336. If you look at the text of HB553, you'll see why I thought it interesting.

HB224 was presented as a substitute, incorporating HB558. The combined bills attempt to make it quite clear that it is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or other intoxicants, no matter whether you took the drink/pill/smoke, or someone else gave it to you, by adding "or should have known" to the law, but still has problems. There was some prolonged discussion as to how good the language is, or whether the change will cause more problems han it solves, but in the end the bill was reported to the full House, which may well tinker with it some more.

HB312, Landes, another substitute, makes it a felony to act recklessly or badly so that you cause injury to a pregnant woman so severe that it causes a miscarriage or stillbirth. This bill originated after a drunk driver injured a woman who was only a few days from giving birth, causing her to lose the fetus; that original bill called for manslaughter charges, and was rejected as an attempt to redefine a fetus as a person.
Passed, to lockbox.

HB429, Marshall, substitute -- Makes forcing a woman to have an abortion punishable by up to a year in jail. Amended to make it conform with bill approved by committee last year but later killed. Some confusion here; the online summary of the bill does not accurately reflect the content.
Passed, to lockbox.

The full Courts committee adjourned around 4:30, to be followed after a five-minute break by meetings of the civil-law and criminal-law subcommittees.

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

The criminal-law subcommittee was delayed for nearly a half-hour while the four members present waited for enough other members to constitute a quorum. (The chairman called upon us all to bear witness that he wasn't the cause of the delay, and I hereby state that this is true to the best of my knowlege and belief.)

The balance of this report is being rewritten from memory and a few hastily-scribbled notes. I lost a file . . . pesky gremlins!

HB34, Ingram, would make it a felony for an adult in a supervisory position to "French-kiss" a child. This came about as a result from a very serious incident, where the parents of a ten-year-old
girl came to pick her up from day-care and found that she had been being kissed, open-mouth and tongue-intrusive, by the sixty-two-year-old husband of the day-care provider. After they had him arrested, it turned out that there were only very minor charges that could be brought against him, and he and his wife were allowed to continue caring for children. This bill adds kissing in that mode to the list of acts defined as indecent liberties when committed by an adult against a child.

I spoke to the patron, and he agreed that the bill would be vastly improved by adding a time cushion to it. As is the case with many bills relating to sex, as written it could apply between someone who turned 18 on December first and someone who won't become 18 until December fifth. [Do NOT think that this sort of thing does not happen. One of the people there about that bill has a son who will be on the sex-offenders' registry for life because of consensual acts with his girlfriend while they were both teenagers! Do not EVER think that a badly-written law will never be badly enforced and prosecuted!]

The subcommittee agreed with the principle, coming up on their own with several other examples where it would be unjust. After considerable discussion, they were able to amend the bill into a good form before recommending it to be passed and sent to the lockbox.

HB992, Bell, redefines prostitution to include "manipulation of the genitals of another by hand resulting in ejaculation". As written, the bill appears to outlaw an act that can only be performed upon males, and therefore may have Constitutional problems.

A bit after seven pm, the Chair informed us that the subcommittee on mental health was commencing across the hall. A number of us left the criminal-law subcommittee to finish up its last bill, and moved.

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

House Courts of Justice Committee, Mental Health Subcommittee, got underway around 7:30, after a delay while staff printed up copies of substitute versions of several bills.

The hearing went on for over three hours, and having lost my computer notes I'm not going to even attempt to detail them. The short version (a rare occurrence in these reports) is that the subcommittee worked very hard for several hours, and exhibited absolutely NONE of the Republicrat-vs.-Demlican bickering that mars so many other discussions. Every single one of the members of the subcommttee seemed to be focused on the task of overhauling the mental-health laws in the Commonwealth, in order to make us more able to respond to people with serious mental health issues, without unduly restricting people who are merely a bit weird and/or unpopular.

The action included a well-thought-out way of handling the restoration of rights, if and when justified, for those whose right to keep and bear arms had been lost after having been adjudicated as needing serious treatment.

Subcommittee adjourned sometime after 10:30 pm.

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

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!

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 09:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/house-puts-brakes-abusivedriver-fees

Posted by Robert Russo at 10:21 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-01-22
General Assembly, Tuesday January 22nd, 2008

This report is getting out before yesterday's, since I had a glitch that requires me to re-write the last half of yesterday's, and this one is pretty simple.

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

There were several committee meetings this afternoon, all (of course) at the same time but in different locations. I opted to attend the Senate Committee on Local Government, which had three bills to allow localities to ban guns in different places.

In Virginia, many things are left up to individual cities or counties to decide for themselves, but others are pre-empted by State law. In these cases, state law governs, and localities are forbidden to make more restrictive laws.

Years ago, the Commonwealth decided that state law should be decisive regarding firearms. They established one set of laws, which governs throughout Virginia. Pretty much ever since then, different localities have asked if they could be allowed to make just one or two little exceptions to the State law, because their city or county is different from all the other places. Every year, these pleas have been rejected.

Tuesday was no different. There were three such bills before the Senate Committee on Local Government, which met about two pm.

SB300, Whipple, would have given localities permission to ban firearms from government buildings. She explained how this was absolutely necessary to prevent children from being frightened in libraries, and to keep politicians from being frightened by citizens carrying guns. She had the local police chief, and a local politician with her, and they agreed. They all spoke of how seeing people carrying guns caused terrible problems . . . but then had to admit that the problems they were talking about boiled down to people being scared merely at the sight of the gun. They weren't concerned about criminals with guns robbing or killing people -- that's already illegal and the police deal with t routinely. They were concerned about peaceful, law-abiding citizens going about their daily business, while carrying a weapon. This is what scared them.

SB32, Locke, would have given localities the power to ban firearms from public libraries. She said that these are special places, and that guns scare children, and we all have a right to feel safe.

SB33, Locke, would have given localities the power to ban firearms from "outdoor theaters, cabarets, carnivals and fairs" with 500 or more people at them. She said that these are special circumstances, and that there are hundreds of police at them, so no one would need a gun at one. She also said that Harborfest down by Norfolk recently, police had had to arrest a man with a gun, and that at another festival she watched from a balcony as someone started shooting, and people ran away in all directions.

I'm boiling down the responses here. In each case, Philip Van Cleave of VCDL, and Joel Patridge of the NRA, and I as an individual, spoke against the bill.

The arguments from the opponents were standard, with one or two personal touches.

Philip pointed out that the arrest referred to by Senator Locke was that of a law-abiding citizen, who had done nothing wrong whatsoever, and who was attending the festival with his family, and was made ILLEGALLY, under an ordinance that the city of Norfolk already knew was illegal and invalid. [The person who was arrested is suing the city for the illegal arrest, and before too long will be getting a considerable amount of money from the Norfolk taxpayers, because of the incompetence of the city authorities.]

I pointed out that the festival shooting seen by Senator Locke was not prevented by the many police officers whom she had just finished assuring us were all the protection we needed, and reminded the Committee of the Appalachian College shootings and the recent Colorado church shootings -- both stopped by a civilian with a concealed-handgun permit. I also spoke of my own experiences, being at late General Assembly meetings and then having to walk several miles through dark streets to my home. On occasion, I encounter people who are larger and younger than me, and who are not my friends; on such occasions, it's good to know that if talking fails, I will not have to wait two, or four, or ten minutes for police to arrive even if I'm given a chance to call 9-1-1.

Each bill was defeated by either a 9-5 or 10-5 vote, largely along party lines, I'm sorry to say. I'd like to have more people in every party more willing to think for themselves.

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

After the Senate committee, I went up to the Senate Courts of Justice Subcommittee on Criminal Law meeting, which had several bills of interest. I found that there was already an activist there on the sex-related bills, and the drug-related bill had already been heard.

I went home to deal with my computer problems.

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

Wednesday meetings of interest:

House and Senate meet at noon.

1/2 hour after House adjourns, House Courts of Justice - Criminal Subcommittee; House Room C, General Assembly Building
Bills on sex, drinking, drugs, and guns

2:00 pm, Senate Courts of Justice meets in Senate Room A, General Assembly Building, 9th and Broad.
Gun-show bill vote, as well as bills on sex, drugs, and more.

7:00 pm, Joint Subcommittee of the Senate Courts of Justice and Education and Health Committees; House Room D, General Assembly Building - Public Hearing on Proposed Mental Health Legislation
[I am not even going to try to attend this meeting; I'm still exhausted from the House Courts subcommittee on Mental Health, which was dealing with the same provisions.]

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

DETAILS:
To see the summary, text, status, estimated cost, votes, or other details on any bill, go to:
http://legis.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!

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 07:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)