Roy's Report: GA08-01-23
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!