• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Drama in the General Assembly Today? Rejected Amendments to HB 1853.

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Anyone following today's actions in the Senate of Virginia?

Unfortunately, when they start debating bills on the floor, unless you are watching, it can be difficult to tell what's going on. The LIS provides a window into what happened, but misses the dialog and drama that sometimes goes with the debates.

I was reviewing today's progress for the gun bills (using VCDL's excellent resource, the 2017 Legislation Tracking web page) and noticed a flurry of activity today with HB 1853: Victims of domestic violence, etc.; firearms safety or training course.

From the VCDL Tracking page, "This bill provides that DCJS will provide funding to entities that offer free firearms safety or training courses approved by DCJS to victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse, stalking, and family abuse. This bill will actually make victims safer."

Of course, ANYTHING that enables victims to better defend themselves from criminals is attacked by the gun-hating liberals in the General Assembly. This bill has passed the House of Delegates and is now working its way through the Senate. Reported out of TWO different Senate Committees, today it reached the full Floor. Senator Jennifer Wexton (D - Leesburg) proposed two sets of amendments.

One was adopted, trivial in nature, requiring that information on resources for domestic violence victims be provided to the petitioner for a protective order. The other... well that's why I'm writing this post, it's quite bizarre!

First, the amendment was rejected by a vote of 32-7. ALL 7 votes in favor of the amendment were DEMOCRATS with very poor gun-rights records. I'm guessing they are so angry at this bill, they were trying to poison it in this utterly ridiculous manner. Here is the amendment that was rejected:

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if any petitioner to whom a protective order was granted under this section uses a firearm to cause bodily injury, including death, to the subject of the protective order while the order is in effect, it shall be presumed that the petitioner acted in self-defense, and the petitioner shall be immune from criminal prosecution or civil action for such bodily injury or death. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, indicting, or otherwise prosecuting the petitioner.

Usually the context is pretty important, but in this case, it's really not. Can you even begin to imagine the reaction if this provision had been adopted?

These gun-haters are quite insane.

TFred

References:
HB 1853: Victims of domestic violence, etc.; firearms safety or training course.
Wexton Amendment that was rejected
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,848
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if any petitioner to whom a protective order was granted under this section uses a firearm to cause bodily injury, including death, to the subject of the protective order while the order is in effect, it shall be presumed that the petitioner acted in self-defense, and the petitioner shall be immune from criminal prosecution or civil action for such bodily injury or death. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, indicting, or otherwise prosecuting the petitioner.

It is pretty amazing that these "know what's best for you better than you do" anti-gunners would vote to give the petitioner carte blanche to hunt down the subject. They must really be getting tired out from the hectic pace of the GA.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,832
Location
Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if any petitioner to whom a protective order was granted under this section uses a firearm to cause bodily injury, including death, to the subject of the protective order while the order is in effect, it shall be presumed that the petitioner acted in self-defense, and the petitioner shall be immune from criminal prosecution or civil action for such bodily injury or death. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, indicting, or otherwise prosecuting the petitioner.

It is pretty amazing that these "know what's best for you better than you do" anti-gunners would vote to give the petitioner carte blanche to hunt down the subject. They must really be getting tired out from the hectic pace of the GA.


^^This^^
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I could think of a person or two I would like to sign a protective order against. *elbow to ribs*
 
Last edited:

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Senator Wexton makes the claim (going from memory here) that those with protective orders against an abusing spouse or significant other who use a firearm against the abuser are far more likely to be successfully prosecuted for that use of a firearm than the general public. However, her claim does not appear to consider that those with protective orders may not limit their firearm use to legally acceptable usage against another individual and thus bring the prosecution upon themselves.

What might be much more reasonable is if the law required some guidance to be provided to the person with the protective order regarding when it is acceptable to use lethal force against another person. Of course that has its own bad hairballs with it, but it would seem to be a better fit than providing an allegedly abused person to have free reign to go murder their alleged abuser even when there is no imminent, credible, reasonably perceived threat of death or grave bodily harm.
 
Top