Newest Gun Control Bill in Virginia

[Belsnickel]

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2024/01/25/va-senate-passes-bill-creating-500-fine-for-leaving-handguns-visible-in-vehicles/

This is an interesting one. The tl;dr is that if you park your vehicle on public property or along a roadway, unattended, and leave a firearm visible, then your car can be towed and you can face a $500 civil penalty. The reasoning is that in the past 5 years in Richmond there has been an increase of three-fold the number of firearms stolen from vehicles.

I am curious to hear some thoughts.

[CKwi88]

Irresponsibility with firearms surely merits consequence.

Purely monetary penalties I don't agree with however. IMO it should be coupled with a suspension of someone's permit conditioned on the completion of a firearm safety refresher training.

[*Nately120*]

What if I'm a good guy who needs to break into a car to grab a gun in order to save people from a bad guy with a gun?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-27-2024, 08:21 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Irresponsibility with firearms surely merits consequence.

Purely monetary penalties I don't agree with however. IMO it should be coupled with a suspension of someone's permit conditioned on the completion of a firearm safety refresher training.

You seem strangely okay with letting police have the power to easily strip someone of their constitutional right and letting it only be returned by the okay of a random person at more personal cost.

- - - - - -

As for the OP, sounds like just another opportunity for both the government and tow companies (both upstanding and trustworthy industries) to get some money and to keep people in debt while stranding them wherever they happened to be. It's going to hurt the poor the most who don't have $500 + whatever the tow fees are + the Uber/cab to get home + likely taking a day off from work to take another Uber/cab to go get their car back.

[GMDino]

(01-28-2024, 04:16 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You seem strangely okay with letting police have the power to easily strip someone of their constitutional right and letting it only be returned by the okay of a random person at more personal cost.

- - - - - -

As for the OP, sounds like just another opportunity for both the government and tow companies (both upstanding and trustworthy industries) to get some money and to keep people in debt while stranding them wherever they happened to be. It's going to hurt the poor the most who don't have $500 + whatever the tow fees are + the Uber/cab to get home + likely taking a day off from work to take another Uber/cab to go get their car back.

Police already have that power.  

They can arrest the wrong person and charge them with "resisting".  They can seize your property/money.

Beyond that I don't see the law being a bridge too far, but I'd bet there will be challenges.  Although I agree the tow companies aren't going to complain...lol.

Next we will have "patriots" leaving their guns on the hood of the cars to "defend their rights"!      <-- That is a joke.  Kinda.

[masonbengals fan]

It's a slippery slope but people that careless with a gun may need a reminder to keep it secure.

[CKwi88]

(01-28-2024, 04:16 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You seem strangely okay with letting police have the power to easily strip someone of their constitutional right and letting it only be returned by the okay of a random person at more personal cost.

- - - - - -

I suppose as strangely okay with the concept of due process, another constitutional right in place that is to be observed whenever a person's rights are stripped. 

Perhaps I just hold law enforcement in a higher regard than you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-28-2024, 04:16 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You seem strangely okay with letting police have the power to easily strip someone of their constitutional right and letting it only be returned by the okay of a random person at more personal cost.

- - - - - -

As for the OP, sounds like just another opportunity for both the government and tow companies (both upstanding and trustworthy industries) to get some money and to keep people in debt while stranding them wherever they happened to be. It's going to hurt the poor the most who don't have $500 + whatever the tow fees are + the Uber/cab to get home + likely taking a day off from work to take another Uber/cab to go get their car back.

Here's my main issue with the law, it punishes you for the criminal acts of another.  Is it monstrously irresponsible to leave a visible gun in a parked and locked car?  Yes.  Does that make you responsible for the criminal who then decides to break into your car and steal it?  Hell no.  This is part of the trend for the modern left, abdicating personal responsibility and putting it on someone else.  Guy hoots up a school, it's not the guy's fault, it's the store that sold him the gun, or the manufacturer of said gun's fault.  It's literally an insane mindset.

Unfortunately, it goes hand in glove with the current left's demonization of the criminal justice system.  It's systemically racist, it's a tool of white supremacy, "school to prison pipeline", and the myriad other examples of this mitigation of criminal conduct and personal responsibility.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-28-2024, 10:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: Police already have that power.  

They can arrest the wrong person and charge them with "resisting".  They can seize your property/money.

Yes, it would be impossible to arrest anyone, ever, without that occurring.  However, you are obscuring the actual issue with this facile comparison.  I'm sorry that all LEO's aren't perfect, and that sometimes mistakes are made.  I mean we're not highly educated medical doctors, we don't kill over a 100k people every year making mistakes, so do please cut us some slack.

Quote:Beyond that I don't see the law being a bridge too far, but I'd bet there will be challenges.  Although I agree the tow companies aren't going to complain...lol.

Of course you don't. You couldn't name a single Dem policy you disagree with.

Quote:Next we will have "patriots" leaving their guns on the hood of the cars to "defend their rights"!      <-- That is a joke.  Kinda.

It consistently amazes me the level of disdain you, and others like you, exhibit towards those who think differently from you.  

[GMDino]

(01-29-2024, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, it would be impossible to arrest anyone, ever, without that occurring.  However, you are obscuring the actual issue with this facile comparison.  I'm sorry that all LEO's aren't perfect, and that sometimes mistakes are made.  I mean we're not highly educated medical doctors, we don't kill over a 100k people every year making mistakes, so do please cut us some slack.

I was merely responding to the fear of someone being able to take away your rights. As you say, it happens.

I don't know why you hate doctors though! (See how dumb that sounds?) I'm 100% positive though that you have a good friend who is a doctor.

(01-29-2024, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course you don't. You couldn't name a single Dem policy you disagree with.

For once you're almost completely right. I'm sure there is something I've disagreed with as I am not a robot but in general Democrats tend to have policies that help people. Those I support. When they want to attack the rights of people I tend to disagree. For example I have stated multiple times I believe in 2A. I'm not sure if there is a way to suppress the gun violence in this country, but eliminating that right would be wrong.

(01-29-2024, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It consistently amazes me the level of disdain you, and others like you, exhibit towards those who think differently from you.  

Irony being dead aside, I was referring to the "patriots" who felt the need to open carry everything into get their morning coffee just to "make a point". To me they are no different than when the right complains about gay people or trans people "shoving it down their throat" by being in public.

I agree with others who said if gun owners are irresponsible they need to be held accountable. I think that's something most people would think is reasonable.

Is this particular bill reasonable? Maybe. Maybe there's a better way too.

[GMDino]

(01-29-2024, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's my main issue with the law, it punishes you for the criminal acts of another.  Is it monstrously irresponsible to leave a visible gun in a parked and locked car?  Yes.  Does that make you responsible for the criminal who then decides to break into your car and steal it?  Hell no.  This is part of the trend for the modern left, abdicating personal responsibility and putting it on someone else.  Guy hoots up a school, it's not the guy's fault, it's the store that sold him the gun, or the manufacturer of said gun's fault.  It's literally an insane mindset.

Unfortunately, it goes hand in glove with the current left's demonization of the criminal justice system.  It's systemically racist, it's a tool of white supremacy, "school to prison pipeline", and the myriad other examples of this mitigation of criminal conduct and personal responsibility.

So the person who breaks into your car...are they free from punishment?  Or is that already a law and if they are caught they would be held accountable under that law?

I'd think left and right would agree that theft is already a crime.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2024, 01:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was merely responding to the fear of someone being able to take away your rights.  As you say, it happens.

Except it's not permanent, as it is when you can no longer have a carry license.  A temporary loss of freedom is necessary when investigating a crime, but it's just that.  Unless you are convicted of said crime, in which case it can be rather more permanent.  

Quote:I don't know why you hate doctors though! (See how dumb that sounds?) I'm 100% positive though that you have a good friend who is a doctor.

No, your statement would have validity if I constantly made posts shitting on doctors, or entire threads dedicated to shitting on doctors.  I know some of it is done to bait me, because that's the type of dude you are.  But most of it is done because you genuinely don't like law enforcement.  Your protestations otherwise mean little in comparison to what you actually post on a regular basis.  As for your Jr. High level dig on the fact that I actually have a large social circle, one of my best friend's uncle actually owns a hospital, but I'm not personally acquainted with any medical doctors.  Having a lot of friends apparently confuses you.

Quote:For once you're almost completely right.  I'm sure there is something I've disagreed with as I am not a robot but in general Democrats tend to have policies that help people.  Those I support.  When they want to attack the rights of people I tend to disagree.  For example I have stated multiple times I believe in 2A.  I'm not sure if there is a way to suppress the gun violence in this country, but eliminating that right would be wrong.

Yeah, the fact that you can't name a policy immediately is rather telling.  As for the Dems having policies that "help people" the last four years have proved that to be laughably, and tragically, false.  I do see something positive here, you're at least acknowledging the fact that you're an ideological follower.  Maybe at some point you'll start branching out and thinking outside those boundaries.    Regardless, acknowledging you have a problem is the first step.

Quote:Irony being dead aside, I was referring to the "patriots" who felt the need to open carry everything into get their morning coffee just to "make a point".  To me they are no different than when the right complains about gay people or trans people "shoving it down their throat" by being in public.

This is a terrible analogy, you're conflating yourself with the people who object to the existence of gay/trans people.  Didn't really think this one through, did you?

Quote:I agree with others who said if gun owners are irresponsible they need to be held accountable.  I think that's something most people would think is reasonable.

Leaving your property in a locked vehicle is a poor idea, but it's not criminal.  What is criminal is breaking in to said car to take that property.  This is the literal equivalent of blaming a woman for being raped because she was dressed provocatively.  The criminal would never have broken into your car if you hadn't tempted them, no? 

Quote:Is this particular bill reasonable?  Maybe.  Maybe there's a better way too.

Then actually make an argument instead of fence sitting.

(01-29-2024, 01:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: So the person who breaks into your car...are they free from punishment?  Or is that already a law and if they are caught they would be held accountable under that law?

I'd think left and right would agree that theft is already a crime.

Indeed.  Criminalizing the victim of said crime, or potential crime, seems like adding injury to injury.  If you leave your front door unlocked, and are known to do so, should you be punished when someone burglarizes your home?  What if you own firearms?  

[GMDino]

(01-29-2024, 01:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it's not permanent, as it is when you can no longer have a carry license.  A temporary loss of freedom is necessary when investigating a crime, but it's just that.  Unless you are convicted of said crime, in which case it can be rather more permanent.  



No, your statement would have validity if I constantly made posts shitting on doctors, or entire threads dedicated to shitting on doctors.  I know some of it is done to bait me, because that's the type of dude you are.  But most of it is done because you genuinely don't like law enforcement.  Your protestations otherwise mean little in comparison to what you actually post on a regular basis.  As for your Jr. High level dig on the fact that I actually have a large social circle, one of my best friend's uncle actually owns a hospital, but I'm not personally acquainted with any medical doctors.  Having a lot of friends apparently confuses you.



Yeah, the fact that you can't name a policy immediately is rather telling.  As for the Dems having policies that "help people" the last four years have proved that to be laughably, and tragically, false.  I do see something positive here, you're at least acknowledging the fact that you're an ideological follower.  Maybe at some point you'll start branching out and thinking outside those boundaries.    Regardless, acknowledging you have a problem is the first step.




This is a terrible analogy, you're conflating yourself with the people who object to the existence of gay/trans people.  Didn't really think this one through, did you?



Leaving your property in a locked vehicle is a poor idea, but it's not criminal.  What is criminal is breaking in to said car to take that property.  This is the literal equivalent of blaming a woman for being raped because she was dressed provocatively.  The criminal would never have broken into your car if you hadn't tempted them, no? 


Then actually make an argument instead of fence sitting.


Indeed.  Criminalizing the victim of said crime, or potential crime, seems like adding injury to injury.  If you leave your front door unlocked, and are known to do so, should you be punished when someone burglarizes your home?  What if you own firearms?  

Yeah, my fault for trying to have a conversation.  All I get is attacks and insults.

One thing worth responding to is that *I* am not conflating myself with anyone.  I said people who open carried just to "protest" any threat of a gun law are the same people complaining about gay people or cross-dressers being in public and "forcing it down their throats".  So I'm half joking that people will just leave guns on their hoods to "protest".

I think you misread what I wrote.

On topic I think the idea behind the bill is reasonable but I don't know it is enforceable or going to do anything to help with the problem of gun violence.  So since I can't say for sure I will "stay on the fence" as you put it.  Fortunately (and this I know you will agree with) I am not in a position to have to make such decisions.  I can only offer my thoughts on it as was asked in the OP.

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2024, 01:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed.  Criminalizing the victim of said crime, or potential crime, seems like adding injury to injury.  If you leave your front door unlocked, and are known to do so, should you be punished when someone burglarizes your home?  What if you own firearms?  

See, and this is the part that I think people aren't necessarily seeing. As you pointed out, it is irresponsible to the point of stupidity to leave a firearm visible in an unattended vehicle. However, it is charging someone for potentially being a victim.

It isn't a 100% comparison, but let's look at this in line with sexual assault. Yeah, yeah, there are laws against public nudity because we are a prudish country. But say the law against public nudity was stated to exist because a woman running around with her tits out would just entice rapists? It would be like an invitation for someone to come along and sexually assault her because she made it available to them. If that was the reasoning for the law we would rightfully say it was victim blaming and fining a woman $500 because her exposed breasts could potentially lead to her being sexually assaulted would be something that many on the left would, rightfully, cry foul over.

Now, the comparison isn't perfect because if someone sexually assaults a woman they aren't then taking the tits and selling them or committing another crime against someone else with them, however the idea of victim blaming remains the same. As with many attempts at gun control there are already laws in existence to criminalize the behavior being targeted, we just aren't seeing the resources put in place to both prevent the crimes and investigate them afterwards. And I am not just talking about law enforcement, I am also talking about teaching people how not to be so ***** stupid as to leave a firearm in the open in an unattended vehicle.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2024, 05:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: See, and this is the part that I think people aren't necessarily seeing. As you pointed out, it is irresponsible to the point of stupidity to leave a firearm visible in an unattended vehicle. However, it is charging someone for potentially being a victim.

Absolutely  Amazing that you can see this so point so clearly when it completely eludes others.

Quote:It isn't a 100% comparison, but let's look at this in line with sexual assault. Yeah, yeah, there are laws against public nudity because we are a prudish country. But say the law against public nudity was stated to exist because a woman running around with her tits out would just entice rapists? It would be like an invitation for someone to come along and sexually assault her because she made it available to them. If that was the reasoning for the law we would rightfully say it was victim blaming and fining a woman $500 because her exposed breasts could potentially lead to her being sexually assaulted would be something that many on the left would, rightfully, cry foul over.

Careful.  Making this kind of comparison is apparently a personal attack and an insult.

Quote:Now, the comparison isn't perfect because if someone sexually assaults a woman they aren't then taking the tits and selling them or committing another crime against someone else with them, however the idea of victim blaming remains the same. As with many attempts at gun control there are already laws in existence to criminalize the behavior being targeted, we just aren't seeing the resources put in place to both prevent the crimes and investigate them afterwards. And I am not just talking about law enforcement, I am also talking about teaching people how not to be so ***** stupid as to leave a firearm in the open in an unattended vehicle.

Absolutely it isn't a perfect comparison, for the exact reason you state.  I raised this exact point in the Rittenhouse threads as the same people made the same arguments.  he "shouldn't have been there", or he was "asking for trouble".  The problem being he did absolutely nothing illegal.  He had as much of a right to be there as anyone else.  His legally carrying a firearm, ill advised or not, is in no way a justification to assault him.  Honestly, it seems the Dems at this point are all about treating everyone as a criminal except for actual criminals.  it's why anyone who can say they can't find a single issue they disagree with the Dems is straight up baffling to me.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2024, 02:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah, my fault for trying to have a conversation.  All I get is attacks and insults.

Yeah, you didn't start the insults in this thread at all.  It's amazing how you guys love to play the victim

Quote:One thing worth responding to is that *I* am not conflating myself with anyone.  I said people who open carried just to "protest" any threat of a gun law are the same people complaining about gay people or cross-dressers being in public and "forcing it down their throats".  So I'm half joking that people will just leave guns on their hoods to "protest".

I think you misread what I wrote.

No, I read it right.

Quote:On topic I think the idea behind the bill is reasonable but I don't know it is enforceable or going to do anything to help with the problem of gun violence.  So since I can't say for sure I will "stay on the fence" as you put it.  Fortunately (and this I know you will agree with) I am not in a position to have to make such decisions.  I can only offer my thoughts on it as was asked in the OP.

You think it's reasonable to criminalize behavior that could potentially lead others to engage in actual crimes?  And you think my analogy to the woman dressed in a sexual manner was a bridge too far?  This kind of mentality is a major factor in our national decline.  No more being responsible for your own behavior, I had to burglarize the car your honor, the woman left he purse in plain view!  How am I supposed to not steal it?!

People used to drive around with a long gun in a rack in their rear window.  I remember seeing it all the time as a kid.  I guess thieves back then had more restraint.

[GMDino]

(01-29-2024, 05:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: See, and this is the part that I think people aren't necessarily seeing. As you pointed out, it is irresponsible to the point of stupidity to leave a firearm visible in an unattended vehicle. However, it is charging someone for potentially being a victim.

It isn't a 100% comparison, but let's look at this in line with sexual assault. Yeah, yeah, there are laws against public nudity because we are a prudish country. But say the law against public nudity was stated to exist because a woman running around with her tits out would just entice rapists? It would be like an invitation for someone to come along and sexually assault her because she made it available to them. If that was the reasoning for the law we would rightfully say it was victim blaming and fining a woman $500 because her exposed breasts could potentially lead to her being sexually assaulted would be something that many on the left would, rightfully, cry foul over.

Now, the comparison isn't perfect because if someone sexually assaults a woman they aren't then taking the tits and selling them or committing another crime against someone else with them, however the idea of victim blaming remains the same. As with many attempts at gun control there are already laws in existence to criminalize the behavior being targeted, we just aren't seeing the resources put in place to both prevent the crimes and investigate them afterwards. And I am not just talking about law enforcement, I am also talking about teaching people how not to be so ***** stupid as to leave a firearm in the open in an unattended vehicle.

Personally I didn't disagree with the analogy with rape.  I think it's a bad one but I get the idea.

Is it different from speeding?  If you speed and don't have an accident/get caught you're fine.  If you speed and get in an accident/get caught they throw speeding on top of whatever else you have to pay.  

As I said this bill probably does nothing more than encourage gun owners to be careful and fines them if they are not. 

If there is a better way, or a law already in place (which wasn't mentioned in the OP) then this isn't needed and it's a solution looking for a problem. 

[GMDino]

(01-29-2024, 06:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, you didn't start the insults in this thread at all.  It's amazing how you guys love to play the victim

Again, pointing out how you repeatedly go after the same posters over and over and over...all over this subforum, not just because you disagree with their take on a topic but because of your own person dislike for the poster over some misguided belief that you "know" what they are "really" thinking, is not playing the victim...it's the truth.  

[CKwi88]

(01-29-2024, 06:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Personally I didn't disagree with the analogy with rape.  I think it's a bad one but I get the idea.

Is it different from speeding?  If you speed and don't have an accident/get caught you're fine.  If you speed and get in an accident/get caught they throw speeding on top of whatever else you have to pay.  

As I said this bill probably does nothing more than encourage gun owners to be careful and fines them if they are not. 

If there is a better way, or a law already in place (which wasn't mentioned in the OP) then this isn't needed and it's a solution looking for a problem. 

It's different from speeding or endangerment laws in the sense that the speeder's actions are directly putting other people in danger. Leaving your gun in the open in the car depends on a bad actor seizing that opportunity and breaking into the car and stealing the weapon for harm to come onto another person.

I suppose another analogy would say I go to a state park with a cooler full of booze (perfectly legal here in CT). Should I be legally permitted to leave that cooler full of booze unsupervised for an extended period of time in a park frequented by underaged adults? Or would leaving it out in the open unattended reach the level of irresponsibility that merits a fine? Sure, no harm will come to anyone as long as nobody comes along and commits a larceny. But I'm also wildly irresponsibly creating that opportunity.

The laws already in place are laws against breaking and entering into cars and committing larceny. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2024, 06:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again, pointing out how you repeatedly go after the same posters over and over and over...all over this subforum, not just because you disagree with their take on a topic but because of your own person dislike for the poster over some misguided belief that you "know" what they are "really" thinking, is not playing the victim...it's the truth.  

You don't see a similarity with what you just described and how you treat Luvnit?  Hmm?  Also, I've never gone after you when I didn't disagree with you.  I probably respond to less than 20% of your posts.  When I do it's because you've made a very good point (can't remember the last time that happened though) or because you're not.