Showdown set in the Senate
The amended version of HB 89 has cleared Senate Rules and will now head to the floor for a vote. The amendment contains new wording similar to SB 43:
The uncertainty is the impact of the bill. We’ve got reports that it’s been thoroughly gutted. NRA types say they’ve got what they want.I've been told that the votes were there to beat it, but that was yesterday, if something has changed...who knows what could happen.Here’s the new version of the bill. Somebody get a lawyer and tell us what it means.
Comments
I'll be the first to say it --- What effect will the shootings at Va Tech have on this bill? Can't help....
Posted by: Green Death | April 16, 2007 04:42 PM
They took out the part granting companies complete immunity for ALL acts of their employees. Now, the immunity is only for acts that involve firearms.
In the bill's current form, I'm mildly opposed... but won't be all that bothered if it passes. I predict it will pass pretty easily, unless it gets temporarily shelved on account of today's Virginia Tech shooting.
(which, by the way, wouldn't have turned out the way it did if any of the students or faculty had been able to carry and defend themselves)
Posted by: Steve Perkins | April 16, 2007 04:48 PM
Is it me of is this bill cursed? I can't help but notice every time it comes up there is a shooting somewhere.
Posted by: Chris Farris | April 16, 2007 05:21 PM
ONE COMMON DENOMINATOR TO ALL OF THE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS--- they all happened in "GUN FREE ZONES"!!! "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!"
This merged bill looks like it ought to be generally acceptable to all parties. No extra liability to the employers / parking lot owners, no added responsiblity to them.
It looks like it would not allow the stereotypical rifle or shotgun on the rack in the pickup-truck window- (inviting theft anyway)- as the gun has to be out-of-sight, in a locked case or compartment.
TWO SERIOUS QUESTIONS---
In Section 2,subsection (a), shouldn't "motor vehicle" be added to the stipulations of "home" or "place of business", as in subsection c)?
Read closely Section 3, Subsection (e)... "if subsection(e) - of this code - is declared to be invalid, the remaining portions of this Code section shall be invalid..." COULD apply to the new Section 3 - OR COULD IT INVALIDATE THE ENTIRETY OF 16-11-4-3???
Let's hope that our rights will be preserved, and find a harmonious balance.
Posted by: patriot | April 16, 2007 07:13 PM