Since the Va. Department of Forestry has decided to disregard the Attorney General and only allow CHP holders to carry firearms, I am dedicating this page until the issue is resolved one way or the other.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Hey Boss, We spit in your beer, and it’s funny !
Back in the old days when Bob McDonnell was Attorney General, McDonnell issued an AG Opinion stating that the The Virginia Department Of Forestry DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE CARRY OF FIREARMS. The opinion went on to say that OPEN CARRY was legal and an accepted method of carry, without a permit.
That was during the Tim Kaine comedy hour and both Secretary of Agriculture & Forestry Todd Haymore and State Forester Carl E. Garrison III, sat back giggling like two school girls looking at nudey magazines because Saint Tim wouldn’t make them comply.
Fast forward….Gunowners in this state worked hard to get McDonnell elected and VDOF said “Oh Sh&$, we’d better get on the stick” and they did. They started the rulemaking process.
What am I complaining about? They only want CHP holders to carry on State Forest property. They’re still giggling at spitting in McDonnell’s beer.
OK Bob, it’s time to pay the piper. I asked you point blank on two occasions if you would enforce your opinion, and each time you said yes. Did you mean it…or was it campaign BS. We’ll see soon enough.
***************************************************************************************************************************(
State Forest Call To Action Item (State Forest IV)
This was posted on opencarry.org and says it better then I could:
State Forest Call To Action Item
Thursday, March 4th, 1:00 – 4:00 P.M.
Buckingham County Agricultural Center Auditorium
54 Administration Ln.
Buckingham, VA, 23921
Full map and directions Carpool information below
Your help is really needed on this one. It is our chance to push more
of the camel beneath the tent.The Virginia Department of Forestry is approaching the final phase of
allowing guns to be carried in State Forests. They have now listed
the proposed regulation and are asking for direct public input.
The proposed wording does not include open carry and VCDL needs
as many as possible to show up in support of the proposed regulation
and request that open carry be allowed too.
We need to pack the room. We need to let them hear our roar!
You guys and gals have been terrific in responding to the call in the past.
It is a week day, but it will only take 1/2 a day of your time.
Once more into the breach.
****************************************************************************************************************************
VCDL steps up to the plate (State Forest III)
As expected. The Virginia Citizens Defense League has entered the fray with the Forestry Department. They really began the whole process and are just being their usual thorough selves.
Please read the following Action Alert:
———————————————————————-
VCDL’s meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
———————————————————————-
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
———————————————————————-1. Legislative Update
2. Legislative ACTION ITEMS
3. State Forests ACTION ITEM
4. Poll to hit!
***********************************************
1. Legislative Update
***********************************************
At least two pro-gun bills are going to be heard next week. If other bills come up, I will advise. Both bills are in the Senate Committee on Local Government:
HB 108, Delegate Cole, requires localities to auction off guns purchased in a “buy-up” program – STRONGLY SUPPORT
HB 109, Delegate Cole, repeals the authorization for counties to tax handguns and collect purchaser information – STRONGLY SUPPORT
The committee meets at 2 PM on Tuesday, February 23rd in Senate Room B.
***********************************************
2. Legislative ACTION ITEMS
***********************************************
Here are four bills that we need to urge our Senators to support. Just click on the link below each one to send a pre-written, but editable, message to YOUR Senator automatically.
HB 79, Delegate Ware, prohibits Circuit Courts from disseminating CHP application information:
-
HB 49, Delegate Lingamfelter, repeals One Handgun A Month:
-
HB 171, Delegate Pogge, prohibits some employers from banning handguns in locked private vehicles in parking lots (LET’S ALL HIT THIS ONE, whether you personally benefit or not – we will continue to work to improve the law in the future):
-
HB 1070, Delegate Athey, allows CHP holders to carry in an emergency shelter:
***********************************************
3. State Forests ACTION ITEM
***********************************************
The Virginia Department of Forestry is approaching the final phase of allowing guns to be carried in State Forests. They have now listed the proposed regulation and are asking again for public comment.
The proposed wording does not include open carry and VCDL needs all of you to comment in support of the proposed regulation and request that open carry be allowed, too.
Here is my posting (#1 on the list):
The Virginia Citizens Defense League supports the proposed regulation, BUT it should also include lawful open carry. When the current Governor, Bob McDonnell, was the Attorney General, he published an opinion that State Parks and other such state agencies did not have the power to ban openly carried handguns. We agree and want open carry to be legal in State Forests (we will be asking for the same changes to State Parks and DGIF lands in their appopriate venues).
So in the subject line, be sure to say something like, “I support the rule change, but also want open carry to be legal”
Here is the link to post your comment:
http://www.townhall.virginia.gov/L/comments.cfm?stageid=5277
-
ALSO, there is going to be a PUBLIC HEARING on this proposed regulation and we need a good turnout:
Date: Thursday, March 4th (NOTE, the register says March 2nd, but it was changed to March 4th)
Time: 1 PM to 4 PM
Location: Buckingham County Agricultural Center, 54 Administration Lane, Buckingham County, VA 23921
***********************************************
4. Poll to hit!
***********************************************
National Parks article with poll:
Gun-Toting Visitors Heading to National Parks
WASHINGTON (Feb. 18) — Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t bring a gun into
Yellowstone National Park, but soon anyone with a permit will be able
to shoulder a shotgun as they watch Old Faithful erupt.
At Virginia’s Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts outside
Washington, summer concertgoers will be able to pack a pistol with
their picnic on the lawn. Along the rim of the Grand Canyon,
rifle-toting visitors will stand next to unarmed tourists from abroad.
And while Civil War re-enactors will still flock with their historic
muskets to the Gettysburg battlefield in Pennsylvania, modern-day
militiamen will be able to retrace Pickett’s Charge carrying
modern-day weapons.
A new rule in effect Monday will end nearly a century-old ban on
firearms in America’s national parks and wildlife refuges. Visitors
can bring concealed, loaded guns with them on vacation if they are
legal under the laws of the state they are in. Some 40 states allow
people to carry firearms with a permit. The park service Web site will
provide links to state Web sites so visitors can check which rules
apply.
The change passed on a bipartisan vote in May as an amendment to an
Obama administration credit card reform bill. It grew out of changes
sought in the final months by the Bush administration and gun rights
advocates.
“This new rule is welcome,” said National Rifle Association spokesman
Andrew Arulanandam. “Violent crimes do occur in our national parks,
which have become havens for drug trafficking and drug production.
It’s reasonable for law-abiding people to have the means to protect
themselves from predators, whether it’s the four-legged or two-legged
variety.”
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and the Fraternal
Order of Police lobbied unsuccessfully against the rule change.
“It’s a bad idea,” the coalition’s Bill Wade said. “It’s a significant
departure from what the public expects in the national parks. They’ve
always been a sanctuary where people can go and feel safe.”
Violent crimes — homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault –
have been declining for more than a decade in the national parks,
according to FBI statistics. The rate for those crimes in 2008, the
latest figures available, was 0.13 per 100,000 recreational park
visitors. The nationwide crime rate: 454.5 per 100,000.
Even in states where carrying a gun is legal, visitors in all but 40
parks where hunting is permitted will be barred from firing their
weapons.
Guns will still be prohibited inside visitor centers, offices,
maintenance facilities or other buildings where park employees work on
a regular basis. The rules are murkier in hotels, restaurants, gift
shops and other nongovernment facilities run as private concessions on
park property. Park Service spokesman David Barna said that “in
theory,” guns could be carried inside those facilities, including
dormitories where young, seasonal employees stay.
“The burden is on the public to not only know state law but know what
state you’re in,” Barna said. He noted that the Appalachian Trail runs
through nine states from Georgia to Maine and across a patchwork of
attitudes toward guns. Yellowstone sprawls across three states, while
Great Smoky Mountains comes under the laws of Tennessee and North
Carolina.
Park employees are undergoing training on local laws. Barna said some
staff have expressed fears for their safety — until now, anyone
carrying a weapon could be arrested by park police. But others,
especially staffers in the West, are more comfortable with the idea.
Most, however, “would prefer not to deal with this,” he said.
Barna doubts many of the park system’s 275 million annual visitors
will come toting heat this summer, when the peak vacation period
begins. But he does expect the first few months under the new rule to
bring “people who want to express their Second Amendment right to bear
arms” and plenty of macho photo ops by park entrance signs.
Even if few park visitors flaunt their firearms, knowing the person
next to your family at an evening campfire or on a ranger-led hike
might have a gun will have a chilling effect, critics say.
“Visitors come to the parks to try to leave behind their day-to-day
worries,” said Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National
Park Rangers. “Some of that escapism is from worrying about crime or
guns.”
The ban on firearms dates back before 1916, when the national park
system was founded to protect the country’s wildlife as much as its
wilderness. Even President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid hunter, wasn’t
exempt from the prohibition when he visited Yellowstone, then run by
the army, in 1903.
According to historian Douglas Brinkley’s “The Wilderness Warrior:
Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America,” the park’s
superintendent “issued a stern statement declaring that the
president’s gun would be sealed by the U.S. Army when he entered the
park, just as with every other citizen.”
“It was a zone dedicated to the preservation of nature,” Brinkley told
AOL News. “In the same way that you don’t carry a gun to an airport,
there are places where you don’t carry a gun in this country, and a
national park is one.”
——————————————-
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
***************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: It is our intention to honor all “remove” requests promptly.
To unsubscribe from this list, or change the email address where you
receive messages, please go to:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8838563&id_secret=8838563-3be5f347 [https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8838563&id_secret=8838563-3be5f347]
Powered by Listbox: htt
*******************************************************************
The Attorney Generals Opinion (Forestry part II)
Yesterday, we started the series…
Va Forestry Dept Refuses to Obey the Law
I included the proposed rule revisions that would ONLY ALLOW CONCEALED PERMIT HOLDERS to carry a firearm in the State Forests.
Today, I’m posting the Attornel General’s Opinion (Bob McDonnell) that clearly states the Department didn’t have the authority to restrict carry at all,
The Department has clearly spit in McDonnells face.
This will give some reading until my next update.
COMMONWEALTH off VIIRGIINIIA
Office of the Attorney General
Robert F. McDonnell 900 East Main Street
Attorney General Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1
September 26, 2008
The Honorable Ken T. Cuccinelli, II
Member, Senate of Virginia
10560 Main Street, Suite LL-17
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Dear Senator Cuccinelli:
I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.
Issue Presented
You request guidance related to the authority of the Department of Conservation and Recreation to regulate the open carrying of firearms in state parks.1
Response
It is my opinion that the Department of Conservation and Recreation has only such authority to restrict the open carrying of firearms which is expressly provided by law.2
Applicable Law and Discussion
Article 1, Chapter 1 of Title 10.1, §§ 10.1-100 through 10.1-104.4 governs and establishes the Department of Conservation and Recreation (the “Department”). Section 10.1-104(A)(4) mandates that the Department “prescribe rules and regulations necessary or incidental to the performance of duties or execution of powers conferred by law.” In accordance with such authority, the Department has adopted the following regulation regarding firearms:
No person except employees, police officers, or officers of the department shall carry or possess firearms of any description, or airguns, within the park. This regulation shall not apply in areas designated for hunting by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. This regulation also shall not apply to the carrying of concealed handguns
1You do not inquire concerning the Department’s authority to regulate firearms in the context of hunting on state property. Consequently, that issue is not addressed.
2The right of open carrying of firearms may be limited in certain situations. See infra notes 29-30 and accompanying text. Such right to openly carry a firearm is further subject to statutory provisions that limit the manner in which that right may be executed. See, e.g., VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-282(A) (Supp. 2008) (restricting conduct regarding pointing, holding, or brandishing any firearm).
The Honorable Ken T. Cuccinelli, II
September 26, 2008
Page 2
within state parks by holders of a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to § 18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia.[3]
The Department is the state agency responsible for the management of all state parks.4 State parks are open to the general public and are located in areas of the Commonwealth suitable to the development of outdoor recreational activities, including, but not limited to, camping, concerts, festivals, boating, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and swimming.5 The Department’s general authority does not supersede statutory or case law, public policy, or explicit statements of the General Assembly regarding specific topics.6
A 2002 opinion of the Attorney General (the “2002 Opinion”) concluded that the Department lacked authority to regulate or prohibit the general carrying of a concealed handgun by an individual with a valid permit.7 Further, the common law right to openly carry a firearm long has been recognized.8
The 2002 Opinion regarding the authority of the Department to regulate concealed handguns, concluded that § 10.1-104(A) “empowers the Department to employ personnel to carry out the duties of the Department; enter into contracts; accept funds and grants and gifts of real and personal property; and assess civil penalties for state park admittance and parking violations.”9 In addition, the Director of the Department may request that the Governor commission designated conservation officers10 “to uphold and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth.”11
Section 10.1-200 sets out the duties of the Department related to parks and outdoor recreation and grants the Department the power to administer funds to accomplish the purposes of parks and recreation;
34 VA. ADMIN. CODE § 5-30-200 (2005). The Department revised this regulation in 2003 to permit persons holding valid concealed handgun permits to possess a concealed handgun in state parks. See 2002 Op. Va. Att’y Gen. Va. 34 (concluding that Department may not issue regulation prohibiting permit holders from carrying concealed handguns in state parks); 19 Va. Reg. Regs. 1338 (Jan. 13, 2003) (amending 4 VAC 5-30-200 and noting in “Background” that reason for amendment was 2002 opinion of Attorney General).
4See generally VA. CODE ANN. § 10.1-200 (2006).
5See id.; see also Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia State Parks, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/ state_parks/index.shtml (noting state park activities) (last visited July 10, 2008).
6See generally Stallings v. Wall, 235 Va. 313, 367 S.E.2d 496 (1988) (holding that general delegations of authority may be broad enough to permit localities to restrict sales of firearms); see also VA. CODE ANN. § 15.2-915 (2008) (clarifying authority of localities regarding control of firearms raised by plaintiff in Stallings and providing specific guidance). The General Assembly reacted to the issues present in the Stallings matter by making it clear that local regulation of firearms is limited. The General Assembly may wish to clarify the limits of agency regulation as well.
7See 2002 Op. Va. Att’y Gen. Va., supra note 3, at 34.
8“[I]it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’” Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268, *37 (June 26, 2008).
9See 2002 Op. Va. Att’y Gen., supra note 3, at 35 (footnotes omitted).
10See § 10.1-115(A) (2006).
11See § 10.1-117(A) (2006).
The Honorable Ken T. Cuccinelli, II
September 26, 2008
Page 3
study and develop a comprehensive plan for the Commonwealth’s outdoor recreational needs and programs and establish standards for outdoor recreational facilities; apply for federal aid respecting outdoor recreation; act independently or jointly with another department to carry out the Department’s powers and duties; and report annually to the Governor and General Assembly on the development of a standard by which the public may determine whether park and recreational needs are being met by the Commonwealth. In addition, the Department shall engage in state park master planning;12 prescribe and impose penalties for littering;13 prohibit admission to a state park for which a charge has been assessed and regulate vehicle parking in such parks;14 acquire property by gift, purchase or eminent domain;15 pay gifts and funds for state parks to the State Park Conservation Resources Fund;16 establish a card authorizing persons receiving social security disability payments to enter state parks free of charge;17 protect and maintain the Appalachian Trail and the statewide system of trails;18 and manage False Cape State Park.19
Read as a whole, the duties imposed on the Department may be summarized into four categories: (1) acquisition of property; (2) development of recreational facilities; (3) handling of funds; and (4) cooperation with other agencies. Authority to govern the recreational activities of parks is implicit in these general duties. Specific authority to proscribe the conduct of individual citizens is limited to littering, parking, and the payment of charges. Otherwise, an individual’s conduct must conform with the general laws of the Commonwealth, which are enforced by Department officers charged with that responsibility.
The construction of statutes by agencies charged with the administration of such statutes is entitled to great weight.20 A decision of an agency charged by the General Assembly with statewide administration carries great weight and is entitled to deference, unless it clearly is wrong.21 The grant of regulatory authority extends only to duties or powers conferred by law.22 As such, “regulations, promulgated … pursuant to definitive statutory authority, have the force and effect of law.”23 Regulations
12See § 10.1-200.1(A) (2006).
13See § 10.1-104 (Supp. 2008); § 10.1-200.2 (2006).
14See § 10.1-200.3 (2006).
15See § 10.1-201 (2006).
16See § 10.1-202 (A) (Supp. 2008).
17See § 10.1-202.1 (2006).
18See §§ 10.1-203, 10.1-204 (2006).
19See § 10.1-205 (2006).
20See Commonwealth v. Prog. Comty. Club, 215 Va. 732, 739, 213 S.E.2d 759, 763 (1975); Commonwealth v. Research Analysis Corp., 214 Va. 161, 163, 198 S.E.2d 622, 624 (1973); see also Forst v. Rockingham Poultry Mktg. Coop., 222 Va. 270, 276, 279 S.E.2d 400, 403 (1981) (noting that Tax Commissioner’s interpretation of tax statute is entitled to great weight).
21See Specialty Auto Body v. Cook, 14 Va. App. 327, 330, 416 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1992); Va. Real Estate Bd. v. Clay, 9 Va. App. 152, 160-61, 384 S.E.2d 622, 627 (1989); 1999 Op. Va. Att’y Gen. 159, 163.
22See 2002 Op. Va. Att’y Gen., supra note 3, at 36.
23Carbaugh v. Solem, 225 Va. 310, 314, 302 S.E.2d 33, 35 (1983).
The Honorable Ken T. Cuccinelli, II
September 26, 2008
Page 4
that “clearly and explicitly mirror” statutory authority are the most likely to be sustained.24 Therefore, any regulation the Department adopts must be reasonably grounded in an identifiable and definitive statutory foundation.
Regulatory authority also may be reasonably implied from statutes.25 The General Assembly, by grant of regulatory authority to the Department, recognizes that the legislature cannot effectively or efficiently dictate the all the details of operating parks. Even where regulations by implication conflict with other statutes, they will be upheld,26 unless there is “a manifest intent on the part of the legislature to preempt the field.”27 There is no basis for an agency regulation where the legislature plainly, broadly, and comprehensively has addressed the same object.28
I find no specific statutory authority granting the Department the authority to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in state parks. A person’s right to carry a firearm openly is considered universal within the Commonwealth, subject to definite and limited restrictions upon certain locations and classifications of individuals.29 Section 18.2-287.4 is the only statute that specifically addresses carrying of firearms in public parks. In the context of parks and public spaces, the General Assembly merely limits certain classifications of firearms and not firearms generally.30 Under accepted rules of statutory construction, the mention of one thing in a statute implies the exclusion of another.31 Further, the Department’s enabling legislation does not specifically authorize a prohibition against the open carry of firearms.32
24See 1999 Op. Va. Att’y Gen., supra note 21, at 163.
25See 2002 Op. Va. Att’y Gen., supra note 3, at 36.
26Va. Beach v. Va. Restaurant Assoc., 231 Va. 130, 132, 341 S.E.2d 198, 199 (1986).
27Id. at 133, 341 S.E.2d at 199 (1986); see also Norfolk v. Tiny House, Inc., 222 Va. 414, 424, 281 S.E.2d 836, 842 (1981) (noting that courts are obligated to harmonize statute and ordinance where they can “stand together”); Nat’l Maritime Union of Am. v. Norfolk, 202 Va. 672, 674, 119 S.E.2d 307, 311 (1961) (noting that intention of Congress to exclude states from exerting power to legislate in particular areas must be manifest).
28Cf. 1981-1982 Op. Va. Att’y Gen. 112, 113 (concluding that counties have no authority to adopt ordinances regulating sale of handguns except as specifically permitted by statute).
29See generally § 18.2-283 (2004) (prohibiting carrying of weapons in places of religious worship); § 18.2-283.1 (Supp. 2008) (prohibiting carrying of weapons in courthouses); § 18.2-287.01 (Supp. 2008) (prohibiting carrying of weapons in air carrier airport terminals); § 18.2-308.1 (Supp. 2008) (prohibiting possession of weapons on school property); see also § 18.2-308.1:1 (Supp. 2008) (prohibiting possession of firearms by persons acquitted by reason of insanity); § 18.2-308.1:2 (2004) (restricting persons adjudicated incompetent from purchasing, possessing, and transporting firearms); § 18.2-308.1:3 (Supp. 2008) (prohibiting purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms by persons involuntarily committed); § 18.2-308.2 (Supp. 2008) (restricting convicted felons from purchasing, possessing, and transporting firearms).
30See § 18.2-287.4 (Supp. 2008) (restricting right to carry certain “loaded” high capacity center-fire weapons and shotguns in public parks and certain public areas).
31See Grigg v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 356, 364, 297 S.E.2d 799, 803 (1982) (explaining maxim “[e]xpressio unius est exclusio alterius”); Op. Va. Att’y Gen.: 1997 at 35, 35; 1994 at 9, 11.
32This opinion is limited in scope and addresses only the open carrying of firearms in state parks. Other instrumentalities of the Commonwealth may have explicit or implicit authority to provide some measure of regulation regarding the open carrying of firearms.
The Honorable Ken T. Cuccinelli, II
September 26, 2008
Page 5
In light of the General Assembly’s explicit statements regarding limitations on carrying and possessing firearms, the Department may not infer such authority from its enabling legislation and prohibit the carrying of firearms not otherwise prohibited within state parks. It is within the sole discretion of the General Assembly to limit the carrying of firearms in parks beyond that restricted by § 18.2-287.4. Additionally, the General Assembly could grant explicit statutory authority to the Department to accomplish such purpose. I find no authority, express or implied, for the Department to prohibit the carrying and possession of firearms within state parks beyond that currently prohibited by law.
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is my opinion that the Department of Conservation and Recreation has only such authority to restrict the open carrying of firearms which is expressly provided by law.33
Thank you for letting me be of service to you.
Sincerely,
Robert F. McDonnell
3:1099; 1:941/08-043
33See supra note 2.
Va Forestry Dept Refuses to Obey the Law
This is long, a little boring and very important to ALL gunowners in the Commonwealth. It will also be an ongoing concern here and we will have a semi permanent page dedicated to it.
Brief History:
While Attorney General, Bob McDonnell was asked to issue an opinion by then Senator Cuccinelli, about the carrying of firearms in the State Forests.
An opinion was issued and I’ll get to the specifics in future stories, but he said:
In his official opinion, Attorney General McDonnell found that, “no specific statutory authority granting the Department the authority to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in state parks. A person’s right to carry a firearm openly is considered universal within the Commonwealth, subject to definite and limited restrictions upon certain locations and classifications of individuals.”
Tim Kaine, being Tim Kaine, refused to force the Department of Forestry to comply.
Now that Bob McDonnell is running the show, The Department is submitting rules for review.
The problem is, they only allow CHP holders to carry. This ain’t going away guys and there is a lot more to this story coming.
Here is the portion of the State Register published yesterday:
TITLE 4. CONSERVATION AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
Proposed Regulation
Title of Regulation: 4VAC10-30. Virginia State Forests
Regulations (amending 4VAC10-30-170).
Statutory Authority: § 10.1-1101 of the Code of Virginia.
Public Hearing Information:
March 2, 2010 – 1 p.m. – Buckingham Agricultural
Center, Buckingham County, VA
Public Comment Deadline: April 16, 2010.
Agency Contact: Ronald S. Jenkins, Administrative Officer,
Department of Forestry, 900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite
800, Charlottesville, VA 22903, telephone (434) 977-6555,
FAX (434) 293-2768, or email ron.jenkins@dof.virginia.gov.
Basis: Section 10.1-1101 of the Code of Virginia provides the
Department of Forestry, with the approval of the State
Forester, the authority to promulgate regulations necessary or
incidental to the performance of duties or execution of powers
conferred under Chapter 11 (§ 10.1-1100 et seq.) of Title 10.1
of the Code of Virginia.
Purpose: The right to bear arms is protected by the second
amendment to the Constitution. Citizens are requesting the
department to remove the prohibition against carrying
handguns within state forests because they believe this action
is necessary to protect their health, safety, and welfare against
violent people and wild animals.
The proposed amendment allows the lawful carrying of
concealed handguns by persons with a valid concealed
handgun permit on state forest properties. The current
prohibition against persons carrying open carried handguns
will remain in place. The agency received a petition to
eliminate the prohibition against both open carried handguns
and concealed handguns from the Virginia Citizens’ Defense
League. The department received 1,926 comments supporting
the amendment during the notice of intended regulatory
action (NOIRA) comment period. The State Forester
proposes to amend the regulations to match the state park
regulations regarding handguns.
Substance: The agency proposes lifting the ban against
persons who possess a valid concealed handgun permit from
carrying legal concealed handguns on state forest properties.
The agency will propose to continue to ban users from
carrying open handguns.
Issues: Citizens may carry concealed handguns with a valid
permit in Virginia. Citizens are currently prohibited from
carrying concealed handguns onto state forest properties even
when they possess a valid concealed handgun permit issued
by law enforcement. The state forest amendment will ensure
that law abiding citizens will not violate a regulation that
carries a Class 4 misdemeanor penalty.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League requested the
Department of Forestry to allow the carrying of firearms
within state forests. If the regulatory amendment is approved,
citizens may carry concealed handguns within state forests
with a valid concealed weapon permit. If the regulatory
amendment is approved as suggested, the regulations would
match the firearms section of the state park regulations.
The Department of Planning and Budget’s Economic Impact
Analysis:
Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. The
Department of Forestry proposes to allow the holders of
concealed weapons permits to carry their concealed handguns
in state forests.
Result of Analysis. The benefits likely exceed the costs for
this proposed change.
Estimated Economic Impact. Current state forestry
regulations prohibit any individual from bringing any
explosives or firearms into state forests. The department
proposes to amend this prohibition so that it does not apply to
“the carrying of concealed handguns within state forests by
holders of a valid concealed handgun permit” issued pursuant
to the Code of Virginia.
This change will allow concealed carry permit holders to have
the protection of a weapon in state forests which will likely
provide a benefit for them as well as any other unarmed
citizens that might receive ancillary protection from crime or
animal attack. It is very unlikely that any individual would
suffer costs from increased crimes on account of this change
because concealed carry holders appear to commit far fewer
crimes than individuals who do not hold concealed carry
permits.1
Businesses and Entities Affected. This proposed regulatory
change will affect all holders of valid concealed carry permits
in the Commonwealth.
Localities Particularly Affected. No locality will be
particularly affected by this proposed regulatory action.
Regulations
Volume 26, Issue 12 Virginia Register of Regulations February 15, 2010
1865
Projected Impact on Employment. This regulatory action will
likely have no impact on employment in the Commonwealth.
Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. This
regulatory action will likely have no effect on the use or value
of private property in the Commonwealth.
Small Businesses: Costs and Other Effects. Small businesses
in the Commonwealth are unlikely to incur any costs on
account of this regulatory action.
Small Businesses: Alternative Method that Minimizes
Adverse Impact. Small businesses in the Commonwealth are
unlikely to incur any costs on account of this regulatory
action.
Real Estate Development Costs. This regulatory action will
likely have no effect on real estate development costs in the
Commonwealth.
Legal Mandate. The Department of Planning and Budget
(DPB) has analyzed the economic impact of this proposed
regulation in accordance with § 2.2-4007.04 of the
Administrative Process Act and Executive Order Number 36
(06). Section 2.2-4007.04 requires that such economic impact
analyses include, but need not be limited to, the projected
number of businesses or other entities to whom the regulation
would apply, the identity of any localities and types of
businesses or other entities particularly affected, the projected
number of persons and employment positions to be affected,
the projected costs to affected businesses or entities to
implement or comply with the regulation, and the impact on
the use and value of private property. Further, if the proposed
regulation has adverse effect on small businesses, § 2.2-
4007.04 requires that such economic impact analyses include
(i) an identification and estimate of the number of small
businesses subject to the regulation; (ii) the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other administrative costs
required for small businesses to comply with the regulation,
including the type of professional skills necessary for
preparing required reports and other documents; (iii) a
statement of the probable effect of the regulation on affected
small businesses; and (iv) a description of any less intrusive
or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of
the regulation. The analysis presented above represents DPB’s
best estimate of these economic impacts.
_______________________
1 David Kopel of Stanford University’s Hoover Institute writes, in an
overview of research on concealed carry permit holders and crime, that “In
Florida… permit holders are about 300 times less likely to perpetrate a gun
crime than Floridians without permits.”
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574822.html.
Agency’s Response to the Department of Planning and
Budget’s Economic Impact Analysis: The Department of
Forestry concurs with the findings of the Department of
Planning and Budget. The proposed regulatory amendment
will allow persons to carry concealed handguns on state forest
lands so long as they possess a valid concealed weapon
permit. The change does not add new responsibilities to state
or local officials responsible for enforcing weapons laws.
Virginia law allows individuals to carry concealed handguns
with a valid concealed weapon permit. The Department of
Forestry regulatory amendment would allow valid permit
holders to carry their handguns on state forest properties,
which is currently prohibited by regulation.
Summary:
The proposed amendment allows the lawful carrying of
concealed handguns with a valid concealed handgun
permit on state forest properties