Comments on: VA response to VT http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/02/27/va_response_to_vt/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:05:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Clint http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/02/27/va_response_to_vt/comment-page-1/#comment-195995 Clint Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:31:07 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/02/27/va_response_to_vt/#comment-195995 Unfortunately it still retains a clause stating that a CHP holder must inform a "designated employee" in the restaurant that he/she is carrying. That kind of defeats the whole "concealed" thing. But, for what it's worth, it's a half a baby step in the right direction. In its current form, it passed both Houses by almost veto proof numbers. That may make Kaine somewhat eager to sign it. It is definitely a compromised upon piece of legislation at this point. We'll take the battle and call it a victory for our side. VCDL has been working on this one for 13 years, back when they were the NVCDL. Still some work to do on this one in the coming years, though. Unfortunately it still retains a clause stating that a CHP holder must inform a “designated employee” in the restaurant that he/she is carrying. That kind of defeats the whole “concealed” thing. But, for what it’s worth, it’s a half a baby step in the right direction.

In its current form, it passed both Houses by almost veto proof numbers. That may make Kaine somewhat eager to sign it. It is definitely a compromised upon piece of legislation at this point.

We’ll take the battle and call it a victory for our side. VCDL has been working on this one for 13 years, back when they were the NVCDL. Still some work to do on this one in the coming years, though.

]]>