WV: Constitutional Carry Passes Senate and House and VETO PROOF!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Midwest

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
2,569
Location
Kentucky
BIG BIG NEWS it passed the House with Bi-Partisan support and it is now...Veto Proof according to the article!

WV: Constitutional Carry Passes the House with Bi-Partisan Support

http://concealednation.org/2015/03/...ry-passes-the-house-with-bi-partisan-support/



"On the third read today, the 12th of March, it passed with 71 to 29. The vote was both bi-partisan and sufficient to override a veto. 51 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted for the bill. 13 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted against it."
 
If this really flies, wonder what impact it might have on the population of W. VA.
More people arriving or more people leaving?
 
heres an interesting GIF of the history of concealed carry laws in america.. watch the way this map goes from almost entirely no issue or shall issue to almost entirely "must issue"... gun rights advocates are winning majorly, and unrestricted concealed and open carry without a permit is the next step.. wisconsin took a while to become must issue because they've always allowed open carry quite freely

Rtc2.gif
 
If this really flies, wonder what impact it might have on the population of W. VA.
More people arriving or more people leaving?

I'm a WV resident (Eastern Panhandle). Don't think it'll make a difference one way or the other. A lot of us carry and most of the others don't really care. Well, except the nanny-state transplants around here from Maryland and DC. I suspect there would be a much larger furor if folks simply started to open carry, which has been legal forever.
 
So what is the next step and what time frame?

I guess it goes to the governor and he can sign it or not sign it but he can't veto it. So when does that happen? 30 days?

And then after its law, usually there is period of 30 to 90 days (or more?) till it takes effect.
.
 
Amendments made to Sb347 will need to be accepted by the senate then to gov tomblin. Correct me if im wrong but would need 2/3's of the vote to overide a veto.
 
Amendments made to Sb347 will need to be accepted by the senate then to gov tomblin. Correct me if im wrong but would need 2/3's of the vote to overide a veto.
Was the article incorrect?


"On the third read today, the 12th of March, it passed with 71 to 29. The vote was both bi-partisan and sufficient to override a veto. 51 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted for the bill. 13 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted against it."
.
 
Just a little political reality check here...

Just because any particular bill passes legislature with overwhelming support does not mean it's "veto-proof". Certainly there's a strong support base for it, but even so that doesn't make it "veto-proof".

If a governor vetos something, he can use his own political savvy and influence to put pressure on the legislature in turn. This is how politics works. If he does, then the numbers of supporters may sway significantly.

What does this mean? It means if this is what YOU want, then YOU need to let your representatives know this in no uncertain terms...and you need to gather as much support from as wide a selection of the voting population as possible in order to get that same word out to as many other representatives as possible.

Good luck!
 
so is this or is this not veto proof? if it is, when does it become law?
 
The legislative session has ended. If the Governor vetoes the bill there's no one there to over ride that veto. They would need to pass it again early in next years session. He has ten days to decide what to do or it becomes law.

So no it's not veto proof.
 
Disclaimer: I would not have posted this story as a done deal if I knew that wasn't the case. I did not mean to lead anyone on. The article did say "veto-proof" . I was under the impression that the term "veto proof" would clearly seem to mean that the governor can't veto it. And if he can't veto it, it would be a fair assumption that it would it would become law.

Here is the latest from that article with updates.

I highlighted important or relevant passages in BOLD. Here is the article in it's entirety with updates posted by Dean Weingarten with Permission (see next paragraph)

(Note: Permission is given to reprint this as long as there is a link to the author's gun watch site http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/ "©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch").

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Dean Weingarten on 03/12/2015

The West Virginia Constitutional Carry bill, SB 347 has now passed the House. The vote was 71 to 29. This is a very comfortable, veto proof margin. The bill was amended in the House to raise the age for concealed, permit-less carry from 18 to 21, on the 11th of March. On the third read today, the 12th of March, it passed with 71 to 29. The vote was both bi-partisan and sufficient to override a veto. 51 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted for the bill. 13 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted against it.

One of the Republicans who voted against it was Daryl Cowles, the House majority leader, from Berkeley Springs, District 58. Note that he is not the Speaker of the House, but the majority leader.

It passed the Senate 32 to 2 with a bipartisan vote that included 14 Democrats, on the 27th of February.

Because the bill was amended in the house, it will need to go back to the Senate for a confirmation vote before being sent to Democrat Governor Tomblin.

Unlike the constitutional carry bills in Idaho and Mississippi, second amendment supporters spoke in a united voice for this bill. It is supported by the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, The West Virginia Sheriffs Association and the NRA. From the NRAILA before the house vote today:

On Saturday, Senate Bill 347, NRA-backed permitless carry legislation, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee with the addition of a committee substitute. SB 347 now awaits a vote on the House floor. The adopted committee substitute changes the age for those who can legally carry from 18 to 21, adds enhanced penalties for felony crimes with a firearm and allows for the recouping of legal fees from unlawful permit denials. This substitute was a combined effort between the NRA, the West Virginia Citizen’s Defense League and the West Virginia Sheriff’s Association to act in good faith to make a better bill for all those involved.

Here is the introductory paragraph of the bill. I have not seen the final text after the house amendment.

A BILL to repeal §61-7-3 and §61-7-6 of the Code of West
Virginia, 1931, as amended; to amend and reenact
§20-2-5 and §20-2-6a of said code; and to amend and
reenact §61-7-4 of said code, all relating to creating
the West Virginia Firearms Act of 2015; removing
requirement one must have a license to carry a
concealed handgun; repealing exceptions section of
said code to prohibitions against carrying concealed
handguns without a license and removing exemptions
from licensing fees; authorizing carrying a handgun
for purposes of self defense while in the woods of this
state whether concealed or not; providing that if
findings of fact and conclusions of law of the court
fail to uphold denial of a license, the applicant is
entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees,
payable by the sheriff’s office which issued denial;
defining who is prohibited from possessing firearms
and retaining criminal penalties for violations; and
establishing procedure for sheriff in determining
eligibility for license when license holder changes
home county.

Her is a link to the status in the WV Legislature http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=347&year=2015&sessiontype=RS. A source on opencarry.org says that the Democrat Governor, Earl Ray Tomblin will allow the bill to pass into law without veto in 10 days. From twoskinsonemanns at opencarry.org: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...es-Constitutional-Carry&p=2130322#post2130322

No one expects him to. He’s expected to ignore it and let the 10 days run out until it becomes law.
I think it would be political suicide to veto it.

Another poster, press1280, expects the Senate to confirm the House amendment without any problem:

Should be 2 weeks. Session ends Saturday, so it has to be on his desk by then. Right now it goes back to the Senate to approve the changes (21 and over), which should be a slam dunk.

Constitutional carry has not been enacted in West Virginia yet. It still has a couple of bumps in the road. But it looks very likely that this gun reform legislation will pass into law. If it does, West Virginia will become the sixth state in the Nation to return to constitutional carry. Kansas looks like the next most likely candidate. Several other states have bills in play.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/

Update: Considerable resources are being expended to pressure Governor Tomblin to veto SB 347. I have been informed that MoMs Demanding Action and Everytown are organizing phone banks to pressure the Governor, that even Joe Manchin is said to be pressuring him. While the bill passed with veto-proof majorities, the Governor can veto it. The Legislature is no longer in session, so if the bill is vetoed, there will be no a way to override the veto. As a Democrat, more pressure would need to be applied from the supporters of constitutional carry to prevent him from vetoing the bill.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
 
^^^^

We're not contesting who said the bill was "veto-proof", only pointing out the fallacy of the claim.

The governor can veto the bill. That, in itself, means it's not "veto proof".

And the governor is not without his own resources to bring pressure on the legislature to shift the balance of voting power for this bill. And, as someone else said, if the legislative session is over, then the veto stands until the next session. And during that time, a lot can happen to change the balance of votes.

There are 34 Senators and 100 Delegates. Senators are elected every 4 years on a rotating basis (1/4th up for election every year). Delegates are elected every 2 years, which half up for election every year.

This means that between the end of this year's session and the start of next year's session, about 58 or 59 Senators and Delegates out of a total of 134 will be up for re-election.

See where this is going?


It IS a good start. But for this to succeed, the governor either has to sign the bill into law OR, if he vetos it, the WV legislature has to MAINTAIN a vetoing percentage into the next legislative session.

I don't know if they can call a special session before then...if so, then maybe that is an option.


At any rate, good on WV for pushing this and I hope is succeeds!
 
Sounds like you're in a good position anyway. Time to hammer out those emails/letters/phone calls to the Governor.

Justin- thanks for the map.
 
The Governor VETOED it....

http://morgancountyusa.org/?p=1766

"West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin has vetoed SB 347 — legislation that would allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

“We cannot continue to put our law enforcement at risk,” Tomblin told MetroNews Talkline host Hoppy Kercheval."

.
 
The Governor VETOED it....

http://morgancountyusa.org/?p=1766

"West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin has vetoed SB 347 — legislation that would allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

“We cannot continue to put our law enforcement at risk,” Tomblin told MetroNews Talkline host Hoppy Kercheval."

.

Yep.

Right after the WV legislative session ended. So much for "veto-proof".

This, my friends, is politics at its finest. And now several months until next years session with nearly 60 members of the "veto-proof" legislature up for reelection before then.
 
My guess is they all got together and planned it out this way. Not real unusual for this type of politically charged legislation.

The legislators get to claim they voted for it and it was that mean ol' governor that vetoed it.

It is like the annual charade the NRA goes through in DC regarding LTC reciprocity. Everyone involved knows it is never going to pass the Senate, but it is politically popular enough that congress critters can claim they voted for it with the full knowledge that their vote is meaningless and it is going nowhere. That gives D congress critters the freedom to vote for it.

It makes for a good fundraising drive for various 2A groups as well.

Having said that, the process is not completely worthless. Every time it gets a bunch of votes the legislation gets more credibility. Eventually, maybe enough to pass and not get vetoed.
 
Not too sure about that - worked out pretty good here in Arizona. Brought it up, passed it, signed it, and away we went. If the fix is THAT far in, the whole system is doomed and we might as we go hide out in "them thar hills".
 
The legislature can't call a special session or similar?

Edit: Looks like they can.
 
Last edited:
Looks like you guys in WV were sold out by someone. No reason to pass the bill that late with super majority support. The good news is you have a built in protest:
In West Virginia, it is already legal to carry guns in the open — on a belt holster, for instance.

These clowns need an intense effort to send to the unemployment line.
“We honor the NRA training that they give to the citizens,” Berkeley County sheriff Kenny Lemaster told WHAG-TV. “So for them to condone something that would send people out not getting trained endangers the public.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-around-with-concealed-guns-without-a-permit/
 
Well this looks like it is starting to have more twists and turns than some dime store novel. Or as someone once succinctly put it "it ain't over till it's over". And it may not be according to the 'GOA alerts' on Facebook.


https://www.facebook.com/GunOwners/posts/10152784566371701

If that link doesn't work than go to this one and search by hand for the article.

https://www.facebook.com/GunOwners?fref=nf

"BETRAYAL! The WV Governor just vetoed GOA-backed legislation to implement Constitutional Carry.

But the battle is not over yet, since the bill has veto-proof majorities in both chambers. GOA will be calling on residents to double-down on WV legislators next week!"



Can someone clarify this? Does this mean it isn't over yet?
.
 
“We honor the NRA training that they give to the citizens,” Berkeley County sheriff Kenny Lemaster told WHAG-TV. “So for them to condone something that would send people out not getting trained endangers the public.”

One must now ask if there is really any compelling governmental interest the permitting of concealed carry. Traditional unpermitted open carry of handguns in West Virginia sans firearms training has established a long-running legal benchmark by which to evaluate the proposed permitting process. Concealing a handgun without training does not make it more dangerous, despite the machinations of Sheriff Lemaster. Or does it?

I would argue that the persons who would make a concealed handgun more dangerous than one carried openly will as a rule never, ever apply for one.There will be some exceptions, of course, but by and large, this class of persons wants as little to do with law enforcement as possible. Much less to tell the cops they have a gun and be registered in the West Virginia criminal data base. If they aren't already.
 
"BETRAYAL! The WV Governor just vetoed GOA-backed legislation to implement Constitutional Carry."

OK, maybe somebody can explain this to me. WHERE, pray tell, is the "betrayal" in this veto? "Betrayal" implies some kind of pre-arranged agreement was in place wherein the governor was going to sign the bill into law...and then he reneged on that agreement.

I'm not seeing betrayal here...I'm seeing politics as usual.
 
OK, maybe somebody can explain this to me. WHERE, pray tell, is the "betrayal" in this veto? "Betrayal" implies some kind of pre-arranged agreement was in place wherein the governor was going to sign the bill into law...and then he reneged on that agreement.

I'm not seeing betrayal here...I'm seeing politics as usual.

There was a pre-arranged agreement. It's called his oath of office. Any politician that doesn't support constitutional carry is betraying his oath to defend the Constitution. It is politics as usual, you're right about that. Betrayal and oath breaking have become the norm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top