Hearing impaired individuals should request this service from your state and local government agencies to that you know what is going on at those government agencies' meetings. This is the form our membership uses when planning to attend the agency meeting.  Fill it out and send it along to the agency 3 days in advance of the agency's meting.

Mouse over the form below, click on it to download the form. Print it, and fill it in.  Send it to the person and agency by fax, email-scan, or first class mail.  The Unalienable Rights Foundation recommends that you hand deliver it to the agency if at all possible.

Donald "Donnie" Edwards has been appointed as

UARF's

Secretary/ Economic Development

.

.

Legislative Update 1-25-2016  

**********************************************************

 WE SUPPORT THESE BILLS

•   Property Rights

 SB 478 Eminent domain; reimbursement of costs

 Eminent domain; reimbursement of costs. Provides that costs and fees may be awarded in condemnation actions where the amount the owner is awarded at trial as compensation for the taking of or damage to his property is 20 percent or more greater than the amount of the condemnor's initial written offer. Under current law, such costs and fees may be awarded if the amount awarded as compensation at trial is 30 percent or more greater than the petitioner's final offer. The bill removes an exception for meeting the requirements for payment of costs and fees for condemnation actions involving easements valued at less than $10,000.

The bill also replaces the word "petitioner" with "condemnor" in the provision of the Code allowing the court to award costs and fees and allows the court to order the condemnor to pay to the owner reasonable fees and travel costs incurred by the owner for up to three experts, or as many as called by the condemnor, whichever is greater, who testified at trial.

 Status: (We support this bill)

01/12/16  Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice

 The Senate Courts of Justice Committee meets on Mondays (8:00 a.m.) and Wednesdays (15 minutes after adjournment of full Senate) in Senate Room B.  SB 478 is not on the docket for Monday, 1/25/16.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 SB 543 Inverse condemnation proceeding; reimbursement of owner's costs

 Inverse condemnation proceeding; reimbursement of owner's costs. Directs the court to reimburse a plaintiff for the costs of an inverse condemnation proceeding for "damaging" property if a judgment is entered for the plaintiff. Under current law, the court is directed to award costs only for the "taking" of property. The change made in this bill corresponds with the language of amendments to Article 1, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia, which became effective on January 1, 2013

 Status: (We support this bill)

01/13/16  Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice

 The Senate Courts of Justice Committee meets on Mondays (8:00 a.m.) and Wednesdays (15 minutes after adjournment of full Senate) in Senate Room B.  SB 543 is not on the docket for Monday, 1/25/16.

 •   Asset Forfeiture

 SB 108 Forfeiture of property used in connection with the commission of crimes; finding of guilt required

 Forfeiture of property used in connection with the commission of crimes; finding of guilt required. Requires that any action for the forfeiture of property used in connection with the commission of a crime be stayed until the person whose property is the subject of the forfeiture action has been found guilty of the crime authorizing the forfeiture, regardless of whether he has been sentenced. The bill provides that property may be forfeited even though no finding of guilt is made if (i) the forfeiture is ordered by the court pursuant to a plea agreement or (ii) the owner of the property has not submitted a written demand for the return of the property within one year from the date the property was seized.

Status: (We support this bill)

12/28/15  Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice

 The Senate Courts of Justice Committee meets on Mondays (8:00 a.m.) and Wednesdays (15 minutes after adjournment of full Senate) in Senate Room B.  SB 108 is not on the docket for Monday, 1/25/16.

 •   School Choice

 HB 389 Parental Choice Education Savings Accounts established

 Parental Choice Education Savings Accounts established. Permits the parent of a public preschool, elementary, or secondary school student to apply to the school division in which the student resides for a one-year, renewable Parental Choice Education Savings Account that consists of an amount that is equivalent to 90 percent of all applicable annual Standards of Quality per pupil state funds appropriated for public school purposes and apportioned to the resident school division in which the student resides, including the per pupil share of state sales tax funding in basic aid and any state per pupil share of special education funding to which the student is eligible. The bill permits the parent to use the moneys in such account for certain education-related expenses of the student, including tuition, deposits, fees, and required textbooks at a private, sectarian, or nonsectarian elementary or secondary school or preschool that is located in the Commonwealth and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The bill also contains provisions relating to auditing, rescinding, and reviewing expenses made from such accounts.

 Status: (We support this bill)

01/06/16  House: Referred to Committee on Education

01/15/16  House: Assigned to sub: Subcommittee Education Innovation

01/19/16  House: Subcommittee recommends reporting (5-Y 4-N)

01/19/16  House: Subcommittee recommends referring to Committee on Appropriations

01/20/16  House: Reported from Education (13-Y 9-N)

01/20/16  House: Referred to Committee on Appropriations

 SB 389 has been referred to the House Appropriations Committee which meets Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (½ hour after the full House adjourns) in the 9^th Floor Appropriations Room.  SB 389 is not on the docket for Monday, 1/25/16.

 •   Firearm Related

 HB 49 Right to keep & bear arms; codifies opinion of Supreme Court of U.S. in D.C. v. Heller

 Right to keep and bear arms. Codifies the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that the right to keep and bear arms conferred by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia is an individual right.

 Status: (We support this bill)

11/25/15  House: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice

 HB 49 has been referred to the House Courts of Justice Committee which meets Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (½ hour after the full House adjourns) in House Room C.  The Monday (1/25/16) meeting has been canceled.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HB 83 Federal firearms laws; enforcement.

 Federal firearms laws; enforcement. Provides that agencies and political subdivisions of the Commonwealth, and employees thereof, shall not knowingly aid any employee or entity of the federal government (i) in the enforcement of federal firearms laws that take effect on or after December 1, 2015, or (ii) in the conduct or enforcement of a criminal background check related to any intrastate sale, loan, gift, or other transfer of a firearm between citizens of the Commonwealth.

 Status: (We support this bill)

12/10/15  House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety

01/15/16  House: Referred from Militia, Police and Public Safety by voice vote

01/15/16  House: Referred to Committee on Appropriations

HB 83 has been referred to the House Appropriations Committee which meets Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (½ hour after the full House adjourns) in the 9^th Floor Appropriations Room.  HB 83 is not on the docket for Monday, 1/25/16.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HB 132 Risk management plan; coverage for injury or death on state property, concealed handgun prohibition.

 Risk management plan; coverage for injury or death on state property; concealed handgun prohibition. Provides that the risk management plan established by the Division of Risk Management shall include coverage for any claim made by or on behalf of a person possessing a valid concealed handgun permit who is injured or killed upon any buildings, grounds, or properties owned or leased by the Commonwealth as a result of the criminal act of a third party if the carrying of a concealed handgun on such buildings, grounds, or properties was prohibited by regulation. The bill also provides that, in addition to providing for the actual damages arising from the person's injury or death, the coverage shall include an additional amount of $350,000.

 Status: (We support this bill)

12/18/15  House: Referred to Committee on General Laws

01/18/16  House: Assigned to sub: Subcommittee #4

 HB 132 has been assigned to Subcommittee # 4 of the General Laws Committee which meets on Thursdays (upon adjournment of the full committee) in House Room C.  The docket for Thursday, 1/28/16, has not been posted, yet.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HB 133 Risk management plan; coverage for injury/death on college property, concealed handgun prohibition.

 Risk management plan; coverage for injury or death on college property; concealed handgun prohibition. Provides that the risk management plan established by the Division of Risk Management shall include coverage for any claim made by or on behalf of a person possessing a valid concealed handgun permit who is injured or killed upon any buildings, grounds,or properties owned or leased by a public institution of higher education as a result of the criminal act of a third party if the carrying of a concealed handgun on such buildings, grounds, or properties was prohibited by regulation. The bill also provides that, in addition to providing for the actual damages arising from the person's injury or death, the coverage shall include an additional amount of $350,000.

 Status: (We support this bill)

12/18/15  House: Referred to Committee on General Laws

01/18/16  House: Assigned to sub: Subcommittee #4

 HB 133 has been assigned to Subcommittee # 4 of the General Laws Committee which meets on Thursdays (upon adjournment of the full committee) in House Room C.  The docket for Thursday, 1/28/16, has not been posted, yet.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HB 443 Carrying a concealed handgun; permit not required.

 Carrying a concealed handgun; exception. Allows any person who regardless of having met the demonstration of competence requirement is otherwise qualified to obtain a concealed handgun permit to carry a handgun concealed in any place where such person could openly carry a handgun.

 Status: (We support this bill)

01/07/16  House: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice

 HB 443 has been referred to the House Courts of Justice Committee which meets Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (½ hour after the full House adjourns) in House Room C.  The Monday (1/25/16) meeting has been canceled.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HB 1096 Firearms; regulation by state entities.

 Regulation of firearms by state entities. Prohibits any state entity from adopting or enforcing any rule, regulation, policy, or administrative action governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage, or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof unless expressly authorized by statute. The bill invalidates any such rule, regulation, policy, or administrative action adopted by a state entity prior to July 1, 2016. The bill does not prohibit a law-enforcement officer from acting within the scope of his duties, nor does it apply to the Department of Corrections, Department of Juvenile Justice, Department of State Police, Virginia National Guard, Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, or Department of Social Services. The bill allows entities to adopt or enforce rules or regulations necessary for compliance with the Fire Prevention Code or necessary for the operation of Reserve Officer Training Corps programs. The bill expressly authorizes the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries to create certain regulations governing the possession, carrying, transportation, and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof.

 Status: (We support this bill)

01/13/16  House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety

01/18/16  House: Assigned to sub: #1

01/21/16  House: Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (4-Y 1-N)

 HB 1096 has passed through Subcommittee #1 of the Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety and will now go to the full committee which meets on Fridays (9:00 a.m.) in House Room C.  The docket for Friday, 1/29/16, has not been posted, yet.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HB 1163 Concealed handguns; recognition of out-of-state permits.

 Recognition of out-of-state concealed handgun permits. Provides that a holder of a concealed handgun permit issued by any state who is at least 21 years of age is authorized to carry a concealed handgun in Virginia. The bill requires the Attorney General to enter into agreements for reciprocal recognition with other states that require an agreement to be in place before the state will recognize a Virginia concealed handgun permit as valid in the state. Current law recognizes concealed handgun permits issued by states that (i) provide a 24-hour-a-day means of verification of the validity of the permits issued in that state and (ii) have requirements and qualifications that are adequate to prevent possession of a permit by persons who would be denied a permit in Virginia.

 Status: (We support this bill)

01/14/16  House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety

01/19/16  House: Assigned to sub: #1

01/21/16  House: Subcommittee recommends reporting (4-Y 1-N)

 HB 1163 is the companion bill to SB 610 (see below) and has passed through Subcommittee #1 of the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety.  It will now go to the full committee which meets on Fridays (9:00 a.m.) in House Room C.  The docket for Friday, 1/29/16, has not been posted, yet.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 SB 610 Recognition of out-of-state concealed handgun permits.

 Recognition of out-of-state concealed handgun permits. Provides that a holder of a concealed handgun permit issued by any state who is at least 21 years of age is authorized to carry a concealed handgun in Virginia. The bill requires the Attorney General to enter into agreements for reciprocal recognition with other states that require an agreement to be in place before the state will recognize a Virginia concealed handgun permit as valid in the state. Current law recognizes concealed handgun permits issued by states that (i) provide a 24-hour-a-day means of verification of the validity of the permits issued in that state and (ii) have requirements and qualifications that are adequate to prevent possession of a permit by persons who would be denied a permit in Virginia.

 Status: (We support this bill)

01/13/16  Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice

 SB 610 is the companion bill to HB 1163 (see above) and has been referred to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.  This committee meets on Mondays (8:00 a.m.) and Wednesdays (15 minutes after adjournment of full Senate) in Senate Room B.  SB 610 is not on the docket for Monday, 1/25/16.

The Clean Air Act 

Framework that Preserves

"States' Rights"

Tuesday, May 20th, 2014

Scott Pruitt Presents "The Oklahoma Attorney General's Plan: The Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Framework that Preserves States' Rights"      Sponsored by the  Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group   Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m.    National Press Club 529 14th Street, N.W.  Washington, D.C.  20045    Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is poised to propose new regulations for CO2 emission reductions from existing power plants. What is the appropriate federalism model for regulation of CO2 emissions under the Section 111(d)? Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt will roll out his new paper, "The Oklahoma Attorney General's Plan: The Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Framework that Preserves States' Rights." The Attorney General's plan for state-level compliance construes federal and state authority under Section 111(d) as follows: EPA designs a procedure and emission guidelines, and States determine the legally enforceable emission standard that is as stringent as the applicable guideline - unless the State determines that circumstances justify imposition of a less stringent emission standard. The Oklahoma Attorney General's Plan institutes a unit-by-unit, "inside the fence" approach to determining State emission standards, and accounts for the practical reality that air quality impacts differ from State to State, as do costs and opportunities for CO2 emission reductions. This approach preserves State primacy and does not turn over management of local generation fleets to EPA; the Oklahoma Attorney General's plan keeps resource planning in the hands of state regulators with specialized expertise and a focus on ratepayer impacts and protection of the public interest. Attorney General Pruitt's presentation will be followed by a panel discussion of the plan's merits, its understanding of Section 111(d), and its wider implications for State Clean Air Act compliance.   Panelists Include:   Hon. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma   F. William Brownell, Hunton & Williams LLP   Patrick McCormick III, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee   David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council Moderator: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Chairman, Federalist Society Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Executive Committee, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP     Register here.   Lunch will be served. There is no cost to attend this event.

800 Years Of Protecting Rights

Magna Carta

800 Years of the Rule of Law

Charter of the Common Man

The ABA will publish Magna Carta and the Rule of Law to commemorate Magna Carta's 800th Anniversary.  

Magna Carta and the Rule of Law is a compilation of essays examining Magna Carta’s influence on yesterday and today based on the most current knowledge and research. 

The book begins with a foreword by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor.

Thereafter distinguished scholars from around the world analyze a host of topics, including the historical background leading up to the Charter, the impact of Magna Carta on the United States, its relationship to civil law, and its importance with respect to the rule of law.

Magna Carta and the Rule of Law includes topics that have not been closely examined before, such as Magna Carta’s relation to women’s rights and its impact on international law.  

One of Magna Carta's most interesting progeny, the Charter of the Forests is also discussed.  

Referred to as the Charter of the Common Man, the Forests Charter disforested significant parts of England thus allowing ordinary citizens access to lands that had been declared to be "forests" by King John and the barons and increased the uses permitted of the remaining forests.  

www.magna-carta-book.com/.

Obama

Holder

Congress

Democrats

Republicans

Libertarians

Politicians All

Send a mixed message on their take on the meaning of the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof as found in the First [1st] Amendment to the Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States of America

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. . . [U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. 1st Amd. (1791)]

When they pass laws that reflect the promulgations of their faith.   The law as it was when the first amendment was passed.

The RIGHTS of PERSONS.

BOOK I.

Ch. 15.

CHAPTER THE FIFTEENTH.

OF HUSBAND AND WIFE.

THE second private relation of persons is that of marriage, which includes the reciprocal duties of husband and wife; or, as most of our elder law books call them, of baron and feme. In the consideration of which I fahll in the firfth place enquire, how marriages may be contracted or made; shall next point out the manner in which they may be diffolved; and shall, lastly, take a view of the legal effects and consequence of marriage.

I. OUR law confiders marriage in no other light than as a civil contract. The Holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law: the temporal courts not having jurisdiction to confider unlawful marriages as a fin, but merely as a civil inconvenience. The punishment therefore, or annulling, of incestuous or other unscriptural marriages, is the province of the spiritual courts; which act pro falute animaea . And, taking it in this civil light, the law treats it as it does all other contracts; allowing it to be good and valid in all cafes, where the parties at the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and, lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.

Departing from a long line of local court rulings, a federal judge in the District of Columbia on Tuesday struck down the 64-year-old law that prohibits demonstrations and displays on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

"The absolute prohibition on expressive activity in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment," wrote U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in a 68-page ruling issued late Tuesday in the case Hodge v. Talkin. 

The law, which has been invoked to arrest individuals ranging from death penalty protestors to kneeling ministers and Princeton University scholar Cornel West, is so broadly worded, Howell found, that it could apply to groups of tourists, court employees, or even a "familiar line of preschool students … holding hands with chaperones, parading on the plaza on their first field trip to the Supreme Court." 

Howell also made short shrift of one of the key arguments that has been made in defense of the law, namely that it is necessary to preserve the image of the court as an institution "not swayed by external influence." 

"It is hard to imagine how tourists assembling on the plaza wearing t-shirts bearing their school's seal, for example, could possibly create the appearance of a judicial system vulnerable to outside pressure," Howell wrote. "While there may be a legitimate interest in protecting the decorum of the judiciary, the challenged statute is not a reasonable way to further that interest." 

If the government appeals the decision, Tuesday's ruling could set the stage for the Supreme Court's first review of the no-protest law in 30 years. 

The decision came in the case of Harold Hodge Jr., a Maryland resident who was arrested on the court's plaza in January, 2011 for standing on the court's marble plaza while holding a small sign that read "The U.S. Gov. Allows Police To Illegally Murder and Brutalize African Americans And Hispanic People." Court police told Hodge three times that he was in violation of 40 U.S.C. 6135 — the law Howell declared unconstitutional — and he refused to depart. 

Hodge was charged with violating the law, which states that "it is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement." 

Later that year, charges were dropped after Hodge agreed to stay away from the court and its grounds for six months. 

In January 2012, Hodge filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stating that he wanted to return to the court to engage in "peaceful, non-disruptive political speech and expression." With the aid of lawyers from the Rutherford Institute, Hodge challenged the constitutionality of the law. The court's marshal, Pamela Talkin, is the named defendant, along with U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen Jr. 

Tuesday night, Jeffrey Light who represented Hodge for the institute, praised the ruling in a statement. "Today's district court decision striking down the law is well-reasoned and thorough, and relies on solid analysis rather than mere labels to reach its conclusion," Light said. 

In her detailed ruling, Howell reviewed the history of the Supreme Court statute and a similar law that barred demonstrations on the grounds of the nearby U.S. Capitol. That law was struck down on First Amendment grounds by a three-judge panel in 1972 in a ruling that Howell cited at length. 

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled on an earlier version of the law banning displays and assemblages on Supreme Court grounds. In U.S. v. Grace, the court ruled that the law was unconstitutional when applied to demonstrations on the public sidewalks around the court. 

But the court sidestepped the broader issue of the constitutionality of the law's ban on protests on court grounds. As a result, protests are a frequent occurrence on the sidewalk in front of the court, but as one court police officer once put it, "the First Amendment ends" where the sidewalk ends and the marble plaza begins. 

Ever since the Grace decision, challenges to the law brought by those arrested on the plaza have been turned away by the local District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 

But each time, Howell noted, that court has placed a "limiting construction" on the law to keep it within constitutional limits. That construction of the law confined the purpose of the law to protecting court property and personnel and preserving order, decorum, and the image of impartiality. But Howell rejected that narrowing construction, asserting that it was not rooted in the language of the law and amounted to rewriting it. 

She also assumed, without deciding, that under First Amendment doctrine, the court grounds could be viewed as a "nonpublic forum" not traditionally used for public assemblies and communication. That designation usually allows restrictions on expression. But Howell said that status was "artificially induced" because of strict enforcement of the law against protests. 

She also said "the physical features of the Supreme Court plaza — with its long benches and fountains and wide open space in front of an iconic American building open to the public — suggest a more welcoming invitation to the public and public expression than is suggested by the defendants or the statute." 

In addition, Howell noted that the plaza in front of the court is often the venue for media interviews with advocates involved in Supreme Court cases, and has also been used as the backdrop for movie segments. 

But even though the court grounds are assumed to be a nonpublic forum, Howell said, the absolute ban on expression contained in the law is "not reasonable." 

Howell said she "does not find that an interest in allowing 'unimpeded ingress and egress' of visitors to the Court is a sufficiently significant interest to justify the absolute prohibition on expressive activity on the plaza enshrined in the two clauses of the statute." 

Local and federal laws that prohibit blocking the entrances to buildings, Howell said, are sufficient to protect the government's interest in preserving access and decorum.