ID for CHP application?

I believe we tossed this around at some point recently, but the subject is too generic for the search engine to narrow down for me.

In anticipation of SB563 soon becoming law, did we ever figure out if the code requires one to present a photo-ID, such as a driver's license, in order to complete the application for a CHP?

The only thing I saw that could argue for this is that the application must be signed by a witness, such as a Notary Public. I know that most Notaries who don't know you will require ID before they sign their part, but that's different than being forced to make a copy of your DL or other ID to submit with the application. That is the part I'm curious about.

To be honest, I don't see much need for a photo ID to apply. Any information regarding the name on the application is going to come back good or bad, whether the person who handed in the paper was who they said they were, or not!

BTW, I do recall we had previously discussed the "5 prior addresses" issue. That is called out for explicitly on the application form, which apparently is within the discretion of the Virginia State Police:

3. RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS (ATTACH A SEPARATE LISTING OF ALL ADDRESSES WITHIN THE LAST 5 YEAR PERIOD)

Click to expand...

TFred

The 5 years of address history came up yesterday.

An aquaintence was telling me he had gone for his permit in Richmond. First he had to go back and drop off his cell phone (courthouse). Then he needed the addresses (back to car to use phone). Then back in again with the data. I have a suspicion I could make a Constitional Carry advocate out of him very easily.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

It used to be that your oath on the application swearing that you lived where you said that you did, was enough.

Then Fairfax (IIRC) won some appeals decision saying that they could ask for documentation.....its all been down hill from there.

ProShooter said:

It used to be that your oath on the application swearing that you lived where you said that you did, was enough.

Then Fairfax (IIRC) won some appeals decision saying that they could ask for documentation.....its all been down hill from there.

Click to expand...

If it's not on the application, or specifically listed in the code, once SB563 goes into effect, it should be up-hill again.

TFred

ProShooter said:

It used to be that your oath on the application swearing that you lived where you said that you did, was enough.

Then Fairfax (IIRC) won some appeals decision saying that they could ask for documentation.....its all been down hill from there.

Click to expand...

Fairfax again:banghead:

it is all good. I mean this isn't about rights. This is all about how hard the man makes getting a priveledge card.

TFred said:

The only thing I saw that could argue for this is that the application must be signed by a witness, such as a Notary Public. I know that most Notaries who don't know you will require ID before they sign their part, but that's different than being forced to make a copy of your DL or other ID to submit with the application. That is the part I'm curious about.

Click to expand...

Actually under Virginia law a notary doesn't have to have ANY identification from the person whose documents are being notarized. In Virginia you can simply bring along any "Creditable Individual" who swears an oath that they know you to be the person that you claim to be. As for the individual itself, absent the "creditable individual" method the requirements is to be "personally known" by the notary or to present "satisfactory evidence of identity" and there is no actual requirement for a state issued photo I.D. And the requirement for "personally know" is not even specifically defined (it is a very general "time sufficient" to be certain of their identity.

I was a notary for years and years (let it lapse awhile back) and have done hundreds of documents without a DL or such. A government issued photo I.D. simplifies the process, I admit, but I've seen quite a few creative ways to satisfactorily verify a person's identification to meet the requirements of Code related to notarization.

That's all specified in the Notary Handbook at Section 47.1-2:
http://www.commonwealth.virginia.gov/Notary/2009NotaryHandbook.pdf

Thundar said:

it is all good. I mean this isn't about rights. This is all about how hard the man makes getting a priveledge card.

Click to expand...

I would respectfully steer you in a different direction. This is about the rule of law, and whether or not our local governments are bound to follow it just as we mere citizens are. When the superior law, the Code of Virginia, in this case, clearly grants limited authority, and our local governments blatantly ignore that authority, and claim their own, we all lose some of our rights.

That's why it's so important to hold our local governments to only that which they are authorized in matters like these and all others.

TFred

As for the "copying your DL" thing - I was asked to hands over my DL when I was most recently at the Chesterfield Ckerk's office to renew. Being as socially appropriate as I could be, I stated that surrendering my DL for copying was not in the law and therefore I declined to do so.

Since I merely stated that, as opposed to pointing it out, my paerwork was accepted without further ado and processed, and 22 days later I received my CHP in the envelope they provided, had asked me to write my name/address on, and used their postage machine to pay for sending to me.

I called the Clerk and discussed the matter with her. She said she would "look into it". I also sent the info to VCDL who inmdicated they would also "look into it". Since I got my CHP without fuss I consider the matter closed.

stay safe.

Follow-up

I knew when I started this thread that there was some reason this issue was stuck in the back of my mind.

From reading posts by User, we have learned that Virginia is a "weak legislative intent" state (as apparently are most), which means that judges are not allowed to look at how a law came into being (debates, amendments, amendments rejected, etc.), just that it is there in its final form.

[This looks to be the first page of an interesting article on the matter by Stephen Breyer, written at the time he was Chief Judge for the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, October 1991.] I'm too cheap to buy the on-line access, but it would probably be quite interesting.

Perhaps the best example of "legislative intent" in recent days is the "secured container" provision added to the list of exemptions in 18.2-308, the Concealed Handgun law. This new exemption from the general prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun reads:

"10. Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel and such handgun is secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel."

Those who have been around a couple years will recall that the General Assembly, after some debate between the two houses, sent the Governor the bill with the phrase, locked in a container or compartment. The Governor returned the bill with locked replaced by secured, which was adopted, then finally signed into the law we have today.

So... "we" know from this that the true intent of the General Assembly and the Governor was for this word to be secured, and specifically, not locked.

But a judge is not allowed to consider all of that information, and must instead simply rely on whatever definition of secured they can come up with at the time they are considering the case at hand.


Now... having said all that, I will bring this back around to the topic at hand, ID requirements for CHP applications. Fortunately, we the citizens are not bound by "weak legislative intent" when we do our own thinking. We can consider what happens in the legislative process in our efforts to make conclusions.

During this past session, during the floor debate for "HB 754: Concealed handgun permit applications; removes option for locality to require fingerprints," our good pal Delegate Morrissey tried to introduce an amendment on the floor which added this to the requirements for submitting an application for a CHP:

"The application must be presented in person with a valid photo identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the United States Department of Defense."

As you can see from the History of the bill, during the floor session on 2/7/2012, the amendment was rejected.

I say all that to finally conclude: If there was currently a lawful requirement to submit a valid photo ID along with the application for a CHP, then Delegate Morrissey would not have tried (unsuccessfully) to submit an amendment to do just that.

Therefore, I can confidently support the opinion that any request or requirement by any locality to provide a photo ID in conjunction with the CHP application is not a part of the lawfully allowed process.

TFred

Of course, I am not a lawyer, I could be completely wrong.

Here is something along that topic just a little different.

18.2-308, the Concealed Handgun law "5. Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or current military service or proof of an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services"

Those of us being military may most likely view this as our military ID. Which in VB does count for showing current military service, as I would assume it would everywhere else in VB. Well when applying for my CHP I was under the assumption that it would only be required for me to show my ID come to find out they required to have a photo copy of the ID. So, unknowing of the laws, I complied. My fault I know. Anyways after doing some researching I found this...

Title 18 US Code Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 701
"Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/701

So given that information it sound like they are violating Federal Law by requiring the photo copying of Military ID's. If it is required in order for military to apply for the CHP without having to complete a course how are we supposed to apply?

MagiK_SacK said:

Here is something along that topic just a little different.

18.2-308, the Concealed Handgun law "5. Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or current military service or proof of an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services"

Those of us being military may most likely view this as our military ID. Which in VB does count for showing current military service, as I would assume it would everywhere else in VB. Well when applying for my CHP I was under the assumption that it would only be required for me to show my ID come to find out they required to have a photo copy of the ID. So, unknowing of the laws, I complied. My fault I know. Anyways after doing some researching I found this...

Title 18 US Code Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 701
"Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/701

So given that information it sound like they are violating Federal Law by requiring the photo copying of Military ID's. If it is required in order for military to apply for the CHP without having to complete a course how are we supposed to apply?

Click to expand...

Very interesting observation. After carefully reading the pertinent section of 18.2-308, it appears to me that the person who accepts the application will need to inspect the ID, and make note that it is valid for the person who reviews the application. The possible problem is that the judge who will sign the CHP may want to see it for him/herself. But the code clearly does not say that they may photocopy the ID, only that it must be "presented." This is confirmed by the fact that at the end, there is a list of which credentials may be photocopied (eta: and military ID is not on that list!)

See below, my emphasis added.

TFred



G. The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun and the applicant may demonstrate such competence by one of the following, but no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence, nor shall any proof of demonstrated competence expire:

1. Completing any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or a similar agency of another state;

2. Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;

3. Completing any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law-enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Criminal Justice Services;

4. Completing any law-enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;

5. Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or current military service or proof of an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services;

6. Obtaining or previously having held a license to carry a firearm in the Commonwealth or a locality thereof, unless such license has been revoked for cause;

7. Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;

8. Completing any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualifying to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties; or

9. Completing any other firearms training which the court deems adequate.

A photocopy of a certificate of completion of any of the courses or classes; an affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization, or group that conducted or taught such course or class attesting to the completion of the course or class by the applicant; or a copy of any document which shows completion of the course or class or evidences participation in firearms competition shall constitute evidence of qualification under this subsection.

Bingo! On my application for the initial CHP I brought my original DD-214 and asked, while I was there, for them to make certoified copies for me, which they did for a small fee. The DD-214 was not copied and entered into the file along with the other paperwork, nor was a copy made of my government-issued ID document. THe clerk taking the paperwork just initialed along the margin indicating that the documents had been presented. (Yes, I asked why they were initialing the application form.)

Since then I have renewed my CHP twice and never had to re-produce the DD-214, and have not allowed my government-issued ID document to be copied. As mentioned, at the most recent instance there was a written notification presented of a desire to copy my ID (no citation as to law requiring that to take place), my polite demurrer to comply, and the issuance of the CHP in under the time limit.

While I do not know if the Clerk has withdrawn the written notice from the application packet they make available, it appears that merely saying that I did not want to have my DL copied, as opposed to pointing out it was not required by law, was sufficient. I'm sure my attorney feels better about that, too.

stay safe.

Funny thing about DD-214s is that at one point in time upon discharge military were advised to register their DD-214 with their local court house (or clerk of the court). That was related to being able to later prove eligibility for veteran's benefits. What's "funny" is that in doing so, at least today, that actually then almost certainly makes your DD-214 a public record....that anyone can see. Including your service ID (which for probably about all of us vets still around today is the same as your SSN). They no longer recommend trying to file one, and even having the "certify" it could lead to them making a copy (you pretty much need to ensure that they don't as a matter of practice). Getting one "certified" these days I suspect provides no benefit that cannot be obtained by simply getting copies notarized. So my DD-214s are on my own "list" of things that nobody gets a copy of. They can see it, to verify something, but that's it. That was one of the benefits of having taken the gun safety course and providing a copy of that when I applied for my CHP instead of my DD-214. At that time in VA BH the court clerk's office told me that if I used my DD-214 (which documented marksmanship awards) that they would be required to make a copy of that. That was several years ago in VA BH though and haven't heard anything to say whether they still tell folks that or not.

drdan01 said:

Funny thing about DD-214s is that at one point in time upon discharge military were advised to register their DD-214 with their local court house (or clerk of the court). That was related to being able to later prove eligibility for veteran's benefits. What's "funny" is that in doing so, at least today, that actually then almost certainly makes your DD-214 a public record....that anyone can see. Including your service ID (which for probably about all of us vets still around today is the same as your SSN). They no longer recommend trying to file one, and even having the "certify" it could lead to them making a copy (you pretty much need to ensure that they don't as a matter of practice). Getting one "certified" these days I suspect provides no benefit that cannot be obtained by simply getting copies notarized. So my DD-214s are on my own "list" of things that nobody gets a copy of. They can see it, to verify something, but that's it. That was one of the benefits of having taken the gun safety course and providing a copy of that when I applied for my CHP instead of my DD-214. At that time in VA BH the court clerk's office told me that if I used my DD-214 (which documented marksmanship awards) that they would be required to make a copy of that. That was several years ago in VA BH though and haven't heard anything to say whether they still tell folks that or not.

Click to expand...

Yea I don't know about DD-214 but what I do know is that they required to have a copy of my ID in order to apply for my Privilege Card.

ProShooter said:

It used to be that your oath on the application swearing that you lived where you said that you did, was enough.

Then Fairfax (IIRC) won some appeals decision saying that they could ask for documentation.....its all been down hill from there.

Click to expand...

I don't believe there was an appeal. My understanding is that the judge is requiring it from a judicial standpoint. That is to say, the judge wants to ensure that he has jurisdiction over the applicant. I'm not saavy enough on these things to make an intelligent pronouncement, but it seems to me the judge is arguably in the right. Judges aren't allowed to operate outside their jurisdiction. Every federal appeals brief I've ever read includes early a clear statement that the particular court to whom the brief is addressed has jurisdiction over the matter.

I'm half thinking this isn't a matter of whether the judge is operating outside the statute as much as it might be a matter of a statute not recognizing the judge's obligation. That is to say, it might be a separation of powers issue, as much as anything. Or maybe a situation that the statute did not relieve the judge of a responsibility to ensure proper jurisdiction, for example, say there is an earlier statute or constitutional requirement limiting judges to their own jurisdiction and the CHP statute does not expressly relieve that responsibility for CHP applications.

Hard to say. But, I'm mildly curious.

Citizen said:

I don't believe there was an appeal. My understanding is that the judge is requiring it from a judicial standpoint. That is to say, the judge wants to ensure that he has jurisdiction over the applicant. I'm not saavy enough on these things to make an intelligent pronouncement, but it seems to me the judge is arguably in the right. Judges aren't allowed to operate outside their jurisdiction. Every federal appeals brief I've ever read includes early a clear statement that the particular court to whom the brief is addressed has jurisdiction over the matter.

I'm half thinking this isn't a matter of whether the judge is operating outside the statute as much as it might be a matter of a statute not recognizing the judge's obligation. That is to say, it might be a separation of powers issue, as much as anything. Or maybe a situation that the statute did not relieve the judge of a responsibility to ensure proper jurisdiction, for example, say there is an earlier statute or constitutional requirement limiting judges to their own jurisdiction and the CHP statute does not expressly relieve that responsibility for CHP applications.

Hard to say. But, I'm mildly curious.

Click to expand...

I don't buy it. Not your story, but the excuse, if that is one they would use.

If a person is "on the grid", and you provide your current address, there will be corroboration for it. Any court should know if a particular address is in their jurisdiction. Only in the rarest of circumstances, such as literally moving into a new location at virtually the same time as applying for a CHP, would that seem to not be true.

TFred

TFred said:

I don't buy it. Not your story, but the excuse, if that is one they would use.

If a person is "on the grid", and you provide your current address, there will be corroboration for it. Any court should know if a particular address is in their jurisdiction. Only in the rarest of circumstances, such as literally moving into a new location at virtually the same time as applying for a CHP, would that seem to not be true.

TFred

Click to expand...

OK. Lets say.

We're now going to make a judge or his clerk research for corroboration? Hike over to the land records office? Call the power company? Call Cox and Verizon? Call the landlord of the rental property?

You might be right. I have no idea. But I don't think for that reason.

Citizen said:

OK. Lets say.

We're now going to make a judge or his clerk research for corroboration? Hike over to the land records office? Call the power company? Call Cox and Verizon? Call the landlord of the rental property?

You might be right. I have no idea. But I don't think for that reason.

Click to expand...

I would have assumed that corroborate is most of what they do for a local background check. This is why we still leave this in the hands of the local court, and not to a state-wide authority, so we are assured...

TFred

TFred said:

I would have assumed that corroborate is most of what they do for a local background check. This is why we still leave this in the hands of the local court, and not to a state-wide authority, so we are assured...

TFred

Click to expand...

Do you mean that without an actual copy of my ID document (instead of only the address that's on the application form) the cops cannot find me?

And here I thought Google was all-powerful. Well, that and the criminal index to see if the name used is or is not in there.

And if judges are so concerned about assuring they have jurisdiction why are they not demanding copies of the ID document for everything else that passes across their desk?

stay safe.