off topic chp question

mk4 · Apr 19, 2012

peter nap said:
It wasn't something I paid much attention to, but wasn't that addressed in the GA this year and if so, does the bill go into effect 7/1?

correct, Sir.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+SB563

option to require fingerprints for first-time resident applications was also stricken, effective 7/1.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+HB754
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+SB67

Tess · Apr 19, 2012

Back to the original question -- I hope I'm wrong, but I haven't met anyone in Fairfax County who's received a permit in less than 43 days. I almost get the feeling they mail them on the 42nd or 43rd day to be safe, but certainly not earlier.

Baked on Grease · Apr 19, 2012

I received my CHP about 35 days from application submission. I had to get mine not because I conceal, but because I ride my bicycle on the W&OD trail alot and there's a ten mile stretch where I am well within the 1000 foot rule of schools. One school I am just 3 feet from the property line and maybe 10 yards from the building itself! Haven't had an issue, but then again I don't ride there when school is starting or ending so not much chance for the youngins to even notice.

peter nap · Apr 20, 2012

Baked on Grease said:
I received my CHP about 35 days from application submission. I had to get mine not because I conceal, but because I ride my bicycle on the W&OD trail alot and there's a ten mile stretch where I am well within the 1000 foot rule of schools. One school I am just 3 feet from the property line and maybe 10 yards from the building itself! Haven't had an issue, but then again I don't ride there when school is starting or ending so not much chance for the youngins to even notice.

And that makes you different from every other OC'er in Virginia....HOW?

I'm coming back to the burbs today. I'll pass ten schools that I know of, two will be within ten or fifteen feet of the street.
If you want a CHP just to have one, that's fine by me...... but that excuse isn't.

Citizen · Apr 20, 2012

peter nap said:
And that makes you different from every other OC'er in Virginia....HOW?

I'm coming back to the burbs today. I'll pass ten schools that I know of, two will be within ten or fifteen feet of the street.
If you want a CHP just to have one, that's fine by me...... but that excuse isn't.

Huh!?! The way I read that, he didn't get a CHP to CC. He got a CHP to get cover against the federal school zone law which as I understand it exempts resident CCW holders in the issuing state.

peter nap · Apr 20, 2012

Citizen said:
Huh!?! The way I read that, he didn't get a CHP to CC. He got a CHP to get cover against the federal school zone law which as I understand it exempts resident CCW holders in the issuing state.

That's exactly right!
Everyone passes through a GFZ....everyone.

If he wants to conceal it's his business....actually, if he wants a GFZ shield it's his business but a real poor idea to brag about it.

The GFZ is the Bogyman...Bigfoot, Rattlesnake/Blacksnake hybrids, Government Intelligence.......it is an unenforceable and unenforced law, but it scares people into getting CHP's who fall for it. That just drives us closer to a permit state.

BillB · Apr 20, 2012

peter nap said:
The GFZ is the Bogyman...Bigfoot, Rattlesnake/Blacksnake hybrids, Government Intelligence.......it is an unenforceable and unenforced law, but it scares people into getting CHP's who fall for it. That just drives us closer to a permit state.

I and plenty of others disagree...

From: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/poli...ently-banned-under-federal-law-important.html

"Many people think this law has never been enforced. Unfortunately this is not the case. This revised law has indeed been enforced, below you will find several court cases that you can read.

Update: Here is a February 2012 letter from US Senator Tom Coburn in which he states, "(GFSZA) does result in otherwise law-abiding citizens being arrested when they did not know they were breaking the law.""

Grapeshot · Apr 20, 2012

BillB said:
I and plenty of others disagree...

From: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/poli...ently-banned-under-federal-law-important.html

"Many people think this law has never been enforced. Unfortunately this is not the case. This revised law has indeed been enforced, below you will find several court cases that you can read.

Update: Here is a February 2012 letter from US Senator Tom Coburn in which he states, "(GFSZA) does result in otherwise law-abiding citizens being arrested when they did not know they were breaking the law.""

[strike]I and plenty of[/strike] Few others [strike]dis[/strike]agree...

Have not yet seen a GFSZ violation successfully prosecuted as a primary offense - saw nothing to change that in the cites.

peter nap · Apr 20, 2012

BillB said:
I and plenty of others disagree...

So? That isn't a news flash.

I've never said owning a gun entitled you to a special place in Virginia. It just means you own a gun and share some of the same same beliefs that people like Lori Haas and Goddard have (Who also own guns).

It's also why the word CHiPper is said in the same tone as Doghunter and CHP holder is just mentioned as a normal state for some that want to conceal.

It's also the major reason you can't get enough pro gun power to pass P4P legislation including Concealed Campus Carry.

So disagree all the hell you want but damned if I'm going to stand by while you turn MY state into little Mary Land!

BillB · Apr 20, 2012

Grapeshot said:
[strike]I and plenty of[/strike] Few others [strike]dis[/strike]agree...

Have not yet seen a GFSZ violation successfully prosecuted as a primary offense - saw nothing to change that in the cites.

We could argue what constitutes few vs. plenty of all day. This law is on the books, it's a felony and it has been enforced multiple times.

from: http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10680

"The most interesting of the above cases to me is that of Cassandra Benally. Most of the others were clearly bad guys, and the GFSZA violation was just an add-on charge to put them away for a little longer (which I don't like, but bothers me less), but Benally was target shooting with her sister and a friend (Kelly), when Kelly said he needed to go pick his younger sister up from high school. When they got to the school, another person got upset at Kelly's presence and started making threats with an aluminum baseball bat. Kelly grabbed the gun for reasons that are disputed. Benally grabbed the gun to stop Kelly from using it, apparently not believing that the threats of the guy with the bat would justify deadly force, and to try to prevent the situation from turning deadly. Kelly and Benally struggled over the gun, which Kelly had cocked, and in the struggle the gun went off, shooting Kelly in the wrist. There was a lot of he-said/she-said over this sequence of events.

Anyway, the point is that Benally was clearly not intending to do anything wrong, and I suspect didn't realize that it was a federal crime to have the shotgun next to her in the car when they drove to the school. Then later when the fight appeared imminent, she was actually trying to remove the gun from the fight. Whether that was the right thing to do or not, it's pretty clear that her intentions were reasonably good throughout the sequence of events.

Not that I thought "good intentions" were necessarily a valid criminal defense, but this shows that at least one prosecutor is pretty aggressive about pressing this charge against ordinary people. The judge was at least a little lenient in his sentence -- two months jail (time served) plus a small fine and a couple years of "supervised release", which sounds like probation but with more oversight. But she still ended up with a federal felony conviction."

peter nap · Apr 20, 2012

BillB said:
We could argue what constitutes few vs. plenty of all day. "

No need to argue about that at all. It is what it is.

The referenced case isn't interesting either and is also old news.

There is a world of difference between went by a school on a public road or walkway and Drove TO the school. If you don't consider it a secondary offense to taking your gun into an area clearly forbidden by STATE law, getting into a brawl and getting shot adds to the charge......well:uhoh:

Grapeshot · Apr 20, 2012

BillB said:
We could argue what constitutes few vs. plenty of all day. This law is on the books, it's a felony and it has been enforced multiple times.

from: http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10680

"The most interesting of the above cases to me is that of Cassandra Benally. Most of the others were clearly bad guys, and the GFSZA violation was just an add-on charge to put them away for a little longer (which I don't like, but bothers me less), but Benally was target shooting with her sister and a friend (Kelly), when Kelly said he needed to go pick his younger sister up from high school. When they got to the school, another person got upset at Kelly's presence and started making threats with an aluminum baseball bat. Kelly grabbed the gun for reasons that are disputed. Benally grabbed the gun to stop Kelly from using it, apparently not believing that the threats of the guy with the bat would justify deadly force, and to try to prevent the situation from turning deadly. Kelly and Benally struggled over the gun, which Kelly had cocked, and in the struggle the gun went off, shooting Kelly in the wrist. There was a lot of he-said/she-said over this sequence of events.

Anyway, the point is that Benally was clearly not intending to do anything wrong, and I suspect didn't realize that it was a federal crime to have the shotgun next to her in the car when they drove to the school. Then later when the fight appeared imminent, she was actually trying to remove the gun from the fight. Whether that was the right thing to do or not, it's pretty clear that her intentions were reasonably good throughout the sequence of events.

Not that I thought "good intentions" were necessarily a valid criminal defense, but this shows that at least one prosecutor is pretty aggressive about pressing this charge against ordinary people. The judge was at least a little lenient in his sentence -- two months jail (time served) plus a small fine and a couple years of "supervised release", which sounds like probation but with more oversight. But she still ended up with a federal felony conviction."

It is extremely reasonable to suggest that one (1) conviction with questionable elements out of thousands (millions?) of technical violations does indicate a measurably low probability of such happening today...........or tomorrow.

Doubt I'll lose any sleep over it.

BillB · Apr 20, 2012

Grapeshot said:
It is extremely reasonable to suggest that one (1) conviction with questionable elements out of thousands (millions?) of technical violations does indicate a measurably low probability of such happening today...........or tomorrow.

Doubt I'll lose any sleep over it.

It's also a pretty low probability your house will catch fire, but I'll bet you have insurance for it. A CHP at $10 per year is pretty inexpensive. Given that a violation of this law is a felony, it is not unreasonable to be wary. It's not the probability - it's the stakes!

peter nap · Apr 20, 2012

BillB said:
It's also a pretty low probability your house will catch fire, but I'll bet you have insurance for it. A CHP at $10 per year is pretty inexpensive. Given that a violation of this law is a felony, it is not unreasonable to be wary. It's not the probability - it's the stakes!

And that Bill....is classic PERKS FOR PERMITS.

Grapeshot · Apr 20, 2012

BillB said:
It's also a pretty low probability your house will catch fire, but I'll bet you have insurance for it. A CHP at $10 per year is pretty inexpensive. Given that a violation of this law is a felony, it is not unreasonable to be wary. It's not the probability - it's the stakes!

I have more immediate things requiring my attention.........like changing the litter box, and for that I do not have insurance

BillB · Apr 20, 2012

Too bad you guys don't spend as much effort working on getting this GFSZ repealed and off the books as you do deriding those who state that one reason they want a CHP is to avoid possibly being prosecuted for a violation of this ridiculous law.

peter nap · Apr 20, 2012

BillB said:
Too bad you guys don't spend as much effort working on getting this GFSZ repealed and off the books as you do deriding those who state that one reason they want a CHP is to avoid possibly being prosecuted for a violation of this ridiculous law.

Leave Grapeshot out of that. He spends 20 of the 22 hours a day he's awake, working on every angle of Po Gun legislation. He also has a CHP.

I don't have time to work on things that don't concern me. I don't have a CHP and don't believe in the bogyman.

Grapeshot · Apr 20, 2012

BillB said:
Too bad you guys don't spend as much effort working on getting this GFSZ repealed and off the books as you do deriding those who state that one reason they want a CHP is to avoid possibly being prosecuted for a violation of this ridiculous law.

I beg your pardon! The GFSZA is a federal law with little to no impact in Virginia and you suppose to berate those working actively, everyday, for directing their efforts in more productive directions. Really.

Do something good with your time as opposed to insulting people - take on the GFSZA as your cause celebre - shall we start the clock?

Doogie · Apr 20, 2012

BillB said:
It's also a pretty low probability your house will catch fire, but I'll bet you have insurance for it. A CHP at $10 per year is pretty inexpensive. Given that a violation of this law is a felony, it is not unreasonable to be wary. It's not the probability - it's the stakes!

Hey BillB...I didn't read over your stat's because I couldn't care less kinda like PN...but GS posted you found 1 instance for the GFSZ. Your analogy and the facts seem to contradict your argument.

Your case vs. Nationally 482,000 structure fires (2010 stats) that's one every 65 seconds. In good ole Virginny it's 14,585 structure fires (2011) for 40 a day.

I'm not a math wiz but it looks like the odds are in the fires corner and good reason to have insurance via getting your P4P for some voodoo add on charge. IMHO. To each his own I guess.

http://www.vafire.com/fire_data_sta...Summary By Incident Type 2011 VA 03-08-12.PDF

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.as...esearch/Fire statistics/The U.S. fire problem

BillB · Apr 20, 2012

Grapeshot said:
I beg your pardon! The GFSZA is a federal law with little to no impact in Virginia and you suppose to berate those working actively, everyday, for directing their efforts in more productive directions. Really.

Do something good with your time as opposed to insulting people - take on the GFSZA as your cause celebre - shall we start the clock?

I know it disturbs Peter greatly and perhaps you too, but VA is part of the USA and federal law does apply to VA. Why do you think it's someone else's problem to get a bad federal law fixed? I shouldn't be surprised I guess, the NRA that does focus primarily at federal level does not seem at all popular around here.

off topic chp question

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member