Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Interesting Q&A with Fredericksburg Police Chief David Nye

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Interesting Q&A with Fredericksburg Police Chief David Nye

    The Free Lance-Star has occasional web-based interviews with various people in the area. Today they interviewed Fredericksburg Police Chief David Nye.

    I found some of his answers somewhat troubling, and others that were within the limits of the law.

    Below are the gun-related questions and answers. One was OC-related.

    TFred


    Question: (from MK in 22401) -- Chief, I felt [Spotsylvania's] Sheriff Roger Harris's response was flippant* during the last chat regarding a weapons ban. Do you support a weapons ban?

    Police Chief David Nye's answer: -- What I support is more comprehensive background checks and also some common sense limitations on the size of magazines used in weapons.


    Question: (from AD in Fredericksburg) -- Why are you one of the few Chiefs to not sign off on Class 3 Firearms?

    Police Chief David Nye's answer: -- I cannot speak for other police chiefs about Class 3 firearms, which include “machine guns” and fully automatic weapons such as those used by the military. I am assuming this question refers to an ATF form that has a section on it that reads…I have no information indicating that the transferee will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm or device described in item 4 would place the transferee in violation of State or local law. For the first few years that I was the Chief of Police I did sign these forms after a police records check, but upon further reflection I decided that signing was in fact an endorsement of the individual, most of whom I do not know. I no longer sign these forms for anyone. The form can also be signed by the Sheriff, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, the Superintendent of the State Police or any other person whose certification is acceptable to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.


    Question: (from mh in Spotsylvania) -- Chief, I do a lot of hiking along the Rappahannock river where Fredericksburg owns land holdings. Lately there has been a lot of Bear sightings. Is it permissible to carry a holstered handgun for protection while on these lands? It would be visible non-concealed.

    Police Chief David Nye's answer: -- If you are not prohibited from legally carrying a weapon, yes you may carry a non-concealed holstered handgun on city-owned property along the river.


    Question: (from JC in fburg) -- Chief Nye - The Police Guy: i was wondering your stance on class III weapons license as citizens of the city would require your approval prior to applying to the ATF for the tax stamp. As a chief of police and a leader of the community, i'm curious to know where you stand on these types of firearms.

    Police Chief David Nye's answer: -- See the earlier question regarding my stance on signing off on these applications.


    * I believe I found the question and answer this person was referring to in an earlier interview with Spotsylvania Sheriff Roger Harris. He had many troubling answers, including these that were gun-related:


    Question: (from MS in Fred.) -- Have been reading about various sheriffs across the country who say they will not enforce any federal gun bans in their area. What do you think about that?

    Spotsylvania Sheriff Roger Harris's answer: -- As a constitutional officer, I feel I am obligated to my oath of office to enforce federal and state laws, as well as county ordinances.


    Question: (from TO in fred) -- Do you personally support the gun ban?

    Spotsylvania Sheriff Roger Harris's answer: -- Which gun ban are you referring to?

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Aside from his comments on not signing for Class 3 weapons, these comments are rather troubling;

    "What I support is more comprehensive background checks and also some common sense limitations on the size of magazines used in weapons."

    "As a constitutional officer, I feel I am obligated to my oath of office to enforce federal and state laws, as well as county ordinances.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 02-14-2013 at 05:54 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Aside from his comments on not signing for Class 3 weapons, these comments are rather troubling;

    "What I support is more comprehensive background checks and also some common sense limitations on the size of magazines used in weapons."

    "As a constitutional officer, I feel I am obligated to my oath of office to enforce federal and state laws, as well as county ordinances.
    Yep!
    I think it's time for the residents in that area to take out the trash!

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    SNIP "What I support is more comprehensive background checks and also some common sense limitations on the size of magazines used in weapons."
    (chuckle)

    Anybody wanta take odds on whether Nye prompted or supported the paper publishing the names and addresses of CHP holders?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    should have followed up with "why" on mag limits and then asked "does this include police"?

    But its nice to see a fascist out himself

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    111
    I wonder if he feels he must enforce Federal immigration laws as well.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I believe I found the question and answer this person was referring to in an earlier interview with Spotsylvania Sheriff Roger Harris. He had many troubling answers, including these that were gun-related:


    Question: (from MS in Fred.) -- Have been reading about various sheriffs across the country who say they will not enforce any federal gun bans in their area. What do you think about that?

    Spotsylvania Sheriff Roger Harris's answer: -- As a constitutional officer, I feel I am obligated to my oath of office to enforce federal and state laws, as well as county ordinances.



    Question: (from TO in fred) -- Do you personally support the gun ban?

    Spotsylvania Sheriff Roger Harris's answer: -- Which gun ban are you referring to?
    For those who may be interested in getting a better answer from Sheriff Harris, he will be meeting the public to answer questions at a Coffee House on Thursday, March 21st, from 7 to 9 AM.

    I for one, would like to know how he derives his authority as a VIRGINIA Constitutional officer to enforce Federal laws. And then ask him if he enforces Federal Law, then why doesn't he arrest the hundreds, if not thousands of county residents who carry a gun within 1,000 feet of any school property. Virginia does not issue a license to carry firearms, therefore the exception to the GFSZA does not apply. Every gun carrier within 1,000 feet of a school is a Federal felon.

    TFred

  8. #8
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    For those who may be interested in getting a better answer from Sheriff Harris, he will be meeting the public to answer questions at a Coffee House on Thursday, March 21st, from 7 to 9 AM.

    I for one, would like to know how he derives his authority as a VIRGINIA Constitutional officer to enforce Federal laws. And then ask him if he enforces Federal Law, then why doesn't he arrest the hundreds, if not thousands of county residents who carry a gun within 1,000 feet of any school property. Virginia does not issue a license to carry firearms, therefore the exception to the GFSZA does not apply. Every gun carrier within 1,000 feet of a school is a Federal felon.

    TFred
    It is my understanding that a concealed carry permit for which a background check was conducted suffices for the GFSZA.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    It is my understanding that a concealed carry permit for which a background check was conducted suffices for the GFSZA.
    I'm sure people want that to be true, but if you read the code, that is not what it says.

    Are there any cites to this?

    TFred

    ETA: What this does is make a horrible law just a little bit less horrible, which is still by no means acceptable.
    Last edited by TFred; 03-20-2013 at 07:20 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    For those who may be interested in getting a better answer from Sheriff Harris, he will be meeting the public to answer questions at a Coffee House on Thursday, March 21st, from 7 to 9 AM.

    I for one, would like to know how he derives his authority as a VIRGINIA Constitutional officer to enforce Federal laws. And then ask him if he enforces Federal Law, then why doesn't he arrest the hundreds, if not thousands of county residents who carry a gun within 1,000 feet of any school property. Virginia does not issue a license to carry firearms, therefore the exception to the GFSZA does not apply. Every gun carrier within 1,000 feet of a school is a Federal felon.

    TFred
    The federal law says nothing about a license to carry firearms. What is does say is this (in part);

    " if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license"

    The license is for possession of the firearm, not for carrying it. Obviously, Virginia has no such thing but some states do. This section of Code 18,922 causes so much confusion, no wonder it's rarely used. And there is this. You only have to have been issued this "license", you do not have to have it on your person when carrying your firearm. You've gotta wonder who writes this stuff.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 03-20-2013 at 08:30 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    The federal law says nothing about a license to carry firearms. What is does say is this (in part);

    " if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license"

    The license is for possession of the firearm, not for carrying it. Obviously, Virginia has no such thing but some states do. This section of Code 18,922 causes so much confusion, no wonder it's rarely used. And there is this. You only have to have been issued this "license", you do not have to have it on your person when carrying your firearm. You've gotta wonder who writes this stuff.
    Yes, thanks for correcting me. IMHO, a license to "possess" is even farther removed from our CHP than would be a license to "carry."

    Our only hope to rid ourselves of these ridiculous laws is to shout their absurdity at every opportunity... hence my proposed question to this Sheriff, why isn't he tossing everyone in jail, if he feels it is his duty to enforce Federal law?

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 03-20-2013 at 08:59 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    The good sheriff needs to reeducate himself on the meanings of words and phrases as they apply to the English language.



    Given the situation, "Barrack H. Obama is a candidate for sainthood and a natural person residing in the District of Columbia, United States of America."

    Then answering in the affirmative to the statement, "I have no information indicating that the above named is the antichrist, or pedophile. I have no information that he has committed murder, manslaughter, massacred millions, or is in Violation of State or Local Law."

    STILL would not necessarily be an "endorsement" of Barrack Obama.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    The federal law says nothing about a license to carry firearms. What is does say is this (in part);

    " if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license"

    The license is for possession of the firearm, not for carrying it. Obviously, Virginia has no such thing but some states do. This section of Code 18,922 causes so much confusion, no wonder it's rarely used. And there is this. You only have to have been issued this "license", you do not have to have it on your person when carrying your firearm. You've gotta wonder who writes this stuff.
    One who passes through the 1000' GFZ while carrying a firearm is indeed "possessing" it, as is anyone who carries anywhere. The Virginia version of this "license" only addresses a specific method of carry. The law is silent on other methods of carry. Does that mean that, because the Commonwealth has chosen to not grant a "license" for these other methods, that they are illegal in the GFZ? Must one who has been issued said license carry in that mode when passing through a GFZ?
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    One who passes through the 1000' GFZ while carrying a firearm is indeed "possessing" it, as is anyone who carries anywhere. The Virginia version of this "license" only addresses a specific method of carry. The law is silent on other methods of carry. Does that mean that, because the Commonwealth has chosen to not grant a "license" for these other methods, that they are illegal in the GFZ? Must one who has been issued said license carry in that mode when passing through a GFZ?
    That is my point, as flimsy as it may be. Virginia does not "license" ANY kind of carry. There is no "Virginia version" of a license... A CHP merely exempts the holder from the illegal act of carrying a handgun in a concealed fashion.

    My point is that Virginia does not accommodate the requirements of the GFSZA in any way whatsoever, thus any person who carries any handgun in any manner, with or without a CHP, IMHO, is technically in violation of the act, and is a Federal felon.

    Yes, this is ridiculous. That is my point.

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 03-20-2013 at 12:05 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    One who passes through the 1000' GFZ while carrying a firearm is indeed "possessing" it, as is anyone who carries anywhere. The Virginia version of this "license" only addresses a specific method of carry. The law is silent on other methods of carry. Does that mean that, because the Commonwealth has chosen to not grant a "license" for these other methods, that they are illegal in the GFZ? Must one who has been issued said license carry in that mode when passing through a GFZ?
    Yes, possession means to have on one's person which, of course, carrying a sidearm would fall under having possession of said arm. However, the way in which the federal code is written is a license to posses and to that extent, there is no such thing in Virginia. Some other states do require obtaining a permit or license to purchase a handgun (not completely certain about the possession thing with that). But not in Virginia.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    That is my point, as flimsy as it may be. Virginia does not "license" ANY kind of carry. There is no "Virginia version" of a license... A CHP merely exempts the holder from the illegal act of carrying a handgun in a concealed fashion.

    My point is that Virginia does not accommodate the requirements of the GFSZA in any way whatsoever, thus any person who carries any handgun in any manner, with or without a CHP, IMHO, is technically in violation of the act, and is a Federal felon.

    Yes, this is ridiculous. That is my point.

    TFred
    Yes, this is technically true and would probably be the same in many states. Just proof that whomever writes these codes/laws really doesn't understand the issues and subject matter in question.

    At any rate, if I'm not mistaken this "law" was reversed in, I think, 1995 so wouldn't it now be a moot issue anyway?
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Yes, this is technically true and would probably be the same in many states. Just proof that whomever writes these codes/laws really doesn't understand the issues and subject matter in question.

    At any rate, if I'm not mistaken this "law" was reversed in, I think, 1995 so wouldn't it now be a moot issue anyway?
    No, because as soon as the SCOTUS tossed it out, Congress went back and added the magical words "interstate commerce", which brought it back to life again.

    See the wiki article.

    TFred

  18. #18
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    No, because as soon as the SCOTUS tossed it out, Congress went back and added the magical words "interstate commerce", which brought it back to life again.

    See the wiki article.

    TFred
    Aw yes, that magical phrase which has led congress and presidents to do pretty much anything they want to do under the guise of those two words. So much evil has been wrought through them that you'd have to wonder what they really mean (yep, read the Constitution).
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    While Congress most certainly went back and not only added the statement that the law is implemented in accordance with their delegated authority over interstate commerce, and stated that they believed that guns in and around schools to be a problem that affect interstate commerce, their act did nothing to address the full scope of the majority opinion. Rehnquist states for the majority in US v. Lopez (snip) :

    "The Constitution creates a federal government of enumerated powers and delegates to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Our cases have long upheld federal regulation of a wide variety of commercial activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Gun Free School Zones Act, however, goes further. It neither regulates a commercial activity, nor contains a requirement of the possession of the firearm be connected in any way to interstate commerce. To uphold the act we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority to a general police power of the sort retained by the states. To do so, it would require us to obliterate the distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. So, this is something we are unwilling to do. We hold that Congress in enacting the Gun Free School Zones Act exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause."

    The majority opinion not only establishes that the GFSZA does nothing to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause (1), but to establish that guns in schools has an affect upon interstate commerce one would have to pile mere inference upon inference to even come to the conclusion that just the presence of guns near or in a school has an effect upon interstate commerce (2). To top it off the court states the GFSZA attempts to take on police powers that are not an enumerated power to Congress, but one left to the states (3) and the court would NOT obliterate that distinction.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 03-21-2013 at 12:16 PM. Reason: To add "NOT" prior to obliterate.

  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    While Congress most certainly went back and not only added the statement that the law is implemented in accordance with their delegated authority over interstate commerce, and stated that they believed that guns in and around schools to be a problem that affect interstate commerce, their act did nothing to address the full scope of the majority opinion. Rehnquist states for the majority in US v. Lopez (snip) :

    "The Constitution creates a federal government of enumerated powers and delegates to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Our cases have long upheld federal regulation of a wide variety of commercial activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Gun Free School Zones Act, however, goes further. It neither regulates a commercial activity, nor contains a requirement of the possession of the firearm be connected in any way to interstate commerce. To uphold the act we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority to a general police power of the sort retained by the states. To do so, it would require us to obliterate the distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. So, this is something we are unwilling to do. We hold that Congress in enacting the Gun Free School Zones Act exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause."

    The majority opinion not only establishes that the GFSZA does nothing to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause (1), but to establish that guns in schools has an affect upon interstate commerce one would have to pile mere inference upon inference to even come to the conclusion that just the presence of guns near or in a school has an effect upon interstate commerce (2). To top it off the court states the GFSZA attempts to take on police powers that are not an enumerated power to Congress, but one left to the states (3) and the court would obliterate that distinction.
    And yet the Wiki article lists 9 cases since 1996 that have been upheld. I didn't look through them, maybe they are all bad cases from our perspective. But it would certainly seem that the lower courts aren't paying much attention to Rehnquist's opinion.

    I guess I need to take some time to look through the nine cases.

    TFred

    The links from Wiki:


  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    The couple I saw completely ignored the opinion and instead focused on the dissents to try to establish that other criminal behavior committed by the criminal in possession of a firearm was somehow equivalent with the mere presence of a firearm in the vicinity of a school AND that it somehow affected interstate commerce.

    I'd have to go through them to see, but I doubt any of them even address that the GFSZA attempts to take on police powers that are only authorized to the states and are not part of the delegated authorities to Congress.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 03-20-2013 at 06:21 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I'm sure people want that to be true, but if you read the code, that is not what it says.

    Are there any cites to this?

    TFred

    ETA: What this does is make a horrible law just a little bit less horrible, which is still by no means acceptable.
    A Virginia concealed carry permit is a permit for a very specific type of possession (e.g., on one's person, in a concealed fashion, in public). Therefore, a Virginia concealed carry permit is a possession permit.

  23. #23
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    That is my point, as flimsy as it may be. Virginia does not "license" ANY kind of carry. There is no "Virginia version" of a license... A CHP merely exempts the holder from the illegal act of carrying a handgun in a concealed fashion.
    Exempting the holder from the illegal act of carrying a handgun in a concealed fashion is indeed licensing that individual to possess a handgun in a specific way.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    101

    Interesting Q&A with Fredericksburg Police Chief David Nye

    [QUOTE=SouthernBoy;1897973]Aside from his comments on not signing for Class 3 weapons, these comments are rather troubling;

    Sorry to interrupt guys and gals. I read the interview and I agree with most of the posts here. Yet I have issue with the chief not wanting to sign Class 3 paperwork because he seems his signature as an endorsement of the individuals character. I may be wrong but this to me constitutes a denial of due process. He doesn't have to do anything other than run the background and sign it based on that alone, much like he may do for a carry permit, if that applies. (I'm in CT)

    I may be off base and I apologize if I am.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams

    "Here sir, the people govern." -- Alexander Hamilton (speech in the New York ratifying convention, 17 June 1788) Reference: The Debates of the Several State..., Elliot, vol. 2 (348)

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

  25. #25
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Exempting the holder from the illegal act of carrying a handgun in a concealed fashion is indeed licensing that individual to possess a handgun in a specific way.
    I don't agree. It's Apples and Oranges. The CHP simply means that the prohibition against concealing does not apply to you. It has nothing to do with your ability to transfer a handgun into your possession, or with the legal status of maintaining that possession. Try producing your CHP at your local gun store, and see how far that gets you.

    TFred

    ETA: Here's an analogy: Think of those Handicapped Placards they give you to hang on your mirror. Those are like a CHP in that they exempt you from the general law that says you may not park in a handicapped parking space. That sign has nothing to do with whether or not you are allowed to drive the car.
    Last edited by TFred; 03-21-2013 at 11:08 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •