Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: This isn't a trick question

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    This isn't a trick question

    In preparing for the coming melee

    How does one determine if someone is able to lawfully possess a firearm?

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    In preparing for the coming melee

    How does one determine if someone is able to lawfully possess a firearm?
    I would suppose there is more than one answer to that question.

    In a FTF transfer, I believe you check the facts you can, residence, age.

    The more rigorous answer is beyond the ability of an ordinary citizen, since one would have to methodically run down the list of disqualifiers, and rule them out one by one. This requires access to information that is not available to the public.

    TFred

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Well DUH !!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    In preparing for the coming melee

    How does one determine if someone is able to lawfully possess a firearm?
    Just ask them. We ALL know criminals would never lie, right?

    The Liberal gun control wackos seem to think the criminals obey the law, and they are never wrong. Just ask them.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    In preparing for the coming melee

    How does one determine if someone is able to lawfully possess a firearm?
    If they are a freeman then why not? Of course they can own & possess arms...

    People who cannot own know this (people with mental issues for example, and all democrats of course)...

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If they are a freeman then why not? Of course they can own & possess arms...

    People who cannot own know this (people with mental issues for example, and all democrats of course)...
    I guess I'm the only one who took the question seriously, at the request of the poster...

    From what I understand, a good percentage of denials from background checks are due to issues that the purchaser did NOT know about. I have no cite for that, other than old memories of prior reading. As many facets as there are to the current laws, this would not be a surprise to me at all.

    People can't even keep their credit history straight... criminal records are even harder.

    TFred

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    I think a better question is what happens if you sell to a person who is lot eligible? I don't mean obvious like selling a saw to a 7 year old kid at the playground.

    I mean like you meet a guy on gun broker and meet ftf if your state allows it. He appears to be legite. One step better he has a license in your state. Well unbeknownst to you said license is fake or better revoked because he's out out parole for murder or just released from an asylum. Would you be held accountable? It depends on the state I guess. I honestly don't know but I'd hope there's some leeway in favor of the citizen doing a legal good faith exchange.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    I suspect that if you can demonstrate that you took reasonable precautions (documentation of one kind or another) then a jury would not convict. I would like to think that it would not get that far, but ya never know these days. The cops are pretty good about filtering out BS from the chaff. But, the prohibited person, being a prohibited person, could lie his azz off and your job would be much more difficult.

    Remember, the cops in the GZ case had it right from the get go and they got dumped on for being unreasonable.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Well....This one gets my bad bill stamp

    Way too much room for abuse and it was introduced by Delegate Hart who calls for the same "Screen everyone" bill every year. One year he wants to ban all guns, now allow all guns by people who can lawfully own them, but screen everyone.

    A version of this bill is where Delegate Gilbert made his "This is the peoples house" speech..

    HB 102 State legislative buildings; prohibits possession of weapons in buildings except by certain persons.
    Patrick A. Hope | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles

    Summary as introduced:
    Possession of weapons in state legislative buildings. Prohibits the possession of weapons in legislative buildings except by any person who lawfully possesses a handgun. The provisions of the bill that require screening of persons entering such building would not apply to General Assembly members or staff or to any law-enforcement officer.
    Full text:
    12/13/13 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14103050D pdf

    Status:
    12/13/13 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14103050D
    12/13/13 House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety

    <em><strong><font color="#000000"><span style="font-family: Tahoma">
    Last edited by peter nap; 12-20-2013 at 04:39 PM.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,629
    Does the question pertain to a transfer or to a person w/o a CHP wanting to enter the GAB armed?

    Somewhat different circumstances.



    Edited - see that it is as I thought, a question of who shall be allowed to carry in the GAB.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-20-2013 at 04:48 PM. Reason: added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Does the question pertain to a transfer or to a person w/o a CHP wanting to enter the GAB armed?

    Somewhat different circumstances.



    Edited - see that it is as I thought, a question of who shall be allowed to carr6y in the GAB.
    Yep!

    This will be looked at as a victory by some on both sides if it passes.
    As I read it, the Capital Police have carte blanche in deciding on how to make the determination.

    And it also requires everyone to be screened....which I'm not doing. I like walking past the metal detectors.
    On Lobby day, I'll stay outside for that very reason.
    Give them a vague law and they will abuse it.
    Last edited by peter nap; 12-20-2013 at 04:56 PM.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    If I read the question correctly, it could be rephrased as:

    What limits might there be on the police detaining you and running your firearm's serial number, or worse yet seizing it until you bring in proof of legal possession? And what proofs would be necessary to establish legal possession of the firearm(s) in question.

    Last night I was thinking that the bill might actually be "good" because it removes the CHP requirement for carry in the GAB, seems to allow the press and lobbyists to be armed, and might also eliminate the Senate's rule against carrying in their chamber at all. Mulling it over, peeking under the edges, and considering just how someone could take an innocuous thing and turn it into Really BadTM, I realized that the slippery slope might be that way because of all the snot from the camel's nose.

    Most of te time They tell us not to ascribe to willful meanness what can be explained by sheer stupitity or ignorance. In this case I do not think anybody was stupid or ignorant in wording the bill the way it is worded.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    If I read the question correctly, it could be rephrased as:

    What limits might there be on the police detaining you and running your firearm's serial number, or worse yet seizing it until you bring in proof of legal possession? And what proofs would be necessary to establish legal possession of the firearm(s) in question.

    Last night I was thinking that the bill might actually be "good" because it removes the CHP requirement for carry in the GAB, seems to allow the press and lobbyists to be armed, and might also eliminate the Senate's rule against carrying in their chamber at all. Mulling it over, peeking under the edges, and considering just how someone could take an innocuous thing and turn it into Really BadTM, I realized that the slippery slope might be that way because of all the snot from the camel's nose.

    Most of te time They tell us not to ascribe to willful meanness what can be explained by sheer stupitity or ignorance. In this case I do not think anybody was stupid or ignorant in wording the bill the way it is worded.

    stay safe.
    The question was a little broad

    On first glance it was a "Whoopee" bill, then the details started appearing. The Capital Police could develope a screening method.

    Then I saw the Patrons.

    If Saslaw introduced a pro gun bill no one would assume it was good.

    Hart is just a whiny version of Saslaw.

    He consults with the Chief every year in an effort to plug up those nasty security holes left open in "The Peoples House".

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Here's the problem I see with that bill: it creates RAS to detain and investigate every carrier entering the building.

    And, arguably, it puts the onus on the carrier to prove he is legal to possess/not prohibited. Of course, if he can't, then the police/guards would be "justified" in denying entry while carrying.

    I think this is just a very sly way to set up carriers for trouble. Its not an outright ban--that would be howled against. But, far fewer would recognize the RAS angle. This bill turns every carrier into a criminal suspect. Somebody has been talking to cops or a criminal defense attorney.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-21-2013 at 01:00 AM.
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    This law would seem to shift the burden of proof from the state - that you cannot carry, to you - that you can.

    A. With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.

    "No weapons" is the "norm". Any exception would seem likely to require proof, which is what? Are they going to do an "instant" background check on you every time you walk in the door? One time, then add your name to a list?

    On the other hand, current situation requires one to present a CHP. That would certainly suffice as proof, but could be problematic if they "run it" each time you walk in to ensure it's still valid.

    TFred

  15. #15
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    This law would seem to shift the burden of proof from the state - that you cannot carry, to you - that you can.
    That occurred to me as well. Would they need RAS that I'm ineligible to posses in order to screen me?

    However, I agree that this bill smells funny. Good bills should be obviously and plainly good.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DrMark View Post
    That occurred to me as well. Would they need RAS that I'm ineligible to posses in order to screen me?

    However, I agree that this bill smells funny. Good bills should be obviously and plainly good.
    Read section B. Any person entering will be screened except staff,etc.
    The method of screening shall be determined by the cops....who can set different methods of screening for different people.


    HOUSE BILL NO. 102Offered January 8, 2014Prefiled December 13, 2013A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2, relating to possession of weapons in legislative buildings. ----------Patrons-- Hope and Simon----------Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety----------Be it enacted by General Assembly of Virginia:
    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2 as follows:
    18.2-283.2. Possession of weapons in legislative buildings.
    A. With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.
    B. Any person who enters the Capitol of Virginia or any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly shall be required to go through screening conducted by the Capitol Police or an agent of the Capitol Police. The method of screening shall be determined by the Capitol Police. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly, to the staff of the General Assembly, or to any law-enforcement officer.



  17. #17
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Read section B. Any person entering will be screened except staff,etc.
    The method of screening shall be determined by the cops....who can set different methods of screening for different people.


    HOUSE BILL NO. 102Offered January 8, 2014Prefiled December 13, 2013A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2, relating to possession of weapons in legislative buildings. ----------Patrons-- Hope and Simon----------Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety----------Be it enacted by General Assembly of Virginia:
    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2 as follows:
    18.2-283.2. Possession of weapons in legislative buildings.
    A. With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.
    B. Any person who enters the Capitol of Virginia or any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly shall be required to go through screening conducted by the Capitol Police or an agent of the Capitol Police. The method of screening shall be determined by the Capitol Police. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly, to the staff of the General Assembly, or to any law-enforcement officer.


    It seems to me that in order to know whether to vote for or against this bill, a legislator should know in advance what the "method of screening" will be. If it passes in this form, then we are subject to any "screening method" that the Capitol Police deem appropriate. I would lobby AGAINST this bill unless it is amended to specify the "method of screening" or, at least, include limitations on what the Capitol Police can impose.
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  18. #18
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Read section B. Any person entering will be screened except staff,etc.
    Overlooked that... thanks.

    Like I said, smells funny to me... like that smell that makes you look at the date stamped on the milk jug.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,629
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    It seems to me that in order to know whether to vote for or against this bill, a legislator should know in advance what the "method of screening" will be. If it passes in this form, then we are subject to any "screening method" that the Capitol Police deem appropriate. I would lobby AGAINST this bill unless it is amended to specify the "method of screening" or, at least, include limitations on what the Capitol Police can impose.
    No method of screening - it is the PEOPLE'S HOUSE.

    What problem has there been that even prompts this? It's more a way to penalize the honest people of the Commonwealth.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    No method of screening - it is the PEOPLE'S HOUSE.

    What problem has there been that even prompts this? It's more a way to penalize the honest people of the Commonwealth.
    I agree with you, Grape ... no change to the current law would be preferable. (I don't think we're going to be successful in getting the CHP "permission slip" requirement rescinded.)

    My point was that if this bill seems to be gaining traction that we should get someone on the committee to propose an amendment that specifies what the screening should be. The proposer of the bill would like to have the GAB install lockers, like a courthouse, where everyone would have to check their firearms upon entering. That's why I'm suggesting that if we can't amass support for defeating this bill, we at least try to mitigate the screening possibilities. If it passes in its present form, we are at the mercy of the Capitol Police who will decide on the screening method.
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,629
    We still have the House and probably the Senate - with due diligence I think we can stop any bad bills. Just don't expect to get any pro bills signed by the new Gov - so the only hope there is to maybe see a veto proof majority on a few.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Do all y'all want Section B "corrected" to have it state specifically that the screening is to detect the presence of metal objects that may be guns, which seems the most logical explanation of what the drafter was trying to say?

    Would that really make the bill any better?

    I'm still hung up on how the Capitol Police are going to determine who is lawfully possessing a handgun and who is not. With all the attendant flaws the current procedure reduces the capitol Police to one objective measure. For ease of moving large numbers of people through a checkpoint nothing beats governmental permission slips. I happen to agree with the loudest opponent of that process that there should be "something else" but I'm darned if I can figure out what it might be that does not involve submitting to governmental pre-approval. Perhaps the collective hive experience can figure it out?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  23. #23
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Do all y'all want Section B "corrected" to have it state specifically that the screening is to detect the presence of metal objects that may be guns, which seems the most logical explanation of what the drafter was trying to say?

    Would that really make the bill any better?

    I'm still hung up on how the Capitol Police are going to determine who is lawfully possessing a handgun and who is not. With all the attendant flaws the current procedure reduces the capitol Police to one objective measure. For ease of moving large numbers of people through a checkpoint nothing beats governmental permission slips. I happen to agree with the loudest opponent of that process that there should be "something else" but I'm darned if I can figure out what it might be that does not involve submitting to governmental pre-approval. Perhaps the collective hive experience can figure it out?

    stay safe.
    I agree with you, Skid. The sub-rosa intent of this bill is to prevent ANYone from carrying into the GAB, The People's House. The bill's proponent as much as said so when he proposed courthouse-type lockers where carriers would have to give up their firearms upon entering. It seems like the bill's proponent has no clue how many hundreds of lockers would be needed on Lobby Day...

    OTOH, The screening process seems completely unnecessary. LACs with CHPs (Sorry, Peter), have ALREADY been screened and found to be legal possessors of handguns, so that "permission slip" provision should not be abrogated. For LACs who do not have a CHP the question remains open regarding what the Capitol Police will impose as their screening process. That's why I believe the bill, if it's not killed outright in Committee, must be amended to include specifics on what the Capitol Police will create as a screening process. Otherwise, the legislators will vote blindly and give the Capitol Police carte blanche in creating onerous procedures ... which, I believe, is the intent of the bill.
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    OTOH, The screening process seems completely unnecessary. LACs with CHPs (Sorry, Peter), have ALREADY been screened and found to be legal possessors of handguns, so that "permission slip" provision should not be abrogated.
    No need to be sorry James, if I'm anything, its a realist. That exists and isn't going to get changed in the next 4 years.

    Fortunately, I'm not one of those people that feels defenseless without my gun. Annoyed ...but not defenseless and as it is now, I can bypass screening completely while CHP's can't. I accept that as an equitable trade off for the time being.

    This bill would change it for everyone though and the "Peoples House" would be no more.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,629
    No matter how you brush its coat, this dog has fleas n' ticks n' mange and somebody wants to make it house pet? I don't think so!
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-22-2013 at 06:14 PM. Reason: fixed
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

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