-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
HB639: Con Carry?
- Thread starter Repeater
- Start date
TFred
Regular Member
Here's the full text, in context:
Interesting that the way they wrote it does not make sense grammatically. "shall not apply to: for the sole purpose of ..." All the other paragraphs actually make sense if read together as a sentence, such as:
The only problem I see with such an idea is what if one is disqualified, but does not know it? I suppose it is a step in the right direction. As I noted in a post a while back, there really are not very many differences between qualified to possess and qualified to carry concealed.
TFred
P.S. I noticed that it was introduced by Jeffrey Campbell, who was just elected for the first time this past November. Very good and quite encouraging to see such a pro-gun bill from a Freshman Delegate!
C. Except as provided in subsection A of § 18.2-308.012 [you cannot carry if you are intoxicated with alcohol or other drug - TFred], this section shall not apply to:
12. For the sole purpose of carrying a concealed handgun, any resident of the Commonwealth who carries a concealed handgun anywhere he may lawfully carry a handgun openly within the Commonwealth and who is otherwise qualified under this article to obtain a concealed handgun permit.
12. For the sole purpose of carrying a concealed handgun, any resident of the Commonwealth who carries a concealed handgun anywhere he may lawfully carry a handgun openly within the Commonwealth and who is otherwise qualified under this article to obtain a concealed handgun permit.
Interesting that the way they wrote it does not make sense grammatically. "shall not apply to: for the sole purpose of ..." All the other paragraphs actually make sense if read together as a sentence, such as:
C. Except as provided in subsection A of § 18.2-308.012, this section shall not apply to: 1. Any person while in his own place of business;
The only problem I see with such an idea is what if one is disqualified, but does not know it? I suppose it is a step in the right direction. As I noted in a post a while back, there really are not very many differences between qualified to possess and qualified to carry concealed.
TFred
P.S. I noticed that it was introduced by Jeffrey Campbell, who was just elected for the first time this past November. Very good and quite encouraging to see such a pro-gun bill from a Freshman Delegate!
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
So how would this affect felons if they carry a BP revolver concealed? They are disqualified to possess a firearm, but not a antique firearm.
In Va...WW, BP guns are no different than cartridge guns with respect to possession by felons. They are all firearms.
Also, eveyone still needs a CHP to carry a BP pistol concealed.
Last edited:
wylde007
Regular Member
What are you doing standing around yammering? Chop-chop.
We're polishing as fast as we can.
We're polishing as fast as we can.
It has a lot of promise!
Delegate Campbell as a freshman is showing that he has a lot of promise himself - haven't meet him yet, but intend to do so.