Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 113

Thread: VCDL - More P4P Than Ever!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    VCDL - More P4P Than Ever!!!

    Bills VCDL strongly supports are very slanted towards P4P, not gun rights. HB 43 is the real winner out of the lot. Maybe if VCDL concentrated onHB43, rather than P4P, they could actually do some good.

    Total VCDL Strongly Support, From VCDL Legislative Tracking Tool 1/22/14:

    P4P = 11, Gun Rights = 4

    HB118 P4P
    HB 114 Gun Rights
    HB1266 Other
    HB 21 Other
    HB 307 Gun Rights
    HB317 P4P
    HB357 P4P
    HB43 Gun Rights
    HB644 P4P
    HB646 P4P
    HB705 P4P
    HB714 P4P
    HB752 Other
    HB786 Gun Rights
    HB88 P4P
    HB878 Other
    HB962 P4P
    SB368 P4P
    SB396 P4P

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    Last edited by Thundar; 01-22-2014 at 12:22 PM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    Sorry what is P4P?

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    Sorry what is P4P?
    Privileges for Permitees
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks I was pretty sure it couldn't be Partnership for Peace which is what I'm used to from the military

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Regular Member optiksguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Town of Herndon, VA
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Bills VCDL strongly supports are very slanted towards P4P, not gun rights. HB 43 is the real winner out of the lot. Maybe if VCDL concentrated onHB43, rather than P4P, they could actually do some good.

    Total VCDL Strongly Support, From VCDL Legislative Tracking Tool 1/22/14:

    P4P = 11, Gun Rights = 4
    I've disagreed a bit with VCDL recently, but to be fair, they can only support bills currently introduced. If there is a slant towards P4P that is really on the representatives who introduce them, no? Are there any general gun rights bills (currently introduced) that VCDL are not supporting, or are trying to turn into a P4P bill? In general I think more pressure needs to be applied to introduce general gun rights legislation (or repealing laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms), but if you are simply counting up what VCDL supports your data is skewed by what has been introduced.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Bills VCDL strongly supports are very slanted towards P4P, not gun rights. HB 43 is the real winner out of the lot. Maybe if VCDL concentrated onHB43, rather than P4P, they could actually do some good.

    Total VCDL Strongly Support, From VCDL Legislative Tracking Tool 1/22/14:

    P4P = 11, Gun Rights = 4

    HB118 P4P
    HB 114 Gun Rights
    HB1266 Other
    HB 21 Other
    HB 307 Gun Rights
    HB317 P4P
    HB357 P4P
    HB43 Gun Rights
    HB644 P4P
    HB646 P4P
    HB705 P4P
    HB714 P4P
    HB752 Other
    HB786 Gun Rights
    HB88 P4P
    HB878 Other
    HB962 P4P
    SB368 P4P
    SB396 P4P

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    I don't see how several of those bills you list as P4P are actually P4P.

    For example, HB705 simply creates universal reciprocity, so that any other state's CHP (or equivalent) will be treated as valid in Virginia. That doesn't create any new privileges or perks for permitees. If anything, it expands the availability to more people without requiring them to get a Virginia permit.

    Similarly, HB8 (which you listed as HB88) reduces the fee for a CHP by $25 by removing the component of the fee that was allowed to go to the FBI for a fingerprint check. Since fingerprints can no longer be required for a CHP, there is no reason for localities to collect this portion of the fee. That's not some new perk.

    HB962 has nothing to do with permits at all. It is a clarification of the "secured container" provision that allows anyone who can legally possess a firearm to have one in a secured container in a vehicle or vessel without needing a permit to have it "concealed". How on earth is that P4P?

    Just because a bill relates to either concealing a firearm or having/getting a permit to conceal doesn't make it automatically P4P.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by optiksguy View Post
    I've disagreed a bit with VCDL recently, but to be fair, they can only support bills currently introduced. If there is a slant towards P4P that is really on the representatives who introduce them, no? Are there any general gun rights bills (currently introduced) that VCDL are not supporting, or are trying to turn into a P4P bill? In general I think more pressure needs to be applied to introduce general gun rights legislation (or repealing laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms), but if you are simply counting up what VCDL supports your data is skewed by what has been introduced.
    As the creator of that catchy little acronym...it's actually "Perks for Permits"

    I agree that a lot of them are not really P4P or are just housekeeping, but the CHP sure comes up a lot in the bills they support.

    This one has caused me the most trouble and if it passes, I'm going to be especially unhappy. This is one of those cases where I'm rooting for the anti's. Different reasons but we want the same results. To have the bill die. The problem is now that it's out there it will be difficult to ever bring it back in an acceptable form.

    And yes...VCDL does have considerable input in the construction of these bills.

    Regulation of transportation of a loaded rifle or shotgun. Provides that lawful concealed carry permit holders shall not be subject to the provisions of certain local ordinances that make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess, or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within such locality.

    VCDL Comments
    This bill modifies the enabling language for an ordiance banning loaded shotguns and rifles in a vehicle to exempt concealed handgun permit holders.
    Last edited by peter nap; 01-22-2014 at 03:22 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by optiksguy View Post
    I've disagreed a bit with VCDL recently, but to be fair, they can only support bills currently introduced. If there is a slant towards P4P that is really on the representatives who introduce them, no? Are there any general gun rights bills (currently introduced) that VCDL are not supporting, or are trying to turn into a P4P bill? In general I think more pressure needs to be applied to introduce general gun rights legislation (or repealing laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms), but if you are simply counting up what VCDL supports your data is skewed by what has been introduced.
    1) Those crafty little rascals at VCDL have a huge input into certain delegates and what they submit. Too bad they didn't see fit to feed one of their pet delegates a reasonable Constitutional Carry bill.

    2) The real point of the thread is that all of these minor CHP issues being "strongly supported" diminish the value of really important issues. Since Constitutional Carry was tabled for another year because of technical difficulties, the only big issue is preventing agents of the Commonwealth from enforcing new federal gun regulations - HB43.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    1) Those crafty little rascals at VCDL have a huge input into certain delegates and what they submit. Too bad they didn't see fit to feed one of their pet delegates a reasonable Constitutional Carry bill.

    2) The real point of the thread is that all of these minor CHP issues being "strongly supported" diminish the value of really important issues. Since Constitutional Carry was tabled for another year because of technical difficulties, the only big issue is preventing agents of the Commonwealth from enforcing new federal gun regulations - HB43.
    More of a personal insult Thundar, to me and many others is the above mentioned hunting bill that would only allow CHP holders to have a loaded long long gun in their vehicle....which they strongly supported Vs

    HB129 Patron: Richard P. Bell - all patrons

    Explosive material; method of ignition. Adds high impact velocity to the methods of ignition contained in the definition of "explosive material." It is a Class 5 felony to possess materials that may be used to manufacture explosive materials or to manufacture, transport, distribute, possess, or use explosive materials.

    VCDL Comments
    This bill would make Tannerite, used to make explosive rifle targets, illegal. Tannerite is a low-level binary explosive that must be mixed to explode and will only do so when struck by a high-velocity bullet. Tannerite targets are enjoyed by shooters across the country and are safe when used with some basic, commonsense precautions.

    Which they opposed because "Tannerite Targets are so much fun". That's a direct quote.

    I have no love for that bill but having fun with Tannerite is much more important than representing ALL gun owners. I don't like being treated like poor relations.


  10. #10
    Regular Member optiksguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Town of Herndon, VA
    Posts
    69
    Good points Thundar. If VCDL really does have that much sway over the introduction of bills then it is unfortunate that political capital is being wasted on P4P issues. The hunting issue has really bothered me since I first learned about it. I don't even hunt but it made me have second thoughts about renewing my VCDL membership whereas before I wouldn't have even hesitated.

  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 peter nap View Post
    As the creator of that catchy little acronym...it's actually "Perks for Permits"

    I agree that a lot of them are not really P4P or are just housekeeping, but the CHP sure comes up a lot in the bills they support.

    This one has caused me the most trouble and if it passes, I'm going to be especially unhappy. This is one of those cases where I'm rooting for the anti's. Different reasons but we want the same results. To have the bill die. The problem is now that it's out there it will be difficult to ever bring it back in an acceptable form.

    And yes...VCDL does have considerable input in the construction of these bills.

    Regulation of transportation of a loaded rifle or shotgun. Provides that lawful concealed carry permit holders shall not be subject to the provisions of certain local ordinances that make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess, or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within such locality.

    VCDL Comments
    This bill modifies the enabling language for an ordiance banning loaded shotguns and rifles in a vehicle to exempt concealed handgun permit holders.
    PBI today:

    01/22/14 Senate: Passed by indefinitely in Courts of Justice (12-Y 3-N)

    TFred

  12. #12
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    1) Those crafty little rascals at VCDL have a huge input into certain delegates and what they submit. Too bad they didn't see fit to feed one of their pet delegates a reasonable Constitutional Carry bill.

    2) The real point of the thread is that all of these minor CHP issues being "strongly supported" diminish the value of really important issues. Since Constitutional Carry was tabled for another year because of technical difficulties, the only big issue is preventing agents of the Commonwealth from enforcing new federal gun regulations - HB43.
    there actually was a bill for non permit concealed carry (you already have constitutional carry in VA). but it was killed in committee. i know that VCDL did support it.
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  13. #13
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    being a member of both groups. if you think VCDL is bad for P4P. then you ought to see the GRNC. i think they have come out and said they don't like OC
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    being a member of both groups. if you think VCDL is bad for P4P. then you ought to see the GRNC. i think they have come out and said they don't like OC
    That reminds me of the man with a boil on his backsides and couldn't sit down. He wandered for hours knowing he couldn't sit when he came on a man who asked if anything was wrong.

    I have a boil on my backsides he replied.

    The stranger said...I can fix that, I have a boil on my butt too. Now don't you feel all better.

    At any rate, SB 368 is dead thanks to Senator Richard Stuart. I'll shake his hand tomorrow if I see him for doing the right thing.
    I still can't sit down though!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Related, from a VCDL Alert:

    ************************************************** *******
    1. ACTION ITEM: Senator Stuart leads anti-gun charge against pro-gun bill :-(
    ************************************************** *******

    With friends like these…

    I was shocked when Senator Richard Stuart (King George, Prince William, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Westmoreland) actually led the charge to kill a pro-gun bill in the Senate Courts of Justice!

    There are enough anti-freedom votes on that committee without Senator Stuart helping them out.

    He wasn’t the only bad vote, but he took the lead in killing the bill, and thus deserves extra scrutiny.

    The bill was Senator Tom Garrett’s SB 368, which would have made Virginia gun laws more uniform by making it legal for someone with a CHP to have a loaded long gun in his vehicle anywhere in the Commonwealth. Currently some localities allow loaded long guns and some don’t. Yet, Senator Stuart led the charge to kill a bill seeking uniformity!

    To justify his bad vote, Senator Stuart said to the committee, “I struggled to teach my children the responsible handling of firearms and that [Garrett's bill] flies in the face of everything I try to teach them, so…I move to PBI [kill the bill]…”

    To which a visibly upset Senator Garrett said to Stuart, “The citizens of the Commonwealth are NOT your children.”

    Ouch! Touche, Senator Garrett!

    If you live in Senator Stuart’s district, you need to contact him to show your displeasure for his very bad vote and for leading the charge for more gun-control, of all things! Please be polite, but firm.

    Senator Stuart’s phone number is 804-698-7528. His email is: district28@senate.virginia.gov

    Other bad votes on the bill include: Norment, Marsh, Howell, Lucas, Edwards, Puller, Obenshain, McDougle, McEachin, and Vogel.

    If your Senator is anyone of the above, contact them and ask them why they are against making Virginia’s gun laws uniform. Without uniformity it is hard to drive from one place to another without being a good citizen part of the time and a criminal for the other part. Their vote is simply unacceptable! Again, be polite, but firm.

    Finally, be sure to thank these three Senators for being the only ones on the committee with the guts to vote pro-liberty on SB 368: Stanley, Reeves, and, of course, Garrett.

    To get the contact information for the above Senators, click here:

    http://leg1.state.va.us/141/mbr/MBR.HTM

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Philip Van Cleave (VA Alert posted above):
    "If your Senator is anyone of the above, contact them and ask them why they are against making Virginia’s gun laws uniform. Without uniformity it is hard to drive from one place to another without being a good citizen part of the time and a criminal for the other part. Their vote is simply unacceptable! Again, be polite, but firm."
    The problem Philip, is that even had this bill passed... the law would still not have been 'uniform'. It was a special carve out for CHP holders only... NOT a 'uniform' law that covered everyone the same.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    The problem Philip, is that even had this bill passed... the law would still not have been 'uniform'. It was a special carve out for CHP holders only... NOT a 'uniform' law that covered everyone the same.
    +1!
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    Just because a bill relates to either concealing a firearm or having/getting a permit to conceal doesn't make it automatically P4P.
    Anything which makes life easier for permit holders (but nobody else) is P4P and is morally bankrupt.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Anything which makes life easier for permit holders (but nobody else) is P4P and is morally bankrupt.
    I'm sorry, but eliminating the $25 fee for the FBI to run fingerprints is in no way a "perk" if localities are prohibited from requesting fingerprints anyways. Reducing the fee is aan appropriate side effect of removing the fingerprint requirement.

    Essentially, right now, localities are allowed to pocket an extra $25 with each application. Would you call it a "perk" for homeowners if there were a similar bill to reduce the fees charged to get a building permit, because other laws had already reduced the amount of administrative overhead?

    A perk is a benefit granted to someone. Not ripping off a CHP applicant of $25 extra dollars for a service that is no longer allowed by law isn't a benefit being granted to them.

    ETA: Additionally, the part of my post that you quoted was referring to HB962, which has nothing to do with permitees at all. It applies to anyone who can legally possess a gun.
    Last edited by grylnsmn; 01-23-2014 at 01:10 PM.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    I'm sorry, but eliminating the $25 fee for the FBI to run fingerprints is in no way a "perk" if localities are prohibited from requesting fingerprints anyways.
    So how long have you had your permit?

    Like I said, anything which benefits permit holders (but nobody else) is morally bankrupt. You can have your definition of "perk"; I don't care.

    I'd rather permittees have to pay the extra $25 if it incentivizes them to oppose licensure outright, or if eliminating the fee incentivizes apathy on that point. As it stands, the existence of ego-affirming permission slips engenders in many a sense of superiority which disincentives permit holders from seeking to end licensure.

    Like professional/vocational licensure, carry permits appeal to a fundamental social insecurity in man (or most men, anyway), and represents a camel's-nose-in-the-tent scenario. Now we are faced with bodily ripping the entire camel from the tent, and I'll oppose anything which renders leaving the camel in place more attractive.

    To put it simply, the easier it is to get permits, the more people will do so. The more people who do so, the more smug, self-satisfied asshats there will be to champion their superior training and law-abidance, and ultimately fail to oppose licensure.

    In short, you cannot simultaneously advocate for the second amendment, and any benefits whatsoever for permit holders. You pays your money; you makes your choice.

    I choose the RKBA.
    Last edited by marshaul; 01-23-2014 at 01:28 PM.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    ETA: Additionally, the part of my post that you quoted was referring to HB962, which has nothing to do with permitees at all. It applies to anyone who can legally possess a gun.
    Bully. This is what you wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    Just because a bill relates to either concealing a firearm or having/getting a permit to conceal doesn't make it automatically P4P.
    My post stands.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    So how long have you had your permit?

    Like I said, anything which benefits permit holders (but nobody else) is morally bankrupt. You can have your definition of "perk"; I don't care.

    I'd rather permittees have to pay the extra $25 if it incentivizes them to oppose licensure outright, or if eliminating the fee incentivizes apathy on that point. As it stands, the existence of ego-affirming permission slips engenders in many a sense of superiority which disincentives permit holders from seeking to end licensure.

    Like professional/vocational licensure, carry permits appeal to a fundamental social insecurity in man (or most men, anyway), and represents a camel's-nose-in-the-tent scenario. Now we are faced with bodily ripping the entire camel from the tent, and I'll oppose anything which renders leaving the camel in place more attractive.

    To put it simply, the easier it is to get permits, the more people will do so. The more people who do so, the more smug, self-satisfied asshats there will be to champion their superior training and law-abidance, and ultimately fail to oppose licensure.

    In short, you cannot simultaneously advocate for the second amendment, and any benefits whatsoever for permit holders. You pays your money; you makes your choice.

    I choose the RKBA.
    I get it, you hate the very idea of permits. So do I. But we have to deal with the world the way it is, and CHPs aren't going anywhere in the next 4 years, no matter what we do.

    I OC almost exclusively, but I do have a CHP because I occasionally go places where OC is not appropriate, and I refuse to compromise on safety. As one example, I often visit my elderly aunt in assisted living, and she is very anti-gun, to the point of lecturing me about guns in my own home one time. Her facility doesn't prohibit, so I have my CHP so I can conceal while I am there without breaking the law. Similarly, I use my CHP to legally carry at church, because I am not willing to sacrifice security, but it is also an inappropriate time and place to advocate for gun rights. Beyond that, I have used it only for when I have travelled to other places not as friendly to OC (such has a visit to Texas a few years ago).

    The mere fact that I have a CHP doesn't mean I hold myself up as "better" than anyone else. It merely means that I a working within the system that we have right now, even as I advocate to change that same system.

    You can hold your own opinion all you want, but you really don't get to pick your own definitions of words. The word "perk" comes from "perquisite", which is defined as:
    1. an incidental payment, benefit, privilege, or advantage over and above regular income, salary, or wages: Among the president's perquisites were free use of a company car and paid membership in a country club.
    2. a gratuity or tip.
    3. something demanded or due as a particular privilege: homage that was once the perquisite of royalty.
    Reducing the fee by $25 doesn't fit definition 1, because it's not some benefit or privilege. It's simply not paying for a "service" (the FBI fingerprint check) that you by law are not getting. It wasn't the government's money in the first place, so letting the applicant keep their own money isn't a "payment benefit, privilege, or advantage". It certainly doesn't fit definition 2, and it's not being demanded as a privilege, so it doesn't fit definition 3.

    By the way you seem to be using the term, you would probably claim that changing from may-issue to shall-issue for CHPs was "P4P" as well. That defies all logic. Yes, a CHP is treated as a privilege, not a right (and that needs to change), but that doesn't mean that everything related to concealed carry is a perk. Some examples of that include reducing the fee for services not rendered, and clarifying the secured container law (which has nothing to do with CHPs, but Thundar claimed was P4P).

    Consider also that many jurisdictions claim that they lose money on CHP applications as it is. Reducing the amount they can charge for them is more likely to encourage them to support eliminating CHPs than the extra $25 is going to convince applicants to reject CHPs.

    Yes, CHPs are the camel's nose, but they can be that way for us to loosen the restrictions, too. For example, the change from may-issue to shall-issue for permits was a big step towards constitutional carry, even if it didn't get us all the way there. Similarly, the CHP exemption for school property (as long as you remain in your car) helped pave the way to the secured container law, which benefits everyone. Permits already exist, so complaining about their existence (especially among 2A supporters) does us no good.

    Until we get constitutional carry, a CHP should be for nothing more than carrying concealed. It shouldn't bestow anything beyond that limited benefit. But it also shouldn't be a license for the government to charge any more than what the law explicitly allows (and for the explicit purposes stated in the law). And those who have CHPs should continue to work towards the ultimate goal of constitutional carry, as I have consistently tried to do.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Bully. This is what you wrote:

    My post stands.
    Your post might stand, but your reading comprehension lacks. From my original post:
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    HB962 has nothing to do with permits at all. It is a clarification of the "secured container" provision that allows anyone who can legally possess a firearm to have one in a secured container in a vehicle or vessel without needing a permit to have it "concealed". How on earth is that P4P?

    Just because a bill relates to either concealing a firearm or having/getting a permit to conceal doesn't make it automatically P4P.
    The last part that you quoted was building on what I had stated in the prior paragraph, which explicitly cited HB962. If you are going to claim that HB962 relates to permits in any way, then please back up your claim. If it doesn't relate to permits in any way, it can't be P4P, even if it mentions concealing a firearm.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    VCDL, supporter of Tempest in a Teapot Issues!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    I'm sorry, but eliminating the $25 fee for the FBI to run fingerprints is in no way a "perk" if localities are prohibited from requesting fingerprints anyways. Reducing the fee is aan appropriate side effect of removing the fingerprint requirement.

    Essentially, right now, localities are allowed to pocket an extra $25 with each application. Would you call it a "perk" for homeowners if there were a similar bill to reduce the fees charged to get a building permit, because other laws had already reduced the amount of administrative overhead?

    A perk is a benefit granted to someone. Not ripping off a CHP applicant of $25 extra dollars for a service that is no longer allowed by law isn't a benefit being granted to them.

    ETA: Additionally, the part of my post that you quoted was referring to HB962, which has nothing to do with permitees at all. It applies to anyone who can legally possess a gun.
    grylnsmn,

    The real issue here is not whether these minor issues are perks or not. Frankly I do not care what we call them. The real problem is the inability of VCDL to see the forest through the trees.

    VCDL continues to try and push these small CHP issues with great force. It is a tempest in a teapot. VCDL ends up looking like a spoiled brat when screaming about these minor issues, and does not make any friends to support their case for the really important issues like HB43.
    Last edited by Thundar; 01-23-2014 at 02:24 PM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    The last part that you quoted was building on what I had stated in the prior paragraph, which explicitly cited HB962. If you are going to claim that HB962 relates to permits in any way, then please back up your claim. If it doesn't relate to permits in any way, it can't be P4P, even if it mentions concealing a firearm.
    The context doesn't change that black-and-white of what you wrote.

    I assure you my reading comprehension is adequate.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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