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

Sorry what is P4P?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

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

Thundar said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Thundar said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

optiksguy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

[SIZE=-2]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.[/SIZE]

optiksguy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Thundar said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

peter nap said:

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.

[SIZE=-2]SB368 Patron: Thomas A. Garrett - all patrons [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]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.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

PBI today:

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

TFred

Thundar said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

papa bear said:

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

Click to expand...

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. :uhoh:

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!:uhoh::uhoh:

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

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Blk97F150 said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1!

grylnsmn said:

Just because a bill relates to either concealing a firearm or having/getting a permit to conceal doesn't make it automatically P4P.

Click to expand...

Anything which makes life easier for permit holders (but nobody else) is P4P and is morally bankrupt.

marshaul said:

Anything which makes life easier for permit holders (but nobody else) is P4P and is morally bankrupt.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So how long have you had your permit? :lol:

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.

grylnsmn said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bully. This is what you wrote:

grylnsmn said:

Just because a bill relates to either concealing a firearm or having/getting a permit to conceal doesn't make it automatically P4P.

Click to expand...

My post stands.