TFred
Regular Member
I have questions about SB48, the so-called "Constitutional Carry" bill.
In a nutshell, the bill states that if one "is otherwise qualified" to obtain a Concealed Handgun Permit, minus the demonstration of competency (training, etc.) then one may carry a concealed handgun anywhere that a handgun may be carried openly.
However, the way the bill/current law works is this:
It is, and will still be, illegal to carry a concealed handgun in the state of Virginia.
There is a list of "shall not apply to" which excludes certain people from this law. The most commonly known and used probably being "Any person while in his own place of business."
SB 48 proposes to add another exclusion to this list:
"For the sole purpose of carrying a concealed handgun, any person 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."
While this seems to do the desired job, it leaves me with many questions.
Since the act of carrying a concealed handgun will still be a crime, how does this affect permitless concealed handgun carriers in the wild, among police officers?
Courts have ruled that open carry alone is not sufficient for detention to check to see if you are barred from possession, because open carry is the "normal" state, and not against the law. There must be a specific reason to suspect you are outside that "normal" law-abiding state before you can be detained.
Will that be the case here? If someone happens to notice you are carrying a concealed handgun (and please dispense with the "concealed means concealed" comments, slips happen to the best of us), or perhaps some gun-hater happens to KNOW you are carrying a handgun, and they call the police, is that report enough to detain you? How would the police know "on the side of the road" if you are "otherwise qualified" to obtain a permit, when that process takes a complete background check, including a search and analysis of any prior record? Would anyone carrying concealed be subject to arrest and detention until such a background check could confirm that you are "qualified?" What events would rise to the level of probable cause to initiate such a course of action?
And perhaps more importantly, how do YOU KNOW for sure that you are "otherwise qualified?" There are so many quirky disqualifiers, with odd expiration times on them, it is quite possible that there could be many people riding that line between qualified and not quite qualified, and no idea which side they fall on. At least with a permit system, if someone discovers that you are no longer qualified, they are supposed to contact you and get the permit back!
While I very much understand the concept of first steps, it would seem to be not only better, but perhaps even critical to implement a Constitutional Carry law that is really that: Anyone not disqualified to possess, is therefore qualified to carry, in any fashion they so choose. Of course, this would require elimination of vast portions of the current law.
I would hope that the sponsor and supporting organization(s) did a lot of thinking about this. If anyone has any inside scoop, I'd love to hear it. I just have a very bad feeling about what might happen if a gun-hating judge gets ahold of some unwitting victim as this bill is currently written.
TFred
In a nutshell, the bill states that if one "is otherwise qualified" to obtain a Concealed Handgun Permit, minus the demonstration of competency (training, etc.) then one may carry a concealed handgun anywhere that a handgun may be carried openly.
However, the way the bill/current law works is this:
It is, and will still be, illegal to carry a concealed handgun in the state of Virginia.
There is a list of "shall not apply to" which excludes certain people from this law. The most commonly known and used probably being "Any person while in his own place of business."
SB 48 proposes to add another exclusion to this list:
"For the sole purpose of carrying a concealed handgun, any person 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."
While this seems to do the desired job, it leaves me with many questions.
Since the act of carrying a concealed handgun will still be a crime, how does this affect permitless concealed handgun carriers in the wild, among police officers?
Courts have ruled that open carry alone is not sufficient for detention to check to see if you are barred from possession, because open carry is the "normal" state, and not against the law. There must be a specific reason to suspect you are outside that "normal" law-abiding state before you can be detained.
Will that be the case here? If someone happens to notice you are carrying a concealed handgun (and please dispense with the "concealed means concealed" comments, slips happen to the best of us), or perhaps some gun-hater happens to KNOW you are carrying a handgun, and they call the police, is that report enough to detain you? How would the police know "on the side of the road" if you are "otherwise qualified" to obtain a permit, when that process takes a complete background check, including a search and analysis of any prior record? Would anyone carrying concealed be subject to arrest and detention until such a background check could confirm that you are "qualified?" What events would rise to the level of probable cause to initiate such a course of action?
And perhaps more importantly, how do YOU KNOW for sure that you are "otherwise qualified?" There are so many quirky disqualifiers, with odd expiration times on them, it is quite possible that there could be many people riding that line between qualified and not quite qualified, and no idea which side they fall on. At least with a permit system, if someone discovers that you are no longer qualified, they are supposed to contact you and get the permit back!
While I very much understand the concept of first steps, it would seem to be not only better, but perhaps even critical to implement a Constitutional Carry law that is really that: Anyone not disqualified to possess, is therefore qualified to carry, in any fashion they so choose. Of course, this would require elimination of vast portions of the current law.
I would hope that the sponsor and supporting organization(s) did a lot of thinking about this. If anyone has any inside scoop, I'd love to hear it. I just have a very bad feeling about what might happen if a gun-hating judge gets ahold of some unwitting victim as this bill is currently written.
TFred
Reminds me of Norment, who, when asked why he voted "no" on the CHP privacy bill a number of years ago (killing it that year), said, "Oh, I go back and forth on that one..." :banghead: