The Reciprocity Restoration Deal

Thundar said:

I sure hope you are right TFred. GOA is right, this deal stinks and the sooner it dies, the better!

Click to expand...

Today’s compromises will become the starting point for tomorrow’s negotiations by gun-grabbers.

Marco said:

Today’s compromises will become the starting point for tomorrow’s negotiations by gun-grabbers.

Click to expand...

Amen Marco.

The gun grabbers actually took some p4p hostage. GOA says don't negotiate with hostage takers.

I say negotiating with hostage takers never works out well in the long run. First it encourages more hostage taking and since the hostage takers are not honorable in the end they will not even keep their word about the original deal or deals.

Thundar

Taking an all or nothing position can frequently gain you...............nothing.

I don't like most compromises or even baby steps, but will decide on a case by case basis when the benefits available today are the best that can be had. The antis whittle, I will whittle back while striving for the ultimate best outcome.

Thundar said:

The gun grabbers actually took some p4p hostage.

Click to expand...

Would you mind explaining the rationale behind this? What was taken hostage, exactly?

TFred

TFred said:

Would you mind explaining the rationale behind this? What was taken hostage, exactly?

TFred

Click to expand...

Reciprocity with 25 states was taken hostage.

Grapeshot said:

Taking an all or nothing position can frequently gain you...............nothing.

I don't like most compromises or even baby steps, but will decide on a case by case basis when the benefits available today are the best that can be had. The antis whittle, I will whittle back while striving for the ultimate best outcome.

Click to expand...

I am not saying take an all or nothing position. Like the Gun Owners of America, I am saying don't dance with the devil.

Thundar

Grapeshot said:

Taking an all or nothing position can frequently gain you...............nothing.

I don't like most compromises or even baby steps, but will decide on a case by case basis when the benefits available today are the best that can be had. The antis whittle, I will whittle back while striving for the ultimate best outcome.

Click to expand...

Thundar said:

I am not saying take an all or nothing position. Like the Gun Owners of America, I am saying don't dance with the devil.

Thundar

Click to expand...

That would seem to imply that those working within the system (legislature and/or courts) form an unholy alliance. IMO that is not necessarily the case.

I submit that one must be on the dance floor to accomplish anything. The condition that the antis are also on the dance floor in no way implies that that we are partners.

I will stick to the thought in my last sentence = ".....will decide on a case by case basis when the benefits available today are the best that can be had....... while striving for the ultimate best outcome."

Thundar said:

Reciprocity with 25 states was taken hostage.

Click to expand...

Your claim is quite simply incorrect. While the timing of the action was arbitrary, the action taken by the Attorney General was not only legal, it was required by the Code of Virginia. Read the code.

The fault for this disaster lies squarely with those (including us!) who did not sufficiently review each small change made to the CHP disqualifiers over the years that slowly whittled down the list of other states that still had laws similar enough to prevent someone denied a CHP in Virginia from obtaining one in that other state.

This was not a case of the gun-haters "taking" something from us, then "bargaining" it back. With a veto-proof margin of support in the Senate, the Governor could have just as easily left reciprocity swinging in the wind for the rest of his term, and beyond, until such a time as we put a more gun-friendly Governor in his place.

Fortunately, the Governor wanted things that the Delegates would never give without something in exchange, which in this case was a CHANGE in the reciprocity requirements two years earlier than would have otherwise been possible, even in the best of circumstances.

If we learn anything from this, I hope it will be to more carefully scrutinize each and every bill for impacts both near and far.

TFred

TFred said:

Your claim is quite simply incorrect. While the timing of the action was arbitrary, the action taken by the Attorney General was not only legal, it was required by the Code of Virginia. Read the code.

The fault for this disaster lies squarely with those (including us!) who did not sufficiently review each small change made to the CHP disqualifiers over the years that slowly whittled down the list of other states that still had laws similar enough to prevent someone denied a CHP in Virginia from obtaining one in that other state.

This was not a case of the gun-haters "taking" something from us, then "bargaining" it back. With a veto-proof margin of support in the Senate, the Governor could have just as easily left reciprocity swinging in the wind for the rest of his term, and beyond, until such a time as we put a more gun-friendly Governor in his place.

Fortunately, the Governor wanted things that the Delegates would never give without something in exchange, which in this case was a CHANGE in the reciprocity requirements two years earlier than would have otherwise been possible, even in the best of circumstances.

If we learn anything from this, I hope it will be to more carefully scrutinize each and every bill for impacts both near and far.

TFred

Click to expand...

There are certainly attorney general requirements about reciprocity. How different the laws of other states have to be before we cannot have reciprocity is certainly open to interpretation. That Herring took a huge left turn (hostage taking) with his interpretation is undisputed. That this huge left turn was used (hostage negotiating)to makea really bad deal including voluntary checks at gun shows is not in dispute.

Negotiating with hostage takers is bad. I sure hope that the deal falls apart.

Thundar said:

There are certainly attorney general requirements about reciprocity. How different the laws of other states have to be before we cannot have reciprocity is certainly open to interpretation. That Herring took a huge left turn (hostage taking) with his interpretation is undisputed. That this huge left turn was used (hostage negotiating)to makea really bad deal including voluntary checks at gun shows is not in dispute.

Negotiating with hostage takers is bad. I sure hope that the deal falls apart.

Click to expand...

And yet again, you are simply wrong.

As I have said so many times, read the code.

IF a person, who is ineligible to get a CHP in Virginia, CAN get an equivalent permit in another state, then THAT state is not eligible for reciprocity with Virginia. There is NO ROOM for "interpretation." It's PLAIN ENGLISH.

Again, I will totally agree that the timing is suspect, but this was a time bomb that sat unnoticed in the Code of Virginia for years, just waiting for someone to read the code, understand it, and then push the button.

One can speculate, if we had had a more gun-friendly AG and Governor how this might have been handled. The gun-hating folks that figured this out may very well have sued to require them to enforce the law (just like we sometimes have to sue to force clerks to do their jobs according to the law). Best case, they would have acknowledged the situation and delayed enforcement to give the General Assembly the time to correct it.

TFred

TFred said:

And yet again, you are simply wrong.

As I have said so many times, read the code.

IF a person, who is ineligible to get a CHP in Virginia, CAN get an equivalent permit in another state, then THAT state is not eligible for reciprocity with Virginia. There is NO ROOM for "interpretation." It's PLAIN ENGLISH.

Again, I will totally agree that the timing is suspect, but this was a time bomb that sat unnoticed in the Code of Virginia for years, just waiting for someone to read the code, understand it, and then push the button.

One can speculate, if we had had a more gun-friendly AG and Governor how this might have been handled. The gun-hating folks that figured this out may very well have sued to require them to enforce the law (just like we sometimes have to sue to force clerks to do their jobs according to the law). Best case, they would have acknowledged the situation and delayed enforcement to give the General Assembly the time to correct it.

TFred

Click to expand...

I have read the code three times now TFred, and you are just wrong. Interpreting the intricacies of the code in each state and comparing your results to the code of Virginia is a subjective effort. It is not a black and white situation. Trying to contemplate the equivalent permit to a Virginia CHP in a state like Massachusetts, which has more than one permit and restrictive endorsements as well, Is not possible as an objective exercise. In a state like Illinois, where the requirements are spread between the permit and the FOID card is not objective, it is clearly a subjective exercise.

Herring did this to take reciprocity hostage.

Thundar said:

I have read the code three times now TFred, and you are just wrong. Interpreting the intricacies of the code in each state and comparing your results to the code of Virginia is a subjective effort. It is not a black and white situation. Trying to contemplate the equivalent permit to a Virginia CHP in a state like Massachusetts, which has more than one permit and restrictive endorsements as well, Is not possible as an objective exercise. In a state like Illinois, where the requirements are spread between the permit and the FOID card is not objective, it is clearly a subjective exercise.

Herring did this to take reciprocity hostage.

Click to expand...

Astounding. If you would only use your stubbornness for good, instead of wasting everyone's time.

The Attorney General was kind enough to provide proof of my point, right on his web page. I didn't read all 25 reports, and there may be some states which have some provisions that are difficult to correlate. I'll even grant you that there might be one or two states where they are all difficult to correlate. So what. All it takes is ONE provision for each state that does not match to disqualify that state's reciprocity. From the ones that I did read, it's not rocket science, and it's certainly not subjective.

One of the most common mismatching disqualifiers is "two misdemeanors in the past 5 years." Did you even read the correspondence that the AG posted to show how they determined the list of states? They looked at each state's law, compared it to Virginia, and compiled a list of disqualifiers that did not appear to match. They sent the other state a letter saying, "Here's the list we think doesn't match, are we correct? Do your laws require X, Y, and Z?" Each state replied, confirming that indeed, their laws did not match for at least one disqualifier.

Sure it was a politically motivated thing to do. It was also completely legal, and absolutely required by the law that mismatching states NOT be honored.

TFred

TFred said:

Astounding. If you would only use your stubbornness for good, instead of wasting everyone's time.

The Attorney General was kind enough to provide proof of my point, right on his web page. I didn't read all 25 reports, and there may be some states which have some provisions that are difficult to correlate. I'll even grant you that there might be one or two states where they are all difficult to correlate. So what. All it takes is ONE provision for each state that does not match to disqualify that state's reciprocity. From the ones that I did read, it's not rocket science, and it's certainly not subjective.

One of the most common mismatching disqualifiers is "two misdemeanors in the past 5 years." Did you even read the correspondence that the AG posted to show how they determined the list of states? They looked at each state's law, compared it to Virginia, and compiled a list of disqualifiers that did not appear to match. They sent the other state a letter saying, "Here's the list we think doesn't match, are we correct? Do your laws require X, Y, and Z?" Each state replied, confirming that indeed, their laws did not match for at least one disqualifier.

Sure it was a politically motivated thing to do. It was also completely legal, and absolutely required by the law that mismatching states NOT be honored.

TFred

Click to expand...

TFred,

States have very different thresholds for what is a misdemeanor, what is a felony and what is a civil infraction. Two misdemeanors means different things in different states. Look at the complete mess that is the federal domestic abuser prohibition.

If this was so cut and dry, how could the attorney general assign a no more reciprocity date instead of an immediate effect, and how did that fixed date slip?

It was hostage taking and look how much some are willing to give up to get their precious P4P back. Never negotiate with hostage takers. They never keep their word and even worse, they learn that there is something to gain by taking hostages.

Thundar said:

TFred,

States have very different thresholds for what is a misdemeanor, what is a felony and what is a civil infraction. Two misdemeanors means different things in different states. Look at the complete mess that is the federal domestic abuser prohibition.

If this was so cut and dry, how could the attorney general assign a no more reciprocity date instead of an immediate effect, and how did that fixed date slip?

It was hostage taking and look how much some are willing to give up to get their precious P4P back. Never negotiate with hostage takers. They never keep their word and even worse, they learn that there is something to gain by taking hostages.

Click to expand...

Guess what: You can say it was hostage taking a hundred thousand times, and it is no more true on the last claim than it was on the first.

ETA: None of those details matter: If a person who would NOT be able to get a permit in Virginia, CAN get a permit elsewhere, that state is disqualified. The details don't matter.

Why did the AG pick an arbitrary date? It doesn't matter why. I'm sure it was because of the nightmare of confusion that would have resulted if he came out and said TODAY... It doesn't matter, that has nothing to do with the fact that the code required this action.

The Code of Virginia is crystal clear. Apparently your glasses are not.

TFred

TFred said:

Guess what: You can say it was hostage taking a hundred thousand times, and it is no more true on the last claim than it was on the first.

ETA: None of those details matter: If a person who would NOT be able to get a permit in Virginia, CAN get a permit elsewhere, that state is disqualified. The details don't matter.

Why did the AG pick an arbitrary date? It doesn't matter why. I'm sure it was because of the nightmare of confusion that would have resulted if he came out and said TODAY... It doesn't matter, that has nothing to do with the fact that the code required this action.

The Code of Virginia is crystal clear. Apparently your glasses are not.

TFred

Click to expand...

So, one now has to ask.
How does the legislative fix all of a sudden make those which were unqualified to conceal carry in VA, part of the washed few?
Those same folks in other states will still have their states permits and still not be qualified under VA law (as neither is making their standards more lax), but yet all will be forgive.
A written deal doesn't make these formerly disqualified folks, qualified, it just ignores the issue.

If they were just going to ignore the issue why bother in the first place?



Coincidence, me thinks not. This was a planned attack.

Marco said:

So, one now has to ask.
How does the legislative fix all of a sudden make those which were unqualified to conceal carry in VA, part of the washed few?
Those same folks in other states will still have their states permits and still not be qualified under VA law (as neither is making their standards more lax), but yet all will be forgive.
A written deal doesn't make these formerly disqualified folks, qualified, it just ignores the issue.

If they were just going to ignore the issue why bother in the first place?



Coincidence, me thinks not. This was a planned attack.

Click to expand...

It's all a part of "the deal." You are correct, if it goes through as planned, there will absolutely be a relatively small number of people who are qualified to obtain a permit in some other state, but who would not be qualified in Virginia, who will subsequently be allowed to carry a concealed handgun in Virginia, based on having been issued that other state's permit.

The legislation in "the deal," removes the requirement from the Code of Virginia that the other state must have similar disqualifiers to allow that state's permit to be honored.

Now does that make sense or not? That is a question that the legislators must ask their constituents. The ground-truth data speaks volumes on this issue, nobody has been able to identify any significant crime waves committed by that small fraction of people. [ETA: once again relegating the gun-haters to "the boy who cried wolf" status!]

And one point that many like to make is to compare drivers licenses, which are issued by all 50 states, and which undoubtedly also have nearly as many quirky requirements and/or disqualifiers. Last I knew, all state drivers licenses were valid in all other states.

TFred

TFred said:

Guess what: You can say it was hostage taking a hundred thousand times, and it is no more true on the last claim than it was on the first.

ETA: None of those details matter: If a person who would NOT be able to get a permit in Virginia, CAN get a permit elsewhere, that state is disqualified. The details don't matter.

Why did the AG pick an arbitrary date? It doesn't matter why. I'm sure it was because of the nightmare of confusion that would have resulted if he came out and said TODAY... It doesn't matter, that has nothing to do with the fact that the code required this action.

The Code of Virginia is crystal clear. Apparently your glasses are not.

TFred

Click to expand...

***hostage taking*** hostage taking ***hostage taking*** hostage taking ***hostage taking*** hostage taking***

A valid concealed handgun or concealed weapon permit or license issued by another state shall authorize the holder of such permit or license who is at least 21 years of age to carry a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth, provided (i) the issuing authority provides the means for instantaneous verification of the validity of all such permits or licenses issued within that state, accessible 24 hours a day, and (ii) except for the age of the permit or license holder and the type of weapon authorized to be carried, the requirements and qualifications of that state's law are adequate to prevent possession of a permit or license by persons who would be denied a permit in the Commonwealth under this article.

TFred - The part that is subjective in Virginia law is underlined by me. Deciding if another state's law is adequate is subjective.

The 2 misdemeanor rule in Virginia in § 18.2-308.09, subdivision 7, requires that one of the misdemeanors be a class 1 misdemeanor. How does one decide if another state's class A, B or C Minor Crimes are equivalent to a Virginia Cass 1 misdemeanor? Is a Class C minor crime the equivalent of a misdemeanor, or is it the equivalent of a civil violation? Deciding if another states laws are adequate is not a precise science. It is not black and white, it is subjective.

Herring worked hard to take reciprocity hostage. The fix really is Constitutional Carry. Many left leaning legislators were upset enough that we might have actually been able to override a McAwful veto. It was not sold as the solution because we have a terrible deal, After all we really need those from out of state to be able to hide their guns legally.

***hostage taking*** hostage taking ***hostage taking*** hostage taking ***hostage taking*** hostage taking***

Thundar said:

***hostage taking*** hostage taking ***hostage taking*** hostage taking ***hostage taking*** hostage taking***

A valid concealed handgun or concealed weapon permit or license issued by another state shall authorize the holder of such permit or license who is at least 21 years of age to carry a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth, provided (i) the issuing authority provides the means for instantaneous verification of the validity of all such permits or licenses issued within that state, accessible 24 hours a day, and (ii) except for the age of the permit or license holder and the type of weapon authorized to be carried, the requirements and qualifications of that state's law are adequate to prevent possession of a permit or license by persons who would be denied a permit in the Commonwealth under this article.

TFred - The part that is subjective in Virginia law is underlined by me. Deciding if another state's law is adequate is subjective.

The 2 misdemeanor rule in Virginia in § 18.2-308.09, subdivision 7, requires that one of the misdemeanors be a class 1 misdemeanor. How does one decide if another state's class A, B or C Minor Crimes are equivalent to a Virginia Cass 1 misdemeanor? Is a Class C minor crime the equivalent of a misdemeanor, or is it the equivalent of a civil violation? Deciding if another states laws are adequate is not a precise science. It is not black and white, it is subjective.

Herring worked hard to take reciprocity hostage. The fix really is Constitutional Carry. Many left leaning legislators were upset enough that we might have actually been able to override a McAwful veto. It was not sold as the solution because we have a terrible deal, After all we really need those from out of state to be able to hide their guns legally.

***hostage taking*** hostage taking ***hostage taking*** hostage taking ***hostage taking*** hostage taking***

Click to expand...

Make sure you are holding your breath while you type. That'll certainly bolster your position.

TFred

It appears that all three bills that are a part of this deal have been "passed by" until this Friday, February 19th. It's fairly unusual for them to do a "passed by" with a specific date in the future. They must be planning to finish them all up together.

TFred

*****************************************************************************************

SB 610 Concealed handgun permits, out-of-state; photo identification issued by government agency, etc.

Status:
01/13/16 Senate: Presented and ordered printed 16103528D
01/13/16 Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/27/16 Senate: Committee substitute printed 16104859D-S1
01/27/16 Senate: Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (10-Y 3-N)
01/27/16 Senate: Incorporates SB616
01/27/16 Senate: Incorporates SB699
01/27/16 Senate: Incorporates SB764
01/29/16 Senate: Constitutional reading dispensed (36-Y 0-N)
02/01/16 Senate: Read second time
02/01/16 Senate: Reading of substitute waived
02/01/16 Senate: Committee substitute agreed to 16104859D-S1
02/01/16 Senate: Passed by for the day
02/02/16 Senate: Passed by for the day
02/03/16 Senate: Passed by for the day
02/04/16 Senate: Read second time
02/04/16 Senate: Committee substitute reconsidered (39-Y 0-N)
02/04/16 Senate: Committee substitute rejected 16104859D-S1
02/04/16 Senate: Reading of substitute waived
02/04/16 Senate: Floor substitute printed to Web only 16105235D-S2 (Reeves)
02/04/16 Senate: Substitute #1 by Senator Reeves withdrawn 16105235D-S2
02/04/16 Senate: Floor substitute printed 16105199D-S3 (Reeves)
02/04/16 Senate: Reading of substitute waived
02/04/16 Senate: Substitute #2 by Senator Reeves agreed to 16105199D-S3
02/04/16 Senate: Engrossed by Senate - floor substitute SB610S3
02/04/16 Senate: Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
02/04/16 Senate: Passed Senate (27-Y 13-N)
02/08/16 House: Placed on Calendar
02/08/16 House: Read first time
02/08/16 House: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/10/16 House: Referred from Courts of Justice by voice vote
02/10/16 House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
02/12/16 House: Reported from Militia, Police and Public Safety with substitute (15-Y 6-N)
02/12/16 House: Committee substitute printed 16105457D-H1
02/15/16 House: Read second time
02/16/16 House: Passed by until Friday, February 19, 2016

*****************************************************************************************

SB 715 Firearms shows; voluntary background checks by Department of State Police, penalties.

Status:
01/21/16 Senate: Presented and ordered printed 16104610D
01/21/16 Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/27/16 Senate: Reported from Courts of Justice with amendment (12-Y 2-N)
01/27/16 Senate: Rereferred to Finance
02/03/16 Senate: Reported from Finance (11-Y 4-N)
02/04/16 Senate: Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
02/05/16 Senate: Floor substitute printed 16105194D-S1 (Edwards)
02/05/16 Senate: Read second time
02/05/16 Senate: Reading of amendment waived
02/05/16 Senate: Committee amendment rejected
02/05/16 Senate: Reading of substitute waived
02/05/16 Senate: Substitute by Senator Edwards agreed to 16105194D-S1
02/05/16 Senate: Engrossed by Senate - floor substitute SB715S1
02/05/16 Senate: Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N)
02/05/16 Senate: Passed Senate (34-Y 5-N)
02/11/16 House: Placed on Calendar
02/11/16 House: Read first time
02/11/16 House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
02/12/16 House: Reported from Militia, Police and Public Safety with amendment (20-Y 1-N)
02/15/16 House: Read second time
02/16/16 House: Passed by until Friday, February 19, 2016

*****************************************************************************************

SB 49 Protective orders; prohibits person who is subject to order from possessing firearms, penalties.

Status:
12/16/15 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16100702D
12/16/15 Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/01/16 Senate: Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (14-Y 0-N 1-A)
02/01/16 Senate: Committee substitute printed 16104977D-S1
02/01/16 Senate: Incorporates SB96
02/01/16 Senate: Rereferred to Finance
02/03/16 Senate: Reported from Finance (13-Y 2-N)
02/04/16 Senate: Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
02/05/16 Senate: Read second time
02/05/16 Senate: Reading of substitute waived
02/05/16 Senate: Committee substitute rejected 16104977D-S1
02/05/16 Senate: Floor substitute printed 16105191D-S2 (Howell)
02/05/16 Senate: Reading of substitute waived
02/05/16 Senate: Substitute by Senator Howell agreed to 16105191D-S2
02/05/16 Senate: Engrossed by Senate - floor substitute SB49S2
02/05/16 Senate: Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N)
02/05/16 Senate: Passed Senate (31-Y 6-N)
02/05/16 Senate: Reconsideration of passage agreed to by Senate (39-Y 0-N)
02/05/16 Senate: Passed Senate (31-Y 7-N)
02/11/16 House: Placed on Calendar
02/11/16 House: Read first time
02/11/16 House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
02/12/16 House: Reported from Militia, Police and Public Safety with amendment (20-Y 1-N)
02/15/16 House: Read second time
02/16/16 House: Passed by until Friday, February 19, 2016

*****************************************************************************************

Maybe they are planning the 4:55 on a Friday afternoon news release that we hope no one notices type thing.