How's this for an idea

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

There is a reason the the lifetime permit was passed but not funded by the legislature. It was not because it was a bad idea, it was because the local governments did not want to lose this revenue, and their voice is louder than ours in Richmond. Since we pay for the permit process, exactly what part of the lifetime permit is unfunded?

Click to expand...

The part where, as a conscesion to get lifetime permits, the VSP are required to re-run EVERY CHP holder anually to make sure they havn't committed some offence that would make them inelligible. Lots of increased manhours for the VSP=lots of money, which wasn't provided...

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Well, some could look at it in this way....

Why should the taxes paid in by those who hate guns have to pay for your background checksso you canget a gun permit?

The lifetime permit will not likely happen since the counties will lose that annual revenue!! That could raise my taxes and I would not like that at all.

Click to expand...

Which goes back to why should I have to have a permit in the first place? If I have to pay to exercise a right, the righ tis by definition infringed...

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

There is a reason the the lifetime permit was passed but not funded by the legislature. It was not because it was a bad idea, it was because the local governments did not want to lose this revenue, and their voice is louder than ours in Richmond. Since we pay for the permit process, exactly what part of the lifetime permit is unfunded?

Click to expand...

The part where, as a conscesion to get lifetime permits, the VSP are required to re-run EVERY CHP holder anually to make sure they havn't committed some offence that would make them inelligible. Lots of increased manhours for the VSP=lots of money, which wasn't provided...

Click to expand...

This is a big thing to consider....Who will do the periodical checks to be sure they are sill permitted under the state law?

If the permit does not expire..how does theissuer cancel it out so you cannot use it besides via computer? Currently, itdoes expire after a few years making it worthless.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Why should a criminal be permitted to legally CC as he stalks his victims?

Click to expand...

Even if there were no permits required to CC a criminal would not be able to CC legally while he stalks his victims because it is "ILLEGAL" for a criminal to possess a firearm. Permit requirements or not he would still be in violation of the same laws........................................................................DF1

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

...SNIP
Why should the taxes paid in by those who hate guns have to pay for your background checks so you can get a gun permit?
SNIP...

Click to expand...

Because the permit is not for me it is for them.

Regards

imported post

DeerForce1 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Why should a criminal be permitted to legally CC as he stalks his victims?

Click to expand...

Even if there were no permits required to CC a criminal would not be able to CC legally while he stalks his victims because it is "ILLEGAL" for a criminal to possess a firearm. Permit requirements or not he would still be in violation of the same laws........................................................................DF1

Click to expand...

Only if he is banned from gun possession. Now... in regards to those criminals that can possess a gun but would otherwise not be able to get a permit..

If everyone is allowed to CC... so would he. So knowing now that CC may get another charge... some may chose not to.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

DeerForce1 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Why should a criminal be permitted to legally CC as he stalks his victims?

Click to expand...

Even if there were no permits required to CC a criminal would not be able to CC legally while he stalks his victims because it is "ILLEGAL" for a criminal to possess a firearm. Permit requirements or not he would still be in violation of the same laws........................................................................DF1

Click to expand...

Only if he is banned from gun possession. Now... in regards to those criminals that can possess a gun but would otherwise not be able to get a permit..

If everyone is allowed to CC... so would he. So knowing now that CC may get another charge... some may chose not to.

Click to expand...

Armed criminal action is a federal crime and also in many states. So whethera criminal carried open or concealed once a crime is committed the gun becomes an enhancement to the crime in regards to punishment. Seems silly to have a charge for CC when the crime committed with a gun is charged so much more severely and rightfully so. Punish the action severely not the possession until a crime is committed then stick it to them for the possesson too.

As far as CHPpermits go, that onlyhelps those who plan ahead for aproblem(needing a gun)and since only about 1% of the population getspermits that leaves 99% hanging when an emergency (New Orleans or LA riots or 9-11) occurs and then can't get a permit in a few hours let alone a few days. In CA there is a 10 day cooling off periodfrom purchase to pick-up of a firearm. Some became aware of that law when they tried to purchase a firearm for the first time during the riots!

And then there is the victimless crime take on CC. The state should never be offendable (a crime against the state)when someone peacefully carries a firearm either open or concealed.

imported post

Only if he is banned from gun possession. Now... in regards to those criminals that can possess a gun but would otherwise not be able to get a permit..

If everyone is allowed to CC... so would he. So knowing now that CC may get another charge... some may chose not to.

Click to expand...

The kinds of crimes that would get you banned from a permit but not ownership - what are they? DUI? as one. While I personally consider this as life threateningto at least the citizens in proximity, the courts merely consider eggregious examples of this to be a 'breach of the peace'. What others?

The point beingthat as a society we need to resume the premise that a person who has served his sentence has relieved his obligations and gotten back his rights. If they're a criminal, they should be in jail. If they've done their sentence, they should be free. That's a great oversimplification, obviously, because we wouldn't want the likes of Paris Hilton slumming down our prisons & jails now would we?

AFAso called "Alaska carry" is concerned, readers here may do well to read the past fewso called "Alaska carry" bills submitted. One of the more particularly offensive portions is the "must surrender" language they keep including. It's a move away from goodness.

This outlawing of 'concealment' IMO was actually the beginning of the slide down the slippery slope. Being robbed by "highwaymen" (the precursor to traffic enforcement cops) was a real danger in the early days of the republic and it became "uncivilized" to carry concealed. The "assumption" was made that if you were concealing, you had an ulterior, and possibly criminal motive. These laws replicated like rabbits and courts "bent over backwards" to uphold the legislative body's law.

Rather than the odious "must surrender" language of the recently proffered so called "Alaska carry" bills, we should modify 18.2-308 by making the offense limited to "with malicious intent".

imported post

Mr. Y wrote:

AFAso called "Alaska carry" is concerned, readers here may do well to read the past fewso called "Alaska carry" bills submitted. One of the more particularly offensive portions is the "must surrender" language they keep including. It's a move away from goodness.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link for any of these failed bills?

Thanks

imported post

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+ful+HB2405

imported post

cato wrote:

Armed criminal action is a federal crime and also in many states. So whethera criminal carried open or concealed once a crime is committed the gun becomes an enhancement to the crime in regards to punishment. Seems silly to have a charge for CC when the crime committed with a gun is charged so much more severely and rightfully so. Punish the action severely not the possession until a crime is committed then stick it to them for the possesson too.

Click to expand...

I see your point.... But on the other hand.. If the criminal is caught lurking around a liquor store... and puts on a mast. He has not YET robbed it and is stopped by the police just prior... You would have nothing to possibly charge him with.

Except in Virginia where it is a felony to wear a mask in public.

§ 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.

imported post

But on the other hand i i were hanging around at the car show in front of my friends diner (which is next to a liquor store) & it happens to be cold & i put on a mask to keep warm the only law i have broken it the stupid one about not wearing a mask. I have commited "NO" firearms violation. Also how can you prove intent that the person was intendingto rob the liquor store. What would be the reason for stopping him for questioning in the first place if no crime has been commited.

It sounds like a fishing expedition with the assumption that the citizen is guilty until proven innocent. He's here he has a gun he must be up to something bad.:what:

Which crimes allow a criminal to own a firearm but prevents them from getting a CHP?

I just read my post & it sounds a little argumentative but it is not intended that way...............................................................DF1

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

glocknroll wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The permits do not get processed magically... An employee has to sit there and do all the work. The local jurisdiction needs to pay them somehow.

I see it as offsetting the cost to the people who pay taxes. The low price of $40 - $50 is not bad for all the people that are involved in the processing of the permit. Anything more than $50.00 is excessive.

Click to expand...

Have to disagree with you on this one. The same background check costs $3 when you buy a gun. Why does it cost $50 for a permit to carry that gun?

Click to expand...

You must be talking about the check by the state where they punch in your name and it reports.. not wanted, no felony, not mental, no restraining order. These are the quick ones that can be checked in seconds and they are cut and dry.

The FFL dealer is getting paid by the sale of the item so the completion of the form and the filing he does is covered.

Thegovernment employee has to actually process your application and submit a letter tot he Judge.He will need to doresearch and check several databases for your name.Since the SSN is optional he or she may need to look deeper to see if it is you. he needs to look very close at your criminal history to determine if your eligible or not.

There is a little more work here for the local employee to consider.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I was thinking of. I generally equate being able to legally purchase a gun with being able to get a CHP. I had forgotten that things like drunk in public, DUI, 2 misdemeanors in a specified time period, etc, were disqualifiers also. It just makes sense to me that if you are legal to purchase, then you should be legal to carry. I realize that open carry is legal for any legal purchaser, but what happens when it gets cold or rains? Not everyone owns a thigh rig, which is about the only wayI can think of to open carry when wearing an overcoat. I agree with Citizen, prior restraint on a constitutional right shouldn't be legal. If one abuses that right by committing a crime, then carve 'em a new a**hole.

imported post

Nobody has been able to answer this with a concise answer.

What good does it serve to issue permits? Where is the wrong in letting someone that can otherwise buy/own/oc a gun carry it without having to go through permit BS?

Concise answers only, please

imported post

it gives people who yearn to "control" others a useful role in society. If they didn't have this role to fulfill, they'd be measuring your grass height for HOA or county code violations, surveying your house for non permitted expansions, fences, busybodying themselves into every aspect of your lives. Without permits and the associated infrastructure, these people would have nothing productive to do and they would positively go insane.

Oh the humanity...

imported post

savery wrote:

Nobody has been able to answer this with a concise answer.

What good does it serve to issue permits?  Where is the wrong in letting someone that can otherwise buy/own/oc a gun carry it without having to go through permit BS?

Concise answers only, please

Click to expand...

Since the dead horse has arrived I just can't help beating on it. You do NOT NEED A PERMIT TO CARRY A GUN IN VIRGINIA. You only need a permit to CONCEAL the weapon from COMMON OBSERVATION.

That said, the actual answer to your question would be that there is a presumption, that if you want to conceal the fact that you are armed, you MUST have some evil purpose. The Permit allows the authorities to check your background, to be certain that you do not have a criminal background, AND it generates revenue.

But in truth, the only practical purpose it serves to show anti-rights people that the legislature is doing all it can to harass people who want to carry a gun.

Regards

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

savery wrote:

Nobody has been able to answer this with a concise answer.

What good does it serve to issue permits? Where is the wrong in letting someone that can otherwise buy/own/oc a gun carry it without having to go through permit BS?

Concise answers only, please

Click to expand...

Since the dead horse has arrived I just can't help beating on it. You do NOT NEED A PERMIT TO CARRY A GUN IN VIRGINIA. You only need a permit to CONCEAL the weapon from COMMON OBSERVATION.

That said, the actual answer to your question would be that there is a presumption, that if you want to conceal the fact that you are armed, you MUST have some evil purpose. The Permit allows the authorities to check your background, to be certain that you do not have a criminal background, AND it generates revenue.

But in truth, the only practical purpose it serves to show anti-rights people that the legislature is doing all it can to harass people who want to carry a gun.

Regards

Click to expand...

Why even allow people to hide it at all? Open carry is permitted and everyone can know your armed.

Either we are equal or we are not. Why should some people hide the fact that they are armed. This serves absolutely no justifiable purpose.

I say do away with CC permits and require all states to allow OC.

Anyone caught hiding a gun must be up to something evil in my opinion.

We all know that criminals do not OC. So someone needing to hide a gun must want to sneak up on his victim.

imported post

Poncho was a bandit boy, his horse was fast as polished steel
He wore his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to feel
Poncho met his match, you know, on the deserts down in Mexico
Nobody heard his dyin' word, but that's the way it goes

Click to expand...

- Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard - Poncho and Lefty

imported post

DeerForce1 wrote:

But on the other hand i i were hanging around at the car show in front of my friends diner (which is next to a liquor store) & it happens to be cold & i put on a mask to keep warm the only law i have broken it the stupid one about not wearing a mask. I have commited "NO" firearms violation. Also how can you prove intent that the person was intendingto rob the liquor store. What would be the reason for stopping him for questioning in the first place if no crime has been commited.

It sounds like a fishing expedition with the assumption that the citizen is guilty until proven innocent. He's here he has a gun he must be up to something bad.:what:

Which crimes allow a criminal to own a firearm but prevents them from getting a CHP?

I just read my post & it sounds a little argumentative but it is not intended that way...............................................................DF1

Click to expand...

If it is cold out... you can explain wearing a mask. How about when it is 95 degrees and almost closing time for the store?

You cannot prove he was "going" to rob the store. But his activity is very suspicious and one could articulate easy enough that this "law abiding citizen" appeared to be getting ready to rob the place.

Gun, Mask, Gloves, Late Night, Closing Time, Prior robberies in area.....

So if he donned the mask... Felony. No CC Permit... Misdemeanor. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony... Felony!

Many here lack the understanding that some people are just not innocent. A LEO works off experience and training to identify possible criminals. You may not like it.... but LEOs often times stop people that fit the criteria. It gets the job done and protects the public.

There really are lots of bad people out there... why else do you carry?? You just lack the experience to spot them. You deal with good people every day. LEO deals with the bad.

imported post

So if he donned the mask... 2-5 years. No CC Permit... <1 year. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony... Priceless!:lol: