• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is a second Photo-ID required for non-Virginia CHP holders?

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Things are fairly quiet these days, here's one we can toss around:

Here's a very specific question I've had for some time now. The Virginia CHP law (linked here for your reference) specifically says that you must "have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun". It also says that you must present the CHP "and a photo-identification ... upon demand by a law-enforcement officer."

Obviously this double ID is required because Virginia spends all of about 3/4 of a penny to produce their CHP permits, with no photo of the holder embedded into the permit itself.

So here's the question, and please note it is worded very specifically:

If one holds a Utah permit, (or any other state's permit which contains a photo of the permit holder), is one required to also carry on their person while carrying a concealed handgun, a second photo-id?

I linked the entire statute above, but for easier reference, the seemingly pertinent paragraph H is quoted here:

H. The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall specify only the following information: name, address, date of birth, gender, height, weight, color of hair, color of eyes, and signature of the permittee; the signature of the judge issuing the permit, or of the clerk of court who has been authorized to sign such permits by the issuing judge; the date of issuance; and the expiration date. The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall be no larger than two inches wide by three and one-fourth inches long and shall be of a uniform style prescribed by the Department of State Police. The person issued the permit shall have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun and shall display the permit and a photo-identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the United States Department of Defense or United States State Department (passport) upon demand by a law-enforcement officer.
I'm interested in your thoughts, and especially if anyone knows of cases or incidents where this has come into question.

After carefully reading the statute, I have an opinion, but I will hold off on sharing it until others have had a chance to weigh in.

TFred
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

ProShooter wrote:
Since the statute doesn't specifically say "a secondary photo id issued by a government agency, yadda yadda", my opinion would be that just the Utah permit would suffice.The permit (to me) meets the requirement for both parts.
Ah yes, however, the statue does specify a list of acceptable issuing agencies for the photo id, and the State of Utah is not among them! It's in the bolded part of the original post.

TFred
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

TFred wrote:
ProShooter wrote:
Since the statute doesn't specifically say "a secondary photo id issued by a government agency, yadda yadda", my opinion would be that just the Utah permit would suffice.The permit (to me) meets the requirement for both parts.
Ah yes, however, the statue does specify a list of acceptable issuing agencies for the photo id, and the State of Utah is not among them! It's in the bolded part of the original post.

TFred

So you have answered your own question.

The permit, whether it be a VA resident or other state's non-resident permit, must be accompanied by a photo id issued by any of the sources listed. The Utah (or any other permit that has a photo) permit was notissued as an id byone of the sources listed in the law.

Reading the law, when it is written in a straight-forward manner, is not hard at all.You want to go to great lengths to see if you can twist it. Are you folks practicing to be politicians, or what?

stay safe.

skidmark
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

skidmark wrote:
TFred wrote:
ProShooter wrote:
Since the statute doesn't specifically say "a secondary photo id issued by a government agency, yadda yadda", my opinion would be that just the Utah permit would suffice.The permit (to me) meets the requirement for both parts.
Ah yes, however, the statue does specify a list of acceptable issuing agencies for the photo id, and the State of Utah is not among them! It's in the bolded part of the original post.

TFred
So you have answered your own question.

The permit, whether it be a VA resident or other state's non-resident permit, must be accompanied by a photo id issued by any of the sources listed. The Utah (or any other permit that has a photo) permit was notissued as an id byone of the sources listed in the law.

Reading the law, when it is written in a straight-forward manner, is not hard at all.You want to go to great lengths to see if you can twist it. Are you folks practicing to be politicians, or what?

stay safe.

skidmark
Actually, no, my motivations are not nearly so nefarious as you would assume.

I don't think it even takes any "twisting" to support my opinion, which is that you must carry the permit on your person at all times, but the law does not say that you must carry the photo ID on your person at all times, merely that you must display it to the LEO when requested.

And here is the reason for the question... my mailbox is across and up the street a few dozen yards. I can't carry at work, so I typically don't carry until after I get home from work and unload all the "pocket stuff", including keys and wallet.

What I tend to do when collecting the mail is to just grab the permit (which has the photo in it) and the mailbox key, and of course the snubbie in the pocket holster, and go check the mail and come back.

It will never happen in a hundred years, but if by some small chance I encounter a LEO during this process, and I don't have a sanctioned photo ID on my person (but in my house, just yards away), I don't want to be cited for breaking the CHP law.

I don't think I would, even if the LEO was a total jerk about it, but as I said at the very beginning, slow day, thought I'd toss it out for some discussion.

What I would ultimately like to see is a tweak in the law which says if other authorized CHP permits contain a photo ID of the holder, then no additional ID is required. It seems like this was tried recently but failed, but I couldn't find it.

TFred
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
ProShooter wrote:
Since the statute doesn't specifically say "a secondary photo id issued by a government agency, yadda yadda", my opinion would be that just the Utah permit would suffice.The permit (to me) meets the requirement for both parts.
Ah yes, however, the statue does specify a list of acceptable issuing agencies for the photo id, and the State of Utah is not among them! It's in the bolded part of the original post.

TFred
Your correct - missed that specificity. Thats what I get for answering a post as I'm heading out the door! :)
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
ProShooter wrote:
Since the statute doesn't specifically say "a secondary photo id issued by a government agency, yadda yadda", my opinion would be that just the Utah permit would suffice.The permit (to me) meets the requirement for both parts.
Ah yes, however, the statue does specify a list of acceptable issuing agencies for the photo id, and the State of Utah is not among them! It's in the bolded part of the original post.

TFred
So based on that, a person from outside of Virginia would have to provide either a Virginia Photo ID, a Department of Defense ID, or a Passport.

That kind of screws the non-resident person with no DoD affiliation who doesn't have a passport.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
TFred wrote:
ProShooter wrote:
Since the statute doesn't specifically say "a secondary photo id issued by a government agency, yadda yadda", my opinion would be that just the Utah permit would suffice.The permit (to me) meets the requirement for both parts.
Ah yes, however, the statue does specify a list of acceptable issuing agencies for the photo id, and the State of Utah is not among them! It's in the bolded part of the original post.

TFred
So based on that, a person from outside of Virginia would have to provide either a Virginia Photo ID, a Department of Defense ID, or a Passport.

That kind of screws the non-resident person with no DoD affiliation who doesn't have a passport.
That's a very good point... I hadn't considered that angle before. The letter of the law certainly seems to say just that.

A very good question to ask your favorite legislator!

TFred
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

As a preliminary, note that cops are not lawyers, and tend to apply the rules as they understand them without consultation with anyone else. Thus, the best advice is to present all the identification a cop wants to see, even if one has an out of state permit. What I've got to say here assumes that a person has been arrested, and it would be best not to have been arrested.

If a client had been arrested for violation of the concealed carry statute because of a failure to show an identification document containing a photograph, and that client had a permit issued by a state other than Virginia, I think it would be a good defense to argue that the permit identified in subsection "H" is that issued by Virginia. Since the language requiring presentation of the permit and photo-id is all contained within that same paragraph, the photo-id requirement is limited to permits issued by Virginia.

Subparagraph "P" deals with reciprocal recognition of permits issued by other states and contains no such requirement. It does contain other, different requirements. Since the legislature chose (1) not to put the presentation of a photo-id requirement in a separate subsection applicable to everyone and (2) enacted the two subsections with different requirements and (3) is legally presumed to know how to write laws; it is clearly the intent of the statute that holders of permits from states other than Virginia, which are entitled to recognition under subsection "P", are exempt from the second identification document requirement.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

user wrote:
As a preliminary, note that cops are not lawyers, and tend to apply the rules as they understand them without consultation with anyone else. Thus, the best advice is to present all the identification a cop wants to see, even if one has an out of state permit. What I've got to say here assumes that a person has been arrested, and it would be best not to have been arrested.

If a client had been arrested for violation of the concealed carry statute because of a failure to show an identification document containing a photograph, and that client had a permit issued by a state other than Virginia, I think it would be a good defense to argue that the permit identified in subsection "H" is that issued by Virginia. Since the language requiring presentation of the permit and photo-id is all contained within that same paragraph, the photo-id requirement is limited to permits issued by Virginia.

Subparagraph "P" deals with reciprocal recognition of permits issued by other states and contains no such requirement. It does contain other, different requirements. Since the legislature chose (1) not to put the presentation of a photo-id requirement in a separate subsection applicable to everyone and (2) enacted the two subsections with different requirements and (3) is legally presumed to know how to write laws; it is clearly the intent of the statute that holders of permits from states other than Virginia, which are entitled to recognition under subsection "P", are exempt from the second identification document requirement.


Wow, that's way too much lawyer-speak for 8:00 in the morning....

I've got to remind myself to come back later and reread this. :)
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

ProShooter wrote:
...

Wow, that's way too much lawyer-speak for 8:00 in the morning....

I've got to remind myself to come back later and reread this.  :)

Sorry. But with reference to the original question:

TFred wrote:
...
So here's the question, and please note it is worded very specifically:

If one holds a Utah permit, (or any other state's permit which contains a photo of the permit holder), is one required to also carry on their person while carrying a concealed handgun, a second photo-id?
...
TFred

the simple answer is, "no." At least that's my opinion.
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

But doesn't reciprocity also treat any reciprocal permits as being ones issued by VA for purposes of being able to CC? (part and parcel of 'yes you can carry here with your permit as long as you follow our rules')

Thus a CHP/CWP/CCP that has a photo ID on it from a jurisdiction VA shares reciprocity with should be okay, shouldn't it?

Regardless, I almost always have my VA DL with me. I always do along with my CHP if I'm CCing.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
Things are fairly quiet these days, here's one we can toss around:

Here's a very specific question I've had for some time now. The Virginia CHP law (linked here for your reference) specifically says that you must "have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun". It also says that you must present the CHP "and a photo-identification ... upon demand by a law-enforcement officer."
my view is no - and I often present my photo bearing PA LTCF at the General Assembly and no ID demand is ever made. In any event, there is no crime of not carrying the photo ID even for VA non-phoo CHP holders.
 

jegoodin

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
imported post

The statute cited deals with "The permit", as in the permit issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia. It specifies in detail the information required to be on "the permit" and further amplifies that anyone carrying "the permit" must also carry a photo ID. No where in this statute does it address reciprocity or what must be on or carried with a permit issued by another state or commonwealth.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

jegoodin wrote:
The statute cited deals with "The permit", as in the permit issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia. It specifies in detail the information required to be on "the permit" and further amplifies that anyone carrying "the permit" must also carry a photo ID. No where in this statute does it address reciprocity or what must be on or carried with a permit issued by another state or commonwealth.
right - and in fact bills to clarify reciprocity as requiring a 2d ID have failed; and during debates on those bills I have made comments to the subcommittee that it is not necessary to require a 2d photo if the CHP itself bears a photo - as as the VSP issued CHP is both photo bearing and commonwealth ID, it works by itself in my opinion too
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

I don't mean to de-rail the thread.

But, you could carry5 photo IDs, twenty witnesses with you 24/7, and a stenographer, andhold a deposition during a police stop, and they would still want to run your CHP through their database "to verify it."

Hogwash.Its a fishing expedition. Just the permit aloneshould be more than enough.NoID. No computer checks.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
I don't mean to de-rail the thread.

But, you could carry5 photo IDs, twenty witnesses with you 24/7, and a stenographer, andhold a deposition during a police stop, and they would still want to run your CHP through their database "to verify it."

Hogwash.Its a fishing expedition. Just the permit aloneshould be more than enough.NoID. No computer checks.

Wrong.

I have seen (twice) where someone was supposed to have turned their permit in due to a criminal charge and they failed to respond to the request to do so. Just like having a physical driver's license in your wallet doesnt mean that you arent suspended.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

ProShooter wrote:
Citizen wrote:
I don't mean to de-rail the thread.

But, you could carry5 photo IDs, twenty witnesses with you 24/7, and a stenographer, andhold a deposition during a police stop, and they would still want to run your CHP through their database "to verify it."

Hogwash.Its a fishing expedition. Just the permit aloneshould be more than enough.NoID. No computer checks.

Wrong.

I have seen (twice) where someone was supposed to have turned their permit in due to a criminal charge and they failed to respond to the request to do so. Just like having a physical driver's license in your wallet doesnt mean that you arent suspended.


Twice. Out of 130K permits? Even if it was 40 catches, so what? The rest of us are supposed to endure the fishing expedition because the courts that did the "revoking" can't keep up? If it is really all that important, why aren't deputies immediately dispatched by the court to recover the permit?Because we all know it really isn't that important. Bad people are going to carry, permit or not. And we already know the percentage of bad people who receive permits is very low. Revocation rates are very low. Crime committed by CCW holders is very low.

Nevermind that if a revoked-permit CCer got caught committing a crimethe fact that his permitwas revoked would turn up during that investigation the instant the police ran his ID.

I have personally been on the receiving end of two police fishing expeditions in the last two to three years. The circumstances of each are clear that there was a fishing expedition going on. There is a third encounter that shapes up as an illegal seizure that turned into a brief fishing expedition when all the circumstances are considered.

There is no legitimate reason the rest of us should have to endure police fishing just so police canlook forpossible excitementand the attaboys that go along with the occasional catch arising from the fishing. As Dale Carson, former cop and FBI agent, says in hisbook, Arrest-Proof Yourself,police are hunters. Ihave little doubtleft that they want and welcome opportunities to hunt. Or fish. Like checkingCCW permits in that (40?)-in-130,000 chance that he can arrestsomeone forCC on a revoked license.

And the rest of us are supposed to sit aroundseized, thinking happy thoughts about butterflies andwarm puppies, while this too-important crime-detection opportunity is afforded our heroes (who built and maintainthe Blue Wall of Silence).

Give me a break! Enough already!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

ProShooter wrote:
SNIP I have seen (twice) where someone was supposed to have turned their permit in due to a criminal charge and they failed to respond to the request to do so. Just like having a physical driver's license in your wallet doesnt mean that you arent suspended.
And, your statement proves the government lie inversely. If my physical possession of a permit doesn't prove validity, why does the statute require me to carry it at all? Why not just require me toexhibit ID and let the cop check the database?

Because the database might be down, so they need the document? Ha. Right. Except that the reverse is true, I have to show the CHP and ID on demandalways, not just when the database is down.

Its just government nonsense designed to make life interesting for cops and criminals at the expense of the law-abiding. And we're supposed to shut up and unthinkingly accept the courts' conclusions regarding "compelling government interest" in detecting andpreventing crime.

Ha. Compelling interest in keeping up their illusions and pretenses is more like it.
 
Top