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

imported post

Citizen wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Twice. Out of 130K permits?

Click to expand...

No, actually twice that I have encountered. I cannot speak for any of the current/former LE in Virginia. Just me. 2 times that I have seen.

As for the rest of your ramble, if the Yankee game wasn't on, I'd debate your "I see black helicopters" complex. Life's too short to be constantly looking over your shoulder waiting for the axe to fall. Relax!

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Twice. Out of 130K permits?

Click to expand...

No, actually twice that I have encountered. I cannot speak for any of the current/former LE in Virginia. Just me. 2 times that I have seen.

As for the rest of your ramble, if the Yankee game wasn't on, I'd debate your "I see black helicopters" complex. Life's too short to be constantly looking over your shoulder waiting for the axe to fall. Relax!

Click to expand...

Is this your way of saying you don't have a tenable rebuttal?

My very next sentence, just exactly past where you stopped the quote addresses the exact aspect. I didn't figure you were talking about 2 in the entire state for your whole career. That's why I said, "even if it was forty catches."

Look, I know we are often on opposite sides of the fence on police issues. What do you say I won't criticize you in your area--CHP permit class instruction and so forth; and you stay out of mine--freedom, liberty, governemnt violations of Founding principles, and so forth.

Maybe we can have some detente. And you can avoid making afool of yourself criticizing my writings as ramblings derived from black helicopter complexes, rather than comingup with a legitimate, informative rebuttal that benefits everybody, including your target.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Twice. Out of 130K permits?

Click to expand...

No, actually twice that I have encountered. I cannot speak for any of the current/former LE in Virginia. Just me. 2 times that I have seen.

As for the rest of your ramble, if the Yankee game wasn't on, I'd debate your "I see black helicopters" complex. Life's too short to be constantly looking over your shoulder waiting for the axe to fall. Relax!

Click to expand...

Is this your way of saying you don't have a tenable rebuttal?

My very next sentence, just exactly past where you stopped the quote addresses the exact aspect. I didn't figure you were talking about 2 in the entire state for your whole career. That's why I said, "even if it was forty catches."

Look, I know we are often on opposite sides of the fence on police issues. What do you say I won't criticize you in your area--CHP permit class instruction and so forth; and you stay out of mine--freedom, liberty, governemnt violations of Founding principles, and so forth.

Maybe we can have some detente. And you can avoid making afool of yourself criticizing my writings as ramblings derived from black helicopter complexes, rather than comingup with a legitimate, informative rebuttal that benefits everybody, including your target.

Click to expand...

Pitching change, Yanks up 4-1, if anyone cares.

No, my stepping away had nothing to do with a rebuttal. It had everything to do with watching a ballgame.

We are often on different sides of the fence on police issues, which is unfortunate. As for CHP instruction,I more than welcome the input of you or anyone on the forum. It helps make me a betterinstructor and makes my class a better product.

I will say though, that your areaof "freedom, liberty, governemnt violations of Founding principles, and so forth" is my area as well. As anyone who has taken my class will attest, I spend a good portion of time in the beginning of class discussing the 2nd Amendment, its history, the struggle for rightsin 1776 and the struggle for some of those same rights in 2009. Not because I have to to comply with some NRA-written dialogue - but because I feel strongly about those issues. So strongly in fact, that I added that material in the student manual that I wrote.

Now, I love reading these forums and gleaning information from them.I hope that my comments add to the integrity of the discussions. What I see all too often (both here and on other forums) is a "the police are out to get us" mentality from some posters(not all). I often sit back and laugh when someone posts that they were doing 80 mph in a 55 mph zone and some cop had the audacity to stop them and write them a ticket! The nerve of that officer!

Do cops screw up? SURE THEY DO! Did the girl at Taco Bell screw up when I asked for no ice in my drink today? SURE SHE DID. Granted, the job of the police has much more to do with things that may affect our rights more than the Taco Bell girl but people make mistakes. In my years in LE, I can honestly say that I never saw an officer with designs on "screwing with someone's rights". I never felt the urge to violate someone's rights when I woke up in the morning. Maybe this was due to proper training, selection of personnel, etc. Does it happen? I'm sure it does. Obviously I can never say never.I'm also sure that some people's views of the police and their responsibilities are skewed by their inaccurate perceptions.


I am sorry that you had such negative interactions with LE in your lifetime. I'm sure that we both wish that were not the case.

imported post

This has been a thumping good read so far. Let me throw another twisted bone out there. Myself being Active Duty, the Commonwealth sees my orders as proof that I am a "resident". Upon issuance of my CHP on demand, what if I do not choose to show him my DoD ID card and instead show him my out-of-state DL? Ha!

imported post

Milbars wrote:

This has been a thumping good read so far. Let me throw another twisted bone out there. Myself being Active Duty, the Commonwealth sees my orders as proof that I am a "resident". Upon issuance of my CHP on demand, what if I do not choose to show him my DoD ID card and instead show him my out-of-state DL? Ha!

Click to expand...

That's one of the related points to the reason I posted this question in the first place. I think the law, as currently written, is flawed. I think the current list of acceptable photo IDs is too short, and in the case of CHPs that have photos on them, unneeded altogether.

TFred

imported post

A CHP holder is specifically required to have their permit on their person at all times that they are carrying a concealed weapon. (Paragraph H of 18.2-308.)

How does this compare to a drivers license, both in what the law requires, and also the penalty for not carrying the license while driving?

If you don't have your valid CHP on your person, can you be charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, even though you do have a permit? How about driving, can you be charged with driving without a license, or is there a separate infraction of not carrying your license with you?

See where I'm going with this? If a drivers license has a separate and perhaps even lesser penalty for not carrying the actual piece of plastic, so should a CHP. Especially in this day of computers, there really isn't any excuse for putting a higher burden on CHP holders than drivers.

TFred

imported post

Don't they charge you with failure to produce ID or something like that if you do not have your license when driving?I agree TFred, I think the list is very short. Seems to be a law that hasn't seen any action in a while. How does the Commonwealth not recognize other states' DLs?

imported post

I carry a SC DL, SC CWP, and CT pistol permit at all times anyway.

imported post

I've never seen one, but I am told that the VA non-res permits have photos on them, which would make them a VA-issued photo ID. If you look at the application for non-res, you need to submit photographs with it.

Of course, these are issued by the State Police, not the county courts, who apparently don't want to pay for laminators.

imported post

TFred wrote:

A CHP holder is specifically required to have their permit on their person at all times that they are carrying a concealed weapon.  (Paragraph H of 18.2-308.)

How does this compare to a drivers license, both in what the law requires, and also the penalty for not carrying the license while driving?

If you don't have your valid CHP on your person, can you be charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, even though you do have a permit?  How about driving, can you be charged with driving without a license, or is there a separate infraction of not carrying your license with you?

See where I'm going with this?  If a drivers license has a separate and perhaps even lesser penalty for not carrying the actual piece of plastic, so should a CHP.  Especially in this day of computers, there really isn't any excuse for putting a higher burden on CHP holders than drivers.

TFred

Click to expand...

TFred always asks good questions. Very insightful. There is a separate charge for a licensed driver who happens to have forgotten to have his OL with him while driving: "No valid OL in possession". A minor traffic infraction. And, yes, failure to have the CHP with you while carrying other than in your house or business or on your own property, is carrying a concealed weapon, a class one misdemeanor punishable by up to twelve months in jail and/or a $2500 fine. Though I suspect that most General District Court judges, even in Arlington and Fairfax, would be pretty lenient if the defendant could show he actually had the permit and simply forgot to have it with him. It would be a real pain to have to go to trial on that charge for mere absent-mindedness, though.

imported post

user wrote:

TFred wrote:

A CHP holder is specifically required to have their permit on their person at all times that they are carrying a concealed weapon. (Paragraph H of 18.2-308.)

How does this compare to a drivers license, both in what the law requires, and also the penalty for not carrying the license while driving?

If you don't have your valid CHP on your person, can you be charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, even though you do have a permit? How about driving, can you be charged with driving without a license, or is there a separate infraction of not carrying your license with you?

See where I'm going with this? If a drivers license has a separate and perhaps even lesser penalty for not carrying the actual piece of plastic, so should a CHP. Especially in this day of computers, there really isn't any excuse for putting a higher burden on CHP holders than drivers.

TFred

Click to expand...

TFred always asks good questions. Very insightful. There is a separate charge for a licensed driver who happens to have forgotten to have his OL with him while driving: "No valid OL in possession". A minor traffic infraction. And, yes, failure to have the CHP with you while carrying other than in your house or business or on your own property, is carrying a concealed weapon, a class one misdemeanor punishable by up to twelve months in jail and/or a $2500 fine. Though I suspect that most General District Court judges, even in Arlington and Fairfax, would be pretty lenient if the defendant could show he actually had the permit and simply forgot to have it with him. It would be a real pain to have to go to trial on that charge for mere absent-mindedness, though.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment!

I suppose it would be pretty far down on the priority list of desired legislation, but wouldn't it be a good thing to try to push for a lesser violation of "No valid CHP in possession" rather than defaulting back to "carrying a concealed weapon without a permit?" Suspected or even likely lenience is good, but codified lenience is much better! And as you said, if one forgets, I'd rather be guilty of a somewhat clerical violation than a firearms violation, especially since subsequent violations are felonies.

It does not seem reasonable that someone should forfeit their right to carry a self-defense weapon because they forgot a piece of paper a couple times.

Seems like it wouldn't be a very complex change, maybe even as simple as appending text to the end of Paragraph H, to define the lesser penalty for not carrying the CHP on their person. I guess that's what the lawyers do...

Back to the driving analogy (which should be applied the same as a CHP!) If we treated forgotten drivers licenses the same as driving without a license... Lots of people with perfectly clean driving records would not be driving any more.

Just some thoughts.

TFred

imported post

I'm with you on the legislative change. My view is that there's lots of stuff in the Code that needs fixing. And the concealed weapon statute has become way too complex. It is trying to do too many things. There's the law, and exceptions to the law, and exceptions to the exceptions, unless it's raining on Tuesday...

I think it ought to be broken up into four statutes. The exception doesn't have to be in the same statute. For example, one statute says you can get a hunting license to kill animals, but another says the killing of any animal is per-se animal cruelty and a criminal offense. The laundry list of people who are authorized to carry by virtue of their occupational status could be somewhere else. You get the drift.

For years, I've offered my services to people I've known in the General Assembly but they tend to have a focus on whatever the big issue is for the day. They all want to do new stuff, not stop for a minute and clean up the old stuff.

imported post

user wrote:

I'm with you on the legislative change. My view is that there's lots of stuff in the Code that needs fixing. And the concealed weapon statute has become way too complex. It is trying to do too many things. There's the law, and exceptions to the law, and exceptions to the exceptions, unless it's raining on Tuesday...

I think it ought to be broken up into four statutes. The exception doesn't have to be in the same statute. For example, one statute says you can get a hunting license to kill animals, but another says the killing of any animal is per-se animal cruelty and a criminal offense. The laundry list of people who are authorized to carry by virtue of their occupational status could be somewhere else. You get the drift.

For years, I've offered my services to people I've known in the General Assembly but they tend to have a focus on whatever the big issue is for the day. They all want to do new stuff, not stop for a minute and clean up the old stuff.

Click to expand...

Which is why beauracracies crumble under their own weight. They never perform housecleaning on their own rules & regs

imported post

TFred wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Maybe my thinking is too simple....and being from PA i may misunderstand...and doesn't really answer your original question....however...

If the only time its really an issue is when you are walking to get the mail...then just open carry. From my understanding of VA law no permit is needed to OC...so if you dont have a permit then no further need for photo ID either...

Correct me if i'm wrong.

imported post

mrjam2jab wrote:

TFred wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Maybe my thinking is too simple....and being from PA i may misunderstand...and doesn't really answer your original question....however...

If the only time its really an issue is when you are walking to get the mail...then just open carry. From my understanding of VA law no permit is needed to OC...so if you dont have a permit then no further need for photo ID either...

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Nope not wrong at all. Open carry is an option. But that doesn't fix the problem in the code.

TFred

imported post

Did some searching through the LIS and here are the two laws as applied to drivers licenses. In this day and age of computerized records, I think it would be a very good idea to try to change the CHP requirements to more closely match the drivers license rules.

First, the requirement for being licensed to drive:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-300

§ 46.2-300. Driving without license prohibited; penalties.

No person, except those expressly exempted in §§ 46.2-303 through 46.2-308, shall drive any motor vehicle on any highway in the Commonwealth until such person has applied for a driver's license, as provided in this article, satisfactorily passed the examination required by § 46.2-325, and obtained a driver's license, nor unless the license is valid.

A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Upon conviction under this section, the court may suspend the person's privilege to drive for a period not to exceed 90 days.

Click to expand...

Of note: there are relatively stiff penalties for driving without obtaining a license, just as there are stiff penalties for carrying a handgun without a CHP. The penalties increase on subsequent violations.

Next, the requirement to carry the license on your person:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-104

§ 46.2-104. Possession of registration cards; exhibiting registration card and licenses; failure to carry license or registration card.

The operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer being operated on the highways in the Commonwealth, shall have in his possession: (i) the registration card issued by the Department or the registration card issued by the state or country in which the motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer is registered, and (ii) his driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit.

The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, exhibit his registration card, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officer, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity.

Every person licensed by the Department as a driver or issued a learner's or temporary driver's permit who fails to carry his license or permit, and the registration card for the vehicle which he operates, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and upon conviction punished by a fine of ten dollars. However, if any person summoned to appear before a court for failure to display his license, permit, or registration card presents, before the return date of the summons, to the court a license or permit issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued or a registration card, as the case may be, or appears pursuant to the summons and produces before the court a license or permit issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued or a registration card, as the case may be, he shall, upon payment of all applicable court costs, have complied with the provisions of this section.

Click to expand...

Here is where the difference is apparent. If you forget your drivers license, yes, you are ticketed and fined, and you have a chance to later show you were licensed. In either case, you do still have to cover the court costs. However, for a CHP, if you forget your permit, you are just as guilty as not having a permit at all. This is wrong.

Do it twice, and you are a felon. As I said before, I don't think one should be required to forfeit his right to defend himself for the "crime" of forgetting a piece of paper a couple times.

TFred

imported post

Not only that, but the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginiarecently held that possession of a valid CHP represents an affirmative defense to the charge of carrying a concealed weapon. That is to say, that the arresting officer may have actual knowledge that you have the CHP, that you have it on you, that you're street-legal in every respect, and still have probable cause to arrest you for carrying a concealed weapon.

[Corrected - USDC/EDVA wrote the opinion, not the Va. Sup.Ct. as earlier stated.; the case is U.S. v. Morton, 400 F.Supp. 2nd 871(E.D.Va. 2005). This case was a hearing on a motion in limine to suppress evidence. The defendant was not actually a CHP holder, but was making the argument that the cops couldn't have known that when they arrested him for carrying a concealed weapon. Hence, they lacked probable cause to believe he'd committed the crime. He was, in fact, guilty, having been not only in possession of a concealed handgun, but was also a convicted felon.]

imported post

user wrote:

Not only that, but the Va. Supreme Ct. recently held that possession of a valid CHP represents an affirmative defense to the charge of carrying a concealed weapon. That is to say, that the arresting officer may have actual knowledge that you have the CHP, that you have it on you, that you're street-legal in every respect, and still have probable cause to arrest you for carrying a concealed weapon.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't a Virginia Supreme Court ruling be published and precedent-setting? I would like to read it.

Doesn't "affirmative defense" mean that you would most likely be found not guilty of the charge, if you show you had a CHP at the time of the arrest? If that is so, it sounds like the law should be changed to match the opinion.

TFred

imported post

Yes. Problem is, when the Supremes speak, that is the law. The statute should be amended to make it clear that the valid CHP in possession is a "get out of jail free" card.

The opinion is published, and is precedent, but I don't have the cite off the top of my head.

imported post

user wrote:

Yes. Problem is, when the Supremes speak, that is the law. The statute should be amended to make it clear that the valid CHP in possession is a "get out of jail free" card.

The opinion is published, and is precedent, but I don't have the cite off the top of my head.

Click to expand...

If you run across it sometime... I googled, but no joy without more specifics...

Thanks!

TFred