Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: HB 106: Carrying concealed handguns

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...?101+sum+HB106

    Just showed up, no link to the full text yet, should be there soon.

    ETA: Ah, here it is!

    Summary:

    Carrying concealed handguns. Allows a person with a valid concealed handgun permit to carry a concealed handgun in a place of worship with permission of the leader of the religious meeting. The bill also eliminates the restriction against carrying a concealed handgun in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    Post imported post

    I think I'd rather deal with the "good and sufficient reason" than worry about showing that I have permission from some church leader. Ohio makes this same requirement, but their requirement is for concealed carry only.

    If a church has decided they don't want gun carriers in the congregation let them put up a sign, otherwise remove the restriction in whole. This proposed change is NOT an improvement in my opinion.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    jmelvin wrote:
    I think I'd rather deal with the "good and sufficient reason" than worry about showing that I have permission from some church leader. Ohio makes this same requirement, but their requirement is for concealed carry only.

    If a church has decided they don't want gun carriers in the congregation let them put up a sign, otherwise remove the restriction in whole. This proposed change is NOT an improvement in my opinion.
    I tend to agree, this isn't really better. I attend a large church, at any given time on a Sunday, there are several "meetings" going on throughout the campus, and multiple people speak at various times during the services. It would be nearly impossible to define one person to "ask".

    TFred

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    308

    Post imported post

    I have permission from the Father above to protect his sheep!!! I'll have him call you when he is in town!

  5. #5
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    It leaves the language for "good and sufficient reason" in the code section.

    That makes it sound like an "either/or" sort of thing. You may carry with "good and sufficient reason" (be prepared to defend yourself as to what that reason is) or with explicit permission from a church officer.

    I don't like it either.

    Repeal 18.2-283.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    It leaves the language for "good and sufficient reason" in the code section.

    That makes it sound like an "either/or" sort of thing. You may carry with "good and sufficient reason" (be prepared to defend yourself as to what that reason is) or with explicit permission from a church officer.

    I don't like it either.

    Repeal 18.2-283.
    +1
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    ed wrote:
    wylde007 wrote:
    It leaves the language for "good and sufficient reason" in the code section.

    That makes it sound like an "either/or" sort of thing. You may carry with "good and sufficient reason" (be prepared to defend yourself as to what that reason is) or with explicit permission from a church officer.

    I don't like it either.

    Repeal 18.2-283.
    +1
    I wonder if this Ed Stone article could help?

    Firearms have a place in church
    There have been a series of newspaper articles around the state quoting school officials and various protestantclergy who believe their parishioners who carry a concealed pistolshould be arrested and put into jail.

    Firearms do have a place in church: saving and protecting the innocent and the defenseless.

  8. #8
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    Arguing that churches should be "the closest we come to the kingdom of God,"
    Not quite. Don't carry at the "wrong" time and get to be even closer. This kind of idiocy is rampant, but I wouldn't expect it from a TRUE man of the cloth.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    From the Ed Stone article:

    "The Very Reverend" C. Dean Taylor flatly states, "Firearms have no place in church." He goes so far as to claim, with no scriptural authority cited, that they are "an insult to God." Arguing that churches should be "the closest we come to the kingdom of God," Dean Taylor advocates retaining Georgia's Jim Crow prohibition on bearing arms at church, and, presumably, he advocates the arrest and incarceration of his parishioners who do not bow down to his will.
    Just as with all other "gun free zones", this one assumes that the criminals will obey the rules.

    The irony with this particular analogy is that once you reach the ultimate Kingdom of God, all the criminals (at least those who are still in the profession) will have been weeded out.

    Until God decides to drop in for a personal visit to do that weeding Himself, we will never reach anything close to that Kingdom here on Earth.

    TFred



  10. #10
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    Want to talk to God? Go to church.

    Want to meet Him? Try to harm me or my family.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    Post imported post

    My question would have to be, how does this affect the federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act, since many churches also have schools? Not that it's the responsibility of the state to enforce federal law...but, I don't think the defense, "My pastor told me I could" would hold up in federal court.

  12. #12
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    I would like to see any restriction on CC/OC in church dropped. It should fall under private property rules, if they really really don't want guns they can ask you to leave or post signs.

    The other thing is many churches have schools attached. So going to one of those churches can make you a felon if you carry. It would be nice if carrying at any religious ceremony was ok regardless of location.

    There is a church that meets at my daughters elementary school each week too. While I think it is great that the local public school is used for this, (since the land was given to the school) you still can't carry to a service.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    jmelvin wrote:
    I think I'd rather deal with the "good and sufficient reason" than worry about showing that I have permission from some church leader. Ohio makes this same requirement, but their requirement is for concealed carry only.

    If a church has decided they don't want gun carriers in the congregation let them put up a sign, otherwise remove the restriction in whole. This proposed change is NOT an improvement in my opinion.
    I'm with you melvin. Good and sufficient is sufficiently vague as to render it useless, not to mention you could also effectively show a sufficient reason without much trouble. There is no need to notify that one is carrying on ANY other private property. It is their duty to actively notify the public that guns are not allowed.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Until God decides to drop in for a personal visit to do that weeding Himself, we will never reach anything close to that Kingdom here on Earth.

    TFred

    I know, especially since I'm sure in heaven you don't need a permit to have a full auto machine gun :^).

  15. #15
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    fully_armed_biker wrote:
    My question would have to be, how does this affect the federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act, since many churches also have schools? Not that it's the responsibility of the state to enforce federal law...but, I don't think the defense, "My pastor told me I could" would hold up in federal court.
    The bill in question applies to those who have a concealed handgun permit. Since the hypothetical person has a CHP, the GFSZA does not apply. Only § 18.2-308.1 applies.

    The bill in question would have no affect on § 18.2-308.1.


    Edit to fix grammatical error.

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    fully_armed_biker wrote:
    My question would have to be, how does this affect the federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act, since many churches also have schools? Not that it's the responsibility of the state to enforce federal law...but, I don't think the defense, "My pastor told me I could" would hold up in federal court.
    The bill in question applies to those who have a concealed handgun permit. Since the hypothetical person has a CHP, the GFSZA does not apply. Only § 18.2-308.1 applies.

    The bill in question would have no affect on § 18.2-308.1.
    There are some opinions that out-of-state permits do not exempt you from the GFSZA. So, for example, a holder of only a Utah permit might still have a problem.

    TFred


  17. #17
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    fully_armed_biker wrote:
    My question would have to be, how does this affect the federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act, since many churches also have schools? Not that it's the responsibility of the state to enforce federal law...but, I don't think the defense, "My pastor told me I could" would hold up in federal court.
    The bill in question applies to those who have a concealed handgun permit. Since the hypothetical person has a CHP, the GFSZA does not apply. Only § 18.2-308.1 applies.

    The bill in question would have no affect on § 18.2-308.1.

    Edit to fix grammatical error.
    A CHP gives you some extra benefits in GFZ's but does not grant you full access. For example I can drop my daughter off at school while CC-ing (not OC-ing) as long as I do not leave the vehicle. If I step outside the vehicle carrying in any way I am a felon.

    So for churches that are attached to schools you still couldn't carry because of the school. I'm for deleting any restriction on carrying in Church (OC or CC) and adding a phrase that negates GFZ for a religious service regardless of location. Doubt it will happen though.

  18. #18
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    fully_armed_biker wrote:
    My question would have to be, how does this affect the federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act, since many churches also have schools? Not that it's the responsibility of the state to enforce federal law...but, I don't think the defense, "My pastor told me I could" would hold up in federal court.
    The bill in question applies to those who have a concealed handgun permit. Since the hypothetical person has a CHP, the GFSZA does not apply. Only § 18.2-308.1 applies.

    The bill in question would have no affect on § 18.2-308.1.
    There are some opinions that out-of-state permits do not exempt you from the GFSZA. So, for example, a holder of only a Utah permit might still have a problem.

    TFred
    I have heard that opinion; it might be correct, but has yet to be tested, as far as I know.

    That comes from the section:

    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    The text in bold is the part that makes it questionable as to whether an out-of-state permit is a valid exception; in the case of out-of-state permits the law enforcement authorities of Virginia or X county/city of Virginia have not actually verified that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license.

    In the case of schools in Virginia, out-of-state permits might be a valid exception to the GFSZA because Virginia only recognizes permits from other states that would not issue them to someone who would be disqualified under Virginia law [18.2-308(P)]. I do see the weakness in this argument, however.

  19. #19
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    I'm confused.

    Why isn't this two separate bills? One to address the ability to CC in a restaurant and a separate bill to address a church?

    Why was it necessary to combine the two issues into one bill?
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when youre serious and when youre being sarcastic. Abraham Lincoln

  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    ChinChin wrote:
    I'm confused.

    Why isn't this two separate bills? One to address the ability to CC in a restaurant and a separate bill to address a church?

    Why was it necessary to combine the two issues into one bill?
    Perhaps Delegate Cole feels confident that the two issues would share the same fate, whatever that may be.

    It doesn't really matter, they can change them in committee or on the floor.

    TFred


  21. #21
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    jmelvin wrote:
    I think I'd rather deal with the "good and sufficient reason" than worry about showing that I have permission from some church leader. Ohio makes this same requirement, but their requirement is for concealed carry only.

    If a church has decided they don't want gun carriers in the congregation let them put up a sign, otherwise remove the restriction in whole. This proposed change is NOT an improvement in my opinion.
    I tend to agree, this isn't really better. I attend a large church, at any given time on a Sunday, there are several "meetings" going on throughout the campus, and multiple people speak at various times during the services. It would be nearly impossible to define one person to "ask".

    TFred
    Half of me agrees, the other half thinks the 'good and sufficient reason' is unacceptably vague and subjective. The Good and Sufficient reason is only as sufficient as a judge wants it to be that day. This new idea, though inappropriate, is uniform. Laws should always be uniform.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    ., ,
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    .

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    fully_armed_biker wrote:
    My question would have to be, how does this affect the federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act, since many churches also have schools? Not that it's the responsibility of the state to enforce federal law...but, I don't think the defense, "My pastor told me I could" would hold up in federal court.
    The bill in question applies to those who have a concealed handgun permit. Since the hypothetical person has a CHP, the GFSZA does not apply. Only § 18.2-308.1 applies.

    The bill in question would have no affect on § 18.2-308.1.
    There are some opinions that out-of-state permits do not exempt you from the GFSZA. So, for example, a holder of only a Utah permit might still have a problem.

    TFred
    I have heard that opinion; it might be correct, but has yet to be tested, as far as I know.

    That comes from the section:

    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    The text in bold is the part that makes it questionable as to whether an out-of-state permit is a valid exception; in the case of out-of-state permits the law enforcement authorities of Virginia or X county/city of Virginia have not actually verified that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license.

    In the case of schools in Virginia, out-of-state permits might be a valid exception to the GFSZA because Virginia only recognizes permits from other states that would not issue them to someone who would be disqualified under Virginia law [18.2-308(P)]. I do see the weakness in this argument, however.
    But wouldn't the fact that reciprocity / recognition of permit validity has been established meet the required burden of verification the individual is qualified? In effect, another State is acting as an Agent for VA.

    Reciprocity (at least here in VA) requires the out-of-state permit to be at least as stringent as the VA permit (IOW, equal to or better in terms of requirements to obtain). Thus under reciprocity, VA treats the out-of-state permit to be the same as a VA permit and subject to VA laws.

    At least that's how I've come to understand the text on reciprocity here in VA.

  24. #24
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    I know this will come as an earth shattering shock, but Dan Casey thinks this is a bad idea. Just wait till his minions weigh in with their emotional tirades.

    http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/dan...ches/#comments



  25. #25
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    Reading his column is like watching Cops. You know what's going to happen. You watch anyway.

    What a mindless twit.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •