• 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.

HB 106: Carrying concealed handguns

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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.
 

darthmord

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

TFred

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

buster81 wrote:
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/dancasey/2010/01/06/bill-to-legalize-concealed-carry-in-bars-and-churches/#comments
Am I the only one just a little bit disturbed that there is a minor resemblance between Mr. Casey and Mr. Cole? :?

DanCaseyHeader.jpg


delmarkcole.jpg


TFred
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

TFred wrote:
buster81 wrote:
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/dancasey/2010/01/06/bill-to-legalize-concealed-carry-in-bars-and-churches/#comments
Am I the only one just a little bit disturbed that there is a minor resemblance between Mr. Casey and Mr. Cole? :?

DanCaseyHeader.jpg


delmarkcole.jpg


TFred
He has one of those faces Fred...In fact, he looks a lot like me:shock:




2941251299_5f8f7d3239.jpg
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

An interesting back-and-forth I'm having with Dan right now. At least he's seeing some form of daylight... but his "logic" defies reason.

BTW, I'm posting as ConfederateSon on the blog, in case anyone was wondering. I'm doing my best to be level-headed and succinct, but it is difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who is so completely delusional about firearms and their relationship to the criminal element as opposed to that of the law-abiding general population.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

wylde007 wrote:
An interesting back-and-forth I'm having with Dan right now. At least he's seeing some form of daylight... but his "logic" defies reason.

BTW, I'm posting as ConfederateSon on the blog, in case anyone was wondering. I'm doing my best to be level-headed and succinct, but it is difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who is so completely delusional about firearms and their relationship to the criminal element as opposed to that of the law-abiding general population.
I honestly don't know why you bother!

Arguing with morons doesn't help. A few years ago on Lobby day, one of the Tech protesters was spouting statics and I asked him if he knew that for a fact. He said, yes, I've read the ATF...I stopped him and asked if he knew that for a fact. He said no but the ATF...

I cut him off and told him he didn't know what the hell he was talking about and to quit wasting my time.

One of the VCDL people nearly had heart failure (tech student I think) and ran up saying "He didn't mean that I looked at them and said "Yes I did"!

They talked for about twenty minutes and the member didn't change any minds...he just wasted twenty minutes of his life.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

Well, if nothing else I hope that I have represented "our" position accurately and positively.

I may have gone a bit far with the cruise missile bit, but I think my point was well-founded.

I'm probably done with him for now. I wanted to fight the good fight, as it were. Was. Were? Meh.

At least I got him going in a direction other than the immediate knee-jerk reaction he initially posted. If nothing else, we can keep the antis thinking. And if they're busy thinking, they'll have less time to spout unsupported opinions and deliberately padded statistics. They're just like the global [climate change] goons. They cherry-pick only the data that supports their agenda and throw the rest out as "undesirable".

:celebrate <- because I can!
 

altajava

Newbie
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
228
Location
Occupied Virginia, USA
imported post

I would prefer to see a bill banning GFZs as they obviously don't work. I think that would fix most of our problems. I would also argue they are unconstitutional but you would need some very deep pockets to pursue that one.
 

user

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

The real problem with "no gun zones" of any kind is that criminal assailants feel free to take their guns in and start shooting, since they know the law abiding citizens will be defenseless. Like the little girl said on the Dairy Queen commercial, "it's just like shootin' fish in a barrel." And, to one in victim mode, depersonalized by abuse, andwho is psychologically driven to establish that he is a person and requires other people to sit up and take notice of him, shooting a school orchurch is about the most shocking thing he can do. He has greater reason to shoot people there than almost anywhere else, because of that "it'll get me noticed, so that way I can prove I really am a person" thing. All that any "no gun zone" will accomplish is that such incidents will be more bloody than necessary.
 
Top