• 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

TFred

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

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?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.
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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.
 

TFred

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

wylde007

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

ed

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
4,841
Location
Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
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
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
 

wylde007

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

TFred

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

fully_armed_biker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
463
Location
Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
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.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
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 :^).
 

virginiatuck

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
787
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

TFred

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

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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.
 

virginiatuck

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
787
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
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?
 

TFred

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