Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Perks for permits.

  1. #1
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    While I am not against added positive for gun rights, I am kind of torn as are some more of a step backwards rather than forward. Almost as a separation between gun rights, and 2a rights as per the bill of rights and the constitutional warnings of they shall not be infringed.

    Sometimes new laws and freedoms are not introduced because our elected officials seem to feel they are covered already in one form or another with currant laws and freedoms. This could as well make an issue of trying to push for carry as Alaska style, no permit needed. What I mean is if it is covered under permit only with a mountain of law's they would feel why change it, just get a permit.

    Could we be backing ourselves into a corner with more concealed perks? Once locked into concealed is it not possible to make that the only way of carry? Could we be setting ourselves up after that for tougher concealed legislation should one party in the future gain control again with nothing to stop them?



    Please follow link to read more. http://news.oldva.org/?p=2442 Does any one get it?


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

    Post imported post

    Kenny I agree with your editorial wholeheartedly. In this state where open carry is mostly without restriction, (and those few restrictions such as in state forest, state park and national forest could go away quickly) it is non-sensical that a permit be necessary to carry a firearm open or concealed. The onlytime that a permit of any sort is "necessary" to carry is within the areas defined as part of the Federal gun free school zones act. Once this horrible piece of law is overturned or abolished then a "need" for permitting disappears completely.

    Like you, I have a CHP for those times I want to carry concealed without breaking existing law and for when I travel to other states, but generally I carry openly and this has given me the opportunity to spread info to others. I agree wholeheartedly that the expansion of "privileges" to permit holders is extremely dangerous and a bit on the disgusting side if we understand and maintain that a right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right that goes along with life itself.

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    kennys wrote:
    While I am not against added positive for gun rights, I am kind of torn as are some more of a step backwards rather than forward. Almost as a separation between gun rights, and 2a rights as per the constitution.

    Sometimes new laws and freedoms are not introduced because our elected officials seem to feel they are covered already in one form or another with currant laws and freedoms. This could as well make an issue of trying to push for carry as Alaska style, no permit needed. What I mean is if it is covered under permit only with a mountain of law's they would feel why change it, just get a permit.

    Could we be backing ourselves into a corner with more concealed perks? Once locked into concealed is it not possible to make that the only way of carry? Could we be setting ourselves up after that for tougher concealed legislation should one party in the future gain control again with nothing to stop them?



    Please follow link to read more. http://news.oldva.org/?p=2442 Does any one get it?
    One major mistake. You said, "but the constitution gives us the right, not the privilege". The Constitution does no such thing. The Bill of Rights protects rights which are ours by birth. Nether it nor the Constitution gives us any rights. Rather they warn government that our rights are not to be infringed. Very important distinction, especially when our audience may include those who would rather see us disarmed.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    Post imported post

    Nice catch SouthernBoy, a very significant difference indeed.

  5. #5
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    kennys wrote:
    While I am not against added positive for gun rights, I am kind of torn as are some more of a step backwards rather than forward. Almost as a separation between gun rights, and 2a rights as per the constitution.

    Sometimes new laws and freedoms are not introduced because our elected officials seem to feel they are covered already in one form or another with currant laws and freedoms. This could as well make an issue of trying to push for carry as Alaska style, no permit needed. What I mean is if it is covered under permit only with a mountain of law's they would feel why change it, just get a permit.

    Could we be backing ourselves into a corner with more concealed perks? Once locked into concealed is it not possible to make that the only way of carry? Could we be setting ourselves up after that for tougher concealed legislation should one party in the future gain control again with nothing to stop them?



    Please follow link to read more. http://news.oldva.org/?p=2442 Does any one get it?
    One major mistake. You said, "but the constitution gives us the right, not the privilege". The Constitution does no such thing. The Bill of Rights protects rights which are ours by birth. Nether it nor the Constitution gives us any rights. Rather they warn government that our rights are not to be infringed. Very important distinction, especially when our audience may include those who would rather see us disarmed.
    I edited it, in the middle of a bunch of things right now and cant think straight. I should have studied law. Not as a job, but to keep from making mistakes like that. Hopefully my intention was not overlooked.

  6. #6
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    One of your paragraphs raises an interesting question:

    What is "better", or perhaps "more free"?

    Open carry codified to be legal, or open carry legal by default?

    Interesting.

    TFred


  7. #7
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Open carry codified to be legal, or open carry legal by default?
    My government had better not presume to give me rights by codifying them.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    t33j wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    Open carry codified to be legal, or open carry legal by default?
    My government had better not presume to give me rights by codifying them.
    Aren't there states where open carry is codified to be legal? So you think that is a bad thing?

    TFred

  9. #9
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    In Virginia laws serve to prohibit, not permit.

    All laws restricting carry should be removed from the books, leaving behind only the ones prohibiting localities from infringing.
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384

    Post imported post

    Yeah. I've been debating for a while now weather or not the Bill of Rights was a good thing. It's like saying, here's some important stuff, everything else is left to the ninth amendment.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  11. #11
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    In Virginia laws serve to prohibit, not permit.

    All laws restricting carry should be removed from the books, leaving behind only the ones prohibiting localities from infringing.
    I agree, we have seen it many times on a federal, as well as a locallevel that they can twist laws the way they seem fit. You can't twist anything that isn't there.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Saturday, Kenny and I were in the smoking room (outside) watching it snow.
    He looked at me and said, Isn't the ultimate goal to make things right in Virginia. I mean, isn't Alaskan Law the right way.

    I nodded.

    Then he said, isn't it going the wrong direction to make it easier for people to carry a gun with permission, while everyone else has to suffer.

    Now according to written statements by VCDL, the "Unwashed masses" aren't left out in the cold. All they have to do is get a permit and then exercise their God given right to protect themselves.

    This is an abrupt change for VCDL. I believe it was last year when Philip stated in an Alert, that VCDL opposed a law because it only benefited a certain segment (CHP holders) and they represented All gun owners in the state.

    Good post Kenny!

  13. #13
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Midlothian, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    596

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    Saturday, Kenny and I were in the smoking room (outside) watching it snow.
    He looked at me and said, Isn't the ultimate goal to make things right in Virginia. I mean, isn't Alaskan Law the right way.

    I nodded.

    Then he said, isn't it going the wrong direction to make it easier for people to carry a gun with permission, while everyone else has to suffer.

    Now according to written statements by VCDL, the "Unwashed masses" aren't left out in the cold. All they have to do is get a permit and then exercise their God given right to protect themselves.

    This is an abrupt change for VCDL. I believe it was last year when Philip stated in an Alert, that VCDL opposed a law because it only benefited a certain segment (CHP holders) and they represented All gun owners in the state.

    Good post Kenny!
    Ah, if life were only that simple. Of course it's not. Every decision we make about a change to law is a case-by-case thing.

    But I'm glad you bring up the bill that we turned down because it benefited only some gun owners. We opposed it because they wanted to move the ball backwards and restrict gun owners at libraries (as I recall), but then sweetened the pot by exempting permit holders.

    There was no need to restrict anyone at libraries and we accordingly told them we couldn't be bought out by exempting CHP holders.

    BUT that is totally different from the case where we are trying to move the ball forward. It is going to be almost impossible to get non-permit holders the ability to carry in certain locations. If we have a chance to move the ball forward and allow 204,000 Virginians to be able to protect themselves or allow nobody to be able to protect themselves, we will move the ball forward for CHP holders.

    If we can bring everyone right off the bat (such as the bill put in for us dealing with courthouse carry after hours), then that's what we'll do without making a CHP exception.

    If we can first take care of CHP holders (lower hanging fruit) on tough laws and then come back for everyone else, we'll do that (exactly what we did with preemption in 2003, then 2004).

    Why being pure on the subject is a good goal, getting there could take some time and we need to protect as many lives as we can based on realities (which can change over time).

    These are not decisions VCDL leadership takes lightly or casually.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    VCDL President wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Saturday, Kenny and I were in the smoking room (outside) watching it snow.
    He looked at me and said, Isn't the ultimate goal to make things right in Virginia. I mean, isn't Alaskan Law the right way.

    I nodded.

    Then he said, isn't it going the wrong direction to make it easier for people to carry a gun with permission, while everyone else has to suffer.

    Now according to written statements by VCDL, the "Unwashed masses" aren't left out in the cold. All they have to do is get a permit and then exercise their God given right to protect themselves.

    This is an abrupt change for VCDL. I believe it was last year when Philip stated in an Alert, that VCDL opposed a law because it only benefited a certain segment (CHP holders) and they represented All gun owners in the state.

    Good post Kenny!
    Ah, if life were only that simple. Of course it's not. Every decision we make about a change to law is a case-by-case thing.

    But I'm glad you bring up the bill that we turned down because it benefited only some gun owners. We opposed it because they wanted to move the ball backwards and restrict gun owners at libraries (as I recall), but then sweetened the pot by exempting permit holders.

    There was no need to restrict anyone at libraries and we accordingly told them we couldn't be bought out by exempting CHP holders.

    BUT that is totally different from the case where we are trying to move the ball forward. It is going to be almost impossible to get non-permit holders the ability to carry in certain locations. If we have a chance to move the ball forward and allow 204,000 Virginians to be able to protect themselves or allow nobody to be able to protect themselves, we will move the ball forward for CHP holders.

    If we can bring everyone right off the bat (such as the bill put in for us dealing with courthouse carry after hours), then that's what we'll do without making a CHP exception.

    If we can first take care of CHP holders (lower hanging fruit) on tough laws and then come back for everyone else, we'll do that (exactly what we did with preemption in 2003, then 2004).

    Why being pure on the subject is a good goal, getting there could take some time and we need to protect as many lives as we can based on realities (which can change over time).

    These are not decisions VCDL leadership takes lightly or casually.
    Good points, as always Philip!
    I've said in many arenas that the times I second guessed you, I was wrong. Hopefully that's still the case and time will tell.

    Certainly VCDL is still working. While the NRA Legislative affairs person, inspected his shoeshine and gave a one liner before the committee last week, you and Dennis worked very hard to enlighten the members. I think with some success.

    While I do disagree with the P4P approach and we won't get into the percentage of Virginia gun owners 204,000 is, it is always more pleasant to hear from you than one of the EM's who thinks insulting people is the way to keep bridges from burning. In theory, ALL gunowners are in this together. By the way...did I ever tell you about Dog Hunters

    There are still issues that concern us all and some friendly legislators are quietly hoping never see the light of day. There's a great deal of pressure from business owners and we need to swing just as big a hammer. We need all VCDL members to stand behind them and push.

    We really won't be able to see ground gained or lost until the end of the session.

  15. #15
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121

    Post imported post

    ...
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    We really won't be able to see ground gained or lost until the end of the session.
    Hopefully it will not resemble Cemetery Ridge.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Hopefully it will not resemble Cemetery Ridge.
    Dear Lord, I hope not.
    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Post imported post

    VCDL President wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Saturday, Kenny and I were in the smoking room (outside) watching it snow.
    He looked at me and said, Isn't the ultimate goal to make things right in Virginia. I mean, isn't Alaskan Law the right way.

    I nodded.

    Then he said, isn't it going the wrong direction to make it easier for people to carry a gun with permission, while everyone else has to suffer.

    Now according to written statements by VCDL, the "Unwashed masses" aren't left out in the cold. All they have to do is get a permit and then exercise their God given right to protect themselves.

    This is an abrupt change for VCDL. I believe it was last year when Philip stated in an Alert, that VCDL opposed a law because it only benefited a certain segment (CHP holders) and they represented All gun owners in the state.

    Good post Kenny!
    Ah, if life were only that simple. Of course it's not. Every decision we make about a change to law is a case-by-case thing.

    But I'm glad you bring up the bill that we turned down because it benefited only some gun owners. We opposed it because they wanted to move the ball backwards and restrict gun owners at libraries (as I recall), but then sweetened the pot by exempting permit holders.

    There was no need to restrict anyone at libraries and we accordingly told them we couldn't be bought out by exempting CHP holders.

    BUT that is totally different from the case where we are trying to move the ball forward. It is going to be almost impossible to get non-permit holders the ability to carry in certain locations. If we have a chance to move the ball forward and allow 204,000 Virginians to be able to protect themselves or allow nobody to be able to protect themselves, we will move the ball forward for CHP holders.

    If we can bring everyone right off the bat (such as the bill put in for us dealing with courthouse carry after hours), then that's what we'll do without making a CHP exception.

    If we can first take care of CHP holders (lower hanging fruit) on tough laws and then come back for everyone else, we'll do that (exactly what we did with preemption in 2003, then 2004).

    Why being pure on the subject is a good goal, getting there could take some time and we need to protect as many lives as we can based on realities (which can change over time).

    These are not decisions VCDL leadership takes lightly or casually.
    Well said PVC, well said.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Midlothian, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    596

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    VCDL President wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Saturday, Kenny and I were in the smoking room (outside) watching it snow.
    He looked at me and said, Isn't the ultimate goal to make things right in Virginia. I mean, isn't Alaskan Law the right way.

    I nodded.

    Then he said, isn't it going the wrong direction to make it easier for people to carry a gun with permission, while everyone else has to suffer.

    Now according to written statements by VCDL, the "Unwashed masses" aren't left out in the cold. All they have to do is get a permit and then exercise their God given right to protect themselves.

    This is an abrupt change for VCDL. I believe it was last year when Philip stated in an Alert, that VCDL opposed a law because it only benefited a certain segment (CHP holders) and they represented All gun owners in the state.

    Good post Kenny!
    Ah, if life were only that simple. Of course it's not. Every decision we make about a change to law is a case-by-case thing.

    But I'm glad you bring up the bill that we turned down because it benefited only some gun owners. We opposed it because they wanted to move the ball backwards and restrict gun owners at libraries (as I recall), but then sweetened the pot by exempting permit holders.

    There was no need to restrict anyone at libraries and we accordingly told them we couldn't be bought out by exempting CHP holders.

    BUT that is totally different from the case where we are trying to move the ball forward. It is going to be almost impossible to get non-permit holders the ability to carry in certain locations. If we have a chance to move the ball forward and allow 204,000 Virginians to be able to protect themselves or allow nobody to be able to protect themselves, we will move the ball forward for CHP holders.

    If we can bring everyone right off the bat (such as the bill put in for us dealing with courthouse carry after hours), then that's what we'll do without making a CHP exception.

    If we can first take care of CHP holders (lower hanging fruit) on tough laws and then come back for everyone else, we'll do that (exactly what we did with preemption in 2003, then 2004).

    Why being pure on the subject is a good goal, getting there could take some time and we need to protect as many lives as we can based on realities (which can change over time).

    These are not decisions VCDL leadership takes lightly or casually.
    Good points, as always Philip!
    I've said in many arenas that the times I second guessed you, I was wrong. Hopefully that's still the case and time will tell.

    Certainly VCDL is still working. While the NRA Legislative affairs person, inspected his shoeshine and gave a one liner before the committee last week, you and Dennis worked very hard to enlighten the members. I think with some success.

    While I do disagree with the P4P approach and we won't get into the percentage of Virginia gun owners 204,000 is, it is always more pleasant to hear from you than one of the EM's who thinks insulting people is the way to keep bridges from burning. In theory, ALL gunowners are in this together. By the way...did I ever tell you about Dog Hunters

    There are still issues that concern us all and some friendly legislators are quietly hoping never see the light of day. There's a great deal of pressure from business owners and we need to swing just as big a hammer. We need all VCDL members to stand behind them and push.

    We really won't be able to see ground gained or lost until the end of the session.
    That's yet another example of a bill that is not for just CHP holders - guns in parking lots. When we stopped the library bill and local government gun ban bills last week, we didn't say it would be OK if it were to exempt CHP holders. Nothing wrong with being watchful, but also be careful not to overreact.


  20. #20
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    Phillip,

    FYI, I didn’t start this thread to discredit you, your intentions as well as the hard work you and others have put in. We all are here for a common goal, and some loose site of that. As organizations grow, so do the ideas of many and the goals become broader. Time for miniscule things can all but be abandoned, and sometimes overlooked.

    I am sure you as well as all understand there are those supposed pro-gun people out there that in one instance believe that guns are best left at home. You have others that while they are supposed pro gun that believe or find reason to except what they would consider sensible gun laws( Of course guns don’t break laws people do, criminals should have the burden not law abiding). As well even as open carry is the closest thing we have to the 2a, there are many that disagree. While I am sure each and every one of us has our own ideals and goals it sometimes does the whole more damage being divided and not knowing the importance of even if you don’t agree, it should be a choice not a law either way.



    Philip, this part is not for you as I already know your stance. How many when the law is repealed for concealed carry in restaurants would continue to OC? How many would continue to give a restaurant business if they told you no OC, but CC ok? How many would have the thought it really don’t matter as long as I can carry? Just a thought, its one thing to have the choice, but when choice becomes mandatory leaning in one direction it can cause divide.

  21. #21
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    For restaurants that I already know the answer I would not patronize them.

    This "law" isn't really for lawfulness, it's for a misconstrued sense ("feeling") of comfort by other patrons or establishment owners/management.

    If they support OC already, I doubt they will immediately change their tune if some law gets passed saying CC is now OK. Most of the businesses are either pro-carry or anti. The CC issue is rarely of concern.

    I have a CC for the perks, like probably most of us here in VA. I prefer OC, but the CC permit comes in handy for CYA situations or when it is truly advantageous to conceal, of which I can think of only a few admittedly weak arguments.

    If pressed about it in a venue/establishment I have never visited before I might inquire the reason and, anticipating the answer to be dismissive, offer to take my money elsewhere.

    Carry should not be a mandate issue. If a business owner could provide reasonable evidence to suggest that CC is better in his establishment (unlikely) I would consider it, but on its face I would not be able to conscientiously oblige.
    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.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619

    Post imported post

    kennys wrote:
    snip......
    How many when the law is repealed for concealed carry in restaurants would continue to OC? How many would continue to give a restaurant business if they told you no OC, but CC ok? How many would have the thought it really don’t matter as long as I can carry? Just a thought, its one thing to have the choice, but when choice becomes mandatory leaning in one direction it can cause divide.
    There is a restaurant in Richmond that doesn't allow hats/head covering. I could simply put my hat in my coat pocket. I don't, I won't.

    If the choice is mine (hat or OC/CC) than all is good in the world. The question is removed when the choice is mine w/o outside influence.

    Let's make the hypothetical decision much more difficult. Would you patronize a restaurant that required legally qualified customers to carry?

    Yata hey


    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    kennys wrote:
    How many when the law is repealed for concealed carry in restaurants would continue to OC? How many would continue to give a restaurant business if they told you no OC, but CC ok? How many would have the thought it really don’t matter as long as I can carry? Just a thought, its one thing to have the choice, but when choice becomes mandatory leaning in one direction it can cause divide.
    So if a restaurant asks you to switch to CC and you don't have a CHP, can their request be interpreted as permission to CC on their private property?

    I would prefer restaurants allow OC but would not be that offended if they asked for me to CC (once it is legal). My first goal in carrying is safety and my second is making the political statement of OC-ing. OC in restaurants "was" a good statement because it exposed a "stupid" law. I wish we could just go to the Alaska method of carry what you will as you like and get rid of CHP's altogether.

  24. #24
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    45acpForMe wrote:
    So if a restaurant asks you to switch to CC and you don't have a CHP, can their request be interpreted as permission to CC on their private property?
    No, because under the code section it would be subject to having a permit.

    While it would be private property, it would still be illegal to CC without a permit. This is a "perk" for permit holders.

    What it really does is give the CC "community" (for lack of a better term) the option. It does not provide additional privileges to non-CHP holders.
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    45acpForMe wrote:
    kennys wrote:
    How many when the law is repealed for concealed carry in restaurants would continue to OC? How many would continue to give a restaurant business if they told you no OC, but CC ok? How many would have the thought it really don’t matter as long as I can carry? Just a thought, its one thing to have the choice, but when choice becomes mandatory leaning in one direction it can cause divide.
    So if a restaurant asks you to switch to CC and you don't have a CHP, can their request be interpreted as permission to CC on their private property?

    I would prefer restaurants allow OC but would not be that offended if they asked for me to CC (once it is legal). My first goal in carrying is safety and my second is making the political statement of OC-ing. OC in restaurants "was" a good statement because it exposed a "stupid" law. I wish we could just go to the Alaska method of carry what you will as you like and get rid of CHP's altogether.
    Someone jump in if I am not correct. Other than specified by law to be exempt, you can not cc with the permission of any one else legally without a permit. They do not have permission from owner as an exemption but for the owner in his own place of business. That would be a positive if they did.

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
  •