• 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.

Perks for permits.

kennys

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Ruther Glen Va
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?
 

jmelvin

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

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

kennys

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Ruther Glen Va
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.
 

TFred

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

t33j

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,384
Location
King George, VA
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.
 

wylde007

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

t33j

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,384
Location
King George, VA
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.
 

kennys

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Ruther Glen Va
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.
 

peter nap

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

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
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.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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:lol:

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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
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.
 

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
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:lol:

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.
 

kennys

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Ruther Glen Va
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.
 
Top