Virginia Question - Privileges For Permittees (P4P) Does it help or hurt RKBA?

imported post

P4P – P4P – P4P – P4P - Virginia Question - Privileges For Permittees (P4P) Does it help or hurt the RKBA in the Commonwealth? P4P-P4P-P4P-P4P-P4P

Does the continued effort to enhance the privileges that the Commonwealth grants to Concealed Handgun Permit holders (permittees) help or hurt the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Commonwealth?

I believe that P4P is at best a double edged sword.

The middle ground is dangerous.[/b] The concealed handgun permit is a sort of middle ground between “government trained and government trusted” LEO and citizen. It gives emotionally charged anti-gunners a sense of security when they have the power to grant (and remove) gun privileges. The problem is that the P4P system is based on emotion, not logic. The consequence is that the privilege is not always even related to the permit. The classic example is: Why is your legal ability to carry an AK 47 with a folding stock in Norfolk dependent on whether you have obtained a concealed handgun permit? Do not forget that when the political winds are unfavourable to gun owners this middle ground can be used very effectively by the antis to harm gun rights with efforts short of outright bans.

Outright conversion of a right into a privilege is possible.[/b] My parents live in Florida. There is no RKBA in Florida (unless you are going fishing!) The right has been snuffed out and replaced by a concealed carry privilege. The ability of a state to destroy a right by allowing a privilege is, IMHO, the most dangerous aspect of P4P.

Healing the Rift.[/b] There is a rift between open and concealed carriers. Each sees the other as having the potential to harm their ability to carry as they see fit. This fault line is already out there and will only get worse in the future. It will be used by the anti gunners to try and isolate the open carriers from the larger group of concealed carriers. We should make the passage of Constitutional Carry our top 2011 priority. Arizona did it. This sort of rift doesn’t exist in Arizona. Virginia needs to be next.

Imagine a Commonwealth where CC=Constitutional Carry!!!

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

imported post

Actually I wouldn't want to see permits disappear completely. If we didn't have CHPs, we couldn't carry on K-12 property in our vehicles (due to Federal "GFSZA") or go within 1000ft of a K-12 school (also due to Fed "GFSZA"). Plus we'd be out of luck when traveling in other states that aren't as gun friendly but recognize VA's permit.

I'd be happy with a system like AZ or AK where permits are available to those who want them, but they aren't needed to CC in-state.

imported post

nova wrote:

Actually I wouldn't want to see permits disappear completely. If we didn't have CHPs, we couldn't carry on K-12 property in our vehicles (due to Federal "GFSZA") or go within 1000ft of a K-12 school (also due to Fed "GFSZA"). Plus we'd be out of luck when traveling in other states that aren't as gun friendly but recognize VA's permit.

I'd be happy with a system like AZ or AK where permits are available to those who want them, but they aren't needed to CC in-state.

Click to expand...

Constitutional Carry includes the optional permit so that you mayexercise the CCprivilegein states with reciprocity.

imported post

I recently came across this site, I'm sure many of you have already read it. Here's what this guy says about a carry permit system:

Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.
(13) A carry permit system essentially is a removal of restrictions against bearing arms on public and private property unless there is an express prohibition against doing so, either in the form of a posted sign or a directive from the owner or his agent. The rationale for issuing such permits is to equip persons of good character to more effectively function as militiamen or police in situations in which regular police are not available or insufficient. That also includes self-protection, but the key factor is the duty to perform police duties as necessary. There also needs to be explicit statutory protection of the state or other permit issuing authority against criminal or civil liability for any acts done by the permit holder. One kind of carry permit is that which is one of the "special police powers" of regular law-enforcement officers, which allows them to carry anywhere, even against the express wishes of a property owner.


I think that makes sense, especially if read in the context of the other points on that site, such as where you have the right to bear arms and who may deny that right and when. Wherever the State has the constitutional authority to restrict bearing arms, the carry permit system essentially removes some or all of those restrictions for those able-bodied persons of the militia to be more effective.

Asking whether there should be perks for permits isn't the crux of the matter; the real question is: are the restrictions imposed on non-permitted persons constitutional? Would you argue against a carry permit system that granted exemption from restrictions that are constitutional?

Are any or all of the following a denial, by Virginia, of the right to keep and/or bear arms?
Carry concealed firearms.
Purchase more than one handgun in a 30-day period.
Carry certain firearms in public places.
Carry firearms at the General Assembly.
Carry firearms in State Parks and other State-managed forests and wildlife management areas.
Open and/or concealed carry in reciprocal States.

I do not think the P4Ps hurt the RKBA; laws which deny the right do the real damage. The permit perks give some people the option of a little breathing room until the laws are challenged and defeated by the judicial or legislative departments.

imported post

Never mind.. I said I wasn't gonna rant anymore today.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Never mind.. I said I wasn't gonna rant anymore today.

Click to expand...

aw, come on... I'm not quite set in my ways; I've got to start somewhere.

imported post

virginiatuck wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Never mind.. I said I wasn't gonna rant anymore today.

Click to expand...

aw, come on... I'm not quite set in my ways; I've got to start somewhere.

Click to expand...

No...That's something everyone has to make up their own mind about.
Besides, if I post anything that even sounds remotely like common sense, the thread will get locked, moved or deleted...speaking of which, I asked John to delete the poll after he moved it.

Anyway, everybody has to decide for themselves if they want to be a state that has a lot of privileges but no rights or a state with rights and equal privilages for CHPS.

The only difference is how hard you have to fight in the GA.

A couple of years ago when I was having one of my famous conversations with a Dog Hunter who was lost....:X

He said "We is all hunters ain't we"
I said "Just because we all hunt doesn't mean we're buddies". (Not exact wording. This is a family board)

Yes, there is a rift!

imported post

virginiatuck wrote:

I recently came across this site, I'm sure many of you have already read it.  Here's what this guy says about a carry permit system:

Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.
(13) A carry permit system essentially is a removal of restrictions (infringements) against bearing arms on public and private property unless there is an express prohibition against doing so, either in the form of a posted sign or a directive from the owner or his agent. (Why bother with the 2nd half of this sentence. It's true for OC and CC.) The rationale for issuing such permits is to equip persons of good character (Decided by who? The state) to more effectively function as militiamen or police (I have no desire to do so) in situations in which regular police are not available or insufficient. Which is almost the point of carrying a gun anyway no? That also includes self-protection, but the key factor is the duty (It's every persons own duty to handle their own defense) to perform police duties as necessary. ??? CCers are not cops. They are citizens with guns who have no special powers. There also needs to be explicit statutory protection of the state or other permit issuing authority against criminal or civil liability for any acts done by the permit holder. Individual responsibility One kind of carry permit is that which is one of the "special police powers" of regular law-enforcement officers, which allows them to carry anywhere, even against the express wishes of a property owner. A power which should be available to neither police nor other citizens


I think that makes sense, especially if read in the context of the other points on that site, such as where you have the right to bear arms and who may deny that right and when.  Wherever the State has the constitutional authority to restrict bearing arms, the carry permit system essentially removes some or all of those restrictions for those able-bodied persons of the militia to be more effective.
I think it'd be an affront to one of the >10 most sacred rights afforded to citizens of this state. I think it's a terrible idea. It'd place more power in the hands of those who deserve it least, and take power from the individual.

I do not think the P4Ps hurt the RKBA; laws which deny the right do the real damage.  The permit perks give some people the option of a little breathing room until the laws are challenged and defeated by the judicial or legislative departments.

It's easier for Joe Shmoe to get a government permission slip than it is to complain to his elected representatives and lobby for an end to overbearing and often mindless (gun) laws. So if you think any of the things you listed are unconstitutional then please explain how P4P does not hurt the RKBA.

Click to expand...

imported post

Constitutional Carry is the right thing to do - pun intended.

CWP -may be the next logical step if the support is not there to get to get Constitutional Carry through the GA. Maybe a combination of both - permits being optional.

There is a lot of home work/lobbying to be done before the next GA session.

Yata hey

imported post

Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution states we have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say "except concealed".

Paying for a right is unconstitutional and it needs to be abolished.

Any permitting system should be entirely voluntary and at state expense (without a fee or any sort of tax hike). If other states would institute constitutional carry, then they would not demand another state's permit to exercise a right.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Constitutional Carry is the right thing to do - pun intended.

CWP -may be the next logical step if the support is not there to get to get Constitutional Carry through the GA. Maybe a combination of both - permits being optional.

There is a lot of home work/lobbying to be done before the next GA session.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

There are really a lot of directions that we could go Grape.

If baby steps are needed, at least take them in the right direction like private property CC without a permit, Curtalage has been bandied about in the courts so much, there's no telling where it starts and stops.

Another baby step would to allow concealment during severe weather like the hunting exception....just make it anywhere.

Another baby step would be to insert the word "Loaded" in the statute.

There are a lot of ways a toddler can go and still be headed home.

imported post

230therapy wrote:

Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution states we have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say "except concealed".

Paying for a right is unconstitutional and it needs to be abolished.

Any permitting system should be entirely voluntary and at state expense (without a fee or any sort of tax hike). If other states would institute constitutional carry, then they would not demand another state's permit to exercise a right.

Click to expand...

In a perfect world.

Lobby for that, get a legislator to sponsor a bill that accomplishes that - I'll pray for you.

Or get involved and chose those battles that are realistically obtainable and fight the good fight.

Yata hey

imported post

Permits hurt the second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A permit is an infringement. There are conditionsmade, it costs money, a list is kept of those who have applied and who have receivedpermits, there isa waiting period, approval is subject to government, and the permit may be revoked at any time.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Permits hurt the second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A permit is an infringement. There are conditionsmade, it costs money, a list is kept of those who have applied and who have receivedpermits, there isa waiting period, approval is subject to government, and the permit may be revoked at any time.

Click to expand...

Not here it isn't. Yes it is a hassle, but state law requires the permit to be issued within 45 days unless you have a criminal record or restraining order (in other words, can't own a gun anyways). For renewals, there is no waiting period if you renew before your old one expires. And it can only be revoked if you are convicted of a crime or become subject to a restraining order (and can't own guns then)

Yes I agree that permits are unconstitutional though.

imported post

nova wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

Permits hurt the second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A permit is an infringement. There are conditionsmade, it costs money, a list is kept of those who have applied and who have receivedpermits, there isa waiting period, approval is subject to government, and the permit may be revoked at any time.

Click to expand...

Not here it isn't. Yes it is a hassle, but state law requires the permit to be issued within 45 days unless you have a criminal record or restraining order (in other words, can't own a gun anyways). For renewals, there is no waiting period if you renew before your old one expires. And it can only be revoked if you are convicted of a crime or become subject to a restraining order (and can't own guns then)

Yes I agree that permits are unconstitutional though.

Click to expand...

It appears to me that 45 days is a waiting period.

If the government makes a mistake and takes the permit is there an appeals process? While the permit is mistakenly revoked isw carry under the permit allowed?

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

nova wrote:

Not here it isn't. Yes it is a hassle, but state law requires the permit to be issued within 45 days unless you have a criminal record or restraining order (in other words, can't own a gun anyways). For renewals, there is no waiting period if you renew before your old one expires. And it can only be revoked if you are convicted of a crime or become subject to a restraining order (and can't own guns then)

Yes I agree that permits are unconstitutional though.

Click to expand...

It appears to me that 45 days is a waiting period.

If the government makes a mistake and takes the permit is there an appeals process? While the permit is mistakenly revoked isw carry under the permit allowed?

Click to expand...

The answers to revocation begin in section "J"

http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-308.HTM

IMO this moving too far off topic for further discussion on this thread.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

nova wrote:

Not here it isn't. Yes it is a hassle, but state law requires the permit to be issued within 45 days unless you have a criminal record or restraining order (in other words, can't own a gun anyways). For renewals, there is no waiting period if you renew before your old one expires. And it can only be revoked if you are convicted of a crime or become subject to a restraining order (and can't own guns then)

Yes I agree that permits are unconstitutional though.

Click to expand...

It appears to me that 45 days is a waiting period.

If the government makes a mistake and takes the permit is there an appeals process? While the permit is mistakenly revoked isw carry under the permit allowed?

Click to expand...

The answers to revocation begin in section "J"

http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-308.HTM

IMO this moving too far off topic for further discussion on this thread.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Yep...a little far in left field.

My concern is that CHP's are being used to lure people into getting one when they really don't have any real desire for one.

My favorite example is Bow hunting.
Even on my own property, I can't carry a handgun while bow hunting, but my wife can.

Fishing in a WMA. Off hunting season, I can't carry but my wife can.

There's a rather long list of exceptions but you get the idea.

As far as future abuse of CHP holders. Replace CHP with drivers license. A DL is to make sure a driver has the proper training to drive a car.
The number of things that a DL can be suspended for is long and getting longer every year.

Did you know that if you demand a jury trial for any reason or offense and lose...you either pay the Jury expenses or lose your license. Same thing with a court appointed lawyer.

I think they can still suspend it for not paying support.

What the GA givith...the GA can taketh away.

Now I get the same answer all the time. I need one to stay legal driving by schools...etc.

Fine, get a CHP. BUT don't support a bill that allows you to have special privileges (Like carrying while bow hunting)

That's when we start to not like each other and the rift gets wider.

I would love to go past a business that had a sign that said "NO CONCEALED FIREARMS":lol:

imported post

It is dead on topic.

The government can deny for public drunkeness, two misdemeanors, or if they think one might be negligent.

The applicant has to show competence and has to provide fingerprints.

The department has probably made mistakes and I'd bet at least one permit has been revoked improperly.

Permits hurt the right to bear arms. People get their permit and forget that it is a right to bear arms. People have come to expect that anyone who carries should be background checked and passes a training class. No good comes of permits.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

The applicant has to show competence and has to provide fingerprints.

Click to expand...

Here I can use a hunter safety course or if you were mil your DD214 for proof of "competency' and fingerprinting depends on county. I think more don't require them than do.

And I doubt you'll find someone who dislikes permits more than me. I had to go three years of OC (though it's what brought me to OCDO, made me new friends, and the world of OC, which I'll continue to be a part of) before the state would give me that piece of printer paper making CC legal for me, because they thought I was too young. But that's just state law.

imported post

I just had my fingerprintstaken for myVA out of state application. If denied I don't get an appeal, that's the gov for you.