They still think there are bars in Virginia.
Note that the CBS News story has a poll, should you be inclined to vote.
I understand when people say this, but how are we really differentiating between bars and other establishments that serve alcohol? "ABC stipulates that each restaurant must sell enough food and soda to account for at least 45 percent of liquor and non-liquor sales, beer and wine excluded," but isn't a bar simply a place that serves alcoholic beverages that may be consumed on the premises? Or is there some legal definition of a bar that I'm missing?
I understand when people say this, but how are we really differentiating between bars and other establishments that serve alcohol? "ABC stipulates that each restaurant must sell enough food and soda to account for at least 45 percent of liquor and non-liquor sales, beer and wine excluded," but isn't a bar simply a place that serves alcoholic beverages that may be consumed on the premises? Or is there some legal definition of a bar that I'm missing?
What worries me are things like this quote “Plus, Everitt says the permitting process is not real security. He points out that the accused Fort Hood shooter once held a concealed carry permit issued in Roanoke, Virginia. Everitt says the permit background check is not strict enough.”
Article reactions I have read shows the defense of carrying concealed restaurants in bars is that CHP holders have had background checks and are safer.
Not trying to start a holy war or anything, but there will be those that will not find the need or reason to OC. As the motto of OCDO is a right unexercised is a right lost. If the antis push on this the thing that runs would be why we need OC at all. Some gun owners or should I say many already feel this way. Look at the NRA stance for that example and many of it’s members. All again from the above quote, trying to make getting a permit more regulated and un necessary.
May I remind you, weirder things have happened, and we have yet to see what will happen with what I consider the illegal mandate on health insurance.
The quote you mention is nonsense. A criminal background check is a boolean function, meaning it returns a value of "yes" or "no". Does the person have a criminal background or not? Now perhaps it would be possible to more closely scrutinize an applicant's record, but it's doubtful that someone applying for a CHP is trying to hide a criminal background.What worries me are things like this quote “Plus, Everitt says the permitting process is not real security. He points out that the accused Fort Hood shooter once held a concealed carry permit issued in Roanoke, Virginia. Everitt says the permit background check is not strict enough.”
Article reactions I have read shows the defense of carrying concealed restaurants in bars is that CHP holders have had background checks and are safer.
Not trying to start a holy war or anything, but there will be those that will not find the need or reason to OC. As the motto of OCDO is a right unexercised is a right lost. If the antis push on this the thing that runs would be why we need OC at all. Some gun owners or should I say many already feel this way. Look at the NRA stance for that example and many of it’s members. All again from the above quote, trying to make getting a permit more regulated and un necessary.
May I remind you, weirder things have happened, and we have yet to see what will happen with what I consider the illegal mandate on health insurance.
Good Observation Kenny and one of the very teal dangers in P4P.
"Shall Issue" is safe in Virginia for now.
TFred
The quote you mention is nonsense. A criminal background check is a boolean function, meaning it returns a value of "yes" or "no". Does the person have a criminal background or not? Now perhaps it would be possible to more closely scrutinize an applicant's record, but it's doubtful that someone applying for a CHP is trying to hide a criminal background.
What the quote's author is really espousing is the abolition of "shall issue". They appear to be in favor of returning to the "good old boy" days where you have to know Bubba the Sheriffs Deputy in order to be in the "special club" to get a CHP.
Any permitting scheme that is not "shall issue" based on previous criminal activity or other clearly defined critera is by definition a modern day "Minority Report" methodology where the issuers must try to determine your mindset and predict your future behavior.
Fortunately, it appears that "Shall Issue" is safe in Virginia for now.
TFred
What worries me are things like this quote “Plus, Everitt says the permitting process is not real security. He points out that the accused Fort Hood shooter once held a concealed carry permit issued in Roanoke, Virginia. Everitt says the permit background check is not strict enough.”
Article reactions I have read shows the defense of carrying concealed restaurants in bars is that CHP holders have had background checks and are safer.
Not trying to start a holy war or anything, but there will be those that will not find the need or reason to OC. As the motto of OCDO is a right unexercised is a right lost. If the antis push on this the thing that runs would be why we need OC at all. Some gun owners or should I say many already feel this way. Look at the NRA stance for that example and many of it’s members. All again from the above quote, trying to make getting a permit more regulated and un necessary.
May I remind you, weirder things have happened, and we have yet to see what will happen with what I consider the illegal mandate on health insurance.
That is the law of unintended consequences. Yes you should fear the consequences of people fighting for P4P and not Gun Rights. Priveledges are given and taken at the whim of government. Rights are harder to evicerate. Fight for your rights, not for priveledge enhancement.
Live Free or Die,
Thundar