Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: HB 2069 - "Constitutional" Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Roanoke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    170

    Thumbs down HB 2069 - "Constitutional" Carry

    "If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material, and when detained by a law-enforcement officer in his official capacity fails to inform the law-enforcement officer as soon as practicable of the possession, or fails to secure the weapon at the law-enforcement officer's direction or allow the law-enforcement officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact [...] he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

    I despise how the authors of "Constitutional" carry bills feel these requirements are necessary. What exactly is "Constitutional" about requiring me to waive my right to silence and my right to be free from unwarranted seizures?

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Tosta Dojen View Post
    "If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material, and when detained by a law-enforcement officer in his official capacity fails to inform the law-enforcement officer as soon as practicable of the possession, or fails to secure the weapon at the law-enforcement officer's direction or allow the law-enforcement officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact [...] he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

    I despise how the authors of "Constitutional" carry bills feel these requirements are necessary. What exactly is "Constitutional" about requiring me to waive my right to silence and my right to be free from unwarranted seizures?
    I intensely dislike baby steps, however, I also realize that they are sometimes necessary. I accept them if they are in the right direction.

    In this case, the wording eliminates some of the arguments and delays that will surely come.
    This at least has a chance of passage in a few years.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I intensely dislike baby steps, however, I also realize that they are sometimes necessary. I accept them if they are in the right direction.

    In this case, the wording eliminates some of the arguments and delays that will surely come.
    This at least has a chance of passage in a few years.
    1+

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485

    Not Constitutional

    This is French Carry because you must surrender. Call it what it is.

  5. #5
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    The worst of it is that criminals already enjoy the freedom of Constitutional Carry. This would be us, once again, asking government's "permission" to exercise a right in whatever manner we see fit.

    To do otherwise would mark us as criminals - something none of us aspires to be.

    Criminals, on the other hand, simply do not care. They are going to carry concealed without a permit anyway. And then they will cause mischief. And the least of the concerns of law enforcement will be whether or not the gun was "concealed" before it was used during the commission of a crime.
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485
    No... Thugs and criminals have to surrender their guns when caught too.

    If you think about it this bill would make things worse by making criminals and the otherwise law abiding carriers subject to exactly the same treatment.

    That's bad on many levels.

    French Carry, not Constitutional Carry.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Roanoke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Y View Post
    No... Thugs and criminals have to surrender their guns when caught too.

    If you think about it this bill would make things worse by making criminals and the otherwise law abiding carriers subject to exactly the same treatment.
    Not quite. A criminal who's carrying illegally can't be required to inform law enforcement of that fact, because it would violate his Fifth Amendment right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination. The law abiding are subject to greater restrictions than the criminal.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Roanoke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Y View Post
    This is French Carry because you must surrender. Call it what it is.
    I love this. I'm going to use it.

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

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Y View Post
    No... Thugs and criminals have to surrender their guns when caught too.
    There was a sprinkling of hyperbole in there. Maybe you missed it?

    I am willing to bet that if I went around carrying concealed (which I have been known to do on occasion) that no one would ever be the wiser.

    The only time I know of ANYONE ever getting "caught" carrying concealed is when they have shot themselves in a nightclub or nightclub parking lot because they were practicing "thug carry". Not once have I ever been stopped specifically for conceal carry.

    The singular time I was even confronted by law enforcement while concealed I was Terry stopped. I provided an ID (shouldn't have) and they ran it, revealing I had a CHP. They asked if I was carrying. I responded in the positive. They asked what I was carrying. I responded. They never asked to see it or anything.

    These laws are so full of inconsistencies and potential for abuse I think I will stick with my prior contention that laws, in general, are stupid. They do not prevent criminal behaviour. All they do is specify punishments and fees (fines) for failing to do a monkey dance for the government.
    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
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by Tosta Dojen View Post
    Not quite. A criminal who's carrying illegally can't be required to inform law enforcement of that fact, because it would violate his Fifth Amendment right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination. The law abiding are subject to greater restrictions than the criminal.
    Good point. In fact, as a criminal you're treated better by the commonwealth than a citizen with a CHP...

    Under this bill it would get worse.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    If the bill could be passed with the current wording as is this year, I could deal with the requirement to notify until next year to get it removed, but if it's going to stay it should be a Class 4 misdemeanor or treated as a non-criminal ticket and never anything more, thus it would merely serve as a trivial reminder and wouldn't have the chance of putting someone behind bars.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 01-13-2011 at 10:15 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998
    I would support this bill as a baby step if 1. it still allows for permits to be acquired 2. it does not allow officers to disarm you for any reason.

    Now, it looks like the CHP requirements are simply being left in place, but as I read it, this language would specifically allow officers to disarm individuals durring simple trafic stops, and I feel that that would be a step backwards.
    Last edited by VApatriot; 01-13-2011 at 10:39 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Y View Post
    No... Thugs and criminals have to surrender their guns when caught too.

    If you think about it this bill would make things worse by making criminals and the otherwise law abiding carriers subject to exactly the same treatment.

    That's bad on many levels.

    French Carry, not Constitutional Carry.
    Well maybe, but it certainly could be read to mean that those that are carrying, not concealed, do not have to inform, disarm or allow their property to be seized by LEOs.

    Kind of a P4P in reverse FOR OPEN CARRY!
    Last edited by Thundar; 01-13-2011 at 10:57 AM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Exclamation

    The best way to establish Constitutional Carry is to repeal 18.2-308 (et seq.) in its entirety, thereby acceding that which is not ILLEGAL is, by default, legal.
    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.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    The best way to establish Constitutional Carry is to repeal 18.2-308 (et seq.) in its entirety, thereby acceding that which is not ILLEGAL is, by default, legal.
    I agree with that Wylde but there are a lot of people who want a CHP for travel into other states. I suppose they could get a Utah permit assuming Utah or other permit.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Well maybe, but it certainly could be read to mean that those that are carrying, not concealed, do not have to inform, disarm or allow their property to be seized by LEOs.

    Kind of a P4P in reverse FOR OPEN CARRY!
    That would make it P4C - perks for Constitution. :-)

  17. #17
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I agree with that Wylde but there are a lot of people who want a CHP for travel into other states. I suppose they could get a Utah permit assuming Utah or other permit.
    There could still be a resident permit statute, but it should be entirely independent of carry within Virginia's borders.

    That way some of our membership would not be put ENTIRELY out of work...
    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 vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490

    Angry 1 step forward but 2 steps back

    Quote Originally Posted by VApatriot View Post
    I would support this bill as a baby step if 1. it still allows for permits to be acquired 2. it does not allow officers to disarm you for any reason.

    Now, it looks like the CHP requirements are simply being left in place, but as I read it, this language would specifically allow officers to disarm individuals durring simple trafic stops, and I feel that that would be a step backwards.
    While the CHP requirements are being left in place, CHP holders are not being exempted from the new requirements. It would require those with CHPs to inform that they are carrying concealed when detained in addition the requirement of surrendering upon request.

    If you want to talk baby steps - make the duty to inform and to surrender your weapon upon request only apply to non-CHP holders. Then come back next year to try and get those removed for non-CHP holders as well. Call if P4P but why put additional restrictions on the permit holders? As written this bill is 1 step forwards but 2 steps back.

    I would say if it passed as written I would just open carry more - but the place I am most likely to be detained (while driving) is also where I am most likely to carry concealed (in the console, glove box, etc)

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by vt357 View Post
    While the CHP requirements are being left in place, CHP holders are not being exempted from the new requirements. It would require those with CHPs to inform that they are carrying concealed when detained in addition the requirement of surrendering upon request.

    If you want to talk baby steps - make the duty to inform and to surrender your weapon upon request only apply to non-CHP holders. Then come back next year to try and get those removed for non-CHP holders as well. Call if P4P but why put additional restrictions on the permit holders? As written this bill is 1 step forwards but 2 steps back.

    I would say if it passed as written I would just open carry more - but the place I am most likely to be detained (while driving) is also where I am most likely to carry concealed (in the console, glove box, etc)
    Welcome to the world of the little people.
    It breaks my heart that you would have to give up perks.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    I object to any statute that has the sole effect of criminalizing otherwise socially responsible and law abiding citizens. Not likely that the felon holding a pistol between his legs for the purpose of shooting a cop at a traffic stop is going to pause, and, in order to comply with this proposed amendment, say, "Oh, by the way, officer, I have a firearm with me." Like, yeah, right. Passing a law does not compel lawful conduct. It only provides for a means of punishment after the crime is committed. This will not make cops any safer.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

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

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Passing a law does not compel lawful conduct. It only provides for a means of punishment after the crime is committed.
    Preach on, brother! Preach on!

    I have been making this argument to all who will listen - and it does not just apply to carrying firearms for personal protection. It is particular to every aspect and every article of legislation passed in every session.
    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
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap
    Welcome to the world of the little people.
    It breaks my heart that you would have to give up perks.
    I do agree with you that having a permit should not get you special privileges over not having one. But the people whose rights are currently less violated (CHPs) shouldn't have to give up some of those rights to help the ones with their rights currently more violated. Don't rob from Peter to pay Paul so to speak. Just stop violating everyone's rights, make us truly equal (not equally violated), and follow the Constitution.

    As written this bill should be called "UNconstitutional carry."

    Quote Originally Posted by vt357 View Post
    I would say if it passed as written I would just open carry more - but the place I am most likely to be detained (while driving) is also where I am most likely to carry concealed (in the console, glove box, etc)
    Hmm just thought of something. Concealed carry in vehicle in a closed container without a permit passed last year. If I recall correctly it was written so that it was an exemption to the concealed carry statute (different than a permit which is basically a defense to the statute). That was what allowed you to keep a loaded gun in your glove box on school property, even if you don't have a permit. So if you had a concealed firearm in a closed container in your vehicle (as opposed to concealed under your seat), you would be exempt from that statute (whether you have a CHP or not) and would not have to inform or surrender correct?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by vt357 View Post
    While the CHP requirements are being left in place, CHP holders are not being exempted from the new requirements. It would require those with CHPs to inform that they are carrying concealed when detained in addition the requirement of surrendering upon request.

    If you want to talk baby steps - make the duty to inform and to surrender your weapon upon request only apply to non-CHP holders. Then come back next year to try and get those removed for non-CHP holders as well. Call if P4P but why put additional restrictions on the permit holders? As written this bill is 1 step forwards but 2 steps back.

    I would say if it passed as written I would just open carry more - but the place I am most likely to be detained (while driving) is also where I am most likely to carry concealed (in the console, glove box, etc)
    In this case, I have no desire to see this bill pass as it is currently written.

    I truly understand the plight and feelings of those who can't or don't want to get permits, but this would be a major step in the wrong direction. I personally carried for almost three years without a permit, and I hated the fact that I had to live under a different set of rules, but I never would have supported (and will not support) anything that will hurt more gun owners than it helps.

    I completely understand the idea of taking small steps, and I want to be able to carry concealed without a permit just as much as anyone else in this group, but I do not believe that this is the way it should be done.

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by VApatriot View Post
    In this case, I have no desire to see this bill pass as it is currently written.

    I truly understand the plight and feelings of those who can't or don't want to get permits, but this would be a major step in the wrong direction. I personally carried for almost three years without a permit, and I hated the fact that I had to live under a different set of rules, but I never would have supported (and will not support) anything that will hurt more gun owners than it helps.

    I completely understand the idea of taking small steps, and I want to be able to carry concealed without a permit just as much as anyone else in this group, but I do not believe that this is the way it should be done.
    Well, while not a moot point, it is one that you have plenty of time to talk to Philip about it.
    The chances of it passing this year are on par with death by meteorite.
    It has been introduced though and that's a start.

    but I never would have supported (and will not support) anything that will hurt more gun owners than it helps.

    BTW, you might want to look at the percentage of gunowners that have permits. Having permit holders follow the same rules as non permit holders isn't even close to hurting more than it helps.
    Last edited by peter nap; 01-13-2011 at 04:05 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    NRA silent on this bill

    I haven't looked that hard, but it looks like NRA-ILA does not include HB 2069 in its section on "pro gun legislation introduced for Virginia."

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6114

    I guess some people want a right to remain a privilege.

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
  •