• 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.

HB 2069 - "Constitutional" Carry

Tosta Dojen

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
183
Location
Roanoke, Virginia, USA
"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?
 

peter nap

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

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
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+
 

wylde007

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

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Tosta Dojen

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
183
Location
Roanoke, Virginia, USA
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.
 

wylde007

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

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
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.
 

jmelvin

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

VApatriot

Regular Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
998
Location
Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
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:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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:

wylde007

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

peter nap

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

wylde007

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

vt357

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
1 step forward but 2 steps back

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)
 

peter nap

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

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
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.
 
Top