Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 94

Thread: P4P rules VCDL AGAIN this Year!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    P4P rules VCDL AGAIN this Year!

    2011 VCDL Legislative Tracking Tool:VIrginia Firearms Freedom Act - only one thumbs up. Lots of P4P two thumbs up.


    Link: http://www.vcdl.org/static/2011leg.html
    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

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    2011 VCDL Legislative Tracking Tool:VIrginia Firearms Freedom Act - only one thumbs up. Lots of P4P two thumbs up.


    Link: http://www.vcdl.org/static/2011leg.html
    I didn't see any thumbs on this at all and it's number 1 on my hatchet list

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...111+sum+HB1889

  3. #3
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    NVM, found it in another thread..


    HB2386 New P4P: Concealed Weapons Permit
    Last edited by ocholsteroc; 01-21-2011 at 05:13 PM.
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I didn't see any thumbs on this at all and it's number 1 on my hatchet list

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...111+sum+HB1889
    HB 1889 Tracking dogs; allows use thereof to find wounded or dead bear or deer, etc

    or
    The Damn Dog Hunting sons of b*****s loophole law

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Midlothian, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    2011 VCDL Legislative Tracking Tool:VIrginia Firearms Freedom Act - only one thumbs up. Lots of P4P two thumbs up.


    Link: http://www.vcdl.org/static/2011leg.html
    Thundar, VCDL supports both methods of carry - we aren't forsaking either one. You seem much more fixated on one form of carry over the other than VCDL is. We're more, er, ambidextrous.

    We had a role on the Constitutional Carry bill being introduced. We didn't want the notification that was part of the actual bill (hence the one thumb up once we saw the final wording) and I think that can be fixed - stay tuned.

    The state agency preemption, which fixes things for both open and concealed carriers, with state agencies was put in for VCDL.

    BTW, which group do you suppose met with the Governor's aide last year to push for OPEN CARRY in State Parks and both in State Forests?

    Sorry you don't like permits, but they are a reality and we will be making Virginia more and more friendly to concealed carry, whether it is with a permit or Constitutional.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by VCDL President View Post
    Thundar, VCDL supports both methods of carry - we aren't forsaking either one. You seem much more fixated on one form of carry over the other than VCDL is. We're more, er, ambidextrous.

    We had a role on the Constitutional Carry bill being introduced. We didn't want the notification that was part of the actual bill (hence the one thumb up once we saw the final wording) and I think that can be fixed - stay tuned.

    The state agency preemption, which fixes things for both open and concealed carriers, with state agencies was put in for VCDL.

    BTW, which group do you suppose met with the Governor's aide last year to push for OPEN CARRY in State Parks and both in State Forests?

    Sorry you don't like permits, but they are a reality and we will be making Virginia more and more friendly to concealed carry, whether it is with a permit or Constitutional.
    Many on OCDO have a more holistic view of rights in the Commonwealth and indeed in the Nation. My philosophy is that rights work best when they work together.

    My 2A right to open carry is better because I have a 4A right to be free from unreasonable search.

    The important point is that in order to protect our rights we must support our rights.

    You mention permits as a reality. The reality is that the permit is a priveledge. The exemptions from prosecution granted by the permit are not rights. There are conditions attatched to the priveledge, including payment of a fee and exclusion of otherwise law abiding adults (18-20 year olds), that point to it as a priveledge.

    It is very disconcerning to see the advancement of pro gun policy based on priveledge and not rights. The exemption to the assault weapons ban, the exemption to one handgun a month and the Virginia Capitol Building gun ban come to mind.

    It was very disturbing to see the lifting of the concealed handgun ban in restaraunts last year promoted as a restored right. It was nothing of the sort. This sort of confusion of rights and priveledges allows VCDL to deliver a cleaner message "Support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Rights, etc.", but confuses the public about what their gun rights actually are, and allows politicians to "do something" for the pro gun lobby, without doing much.

    I do understand the reality of the Virginia Senate, which makes large gun rights gains very difficult. Next year, when we will most likely see large conservative gains in the Virginia Senate, is the year to really advance gun rights. This is the year to introduce the concepts and bills to legislators.

    To answer your question about "who", the Libertarian Party has lobbied very hard for the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act and for Constitutional Carry. Remember, last year the Libertarians, not VCDL pulled hardest for the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act.

    My purpose in discussing Perks for Permittees (P4P) is to ensure that at least here on OCDO, there is a clear delineation between gun rights and gun priveledges.
    Last edited by Thundar; 01-22-2011 at 10:05 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

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Many on OCDO have a more holistic view of rights in the Commonwealth and indeed in the Nation. My philosophy is that rights work best when they work together.

    My 2A right to open carry is better because I have a 4A right to be free from unreasonable search.

    The important point is that in order to protect our rights we must support our rights.

    You mention permits as a reality. The reality is that the permit is a priveledge. The exemptions from prosecution granted by the permit are not rights. There are conditions attatched to the priveledge, including payment of a fee and exclusion of otherwise law abiding adults (18-20 year olds), that point to it as a priveledge.

    It is very disconcerning to see the advancement of pro gun policy based on priveledge and not rights. The exemption to the assault weapons ban, the exemption to one handgun a month and the Virginia Capitol Building gun ban come to mind.

    It was very disturbing to see the lifting of the concealed handgun ban in restaraunts last year promoted as a restored right. It was nothing of the sort. This sort of confusion of rights and priveledges allows VCDL to deliver a cleaner message "Support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Rights, etc.", but confuses the public about what their gun rights actually are, and allows politicians to "do something" for the pro gun lobby, without doing much.

    I do understand the reality of the Virginia Senate, which makes large gun rights gains very difficult. Next year, when we will most likely see large conservative gains in the Virginia Senate, is the year to really advance gun rights. This is the year to introduce the concepts and bills to legislators.

    To answer your question about "who", the Libertarian Party has lobbied very hard for the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act and for Constitutional Carry. Remember, last year the Libertarians, not VCDL pulled hardest for the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act.

    My purpose in discussing Perks for Permittees (P4P) is to ensure that at least here on OCDO, there is a clear delineation between gun rights and gun priveledges.
    There's an old saying: "The perfect is the enemy of the good".

    I think that we all agree that Constitutional Carry is the ultimate goal. At that point, it won't really matter whether a person is carrying open or concealed, because they will all be treated the same.

    However, we aren't there yet. We're getting closer, but we still have a long ways to go. A large part of that will require changing other people's minds about gun owners in general. What you call P4P helps towards that goal, by calming some of the fears about concealed carriers being untrained, or unsafe. Once those fears are eased, it is easier to whittle away at them until you have the support to remove or lessen the restrictions.

    I've often seen the boiling frog analogy used to illustrate the dangers of gun control. However, it is also a very good model for how we can get gun restrictions lifted. Little by little, it improves the situation until the step to Constitutional Carry is not as big a leap as it would have been in the past.

    That's what "P4P" is primarily about, turning that water temperature up just a little bit higher, but in a way that the antis don't notice how warm it really is until it's too late.

    In that context, permits are a reality, if for no other reason than because we still have to deal with federal laws (such as the GFSZA) that make their protections contingent upon those permits. We don't have the support needed to overturn those laws yet, and so we need to deal with things as they are now, and implement the good as we work towards the perfect.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    There's an old saying: "The perfect is the enemy of the good".

    I think that we all agree that Constitutional Carry is the ultimate goal. At that point, it won't really matter whether a person is carrying open or concealed, because they will all be treated the same.

    What you call P4P helps towards that goal, by calming some of the fears about concealed carriers being untrained, or unsafe. Once those fears are eased, it is easier to whittle away at them until you have the support to remove or lessen the restrictions.

    I've often seen the boiling frog analogy used to illustrate the dangers of gun control. However, it is also a very good model for how we can get gun restrictions lifted. Little by little, it improves the situation until the step to Constitutional Carry is not as big a leap as it would have been in the past.

    That's what "P4P" is primarily about, turning that water temperature up just a little bit higher, but in a way that the antis don't notice how warm it really is until it's too late.

    In that context, permits are a reality, if for no other reason than because we still have to deal with federal laws (such as the GFSZA) that make their protections contingent upon those permits. We don't have the support needed to overturn those laws yet, and so we need to deal with things as they are now, and implement the good as we work towards the perfect.
    That is about the most dangerous statement I've ever heard.

    A concealed handgun permit is just that, permission to hide your gun. When you start promoting a superior class of gun owners via government permission, you're no better than Sarah Brady!

    This isn't a permit state like Massachewsshitz and thanks to the majority that don't want it to be, never will I hope.

    That said, I don't happen to agree that VCDL has a bad agenda this year, but I certainly agree with the theory that makes Thundar feel the way he does.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581
    Unfortunately previous generations have squandered and surrendered rights hand over fist for the past 150 years (conservative estimate). The recovery of lost rights is an uphill battle and it won't be made in gigantic leaps. While it would be ideal for the "Constitutional Reset Button" to be pressed, it won't happen. A steady advance needs to be made to recover those rights, and there are going to be differing ideas in how to pursue it.

    The tragic irony is those that shouldn't be carrying a gun (robbers, murderers, and other nefarious types) exercise greater second amendment rights than the law abiding citizen that doesn't conceal his weapon for fear of being charged. The criminal doesn't care about catching a concealed weapons charge because its a relatively minor infraction as compared to his felonious deeds. His weapon is concealed and his activities are violent. The peaceable citizen who is deprived of the right to conceal a weapon at his discretion is at a distinct disadvantage because he isn't a criminal. He has no desire to break the law and he is subjugated by the very same law that the criminal element brazenly break in the commission of their crimes against society.

    If you reduce the second amendment to a permit system, where does it end? Why not require a permit to exercise the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion? How about a 4th amendment permit or 5th amendment permit?

    A right lost is a precedent for more forfeiture of rights.

  10. #10
    Regular Member richarcm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,182
    One thing that bothers me about the "right" and/or the center/right and very often from the libertarians is when the concept of "incrementalism" is not understood. Neither incrementalism that works against us or in our favor. You'd think as often as the cute story about the frog being boiled in the pot of incrementally boiling water is told that people would more clearly understand the concept.

    If you immediately throw a frog into a pot of boiling water the frog will jump out. However if you throw the frog in a pot of lukewarm water and very slowly increase the temperature of the water then the frog will not notice that he is slowly being cooked and will eventually die.

    This is exactly the reasoning for the TEA Parties. The TEA Parties don't exist because of the slow erosion of our liberties or the debt of our federal government. The slow erosion of our liberties and the slow increase in debt over many decades is exactly why we have not until now done anything to resist these changes. It was the greed of the Democrat majority who wanted all of their agenda fulfilled immediately...ASAP...without compromise that created the resistence to them. If the Obama Admin and the Democrats in Congress would have continued the very slow and incremental path that our past leaders and representatives were taking....the TEA Party may very well not exist right now. The resistence to this monstrosity would consist of a handful of knowledgable protestors.

    Everyone here wants the same thing in the end. But being impatient is going to be to our detriment.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Jeff Schapiro takes a swipe at Con Carry

    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    There's an old saying: "The perfect is the enemy of the good".

    I think that we all agree that Constitutional Carry is the ultimate goal. At that point, it won't really matter whether a person is carrying open or concealed, because they will all be treated the same.

    However, we aren't there yet. We're getting closer, but we still have a long ways to go. A large part of that will require changing other people's minds about gun owners in general. What you call P4P helps towards that goal, by calming some of the fears about concealed carriers being untrained, or unsafe. Once those fears are eased, it is easier to whittle away at them until you have the support to remove or lessen the restrictions.

    The states of Virginia

    Those sent to Richmond these days, however, bear no resemblance to their moderate forefathers. As an agricultural region, it is a magnet for foreign-born laborers whose presence, for some politicians, is synonymous with a new, troubling crop: violent crime. Could that be why Del. Clay Athey, R-Front Royal, wants to make it even easier to carry a concealed weapon by doing away with a required permit?

    Just like in another state — Arizona.
    Oh swell, just mention Arizona, why don't you?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623

    It's an imperfect world

    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    That is about the most dangerous statement I've ever heard.

    A concealed handgun permit is just that, permission to hide your gun. When you start promoting a superior class of gun owners via government permission, you're no better than Sarah Brady!

    This isn't a permit state like Massachewsshitz and thanks to the majority that don't want it to be, never will I hope.

    That said, I don't happen to agree that VCDL has a bad agenda this year, but I certainly agree with the theory that makes Thundar feel the way he does.
    As I said, I would much prefer straight-out constitutional carry. While I have a CHP (actually two, as I wanted reciprocity with Washington State for when I visit my parents), I wind up open carrying more often than concealed. I've worked hard to enlighten many of my friends and associates about the Second Amendment and its importance.

    Just today, I had a friend at church asking me for advice on starting a gun collection, including home defense and personal protection. His wife is somewhat opposed, but they are considering my offer to take them together to the range sometime.

    However, I don't expect to get everything in one go, and so I prefer to focus on smaller steps that can be taken to get what we want. One of the initial steps of that movement was to get states to shift from "may issue" to "shall issue" when it comes to permits. From there, you want to focus on reducing restrictions on the permits and showing that it's not the end of the world (such as what happened with the restaurant bill last year). At that point, you start working to eliminate the permit system (or supplant it with constitutional carry).

    All throughout that process, you also need to hold the line in those areas (such as open carry) that are already freer. The fact that it was already legal to open carry in restaurants made it easier to get concealed carry allowed.

    This is a decades-long fight. If we take a hard line and refuse to budge from it we won't make the same sort of progress as if we make a series of compromises that incrementally move us closer to our goals. This year, we may not get mandated parking lot carry, but we could take a step in that direction by removing liability for the parking lot owners. Then, next year (or the following year) we can take that one more step towards full parking lot carry by protecting the carry in your own car.

    It doesn't have to be all or nothing every step of the way. Is it a perfect solution? No, but it's an imperfect world. It's better to take those smaller steps than to be blocked from taking the bigger steps entirely.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    However, I don't expect to get everything in one go, and so I prefer to focus on smaller steps that can be taken to get what we want. One of the initial steps of that movement was to get states to shift from "may issue" to "shall issue" when it comes to permits. From there, you want to focus on reducing restrictions on the permits and showing that it's not the end of the world (such as what happened with the restaurant bill last year). At that point, you start working to eliminate the permit system (or supplant it with constitutional carry).

    All throughout that process, you also need to hold the line in those areas (such as open carry) that are already freer. The fact that it was already legal to open carry in restaurants made it easier to get concealed carry allowed.

    This is a decades-long fight. If we take a hard line and refuse to budge from it we won't make the same sort of progress as if we make a series of compromises that incrementally move us closer to our goals. This year, we may not get mandated parking lot carry, but we could take a step in that direction by removing liability for the parking lot owners. Then, next year (or the following year) we can take that one more step towards full parking lot carry by protecting the carry in your own car.

    It doesn't have to be all or nothing every step of the way. Is it a perfect solution? No, but it's an imperfect world. It's better to take those smaller steps than to be blocked from taking the bigger steps entirely.
    Your absolutely correct in that light...what you're mistaken in is that baby steps that give CHP'ers perks (AKA P4P) over OC'ers is the direction to go. It isn't for several reasons.

    Baby steps arenecessary sometimes, but if they don't go in the right direction, they're worse than useless...They're self defeating!

    VCDL has taken a pretty moderate line IMO..this year. Last year I was ready to burn my membership card. If the search engine is working, you'll see discussions between Philip and myself over the agenda.

    This year, what I'm seeing is a trend to give CHP holders the same rights OC'ers have... for instance, carry any legal weapon they choose.
    That's fine with me and I felt the same way about the restaurant carry.

    What wouldn't be acceptable would be (an example)
    have a parking lot bill that allowed CHP'ers to store their guns in their cars, but not OC'ers.

    When bills like that come up it gives a double whammy. Old Va doesn't have the clout to pass most bills, but I'm damn good at killing them. Of course to do that, I have to rely on anti's as well as fence sitters to vote them down. That amounts to making a deal with the devil.

    That truly creates a major rift in the gun community. A bigger one than already exists. Take a look at Richmond guns sometime and see what the LM's think of OC (lawful carry without a permit).

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Your absolutely correct in that light...what you're mistaken in is that baby steps that give CHP'ers perks (AKA P4P) over OC'ers is the direction to go. It isn't for several reasons.

    Baby steps arenecessary sometimes, but if they don't go in the right direction, they're worse than useless...They're self defeating!

    VCDL has taken a pretty moderate line IMO..this year. Last year I was ready to burn my membership card. If the search engine is working, you'll see discussions between Philip and myself over the agenda.

    This year, what I'm seeing is a trend to give CHP holders the same rights OC'ers have... for instance, carry any legal weapon they choose.
    That's fine with me and I felt the same way about the restaurant carry.

    What wouldn't be acceptable would be (an example)
    have a parking lot bill that allowed CHP'ers to store their guns in their cars, but not OC'ers.

    When bills like that come up it gives a double whammy. Old Va doesn't have the clout to pass most bills, but I'm damn good at killing them. Of course to do that, I have to rely on anti's as well as fence sitters to vote them down. That amounts to making a deal with the devil.

    That truly creates a major rift in the gun community. A bigger one than already exists. Take a look at Richmond guns sometime and see what the LM's think of OC (lawful carry without a permit).
    I remember some of those discussions. I had just started lurking here during the legislative session last year.

    I suppose for me, the ultimate goal is constitutional carry. To that end, I recognize that permits are a necessary intermediate step. It's the system that we have now, and it's what we have to work with.

    I don't have a problem with what you call P4P, as long as after the "perk" is passed the next step is to expand it to all who carry. Working with computers, you could say that I see applying something to permit holders first is sort of like running the beta test of the proposal. It allows us to prove that it works on a smaller scale before rolling it out on a larger scale.

    For example, I prefer the current one-handgun-a-month setup (which exempts CHP holders) to one that is a blanket prohibition. Why? Because it is less of a fight to expand that exemption to eliminate the law than it would be to repeal the law outright. It is an intermediate step to prove to those who are uncertain or on the fence that it is workable, and erode the support that antis would otherwise have. My ideal option would be to repeal the limit entirely.

    The only way I can see that it would create a major rift is either if after passing the "perks", we were to stop working to roll the same thing out on a larger scale, or if people get upset because the initial "perks" don't go far enough. The former is primarily a problem if those who have a CHP decide that it doesn't matter anymore, because they have what they wanted, and drop their support to expand it. The latter is a problem if it withholds support that can be used to undermine the overall anti position.

    Of course, all of this is contingent upon the P4P option being the more workable route initially. If it is possible or even likely that you can immediately push something through for all who carry (as happened with the National Parks issue), the more general route is the better choice.

    It's not ideal, but I think it is more workable in the long run.
    Last edited by grylnsmn; 01-23-2011 at 07:33 PM.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    I don't have a problem with what you call P4P,

    For example, I prefer the current one-handgun-a-month setup (which exempts CHP holders) to one that is a blanket prohibition.

    The only way I can see that it would create a major rift is either if after passing the "perks",
    Well, I guess there isn't any reason to discuss it any longer. You stand on your side of the voting block and we'll stand on ours.

    There are always people who claim to be Pro 2nd like John Kerry, Creigh Deeds, Novacop, Etc, but are just babysteppers to a permit state.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297
    I think P4P can be used as a tool to whittle away bans if used correctly. I will also say that it could be a double edged sword that could box gun rights into a privilege tied to a permit which we obviously do not want nor do I believe that is what VCDL wants.

    I accept the OGAM, General Assembly & the geo-spatial AWB exceptions as the proverbial half loaves that with luck we can show such bans as pointless when so many folks are excepted.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by palerider116 View Post
    SNIP How about a 4th amendment permit...

    Oh, already got those. Lessee:
    1. Warrants
    2. Probable cause
    3. Warrant exceptions:

    • consent searches
    • search incident
    • inventory search
    • community caretaking
    • open fields
    • border searches
    • stop-and-frisk
    • not finding anything (= no prosecution = no exclusion)
    All kinda "permits" for the 4th Amendment. Misgovernment has no problem issuing those permits to itself.

    Last edited by Citizen; 01-23-2011 at 11:03 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Well, I guess there isn't any reason to discuss it any longer. You stand on your side of the voting block and we'll stand on ours.

    There are always people who claim to be Pro 2nd like John Kerry, Creigh Deeds, Novacop, Etc, but are just babysteppers to a permit state.
    What purpose is there for you to mention Kerry, Deeds, or Novacop in your response to me? I am definitely not in agreement with any of them on such issues, and your insinuations don't do anything to help the discussion.

    I'm not advocating a permanent "permit state". I am simply pointing out that permits are what we have to deal with for the time being. As a result, we can use them as a tool to undercut antis while we work towards the ultimate goal of constitutional carry.

    Using P4P, it can be possible to exploit the kinks in antis' arguments better than otherwise. Once a hole is opened up for a small portion of gun owners, it is easier to widen that hole to cover all gun owners. As longwatch said, it's basically the half a loaf that is better than no loaf, in those areas where we can't get a whole loaf right now.

    How many states in recent years have gone directly from no carry (or open carry only) to constitutional carry? Both Alaska and Arizona went through an intermediate stage of "shall issue", which allowed the population as a whole to get more comfortable with the idea and increased support. By your arguments, "shall issue" would be the ultimate form of P4P, and yet it has been a valuable tool in working towards constitutional carry.

    We have the same ultimate goal (constitutional carry). It does neither of us any good to be turning on each other.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    What purpose is there for you to mention Kerry, Deeds, or Novacop in your response to me? I am definitely not in agreement with any of them on such issues, and your insinuations don't do anything to help the discussion.

    Because you all have the same dance routine!

    I am simply pointing out that permits are what we have to deal with for the time being.

    I don't!


    We have the same ultimate goal (constitutional carry). It does neither of us any good to be turning on each other

    I'm not turning on you, we we never got that far. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean we're on the same wavelength.

    It's a little like city people moving to the country. They talk about loving the charm, then try to have the roads straightened.
    .
    ...
    Last edited by peter nap; 01-24-2011 at 09:51 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    The way you replied makes it hard to quote, so I won't bother.

    I fully realize that you don't have a permit right now, and that you used to have one. And I'm sure that you fully realize that I wasn't saying that permits are the only way to go. What I was saying is that permits are what we (i.e. the firearms community in general) have to deal with in regards to concealed carry right now.

    My general point is that there are thousands of people in Virginia who hold a CHP, and the population in general tends to be more comfortable with people having permits than they are with the idea that "anyone" can carry a gun. (Yes, I know that no permit is required for OC. I'm talking about general perceptions, because there are a lot of people who don't know that.) What that means is that we can use the CHPs to increase awareness and support among the general population, and use that support to then restore freedoms for all law abiding citizens.

    That is the big difference between what I am saying and what people like Kerry, Deeds, etc say. They try to limit carrying to only permit holders (and would love to limit who can get the permits), using the permits to cover up the right to carry. I would use the permit holders as a wedge to open it up for everyone.

    Look at what is happening in Wisconsin right now. The are almost certain to pass a concealed carry law this year, which by all accounts will be at least a "shall issue" law. There is a smaller chance that they will be able to pass constitutional carry from the outset. By your arguments, they shouldn't bother with the "shall issue" law, even if it's almost certain to succeed, because they should only focus on constitutional carry, even if there's a good chance it would fail. You would sacrifice the certain good (opening the door for concealed carry) because it isn't perfect (full constitutional carry), even if the good gives more time to get the supporters for the perfect.
    Last edited by grylnsmn; 01-24-2011 at 10:18 AM.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    You would sacrifice the certain good (opening the door for concealed carry) because it isn't perfect (full constitutional carry), even if the good gives more time to get the supporters for the perfect.
    Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
    2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
    3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
    4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
    5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
    6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    Now,if Eve hadn't eaten that damn apple, the hunting would be better.
    Moral of the story. Don't Fork with Virginians right..note the syntax, "RIGHT" to carry a gun.

    I really want to give NOVA (Real Estate not the person) to Mary Land. Yall are a pain in the butt!
    Last edited by peter nap; 01-24-2011 at 10:39 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
    2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
    3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
    4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
    5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
    6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    Now,if Eve hadn't eaten that damn apple, the hunting would be better.
    Moral of the story. Don't Fork with Virginians right..note the syntax, "RIGHT" to carry a gun.

    I really want to give NOVA (Real Estate not the person) to Mary Land. Yall are a pain in the butt!
    Y'know, some of us are trying to change that. Personally, I'd love to move out west, closer to my family. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in the DC area for at least another 4-5 years for professional reasons. Because of that, I have to deal with how things are right now.

    In the past few years, I've helped convince quite a few people that carrying a firearm is not extremist or crazy. I've invited people to go shooting (including my Maryland-born wife, on our first date), and helped them realize that guns, in and of themselves, aren't evil or to be feared. I've advocated and defended OC with them, as well as pointed them in the direction of good resources (including this site) for learning more. Just yesterday, I had a friend at church asking me for more information.

    But ultimately it's a process to get people to change. If all we have to do is say "it's a right", then why is it such a struggle each year to get a sponsor for gun-friendly legislation, and then to get the votes to pass it? The path to ultimate victory isn't based in demanding everything at once, and refusing anything short of perfection. Victory will only be reached by changing hearts and minds on the subject, to help others understand why they need to respect and help protect our rights.

    Northern Virginia is as much a part of the Commonwealth as anywhere else. If we want to make progress, we need to help educate and encourage people to change their minds. A large part of that is taking the incremental, "boiling frog" approach.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I don't have time for any more of your nonsense!
    Please, go home and leave my state alone.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    You know we hear people spout the line that permits and concealed carry make people more comfortable with others having a gun around. I personally don't see how it could. If your gun is carried concealed how on earth are people going to know you've got a gun to begin with? How you normalize something that you can't see or desensitize people to the presence of something that they cannot detect is a puzzle. If I can see something then I have a chance to observe it, process the situation and come to the conclusion that it doesn't bother me just as I'm sure many Virginians did when there was no prohibition on OC in places serving alcohol, but a prohibition on concealed guns was in effect. If you're going to go for the incremental approach remove restrictions from open carry first so people get used to seeing a sidearm carried in a particular situation and become comfortable with it in practice, such that when the discussion comes up for having people hide away their guns they are already comfortable that regular people carry guns and may hide them and don't think that discreetly carried guns are just the purview of criminals and thugs.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 01-24-2011 at 11:39 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    You know we hear people spout the line that permits and concealed carry make people more comfortable with others having a gun around. I personally don't see how it could. If your gun is carried concealed how on earth are people going to know you've got a gun to begin with? How you normalize something that you can't see or desensitize people to the presence of something that they cannot detect is a puzzle. If I can see something then I have a chance to observe it, process the situation and come to the conclusion that it doesn't bother me just as I'm sure many Virginians did when there was no prohibition on OC in places serving alcohol, but a prohibition on concealed guns was in effect. If you're going to go for the incremental approach remove restrictions from open carry first so people get used to seeing a sidearm carried in a particular situation and become comfortable with it in practice, such that when the discussion comes up for having people hide away their guns they are already comfortable that regular people carry guns and may hide them and don't think that discreetly carried guns are just the purview of criminals and thugs.
    It's more in the sense that it illustrates that they don't have anything to worry about, because they didn't feel nervous when someone was already carrying around them.

    As an example, on Saturday, I went with my Bishop to visit someone at Inova Fairfax Hospital. (A Bishop is the leader of a LDS congregation.) As we were entering the building, I saw the signs prohibiting carry, and even though I had already disarmed before we left his house, I reflexively put my hand to my side to verify that I was not going to violate the law by carrying where it was posted.

    He saw my motion, and asked me about it, and so I explained that I am usually armed whenever I am legally allowed to be. (I usually go with OC, but at church-related activities I tend to keep it concealed because I am not there to make a political statement and do not want to be perceived as doing so.) He was momentarily surprised by that revelation, but afterwards had some additional questions for me as we were leaving. By realizing that there are already people who carry around him without a problem, it helps make him more at ease with the idea of more people (or even everyone) around him carrying.

    It's similar to one of the arguments used in support of the restaurant bill last year. Open carry was already legal, but many people didn't realize that people were already legally able to carry in restaurants. Once they realized that it was already happening with OC, many of the arguments against allowing CC were severely weakened.
    Last edited by grylnsmn; 01-24-2011 at 11:54 AM.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •