Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Bill In Utah Legislature To Restrict Permits. You Will Have To Have A VA Permit

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    211

    Bill In Utah Legislature To Restrict Permits. You Will Have To Have A VA Permit

    I just got off the phone with a Utah Bureau Of Criminal Investigations Investigator (BCI). He confirmed that there is a bill in the Legislature, and it is likely to pass, that would require that anyone who applies for a Utah Concealed Carry Permit would have to have a permit in the State in which they reside. This was the result of States threatening to pull their reciprocity with Utah due to folks getting a Utah permit and not getting one from their home State.

    The investigator I spoke with said he believed this would pass the legislature. He told me that BCI was lobbying to have things left as they were but he doubted that would happen.

    I asked him if there would be a “grandfather” clause put in for people who already had their paperwork put in the system and he said “probably”, otherwise it would create a huge problem to refund folks their money and start all over again.

    Their session ends on Feb. 28.

    I expressed my views and those of other instructors to him (that we keep the system the way it is). He agreed, but didn’t think that was going to happen.

    I teach the Utah Course every Sat. and charge $80. If anyone is interested, please go to:

    www.utahconcealedcarryclass.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Do you have a bill number?

    Last year they had a bill that radically changed their program as well, but it didn't pass.

    Seems it would make more sense for you to ask folks to contact the Utah legislators.

    TFred

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Do you have a bill number?

    Last year they had a bill that radically changed their program as well, but it didn't pass.

    Seems it would make more sense for you to ask folks to contact the Utah legislators.

    TFred
    That was my thought too, and I mentioned it to the investigator. He said they (the legislators) would not be interested in our comments since we were non-residents and this was a Utah issue. Since the BCI is pressuring the Legislature with the same reasoning that we would use, I decided to let them speak for me. They are pro-gun and do a good job of looking out for law-abiding citizens rights. When I went for the Utah Instructor's course I was very impressed with them.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    The bill is SB 36. As passed by the Senate, it applies only to residents of states that honor Utah permits, such as Virginia; it would not affect the handful of "people's republics" on each coast, such as Maryland, (plus IL) that do not honor Utah permits and will probably never do so on their own volition.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    I can't help but wonder if the Utah legislature fully understands the impact of this.

    There are two main areas that come to mind:

    1. "May Issue" states
    2. Privacy and domestic violence victim concerns

    1. There are several states which claim to be "may issue", but in fact are not. Maryland comes to mind. I know that Maryland does not recognize Utah's permit, but since Maryland claims to issue permits, Utah would then refuse to issue a permit to a Maryland resident as well. This leaves a Maryland resident unable to carry in any of the other states that do recognize the Utah permit, and through no fault of their own, but simply because Maryland is staunchly anti-gun, and deprives its citizens of the ability to defend themselves. This would make Utah complicit in such horrid policy.

    2. Several state, including Virginia, have managed to keep enough "anti-gun" legislators in power to prevent efforts to close public access to all the personal and private information contained in a concealed permit application. This means that victims of domestic violence or other crimes, who choose to obtain a permit for their own protection, and often under very real and present threats of violence, can easily be "found" by simply requesting a list of permit applicants from the local clerk's office. Utah keeps their permit information private from non-LEO use, and therefore keeps victims safer.

    It is unconscionable for the Utah legislators to turn their backs on these two categories of victims. If a State doesn't like Utah's policy, it is likely because that state is far more restrictive than they should be, and will likely be found to be by a court of law at some point in the future. I see this as a desperate attempt by these states (the ones complaining to Utah) to push off the ramifications of Heller and McDonald for as long as possible.

    If you can identify any Utah legislators who would be willing to hear these facts, please publish a point of contact.

    TFred

    ETA: Just saw WVCDL's post... so are you saying that Utah would still issue a permit to a Maryland resident, even though Maryland claims that they do issue permits, when in fact they do not?
    Last edited by TFred; 02-01-2011 at 01:36 PM.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    ETA: Just saw WVCDL's post... so are you saying that Utah would still issue a permit to a Maryland resident, even though Maryland claims that they do issue permits, when in fact they do not?
    Under the Utah bill, the question is whether the applicant's home state honors Utah permits (not whether it issues permits). The bill was specifically designed to allow residents of states such as California or Maryland to continue to be able to get a Utah permit regardless of whether they can get a permit in their home states. The bill only affects the states that honor Utah permits, all of which (except DE) are shall issue.

    Utah recently lost reciprocity with Nevada and New Mexico. I don't think they can do anything about Nevada. however, New Mexico dropped Utah after many instructors in NM advised their students to skip the NM permit (which was more expensive, had a more rigorous training requirement, and was honored in fewer states) and just carry only with a Utah permit. There are a few other states where this is happening; however, to date, I do not know of an imminent threat, supported by law, of any other states revoking Utah's reciprocity.

    However, with that said, officials in Utah do have a political, if not moral, obligation to their constituents to preserve Utah's extensive reciprocity with other states, and I believe SB 36 is about the best way to do so. I have drafted legislation for West Virginia (which is currently poending introduction, if a few paper pushers will ever do their jobs) that includes, among many other things, issuing WV licenses to nonresidents. However, my bill, like Utah's bill, would restrict the issuance of nonresident licenses to prevent residents of other states from obtaining a WV license to bypass their own states' licensing processes; it does have some exceptions for individuals who have particular reasons to carry regularly in West Virginia that, in my view, tackle this issue in the best way possible (see pages 308 through 312 of the draft bill). This is all designed to provide a means for nonresidents to obtain a WV license (e.g., if a person is a real stickler for federal GFSZA compliance) while ensuring that WV has maximum reciprocity.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349
    What about states like IL who do not have a concealed carry law/permit system? My parents have their UT permits and can now carry when they visit family out of state, but can't carry at home. WTF?

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    If you have a resident permit in your home state, what's the point of a Ut permit? More reciprocity?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    still seems like an end run.
    Please explain.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    What about states like IL who do not have a concealed carry law/permit system? My parents have their UT permits and can now carry when they visit family out of state, but can't carry at home.
    I don't know how much more clear it could be: If a state does not honor Utah permits, SB 36 would not affect that state's residents. Therefore, IL residents will not be affected by this bill.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  10. #10
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    So in fact, Utah is joining Virginia in completely turning their back on victims of domestic violence or anyone else who has a need to keep their personal information such as home address, from the eyes of criminals.

    Nice.

    Will this affect renewals, and if so, can the permit be renewed early before this new requirement goes into effect?

    TFred

  11. #11
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    Yes.


    Please explain.
    never mind.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    So in fact, Utah is joining Virginia in completely turning their back on victims of domestic violence or anyone else who has a need to keep their personal information such as home address, from the eyes of criminals.

    Nice.

    Will this affect renewals, and if so, can the permit be renewed early before this new requirement goes into effect?

    TFred
    Great work by WVCDL & TFred. They got much more info than I did. As far as early renewals are concerned and new permits, that seems to be unclear. The final bill has yet to be presented. However, it would seem that there would have to be some type of "Grandfathering" for existing permits and those in "the works" or their system would explode and come to a complete halt.

    Just my thoughts, although the investigator I spoke with did seem to agree with that.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    SB 36 provides that it applies to renewal applications beginning January 1, 2012. It is silent on new applications; thus I presume all new applicants would be subject to the bill's new requirements the moment it becomes law (but it should not affect applications submitted prior to and pending on that date).
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    I don't know how much more clear it could be: If a state does not honor Utah permits, SB 36 would not affect that state's residents. Therefore, IL residents will not be affected by this bill.
    That's how I read it too.

    But, some folks on a NJ forum are reading it this way:

    Lets simply the language. Bob wants to apply for a Utah CCW.

    37 (ii) In addition to meeting the other qualifications for the issuance of a concealed
    38 firearm permit under this section, Bob shall:
    39 (A) hold a CCW issued by the
    40 NJ state Police If NJ has recognizes the UTAH Permit or If NJ has reciprocity with Utah's concealed firearm
    42 permit law

    What this says to me is that they will only give you a non-resident permit If NJ recognizes UTAH Permit or has reciprocity. Meaning as long as NJ recognizes Utah and you have a CCW from NJ, you can get a Utah CCW. See the difference? They're saying that if Utah does not recognize NJ but NJ recognizes Utah, you can get a Utah Permit as long as you have a NJ permit.

    Since NJ does not recognize Utah nor does NJ issue permits to regular plebes, a person from NJ can never get a Utah permit.

    Nevermind....found the updated version...

    (4) (a) In addition to meeting the other qualifications for the issuance of a concealed
    75 firearm permit under this section, a nonresident applicant S. who resides in a state that
    75a recognizes the validity of the Utah permit or has reciprocity with Utah's concealed firearm
    75b permit law
    .S shall:
    (i) hold a current concealed firearm or concealed weapon permit issued by the
    77 appropriate permitting authority of the nonresident applicant's state of residency
    Last edited by mrjam2jab; 02-01-2011 at 09:54 PM.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    That's the problem with permission Vs rights.
    The Lord givith and the Lord taketh away.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post

    However, with that said, officials in Utah do have a political, if not moral, obligation to their constituents to preserve Utah's extensive reciprocity with other states, and I believe SB 36 is about the best way to do so.
    ...
    Thank you. That is the exact intent of SB 36. It is a shame it has come to this. But some unscrupulous instructors have encouraged their students to get a Utah permit in lieu of their home State permits. Then, some other unscrupulous instructors have turned around and complained about lost income. We have lost Nevada and New Mexico to this issue even though both claim that revenue is not the real concern. We are now looking at losing Texas which is at least being honest that revenue is the real reason.

    I realize that for folks getting a Utah permit to carry in Virginia or other eastern States that recognize the permit, losing Nevada and New Mexico and possible Texas may not be a big deal. But Nevada and New Mexico are Utah's neighbors. Their loss impacts Utah residents a lot. Texas is close enough and big enough to also be of real concern.

    Colorado has also stopped recognizing Utah permits issued to anyone who is not a Utah resident.

    Arizona has stopped recognizing ALL out-of-State permits if held by an Arizona resident. If you are resident of Arizona and you want to carry pursuant to a permit, it has to be an Arizona permit. Granted, their constitutional carry has muted the effects of this.

    Bear in mind that widespread recognition of the Utah permit is not just an issue for Utah residents. Last year over half of new applicants for the Utah permit were residents of a State other than Utah. Most of those non-resident applicants are not getting the permit so they can carry in Utah. Most are getting the Utah permit so they can carry in other States, often their home State.

    And it is well and good that Utah can and does offer this service to people nationwide. But if we lose recognition in too many States, the entire reason for many people to get a Utah permit will be lost. For example, how many of you in Virginia would get the Utah permit if it was no longer recognized in Virginia? Or Georgia, or Florida?

    Each person should ask himself where it is that he carries on a Utah permit and would the Utah permit continue to have any personal value if one or more of those particular States were to drop recognition of the Utah permit.

    I wish no permits were needed and our RKBA was as secure nationwide as our right to publish/read a newspaper or attend church. I hope to see that day come soon. But it isn't here today and so widespread recognition of our permits is important.

    And as annoying as it is, this change may have the side benefit of encouraging more people to be more involved in their home State permit process. Rather than domestic violence victims or others who want/need to keep their permit information private just getting a Utah permit and being done with it, every such person should be lobbying their Virginia legislators to change the law so that holders of Virginia permits are not subject to loss of privacy.

    Charles
    from Utah

  17. #17
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    If it's a case of lost revenue for those neighboring states, then why don't they just apply this new restriction to the residents of those states?

    Seems simple enough to say "this section applies only to the residents of Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, etc.

    Fix the actual problem, and don't create new problems where they do not currently exist.

    TFred

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    If it's a case of lost revenue for those neighboring states, then why don't they just apply this new restriction to the residents of those states?

    Seems simple enough to say "this section applies only to the residents of Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, etc.

    Fix the actual problem, and don't create new problems where they do not currently exist.

    TFred
    The better solution is to ask why don't those states that are concerned about loss of revenue refuse to recognize Utah permits issued to their residents? If Nevada is concerned because residents were skipping the Nevada permit, why didn't they pass a law saying that they don't accept reciprocity if the individual is a Nevada resident?

    Why is it Utah's responsibility to help other states improve their revenue stream?
    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
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    The better solution is to ask why don't those states that are concerned about loss of revenue refuse to recognize Utah permits issued to their residents? If Nevada is concerned because residents were skipping the Nevada permit, why didn't they pass a law saying that they don't accept reciprocity if the individual is a Nevada resident?

    Why is it Utah's responsibility to help other states improve their revenue stream?
    The simple answer is that Utah is protecting their own revenue stream, and if they have to hurt a few of their customers from those 3 states to keep the rest from all the other states, then that's what they will do.

    I wonder if they even realize that privacy of the applicant information is one reason that they do get a lot of revenue from Virginia people.

    This new law will certainly cost them revenue from Virginia.

    TFred

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    The simple answer is that Utah is protecting their own revenue stream, and if they have to hurt a few of their customers from those 3 states to keep the rest from all the other states, then that's what they will do.

    I wonder if they even realize that privacy of the applicant information is one reason that they do get a lot of revenue from Virginia people.

    This new law will certainly cost them revenue from Virginia.

    TFred
    Utah's permit process has been very carefully structured to be as close to revenue neutral as possible. We have done so specifically to avoid the revenue based incentives that are causing problems in other States. We have gone so far as to set permit fees in statute so they can be changed only via full legislative process.

    Utah's issuance of so many non-residents permits has not directly financially benefited the State at all, unless you want to count the fact that Utah's BCI employs one or two extra persons to handle the permit processing than they would if non-residents had no interest in our permit.

    Protecting the revenue stream of other States is not our goal. But not undermining their revenue stream is clearly necessary if we are to maintain recognition of the Utah permit.

    Ideally, no permits would be needed anywhere in this nation. Slightly less ideally, federal law would require that all permits be recognized nationwide similar to the federal law allowing off duty and even retired LEOs to carry nationwide. Less ideally than that, those States worried about revenue or the ability to set requirements for their own residents would do as Arizona has done and simply not recognize any non-res permit held by their own residents.

    But the Utah legislature and Utah pro-RKBA activists can't really effect legislative changes outside Utah. We can only change Utah laws. And this is calculated as the best method, the least onerous change we can make to our permit, that will stave off the greatest problems with recognition.

    Utah, and Utah residents and legislators did not create this problem near as we can tell. Instructors in other States seem to be the real impetus. Consider carefully which instructors get your money. They may or may not be wholly supportive of our rights.

    Charles

  21. #21
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    So in fact, Utah is joining Virginia in completely turning their back on victims of domestic violence or anyone else who has a need to keep their personal information such as home address, from the eyes of criminals.

    Nice.

    Will this affect renewals, and if so, can the permit be renewed early before this new requirement goes into effect?

    TFred
    So someone who wants to find you goes to the (Va Circuit Court) Clerk's office and inquires if you have a CHP. If the clerk indicates that you have such a permit, and given that you've taken the time, trouble and expense to acquire same, that should/would serve as a warning flag to anyone wanting to do you harm that they should tread lightly, I would think. You have taken responsibility for your own personal safety, it's a matter of public record, and you're not dependent on the (sometimes iffy) CHP reciprocity agreements with any other state. This (should) also put the inquirer on notice that they may have used official court records to further possible criminal activity. If the inquiry results are null (no CHP), it only means that that court doesn't have a record.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    If it's a case of lost revenue for those neighboring states, then why don't they just apply this new restriction to the residents of those states?

    Seems simple enough to say "this section applies only to the residents of Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, etc.

    Fix the actual problem, and don't create new problems where they do not currently exist.

    TFred
    The problem exists in many States. And we struggle with the same legislative realities as does activists in any other State. There is the ideal, and there is the possible.

    I might just ask why Virginia residents do not just fix your privacy concerns. Or maybe take some modest measures to dramatically increase recognition of the Virginia permit.

    I don't mean to be hostile or flippant with your concerns. I really don't.

    And I'm sincerely sorry that this change will negatively impact you.

    But Utah and our Utah activists have gone above and beyond to assist non-Utah-residents with RKBA. Utah recognizes all permits issued nationwide. A permit in Utah is good in more locations than just about any other State in union. We have issued and defended issuing permits to non-residents on exactly the same basis we issue to residents. We're working on constitutional carry for Utah.

    At the end of the day, we do need to preserve as best we can without imposing draconian requirements, and especially not imposing draconian requirements on our residents, the widespread recognition of our permit. And frankly, those persons who are getting a Utah permit to circumvent getting a home State permit are a big part of why we are facing loss of recognition.

    I'm sorry.

    Charles

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    So someone who wants to find you goes to the (Va Circuit Court) Clerk's office and inquires if you have a CHP. If the clerk indicates that you have such a permit, and given that you've taken the time, trouble and expense to acquire same, that should/would serve as a warning flag to anyone wanting to do you harm that they should tread lightly, I would think. You have taken responsibility for your own personal safety, it's a matter of public record, and you're not dependent on the (sometimes iffy) CHP reciprocity agreements with any other state. This (should) also put the inquirer on notice that they may have used official court records to further possible criminal activity. If the inquiry results are null (no CHP), it only means that that court doesn't have a record.
    The problem with CHP records being open to the public is, most gun owners own more than one firearm. You don't stay at home all the time. You leave home, your home is broken into, your guns are stolen.

    Women, who have been abused and change addresses and then obtain a permit can be found by their abuser when their names are published in the papers. One such case happened a couple of years ago. This woman had to move for the FIFTH time. No one should go through that.

    I'm one of the instructors who has been decried for suggesting that folks obtain a Utah permit because of privacy considerations. I admit it proudly. I refuse to see another victim because our Virginia Legislature doesn't have the spine to stand up to the newspaper & media lobby. That includes Democrats & Republicans.

    The fact is that NO ONE has the RIGHT, IMO, to know that you have a permit. What business is it of the local newspaper?

    A few years ago, Chris Core, formerly of WMAL radio famously said, on the air, "it's public record, why would your care?". I took him at his word and did a little research on Mr. Core. I put HIS address on a well known 2A forum along with his mortgage information, phone number and a whole host of information regarding his house, that was public record. He went on the air the next day and said, "I get it, please, whom ever is doing this, stop". I then contacted him, told him it was me. We had a discussion and guess what, he DIDN'T get it! His wife made him do it! He still thought gun owners lives should be open to public scrutiny but not his. What a hypocrite.


    However, he never went near that topic again.

  24. #24
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanns40 View Post
    The problem with CHP records being open to the public is, most gun owners own more than one firearm. You don't stay at home all the time. You leave home, your home is broken into, your guns are stolen.

    Women, who have been abused and change addresses and then obtain a permit can be found by their abuser when their names are published in the papers. One such case happened a couple of years ago. This woman had to move for the FIFTH time. No one should go through that.

    I refuse to see another victim because our Virginia Legislature doesn't have the spine to stand up to the newspaper & media lobby.
    Exactly this.

    I live in a townhouse subdivision, and I live by myself. It would be trivial for someone to learn my work schedule and know that they have 10 hours to break in, find my small safe and defeat it. (Unfortunately, I don't have one of those thousand-dollar monster safes bolted to the basement floor...) Or even worse, ambush me as I arrive home and force me to open the safe and then who knows what happens to me? Home invasions to steal guns have been documented in VA-ALERT postings. I'm not allowed to carry at work, and we can't even get a stinking parking-lot bill through the liberal side of our legislature, so they would know I come home unarmed!

    And we do continue to try to fix this issue... this is the third year that I've been involved with the effort. When the Senate decides to break its own rules to kill bills that are nearly certain to pass, what can you do? Start working for new candidates in the Fall election.

    It's a very long and slow process.

    TFred

  25. #25
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanns40 View Post
    The problem with CHP records being open to the public is, most gun owners own more than one firearm. You don't stay at home all the time. You leave home, your home is broken into, your guns are stolen.

    Women, who have been abused and change addresses and then obtain a permit can be found by their abuser when their names are published in the papers. One such case happened a couple of years ago. This woman had to move for the FIFTH time. No one should go through that.
    Security for one's valuables is certainly a concern, but mass thefts of firearms due to revealed CHP information isn't really happening, is it?

    So this woman has a CHP, and continues to evade her abuser? Why? If she moves after she gets her CHP, she doesn't need to change the address on it. Apparently, whoever is abusing her either doesn't believe she's armed, or is using some other leverage on her. I'm guessing the person who advised her to get a CHP isn't the same person who is advising her about this relationship.

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
  •