-
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.
-
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.
This isn't a trick question
- Thread starter peter nap
- Start date
TFred
Regular Member
I would suppose there is more than one answer to that question.
In a FTF transfer, I believe you check the facts you can, residence, age.
The more rigorous answer is beyond the ability of an ordinary citizen, since one would have to methodically run down the list of disqualifiers, and rule them out one by one. This requires access to information that is not available to the public.
TFred
va_tazdad
Regular Member
Well DUH !!!!
Just ask them. We ALL know criminals would never lie, right?
The Liberal gun control wackos seem to think the criminals obey the law, and they are never wrong. Just ask them.
Just ask them. We ALL know criminals would never lie, right?
The Liberal gun control wackos seem to think the criminals obey the law, and they are never wrong. Just ask them.
davidmcbeth
Banned
If they are a freeman then why not? Of course they can own & possess arms...
People who cannot own know this (people with mental issues for example, and all democrats of course)...
TFred
Regular Member
I guess I'm the only one who took the question seriously, at the request of the poster...
From what I understand, a good percentage of denials from background checks are due to issues that the purchaser did NOT know about. I have no cite for that, other than old memories of prior reading. As many facets as there are to the current laws, this would not be a surprise to me at all.
People can't even keep their credit history straight... criminal records are even harder.
TFred
Primus
Regular Member
I think a better question is what happens if you sell to a person who is lot eligible? I don't mean obvious like selling a saw to a 7 year old kid at the playground.
I mean like you meet a guy on gun broker and meet ftf if your state allows it. He appears to be legite. One step better he has a license in your state. Well unbeknownst to you said license is fake or better revoked because he's out out parole for murder or just released from an asylum. Would you be held accountable? It depends on the state I guess. I honestly don't know but I'd hope there's some leeway in favor of the citizen doing a legal good faith exchange.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
I mean like you meet a guy on gun broker and meet ftf if your state allows it. He appears to be legite. One step better he has a license in your state. Well unbeknownst to you said license is fake or better revoked because he's out out parole for murder or just released from an asylum. Would you be held accountable? It depends on the state I guess. I honestly don't know but I'd hope there's some leeway in favor of the citizen doing a legal good faith exchange.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
OC for ME
Regular Member
I suspect that if you can demonstrate that you took reasonable precautions (documentation of one kind or another) then a jury would not convict. I would like to think that it would not get that far, but ya never know these days. The cops are pretty good about filtering out BS from the chaff. But, the prohibited person, being a prohibited person, could lie his azz off and your job would be much more difficult.
Remember, the cops in the GZ case had it right from the get go and they got dumped on for being unreasonable.
Remember, the cops in the GZ case had it right from the get go and they got dumped on for being unreasonable.
Well....This one gets my bad bill stamp
Way too much room for abuse and it was introduced by Delegate Hart who calls for the same "Screen everyone" bill every year. One year he wants to ban all guns, now allow all guns by people who can lawfully own them, but screen everyone.
A version of this bill is where Delegate Gilbert made his "This is the peoples house" speech..
HB 102 State legislative buildings; prohibits possession of weapons in buildings except by certain persons.
Patrick A. Hope | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles
Summary as introduced:
Possession of weapons in state legislative buildings. Prohibits the possession of weapons in legislative buildings except by any person who lawfully possesses a handgun. The provisions of the bill that require screening of persons entering such building would not apply to General Assembly members or staff or to any law-enforcement officer.
Full text:
12/13/13 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14103050D pdf
Status:
12/13/13 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14103050D
12/13/13 House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
<em><strong><font color="#000000"><span style="font-family: Tahoma">[video=vimeo;19342023]https://vimeo.com/19342023[/video]
Way too much room for abuse and it was introduced by Delegate Hart who calls for the same "Screen everyone" bill every year. One year he wants to ban all guns, now allow all guns by people who can lawfully own them, but screen everyone.
A version of this bill is where Delegate Gilbert made his "This is the peoples house" speech..
HB 102 State legislative buildings; prohibits possession of weapons in buildings except by certain persons.
Patrick A. Hope | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles
Summary as introduced:
Possession of weapons in state legislative buildings. Prohibits the possession of weapons in legislative buildings except by any person who lawfully possesses a handgun. The provisions of the bill that require screening of persons entering such building would not apply to General Assembly members or staff or to any law-enforcement officer.
Full text:
12/13/13 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14103050D pdf
Status:
12/13/13 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14103050D
12/13/13 House: Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
<em><strong><font color="#000000"><span style="font-family: Tahoma">[video=vimeo;19342023]https://vimeo.com/19342023[/video]
Last edited:
Does the question pertain [strike]to a transfer or[/strike] to a person w/o a CHP wanting to enter the GAB armed?
Somewhat different circumstances.
Edited - see that it is as I thought, a question of who shall be allowed to carry in the GAB.
Somewhat different circumstances.
Edited - see that it is as I thought, a question of who shall be allowed to carry in the GAB.
Last edited:
Yep!:lol:
This will be looked at as a victory by some on both sides if it passes.
As I read it, the Capital Police have carte blanche in deciding on how to make the determination.
And it also requires everyone to be screened....which I'm not doing. I like walking past the metal detectors.
On Lobby day, I'll stay outside for that very reason.
Give them a vague law and they will abuse it.
Last edited:
If I read the question correctly, it could be rephrased as:
What limits might there be on the police detaining you and running your firearm's serial number, or worse yet seizing it until you bring in proof of legal possession? And what proofs would be necessary to establish legal possession of the firearm(s) in question.
Last night I was thinking that the bill might actually be "good" because it removes the CHP requirement for carry in the GAB, seems to allow the press and lobbyists to be armed, and might also eliminate the Senate's rule against carrying in their chamber at all. Mulling it over, peeking under the edges, and considering just how someone could take an innocuous thing and turn it into Really Bad[SUP]TM[/SUP], I realized that the slippery slope might be that way because of all the snot from the camel's nose.
Most of te time They tell us not to ascribe to willful meanness what can be explained by sheer stupitity or ignorance. In this case I do not think anybody was stupid or ignorant in wording the bill the way it is worded.
stay safe.
What limits might there be on the police detaining you and running your firearm's serial number, or worse yet seizing it until you bring in proof of legal possession? And what proofs would be necessary to establish legal possession of the firearm(s) in question.
Last night I was thinking that the bill might actually be "good" because it removes the CHP requirement for carry in the GAB, seems to allow the press and lobbyists to be armed, and might also eliminate the Senate's rule against carrying in their chamber at all. Mulling it over, peeking under the edges, and considering just how someone could take an innocuous thing and turn it into Really Bad[SUP]TM[/SUP], I realized that the slippery slope might be that way because of all the snot from the camel's nose.
Most of te time They tell us not to ascribe to willful meanness what can be explained by sheer stupitity or ignorance. In this case I do not think anybody was stupid or ignorant in wording the bill the way it is worded.
stay safe.
The question was a little broad:lol:
On first glance it was a "Whoopee" bill, then the details started appearing. The Capital Police could develope a screening method.
Then I saw the Patrons.
If Saslaw introduced a pro gun bill no one would assume it was good.
Hart is just a whiny version of Saslaw.:uhoh:
He consults with the Chief every year in an effort to plug up those nasty security holes left open in "The Peoples House".
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Here's the problem I see with that bill: it creates RAS to detain and investigate every carrier entering the building.
And, arguably, it puts the onus on the carrier to prove he is legal to possess/not prohibited. Of course, if he can't, then the police/guards would be "justified" in denying entry while carrying.
I think this is just a very sly way to set up carriers for trouble. Its not an outright ban--that would be howled against. But, far fewer would recognize the RAS angle. This bill turns every carrier into a criminal suspect. Somebody has been talking to cops or a criminal defense attorney.
And, arguably, it puts the onus on the carrier to prove he is legal to possess/not prohibited. Of course, if he can't, then the police/guards would be "justified" in denying entry while carrying.
I think this is just a very sly way to set up carriers for trouble. Its not an outright ban--that would be howled against. But, far fewer would recognize the RAS angle. This bill turns every carrier into a criminal suspect. Somebody has been talking to cops or a criminal defense attorney.
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
This law would seem to shift the burden of proof from the state - that you cannot carry, to you - that you can.
A. With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of § 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.
"No weapons" is the "norm". Any exception would seem likely to require proof, which is what? Are they going to do an "instant" background check on you every time you walk in the door? One time, then add your name to a list?
On the other hand, current situation requires one to present a CHP. That would certainly suffice as proof, but could be problematic if they "run it" each time you walk in to ensure it's still valid.
TFred
A. With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of § 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.
"No weapons" is the "norm". Any exception would seem likely to require proof, which is what? Are they going to do an "instant" background check on you every time you walk in the door? One time, then add your name to a list?
On the other hand, current situation requires one to present a CHP. That would certainly suffice as proof, but could be problematic if they "run it" each time you walk in to ensure it's still valid.
TFred
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
That occurred to me as well. Would they need RAS that I'm ineligible to posses in order to screen me?
However, I agree that this bill smells funny. Good bills should be obviously and plainly good.
Read section B. Any person entering will be screened except staff,etc.
The method of screening shall be determined by the cops....who can set different methods of screening for different people.
HOUSE BILL NO. 102Offered January 8, 2014Prefiled December 13, 2013A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2, relating to possession of weapons in legislative buildings. ----------Patrons-- Hope and Simon----------Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety----------Be it enacted by General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-283.2 as follows:
§ 18.2-283.2. Possession of weapons in legislative buildings.
A. With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of § 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.
B. Any person who enters the Capitol of Virginia or any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly shall be required to go through screening conducted by the Capitol Police or an agent of the Capitol Police. The method of screening shall be determined by the Capitol Police. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly, to the staff of the General Assembly, or to any law-enforcement officer.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
It seems to me that in order to know whether to vote for or against this bill, a legislator should know in advance what the "method of screening" will be. If it passes in this form, then we are subject to any "screening method" that the Capitol Police deem appropriate. I would lobby AGAINST this bill unless it is amended to specify the "method of screening" or, at least, include limitations on what the Capitol Police can impose.
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
Overlooked that... thanks.
Like I said, smells funny to me... like that smell that makes you look at the date stamped on the milk jug.
No method of screening - it is the PEOPLE'S HOUSE.
What problem has there been that even prompts this? It's more a way to penalize the honest people of the Commonwealth.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
I agree with you, Grape ... no change to the current law would be preferable. (I don't think we're going to be successful in getting the CHP "permission slip" requirement rescinded.)
My point was that if this bill seems to be gaining traction that we should get someone on the committee to propose an amendment that specifies what the screening should be. The proposer of the bill would like to have the GAB install lockers, like a courthouse, where everyone would have to check their firearms upon entering. That's why I'm suggesting that if we can't amass support for defeating this bill, we at least try to mitigate the screening possibilities. If it passes in its present form, we are at the mercy of the Capitol Police who will decide on the screening method.