How's this for an idea

[glocknroll]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

glocknroll wrote:

I agree completely that we shouldn't have to have a permit to carry concealed weapons. I have never really understand why Virginia stopped issuing concealed "weapon" permits and started issuing "Concealed handgun permits". I, at one time, had one of the old CWP's. It authorized carrying guns, knives (including switchblades), blackjacks, and I don't remember what else. I never made sense to me that an individual who can legally carry a firearm can't carry a fixed blade knife (or automatic opening knife) on their belt and put their coat on. I know knives are kind of off topic here, but in a free society the citizen should be able to carry anything the police can carry.I would gladly get on board with any attempt to get "Alaska Carry" in Virginia.

Well, since there is a code that does prohibit the possession of a switch blade as well as many other weapons... Maybe this is why they changed it from "weapon" to "handgun"....



§ 18.2-311. Prohibiting the selling or having in possession blackjacks, etc.

If any person sells or barters, or exhibits for sale or for barter, or gives or furnishes, or causes to be sold, bartered, given or furnished, or has in his possession, or under his control, with the intent of selling, bartering, giving or furnishing, any blackjack, brass or metal knucks, any disc of whatever configuration having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, or like weapons, such person shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

The having in one's possession of any such weapon shall be prima facie evidence, except in the case of a conservator of the peace, of his intent to sell, barter, give or furnish the same.

It was my understanding that the permits issued at the time exempted you from that particular provision. I never really got into all the specifics at the time, but all the things I listed were listed on the back of the permit as being weapons that were permitted to the permit holder. I wish I still had that old permit, if even as a memento. When "shall issue" came into effect, the permits became handgun permits. It's aggravating, because I had an excellent Benchmade AFO auto that Isold before I left Iraq, since I knew I couldn't bring it home. They were selling them in the PX there. Everybody and his uncle had one.

 

[savery]

imported post

The bill of rights doesn't grant anything, it tells the government that they are not to do anything mentioned in amendments 1-10.

For me, It's more than getting a permit. The reasons I mentioned are "convenience" reasons so that most people could relate. My deep, underlying reason is that it's unlawful under the constitution. (I will say that one of my biggest concern is the flag they put on your vehicle registration. Cops love to screw with me for some reason.)

This is something that I'd love to work on, but I'd need help. I've got a few ideas, but I'd really like to get the help of VCDL and/or GOA on board, for both their contacts and clout. If you're interested in helping in some way, shape or form, let me know. Send me a PM.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

glocknroll wrote:

It was my understanding that the permits issued at the time exempted you from that particular provision. I never really got into all the specifics at the time, but all the things I listed were listed on the back of the permit as being weapons that were permitted to the permit holder. I wish I still had that old permit, if even as a memento. When "shall issue" came into effect, the permits became handgun permits. It's aggravating, because I had an excellent Benchmade AFO auto that Isold before I left Iraq, since I knew I couldn't bring it home. They were selling them in the PX there. Everybody and his uncle had one.

I carry one... Very nice knife...

I can understand your frustrations... Do you have any idea when the laws were enacted pertaining to restricting concealed weapons?

I figure... a law isnormally created only after a need to stop some type of activity or if the government needs to have a legal waytake action in some circumstance.

 

[TEX1N]

imported post

savery wrote:

For me, It's more than getting a permit. The reasons I mentioned are "convenience" reasons so that most people could relate. My deep, underlying reason is that it's unlawful under the constitution. (I will say that one of my biggest concern is the flag they put on your vehicle registration. Cops love to screw with me for some reason.)

I know a few people like you who just get a Florida or Utah permit. That way you're still legal and at the same time not directly submitting to the permit requirement by the Commonwealth. Plus the cops (& Roanoke Times) here won't know that you have a permit unless you tell them.

I kind of look at it as a legitimate way to protest the current permitting system.

Just something to think about...

 

[glocknroll]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

glocknroll wrote:

It was my understanding that the permits issued at the time exempted you from that particular provision. I never really got into all the specifics at the time, but all the things I listed were listed on the back of the permit as being weapons that were permitted to the permit holder. I wish I still had that old permit, if even as a memento. When "shall issue" came into effect, the permits became handgun permits. It's aggravating, because I had an excellent Benchmade AFO auto that Isold before I left Iraq, since I knew I couldn't bring it home. They were selling them in the PX there. Everybody and his uncle had one.

I carry one... Very nice knife...

I can understand your frustrations... Do you have any idea when the laws were enacted pertaining to restricting concealed weapons?

I figure... a law isnormally created only after a need to stop some type of activity or if the government needs to have a legal waytake action in some circumstance.

No, I don't have any idea when these restrictions were put into place. I had always heard that most of these laws were put into effect during the gangster (not gangsta) era of the '20s and '30s, but I have never taken the time to research it.

 

[glocknroll]

imported post

Now I usually carry my Gerber Applegate or Benchmade Griptilian. Sure did hate to part with that AFO.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

The bottom line is that the CHP system is a money cow for the local jurisdictions. The fee is $50. While the first time you sign up, the costs of processing might be a wash for any county, renewals are a horse of a different color. For a renewal the fee is the same, and the processing is almost nothing. They probably make $30-40 in pure profits.

Regards

 

[savery]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

The bottom line is that the CHP system is a money cow for the local jurisdictions. The fee is $50. While the first time you sign up, the costs of processing might be a wash for any county, renewals are a horse of a different color. For a renewal the fee is the same, and the processing is almost nothing. They probably make $30-40 in pure profits.

Regards

Yet another great reason! The government steals enough of my money!

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Tomorrow's news:

Virginia just passed a concealed Bible law. VA is now a "right-to-pray" state. If you wish to carry a bible concealed in your bookbag or briefcase, you can now apply for a permit for a mere $50 fee from the clerk of the circuit court. Aftera brief background check to ensure you're not a religious terrorist and proof of religious training and reading skills, the county must issue your CBP within 90 days.

This new law is not without controversy. "Pretty soon, we'll see people preeching to each other at stoplights! There'll be religious war in the streets," said Sim Jollo of the group formerly known asThought Control, Inc., "This law will make all Virginians less secular. For God's sake, won't somebody think of the children!"

Meanwhile, this bible permit law has the support of the National Bible Association. Said NBA spokesman Payne LaWierre, "We believe that every American should be able to own, read, and carry a concealed bible, as long as they meet the background check requirements and fill out the proper paperwork at the bookstore. The National Bible Association stands tall for your right to freedom of religion."

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

The permits do not get processed magically... An employee has to sit there and do all the work. The local jurisdiction needs to pay them somehow.

I see it as offsetting the cost to the people who pay taxes. The low price of $40 - $50 is not bad for all the people that are involved in the processing of the permit. Anything more than $50.00 is excessive.

 

[glocknroll]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The permits do not get processed magically... An employee has to sit there and do all the work. The local jurisdiction needs to pay them somehow.

I see it as offsetting the cost to the people who pay taxes. The low price of $40 - $50 is not bad for all the people that are involved in the processing of the permit. Anything more than $50.00 is excessive.

Have to disagree with you on this one. The same background check costs $3 when you buy a gun. Why does it cost $50 for a permit to carry that gun?

 

[roscoe13]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I see it as offsetting the cost to the people who pay taxes. The low price of $40 - $50 is not bad for all the people that are involved in the processing of the permit. Anything more than $50.00 is excessive.

It's having to have a permit that's excessive. No permits required, no cost to process, no wasted taxpayer dollars so that we can execise a natural right...

 

[savery]

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I see it as offsetting the cost to the people who pay taxes. The low price of $40 - $50 is not bad for all the people that are involved in the processing of the permit. Anything more than $50.00 is excessive.

It's having to have a permit that's excessive. No permits required, no cost to process, no wasted taxpayer dollars so that we can execise a natural right...

Thank you.

Furthermore, why should a woman with a husband that just went off the deep end have to wait for a permit? Sorry but restraining orders only stand up in court, they don't stand up against psychopaths.


Permits are simply a precursor to registration, then confiscation.

Will everyone be so nonchalant when the national ID card comes out?
I hope not.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

I believe the law says they can sharge "no more than" $50. So if they wanted to they could give you the permit for free. But AFAIK every single county charges the maximum. Before that part of the law was clarified some counties were charging $50 for this document and $50 for the background check, and $50 for for all sorts of stuff. Government = greed.

 

[TEX1N]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Tomorrow's news:

Virginia just passed a concealed Bible law. VA is now a "right-to-pray" state. If you wish to carry a bible concealed in your bookbag or briefcase, you can now apply for a permit for a mere $50 fee from the clerk of the circuit court. Aftera brief background check to ensure you're not a religious terrorist and proof of religious training and reading skills, the county must issue your CBP within 90 days.

This new law is not without controversy. "Pretty soon, we'll see people preeching to each other at stoplights! There'll be religious war in the streets," said Sim Jollo of the group formerly known asThought Control, Inc., "This law will make all Virginians less secular. For God's sake, won't somebody think of the children!"

Meanwhile, this bible permit law has the support of the National Bible Association. Said NBA spokesman Payne LaWierre, "We believe that every American should be able to own, read, and carry a concealed bible, as long as they meet the background check requirements and fill out the proper paperwork at the bookstore. The National Bible Association stands tall for your right to freedom of religion."

"The First Amendment's right to religious freedom is not absolute, it only guarantees a collective right to religion," said Nou Ann McLabb, member of the Thousand Teen Trot (TTT), when asked what she thought of college students being able to carry bibles to class. "Having more bibles is not necessary for religious security and it would just lead to chaos in classrooms. If a student would like to read a bible we believe they should do so in a church, under the strict supervision of a government approved pastor," said McLabb. "We are not calling for a total ban on bibles, just that they be kept locked up in a church for the protection of the kids."

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

glocknroll wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The permits do not get processed magically... An employee has to sit there and do all the work. The local jurisdiction needs to pay them somehow.

I see it as offsetting the cost to the people who pay taxes. The low price of $40 - $50 is not bad for all the people that are involved in the processing of the permit. Anything more than $50.00 is excessive.

Have to disagree with you on this one. The same background check costs $3 when you buy a gun. Why does it cost $50 for a permit to carry that gun?

You must be talking about the check by the state where they punch in your name and it reports.. not wanted, no felony, not mental, no restraining order. These are the quick ones that can be checked in seconds and they are cut and dry.

The FFL dealer is getting paid by the sale of the item so the completion of the form and the filing he does is covered.

Thegovernment employee has to actually process your application and submit a letter tot he Judge.He will need to doresearch and check several databases for your name.Since the SSN is optional he or she may need to look deeper to see if it is you. he needs to look very close at your criminal history to determine if your eligible or not.

There is a little more work here for the local employee to consider.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I see it as offsetting the cost to the people who pay taxes. The low price of $40 - $50 is not bad for all the people that are involved in the processing of the permit. Anything more than $50.00 is excessive.

It's having to have a permit that's excessive. No permits required, no cost to process, no wasted taxpayer dollars so that we can execise a natural right...

Your obviously opposed to the idea that you must get a permit to CC.

What about obtaining and maintaining a driver's license?Why do we need a license to drive on roads we pay for?

In both cases.... In the interestof public safety the person is getting checked out to be sure they are suitable to have a permit or license.

You have the right to own a gun... and Virginia will allow all legally allowed to openly carry. This permits everyone to know your armed.

Why should a criminal be permitted to legally CC as he stalks his victims?

Unfortunately... the local governmentwants to collect a fee from you. Small price to pay as compared to other states.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I believe the law says they can sharge "no more than" $50. So if they wanted to they could give you the permit for free. But AFAIK every single county charges the maximum. Before that part of the law was clarified some counties were charging $50 for this document and $50 for the background check, and $50 for for all sorts of stuff. Government = greed.

The agency will almost always take the max. They want as much money as they can collect.

If it helps keep my taxes down a little... that is fine with me.

Just like gambling.... I do not believe in it but if others want to lose that money and it helps out the state... Woo Hoo!!! Keeping taxes down!!

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

While I have a permit and will continue to until they collect all the guns. The fact is that the fees are user fees. Just like the fees you pay when you use certain other public facilities. From my point of view, I am not the user here. The courts and the general public are the only ones who care if I have a clean background. I already know.

Since all these fees are to prove to the courts and the public that I have a clean bill of health, they should pay the freight.

The argument that someone has to process the form for renewals and that is what the fee are for is not correct in full. The processing of renewals does not involve anything like the processing on the original application. At the most it would take about 10 min to do the checks for renewals.

There is a reason the the lifetime permit was passed but not funded by the legislature. It was not because it was a bad idea, it was because the local governments did not want to lose this revenue, and their voice is louder than ours in Richmond. Since we pay for the permit process, exactly what part of the lifetime permit is unfunded?

If the county wants to balance its budget they should cut programs, not impose spurious fees unjustly on the people. The fact is that unless this money is being used ONNLY for the permit process, it is a lie, and a fraud against the people, and it should be stopped.

Regards

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

While I have a permit and will continue to until they collect all the guns. The fact is that the fees are user fees. Just like the fees you pay when you use certain other public facilities. From my point of view, I am not the user here. The courts and the general public are the only ones who care if I have a clean background. I already know.

Since all these fees are to prove to the courts and the public that I have a clean bill of health, they should pay the freight.

The argument that someone has to process the form for renewals and that is what the fee are for is not correct in full. The processing of renewals does not involve anything like the processing on the original application. At the most it would take about 10 min to do the checks for renewals.

There is a reason the the lifetime permit was passed but not funded by the legislature. It was not because it was a bad idea, it was because the local governments did not want to lose this revenue, and their voice is louder than ours in Richmond.

If the county wants to balance its budget they should cut programs, not impose spurious fees unjustly on the people. The fact is that unless this money is being used ONNLY for the permit process, it is a lie, and a fraud against the people, and it should be stopped.

Regards

Well, some could look at it in this way....

Why should the taxes paid in by those who hate guns have to pay for your background checksso you canget a gun permit?

The lifetime permit will not likely happen since the counties will lose that annual revenue!! That could raise my taxes and I would not like that at all.