T Dubya
Campaign Veteran
I don't blame him one bit. Hunter 45 was out of line. Shouldn't be what we're about.
-
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.
I need to speak with a 2nd Amendment Lawyer
- Thread starter suffolk
- Start date
I don't blame him one bit. Hunter 45 was out of line. Shouldn't be what we're about.
roscoe13
Campaign Veteran
+1000
It's interesting TD. I was just discussing complicated with someone a few minutes ago. This board gets very complicated at times.
The OP seemed sincere to me and it is a problem we've helped with before even though it is a CHP issue.
A long time back, we had the same thing come up with Thousand Yard Shooter in Isle of Wight, except his was over some ancient bad check charges that had been settled. As I recall, there was some sniping there too.
I'm sure Hunter had his reasons and the OP is in good hands now.
The world is back in balance....for a few minutes:lol:
suffolk
Regular Member
I was convicted on August 21, 2009 of Possesion of Marijuana and applied for a CHP on September 17, 2012. Definitley over 3 years. It was a Class 1 misdemeanor.
suffolk
Regular Member
I really do appreciate all of the help you guys have given me. When I saw that I was denied unjustly I knew I had to do some research and you guys really helped me along with it. The world will be back in balance when justice is served and I am rightly issued a CHP lol.
roscoe13
Campaign Veteran
suffolk
Regular Member
Thats the truth. I feel that if I am allowed to purchase a firearm I should be able to conceal that firearm without having to apply for a permit and yadda yadda yadda. Constitutional Carry should be national law. Vermont and I believe Arizona have the right idea.
Please not a federal law - prefer nationwide consistency though.
States with Constitutional Carry:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
mobeewan
Regular Member
I'm not saying the court is right or wrong, but can see how they may be looking at his drug conviction as a disqualifier. He used drugs and was convicted for using drugs. Proven by the court that he is a drug user whether he is currently using or not.
If someone is convicted of perjury and haven't lied lately, are they still considered a liar if they ever have to give testimony again?
If someone stole something and was convicted of theft and haven't stole anything for 3 years, are they still a thief?
If someone was convicted of murder, served their time, got out of jail and haven't killed anyone for 3 years after being released, are they still a murderer?
I wish him good luck in his endeavor to get his permit, but it looks like he is going to have a difficult fight on his hands.
If someone is convicted of perjury and haven't lied lately, are they still considered a liar if they ever have to give testimony again?
If someone stole something and was convicted of theft and haven't stole anything for 3 years, are they still a thief?
If someone was convicted of murder, served their time, got out of jail and haven't killed anyone for 3 years after being released, are they still a murderer?
I wish him good luck in his endeavor to get his permit, but it looks like he is going to have a difficult fight on his hands.
Last edited:
If someone said something foolish at one time in the past, are they still a fool?
Admittedly some folks' previous behavior warrants keeping a closer eye on them than is kept on the general public, or checking a bit closer when it comes to the subject of what they did wrong in the past, but leaving no possibility for rehabilitation seems pretty harsh. My interpretation of the way the law is written is that it does leave room for rehabilitation.
Sort of goes back to the question of whether or not someone who has completed their prison sentence ought to be allowed to posses a handgun for self defense as opposed to being forever prohibited from doing so.
stay safe.
Admittedly some folks' previous behavior warrants keeping a closer eye on them than is kept on the general public, or checking a bit closer when it comes to the subject of what they did wrong in the past, but leaving no possibility for rehabilitation seems pretty harsh. My interpretation of the way the law is written is that it does leave room for rehabilitation.
Sort of goes back to the question of whether or not someone who has completed their prison sentence ought to be allowed to posses a handgun for self defense as opposed to being forever prohibited from doing so.
stay safe.
TFred
Regular Member
Anyone who has a basic grasp of the English language should acknowledge that the court appears to be wrong in this case.
Paragraph E.8 is written entirely in the present tense. "8. An individual who is addicted to, or is an unlawful user or distributor of, marijuana, synthetic cannabinoids, or any controlled substance." Not "was".
Paragraph E.19 specifically covers the restrictions for persons who had issues in the past, and that paragraph clearly specifies the time that is required to pass before one becomes eligible again.
It seems fairly obvious that unless the court has evidence of present tense usage, they are in the wrong, and need to be slapped for it.
ETA: This is nothing more than a judge who is on his own accord changing the law from "shall issue" to "may issue". We already won this battle.
TFred
Last edited:
suffolk
Regular Member
Just got off the phone with ArmedBarrister and I am disqualified under Code of Virginia 18.2-308.1(5)
He told me that being disqualified under that code is very rare. The reason the court gave me was wrong in the sense that an addict/user is someone who was convicted within the past year of a drug offense or someone who popped dirty on a drug test within the past year.
I will be eligible at the end of August 2014. Damn. Thanks for the help guys, I really appreciate it.
suffolk
Regular Member
First conviction was October 2006.
Second conviction was August 2009.
THEY CAN'T HOLD ME DOWN FOREVER LOL. August 2014 they have to give me the permit.
TFred
Regular Member
suffolk
Regular Member
Sorry, code of virginia 18.2-308.1:5
I hope this thread can be used to help someone else out if they need it.
TFred
Regular Member
Yep... Here's the link.
So if you can't purchase or transport, does that preclude OC as well?
TFred
§ 18.2-308.1:5. Purchase or transportation of firearm by persons convicted of certain drug offenses prohibited.
Any person who, within a thirty-six consecutive month period, has been convicted of two misdemeanor offenses under subsection B of § 18.2-248.1:1, § 18.2-250, or 18.2-250.1 shall be ineligible to purchase or transport a handgun. However, upon expiration of a period of five years from the date of the second conviction and provided the person has not been convicted of any such offense within that period, the ineligibility shall be removed.
(1995, c. 577; 2011, cc. 384, 410.)
suffolk
Regular Member
I'm assuming so. I can buy all the AR-15's and shotguns I want though lol.
suffolk
Regular Member
Your logic is flawed. I'm not a drug user. Back then, yes. Now? No, i'm not.
When you say "I'm not saying the court is right or worng..", we all know you're saying you think they are right. It's kinda like when someone says "No offense but...", we know they mean to offend.
Sorry Suffolk. I wasn't aware of the first offense.
Just for the record. I'm not a big fan of CHP's but I'm less pleased with Judicial misconduct (Which apparently was not the case here).
1.I also don't consider someone that smoked pot the same as a hard core heroin or cocaine addict.
That would be like comparing the Saturday night bar hopper to the drunk who goes into DT's without a bottle.
2.I also don't approve of smoking pot...I'm neutral on it unless it were my son. He'd be grounded still and he's in his mid 30's.
3.Minor offenses are just that....minor!
Good luck next year!
Just for the record. I'm not a big fan of CHP's but I'm less pleased with Judicial misconduct (Which apparently was not the case here).
1.I also don't consider someone that smoked pot the same as a hard core heroin or cocaine addict.
That would be like comparing the Saturday night bar hopper to the drunk who goes into DT's without a bottle.
2.I also don't approve of smoking pot...I'm neutral on it unless it were my son. He'd be grounded still and he's in his mid 30's.
3.Minor offenses are just that....minor!
Good luck next year!