P4P rules VCDL AGAIN this Year!

[grylnsmn]

First, I don't bitch and moan about how it should be...I talk about how it is!
I have a right to carry openly and do so without any permission asked for or given.
I don't say "I wish I could"...because I do.
Yes, CHP's talk to people who then think CHP is the only way to go.

In every discussion I have had about carrying, I have gone to great lengths to specify that you do not need any permit to carry openly. I emphasize that you could legally carry immediately after buying your first gun (or even before that, if someone will loan you a handgun). I have repeatedly stressed that you need a permit only if you plan to carry it concealed from view.

Just because I use my CHP as a tool to encourage other people to think better of carrying doesn't mean that I do it in such as way as to convince people that you need a CHP to carry.

I'm also OK with someone that only wants to CC, but the fight starts when he wants to be allowed something over and above simply hiding his/her gun, just because he paid his/her fifty bucks to the Clerk!

Then you are picking this fight with the wrong person.

Where have I ever said that I wanted to be allowed something over and above simply hiding my gun because I have a permit? Go ahead. Provide a citation for my exact statement that indicates that.

The only thing I have advocated is that CHPs be used to get a foot in the door on topics, when we might not otherwise be able to get everything that we want for everyone. The idea is to make it easier to open that door for everyone, not to give CHPs special privileges. I only support such measures when it comes down to a choice between "half a loaf" and "no loaf", in the hope that we can get the other half as quickly as possible.

Why do you keep saying that. It isn't even remotely true!
You want to trade Virginia's heritage for your self serving, half baked, ill conceived, political wheeling and dealing.

We share nothing!

Are you saying that constitutional carry isn't your goal? Because that's my ultimate goal.

Here's a news flash for you: what you call "Virginia's heritage" has already been traded away in many ways. I'd like to see it restored to full carry as a legally-protected right. Yes, you can open carry without a permit, but the RKBA shouldn't be restricted to just open carry. Your RKBA is already restricted because of the way the law is right now, and I had nothing to do with that. All those laws prohibiting concealed carry without a permit were passed long before I was eligible to vote or legal to purchase a gun.

I'm sorry I'm not bowing down before your inestimable wisdom (enough sarcasm for you? I can add more if you like ), but I stand by my beliefs. We have a lot more to gain in the long run as a community by using the tools that are currently available to us, and focusing on changing people's hearts and minds than we can ever gain by criticizing people for not using the exact same methods to reach the goal of constitutional carry.

 

[jmelvin]

I think you are falsely equating "people" with "the public".

I don't target my advocacy efforts at the public in general most of the time. Instead, I tend to target specific individuals or small groups. As a result of my permit, I have seen a lot of success in normalizing the idea of lawful firearm carry with quite a few individuals and small groups. I have even seen some of those people go on to similarly advocate for normalizing carry with other small groups or individuals.

You seem to focus your advocacy at the public in general. It's a broader, but less targeted approach, and we all know that it has seen some success as well.

I believe that there's more than enough room for both methods. There's no need to criticize anyone simply because they aren't advocating in the way that you think is best.

We share the same goals, and we are both trying to make progress towards them. There's no need for us to fight among ourselves because I focus my message towards individuals while you focus on the public at large.

The fighting isn't because we chose different means to spread the message, the disagreement is that each of us who are free men / women have an inherent right to be able to defend the lives that are our possession, but some seek to remove restrictions first for those who pay a fee to carry in a particular manner. Many who would only first seek the removal of restrictions for those who pay the fee and conceal their guns do so with the argument that the public will eventually accept the rest of the public carrying guns based upon others' concealed carry, despite the fact that the public will never see the guns, probably will never hear about them (unless specifically told) and / or unless they happen to hear / read about the change in law from some news source.

I have no issue with concealed / discreet carry and do it myself as needed, but I do have issue with the line of reasoning that because someone has paid a fee and received a permission slip that they deserve a first shot at less restrictions in having their right to defend themself. Self defense is a human right. Period. There is the hard hitting, valid argument that is hard to argue against. Go forth and share!

 

[epilogue]

We share nothing!

You sure do make it seem that way.

grylnsmn- there literally is nothing you can type that would change Peter's mind one iota. I've got personal experience on the topic.

 

[wylde007]

I think you are falsely equating "people" with "the public".

False.

We are talking about public PERCEPTION of lawful carry. If the public perception of lawful carry is based solely on visibility of the act and/or recognition of it as "normal" then conceal carry does nothing to put LAWFUL CARRY in the public venue.

I could go to an NRA or GOA meeting and argue about the benefits of conceal carry and I have not really done anything except preach to the choir. Except that perhaps those people would concede conceal carry as more "popularly acceptable" because it specifically DOES NOT draw attention to the issue of lawful carry.

I have a permit. The thing that separates me from you is that I do not believe it to be an advocacy tool. I believe it to be a detriment to my rights as a citizen. I believe it the permit system is an affront to liberty and that men like Peter Nap have every right to be p****d off that for $50 they can get special privileges - $50 and having your name entered into a database which law enforcement has linked to your driving record so that, unlike actual CRIMINALS, the police can know that their law-abiding citizens are carrying firearms.

You know. For their own "safety".

I am not going to go as far as Peter Nap and say that we share "nothing", but we are on completely different ends of a very broad spectrum when it comes to "rights" -vs- "privileges" and why one is not the same as the other when talking about public perception.

 

[peter nap]

Where have I ever said that I wanted to be allowed something over and above simply hiding my gun because I have a permit? Go ahead. Provide a citation for my exact statement that indicates that.

There you go:

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.

The only thing I have advocated is that CHPs be used to get a foot in the door on topics,

 

[grylnsmn]

The fighting isn't because we chose different means to spread the message, the disagreement is that each of us who are free men / women have an inherent right to be able to defend the lives that are our possession, but some seek to remove restrictions first for those who pay a fee to carry in a particular manner. Many who would seek the removal of restrictions for those who pay the fee and conceal their guns only at first do so with the argument that the public will eventually accept the rest of the public carrying guns that they never see, probably will never hear about and unless they happen to hear / read about the change in law will never have any idea that a change has been made.

I have no issue with concealed / discreet carry and do it myself as needed, but I do have issue with the line of reasoning that because someone has paid a fee and received a permission slip that they deserve a first shot at less restrictions in having their right to defend themself. Self defense is a human right. Period.

Others will make the statement

The thing is that I'm not even saying that people with a permit should get first shot at less restrictions. I'm simply saying that it's preferable to loosen the restrictions on a subset of the community if that is all we can get at this time. If we can't get everything, it's better to get what we can, then keep fighting for the rest. If you can't take a mile, take a foot. If you can't get a foot, take an inch, but no matter what keep pushing until you go the full mile.

The more inches that we manage to take, the harder it will be for us to get pushed back from where we are today. An inch or a foot isn't as good as a yard or a mile, but it still beats standing still.

 

[vt357]

I'm also OK with someone that only wants to CC, but the fight starts when he wants to be allowed something over and above simply hiding his/her gun, just because he paid his/her fifty bucks to the Clerk!

Out of curiosity, is that the way it was when CWPs were may issue in VA? Open carriers could carry in the exact same places and with the same privileges as those with permits? Then when it switched to CHPs and shall issue any expansion of of places to carry and privileges (restoration of rights) were for the most part limited to those with permits?

 

[grylnsmn]

There you go:

I'm guessing that you lack critical reading comprehension skills, then. Those quotes aren't saying that I should get special privileges because I have a permit. It's saying that if we can't push it through for everyone at once, it's better to take what we can get while we keep pushing for more. If we can't move a long ways, then we move a little. Either way, it beats standing still.

Believe it or not, I don't like having to have a permit, but since that is my only legal option if I want to be able to conceal my handgun, I will take what I can get while I push to make things how they should be. I will use every tool at my disposal, including my CHP, to help convince others to change the laws to protect the right (not the privilege) to carry for everyone.

 

[peter nap]

Out of curiosity, is that the way it was when CWPs were may issue in VA? Open carriers could carry in the exact same places and with the same privileges as those with permits? Then when it switched to CHPs and shall issue any expansion of of places to carry and privileges (restoration of rights) were for the most part limited to those with permits?

Now wait a minute VT...Compare apples to oranges. This is a long thread and Thundar started it.

Yes, before I got religion and dropped my CWP. I carried what I wanted. What you're talking about is a bill that VCDL has endorsed.

I said:

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.

If you read my posts in other threads about this years agenda I've said repeatedly that that bill wasn't P4P IMO, because it only put CHP's on an even footing with OC in that area.

I said the same thing about the Restaurant bill . It just evens the scales on that particular subject.

I have no objection to that at all.

In fact, I haven't found a real issue with any of VCDL's positions this year.

 

[peter nap]

I'm guessing that you lack critical reading comprehension skills, then. Those quotes aren't saying that I should get special privileges because I have a permit. It's saying that if we can't push it through for everyone at once, it's better to take what we can get while we keep pushing for more. If we can't move a long ways, then we move a little. Either way, it beats standing still.

My reading skills are fine.

What you said is obvious. Find another direction to squirm.

 

[grylnsmn]

My reading skills are fine.

What you said is obvious. Find another direction to squirm.

They can't be all that fine, considering that you are repeatedly misrepresenting what I have said.

By your arguments, I am advocating for special privileges for CHPs because I want CHPs to have special privileges. That is outright false. I advocate for P4P only if removing the entire restriction isn't feasible at this time, and then only as a way to get a foot in the door to open it up for everyone as soon as possible.

Consider the one-handgun-a-month law. Right now, it exempts CHPs. By your arguments, I must be fine with it. Except, that I think it is foolish and pointless. It didn't stop Cho (who waited 32 days between buying his two guns). All it did was add an unnecessary infringement on the RKBA. I fully support eliminating that law.

But, if we can't get the support for eliminating it outright, then I would initially support making it easier to get an exemption to that law (such as the CHP exemption, or loosening the requirements for the separate special permit from the State Police for a one-time purchase). I would keep supporting such exemptions until we could develop enough support to eliminate the restriction outright.

See, you are acting as though I see P4P as an end in and of itself. I don't. I see it as a means to an end (removing restrictions on the RKBA), that should be used if we can't just remove the restrictions outright.

I held the same position before I got my CHP, and I would hold it today even if I didn't have my CHP.

 

[wylde007]

It's saying that if we can't push it through for everyone at once, it's better to take what we can get while we keep pushing for more.

Like special tax breaks for retired military and the elderly and the infirmed... once they have the "special" status and receive whatever benefit makes them happy they no longer have any need nor desire to support someone else's fight.

How far are you willing to fight for FULL CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY?

Now, having answered that question unto yourself (and to this forum, if you so desire) how far do you think your buddies, your "small group", are going to fight to restore our rights?

It does not take many people to work towards a goal - but that goal is much harder to reach when you have scores more disinterested or apathetic citizens who believe that "some" freedom is enough.

Your friends... do they believe in "common sense" gun laws... you know, like paid professional victim Colin Goddard?

 

[peter nap]

They can't be all that fine, considering that you are repeatedly misrepresenting what I have said.

By your arguments, I am advocating for special privileges for CHPs because I want CHPs to have special privileges. That is outright false. I advocate for P4P only if removing the entire restriction isn't feasible at this time, and then only as a way to get a foot in the door to open it up for everyone as soon as possible.

Consider the one-handgun-a-month law. Right now, it exempts CHPs. By your arguments, I must be fine with it. Except, that I think it is foolish and pointless. It didn't stop Cho (who waited 32 days between buying his two guns). All it did was add an unnecessary infringement on the RKBA. I fully support eliminating that law.

But, if we can't get the support for eliminating it outright, then I would initially support making it easier to get an exemption to that law (such as the CHP exemption, or loosening the requirements for the separate special permit from the State Police for a one-time purchase). I would keep supporting such exemptions until we could develop enough support to eliminate the restriction outright.

See, you are acting as though I see P4P as an end in and of itself. I don't. I see it as a means to an end (removing restrictions on the RKBA), that should be used if we can't just remove the restrictions outright.

I held the same position before I got my CHP, and I would hold it today even if I didn't have my CHP.

P4P is Hemlock. It can't be taken even in small doses, without damaging the body!

 

[vt357]

Now wait a minute VT...Compare apples to oranges. This is a long thread and Thundar started it.

Yes, before I got religion and dropped my CWP. I carried what I wanted. What you're talking about is a bill that VCDL has endorsed.

I said:


If you read my posts in other threads about this years agenda I've said repeatedly that that bill wasn't P4P IMO, because it only put CHP's on an even footing with OC in that area.

I said the same thing about the Restaurant bill . It just evens the scales on that particular subject.

I have no objection to that at all.

Let me rephrase my question to exclude the CWP. I've only been interested in firearm legislation since the early 2000s so my pre-"shall issue" history is a little hazy. (I only included CWPs as a point of reference because I was under the impression they were done away with at the same time it became shall issue).

I'm just trying to broaden my understanding of the issue, specifically about the trend of pushing for perks. Did having a permit (pre-"shall issue" days) allow the carrier extra privileges? For example was exempting permit holders part of the original one-gun-a-month law or was that added more recently? Basically are the perks a more recent trend, or one that has been around since permits were first available?

I ask because I knew that you used to have one, not because of what your position was when you had it. Thanks.

 

[grylnsmn]

Like special tax breaks for retired military and the elderly and the infirmed... once they have the "special" status and receive whatever benefit makes them happy they no longer have any need nor desire to support someone else's fight.

How far are you willing to fight for FULL CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY?

Now, having answered that question unto yourself (and to this forum, if you so desire) how far do you think your buddies, your "small group", are going to fight to restore our rights?

It does not take many people to work towards a goal - but that goal is much harder to reach when you have scores more disinterested or apathetic citizens who believe that "some" freedom is enough.

Your friends... do they believe in "common sense" gun laws... you know, like paid professional victim Colin Goddard?

Except those people are going to be disinterested or apathetic either way. Does only open carrying actually convince anyone who wasn't already inclined to support carrying to lend their support? I fail to see how such an absolutist approach actually wins any more support than the approach that I follow.

I've had some friends who expressed support for "common sense" gun laws, but often they have changed their minds rather quickly when I've pointed them in the direction of information that they lacked. (For example, with the recent Tucson shooting, I had one acquaintance saying we needed magazine capacity limits. Once I started asking them why, and pointing out how they were previously ineffective, they actually stopped to think about it more and decided that it wouldn't have made a difference.) With most of my friends, the more exposure they've had to my carrying, both open and concealed, the more they have realized exactly how nonsensical those laws are.

Open carry is a wonderful advocacy tool, in addition to being a right. I use it for advocacy on a regular basis. But it's not the only such tool in the tool box.

 

[grylnsmn]

P4P is Hemlock. It can't be taken even in small doses, without damaging the body!

We disagree, and you have made that more than clear. However, I'm here to stay.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean that we should treat each other as enemies.

 

[peter nap]

Let me rephrase my question to exclude the CWP. I've only been interested in firearm legislation since the early 2000s so my pre-"shall issue" history is a little hazy. (I only included CWPs as a point of reference because I was under the impression they were done away with at the same time it became shall issue).

I'm just trying to broaden my understanding of the issue, specifically about the trend of pushing for perks. Did having a permit (pre-"shall issue" days) allow the carrier extra privileges? For example was exempting permit holders part of the original one-gun-a-month law or was that added more recently? Basically are the perks a more recent trend, or one that has been around since permits were first available?

I ask because I knew that you used to have one. Thanks.

Sorry VT. I was swinging at shadows:lol:

No, aside from being able to carry concealed, there were no privileges. The Judge could also make it conditional (where he could specify where and when it could be carried) or unconditional (Where you could carry anywhere that was legal). The first year I had mine, it was conditional but after that it was unconditional.

They hadn't passed one handgun a month then.

There were not only no perks, there were liabilities. Many Venues made the applicants list every gun...(Handgun, Rifle and Shotgun) you owned including serial numbers.

Shall issue was a positive step for Virginia.
The perks came in shortly after though because it was an easy tool to slip legislation through.
If a bill was introduced like one handgun a month, the easy way to fight it was to throw OC on the sacrificial alter.

 

[wylde007]

Except those people are going to be disinterested or apathetic either way. Does only open carrying actually convince anyone who wasn't already inclined to support carrying to lend their support? I fail to see how such an absolutist approach actually wins any more support than the approach that I follow.

What I fail to see is how conceal carry can in any way increase public awareness or alter perception. That is the crux of this discussion.

That and the perks-4-permits conundrum in which the argument is presented time and again that permit-holders have taken some government-approved course, submitted a fee and voluntarily REGISTERED themselves in order to get special privileges.

Changing laws to provide additional permit-based advancement is not evolutionary, it is de-evolutionary.

For every change to the law which allows greater privilege to permit holders they would be less inclined to support the concept of Constitutional carry because many of them are AGAINST lawful open carry. Look at Texas, for example. Open Carry is ILLEGAL there, but permitted conceal carry is lawful.

I have read far too many posts on other sites by self-proclaimed "advocates" who advocate conceal carry by permit as the ONLY acceptable manner because they like having perks. They like being special. They do not care about everyone else and they certainly are not going to support having their "special" status revoked.

These very same people argue have on their side those who argue that public safety is a factor and the "permitted" carrier has completed a government-approved safety course and is more qualified, somehow, to carry a weapon for instance of self defense. That is a preposterous conclusion... but a common one.

Take away the permitting system and some members of this forum see a lot of their bread-and-butter clientele dry up overnight. Can't have that. Municipal revenues would suffer (slightly). Law enforcement wouldn't know who is or is not carrying a firearm...

WHOOPS! They already do not know.

Conceal carry - as an ACT - does nothing to increase awareness or alter perception.

As a "permitted" policy it evokes, until abolished, extra privilege for its holders over those who choose to exercise their rights without asking their government for permission.

 

[peter nap]

We disagree, and you have made that more than clear. However, I'm here to stay.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean that we should treat each other as enemies.

I'll tell you my position on making concessions grylnsmn.

When I was 11 years old, my father wanted to see if I would be a great military leader, and sent me to Military School.

One of the upperclassmen was a fat yankee named Fitzgerald. He liked to beat up on the new Cadets.
My beatings started on day one. He was 6.2 or so and about 220 so it wasn't much competition, but I kept getting up until he got bored and went on to the next fellow.

Every day I'd find something to hit him with, but I doubt he ever felt it. He'd just get tired of watching me get back up.

After a couple of weeks, he left me alone and went to the next in line. At the end of the year, other Cadets were still shining his shoes and cleaning his kit. I was never asked.

You never compromise or you end up shining shoes!

 

[vt357]

Sorry VT. I was swinging at shadows:lol:

No, aside from being able to carry concealed, there were no privileges. The Judge could also make it conditional (where he could specify where and when it could be carried) or unconditional (Where you could carry anywhere that was legal). The first year I had mine, it was conditional but after that it was unconditional.

They hadn't passed one handgun a month then.

There were not only no perks, there were liabilities. Many Venues made the applicants list every gun...(Handgun, Rifle and Shotgun) you owned including serial numbers.

Shall issue was a positive step for Virginia.
The perks came in shortly after though because it was an easy tool to slip legislation through.
If a bill was introduced like one handgun a month, the easy way to fight it was to throw OC on the sacrificial alter.

Very informative, thanks!

I have read far too many posts on other sites by self-proclaimed "advocates" who advocate conceal carry by permit as the ONLY acceptable manner because they like having perks. They like being special. They do not care about everyone else and they certainly are not going to support having their "special" status revoked.

I can see how the perks really are a double edged sword. While you might be able to get a moderate to support expanding freedom by applying it only to those who register with the government first, the same moderate would readily support additional restrictions on the general population because it offers exemptions, once again, only to those who register with the government first. And while you would hope that the permit holders would show up the next year to fight to remove the disparity, they have no real motivation to do so.