TFred
Regular Member
Place holder for post on the way.
TFred
TFred
[snip]
Virginia is a SHALL ISSUE state. We all know what that means. Unless you are specifically disqualified, the government MUST issue a CHP to everyone who asks for one. My suggestion to you is that given the fact that the list of disqualifiers are so similar, it makes no sense to claim that one is a "right" while begrudging the other as a "privilege". In a very real sense, a CHP is nothing more than a citizen informing the state government that he or she WILL BE carrying a concealed weapon.
It appears to me that your analysis fails only because you are not recognizing the fact that the General Assembly, in their wisdom (where is that rolling hysterically on the floor emoticon when you need it?), .
I understand the distinctions as User has explained several times: Affirmative Defense, and all of that.It appears to me that your analysis fails only because you are not recognizing the fact that the General Assembly, in their wisdom (where is that rolling hysterically on the floor emoticon when you need it?), declared that carrying of concealed weapons, which includes handguns, is illegal.
The General Assembly, again in their wisdom, carved out an exception to the carrying of concealed handguns based on the person desiring to do so not having one or more of a list of disqualifying conditions and the paying of a fee (tax). There is no question that cocealed carry is a privilege granted by the General Assembly, in their wisdom.
Remember, even SCOTUS has said that as long as there is a way to lawfully bear arms the right to do so has not been abridged - even when doing so involves applying for and being granted some privelege. (Yes, this is not actually what Heller says and is repeated in McDonald. But try to explain it to a non-gun person without falling to that level.) There are a few cases working their way towards SCOTUS addressing that conflict, and most of them seem to have a better than good chance of resolving the dichotomy. All we need is to see if SCOTUS wants to take on the issue so soon.
stay safe.
To twist TFred's argument, someone with the wherewithal to do so should use this to argue in the General Assembly (again...) by way of a Bill, that CHPs (really the whole 18.2-308 except for other illegal possessions) should be abolished since they are virtually the same as OC.
Or...
Why doesn't the General Assembly waive the backround check for those that have a current CHP just like they do for those with a Curio and Relic License?
Or...
Why doesn't the General Assembly waive the backround check for those that have a current CHP just like they do for those with a Curio and Relic License?
A C&R is a federal FFL. A C&R holder is only background check exempt for weapons that qualify as C&R....
Roscoe
Virginia specifically exempts C&R holders from all state background check requirements for any firearm, not just for Curios and Relics.
A C&R is a federal FFL. A C&R holder is only background check exempt for weapons that qualify as C&R....
Roscoe
Site?
Yes, ABSOLUTELY. And these are the areas that the court must eventually evaluate when the cases regarding the "presumptively lawful restrictions" eventually get back to the top, the Supreme Court. I just hope it is Scalia who is once again writing the majority opinions of those cases.For most purposes, the second amendment is being treated as "privilege" and not a "right", even after Heller, etc. Background check to purchase, permits to carry, numerous restrictions as to where you can carry, and on and on. As these court cases move forward, we had best hope that the second amendment moves closer to to treatment as an actual "right". Why? If our second amendment "rights" can be regulated in this manner, why not all of our other rights? What if similar regulations were applied to the first amendment. Perhaps it would be perfectly legal and constitutional to impose a fee and background check before a citizen could write a letter to the editor, or call in to a popular talk radio program to express an opinion or even post here on OpenCarry. And define a confusing array of places and circumstances where you could speak freely in one situation, but not another. Why not? Form a line for your "free speech" permit. Or go to jail.