Thundar
Regular Member
2011 VCDL Legislative Tracking Tool:VIrginia Firearms Freedom Act - only one thumbs up. Lots of P4P two thumbs up.
Link: http://www.vcdl.org/static/2011leg.html
Link: http://www.vcdl.org/static/2011leg.html
2011 VCDL Legislative Tracking Tool:VIrginia Firearms Freedom Act - only one thumbs up. Lots of P4P two thumbs up.
Link: http://www.vcdl.org/static/2011leg.html
I didn't see any thumbs on this at all and it's number 1 on my hatchet list
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?111+sum+HB1889
2011 VCDL Legislative Tracking Tool:VIrginia Firearms Freedom Act - only one thumbs up. Lots of P4P two thumbs up.
Link: http://www.vcdl.org/static/2011leg.html
Thundar, VCDL supports both methods of carry - we aren't forsaking either one. You seem much more fixated on one form of carry over the other than VCDL is. We're more, er, ambidextrous.
We had a role on the Constitutional Carry bill being introduced. We didn't want the notification that was part of the actual bill (hence the one thumb up once we saw the final wording) and I think that can be fixed - stay tuned.
The state agency preemption, which fixes things for both open and concealed carriers, with state agencies was put in for VCDL.
BTW, which group do you suppose met with the Governor's aide last year to push for OPEN CARRY in State Parks and both in State Forests?
Sorry you don't like permits, but they are a reality and we will be making Virginia more and more friendly to concealed carry, whether it is with a permit or Constitutional.
Many on OCDO have a more holistic view of rights in the Commonwealth and indeed in the Nation. My philosophy is that rights work best when they work together.
My 2A right to open carry is better because I have a 4A right to be free from unreasonable search.
The important point is that in order to protect our rights we must support our rights.
You mention permits as a reality. The reality is that the permit is a priveledge. The exemptions from prosecution granted by the permit are not rights. There are conditions attatched to the priveledge, including payment of a fee and exclusion of otherwise law abiding adults (18-20 year olds), that point to it as a priveledge.
It is very disconcerning to see the advancement of pro gun policy based on priveledge and not rights. The exemption to the assault weapons ban, the exemption to one handgun a month and the Virginia Capitol Building gun ban come to mind.
It was very disturbing to see the lifting of the concealed handgun ban in restaraunts last year promoted as a restored right. It was nothing of the sort. This sort of confusion of rights and priveledges allows VCDL to deliver a cleaner message "Support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Rights, etc.", but confuses the public about what their gun rights actually are, and allows politicians to "do something" for the pro gun lobby, without doing much.
I do understand the reality of the Virginia Senate, which makes large gun rights gains very difficult. Next year, when we will most likely see large conservative gains in the Virginia Senate, is the year to really advance gun rights. This is the year to introduce the concepts and bills to legislators.
To answer your question about "who", the Libertarian Party has lobbied very hard for the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act and for Constitutional Carry. Remember, last year the Libertarians, not VCDL pulled hardest for the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act.
My purpose in discussing Perks for Permittees (P4P) is to ensure that at least here on OCDO, there is a clear delineation between gun rights and gun priveledges.
There's an old saying: "The perfect is the enemy of the good".
I think that we all agree that Constitutional Carry is the ultimate goal. At that point, it won't really matter whether a person is carrying open or concealed, because they will all be treated the same.
What you call P4P helps towards that goal, by calming some of the fears about concealed carriers being untrained, or unsafe. Once those fears are eased, it is easier to whittle away at them until you have the support to remove or lessen the restrictions.
I've often seen the boiling frog analogy used to illustrate the dangers of gun control. However, it is also a very good model for how we can get gun restrictions lifted. Little by little, it improves the situation until the step to Constitutional Carry is not as big a leap as it would have been in the past.
That's what "P4P" is primarily about, turning that water temperature up just a little bit higher, but in a way that the antis don't notice how warm it really is until it's too late.
In that context, permits are a reality, if for no other reason than because we still have to deal with federal laws (such as the GFSZA) that make their protections contingent upon those permits. We don't have the support needed to overturn those laws yet, and so we need to deal with things as they are now, and implement the good as we work towards the perfect.
There's an old saying: "The perfect is the enemy of the good".
I think that we all agree that Constitutional Carry is the ultimate goal. At that point, it won't really matter whether a person is carrying open or concealed, because they will all be treated the same.
However, we aren't there yet. We're getting closer, but we still have a long ways to go. A large part of that will require changing other people's minds about gun owners in general. What you call P4P helps towards that goal, by calming some of the fears about concealed carriers being untrained, or unsafe. Once those fears are eased, it is easier to whittle away at them until you have the support to remove or lessen the restrictions.
Those sent to Richmond these days, however, bear no resemblance to their moderate forefathers. As an agricultural region, it is a magnet for foreign-born laborers whose presence, for some politicians, is synonymous with a new, troubling crop: violent crime. Could that be why Del. Clay Athey, R-Front Royal, wants to make it even easier to carry a concealed weapon by doing away with a required permit?
Just like in another state — Arizona.
That is about the most dangerous statement I've ever heard.
A concealed handgun permit is just that, permission to hide your gun. When you start promoting a superior class of gun owners via government permission, you're no better than Sarah Brady!
This isn't a permit state like Massachewsshitz and thanks to the majority that don't want it to be, never will I hope.
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.
However, I don't expect to get everything in one go, and so I prefer to focus on smaller steps that can be taken to get what we want. One of the initial steps of that movement was to get states to shift from "may issue" to "shall issue" when it comes to permits. From there, you want to focus on reducing restrictions on the permits and showing that it's not the end of the world (such as what happened with the restaurant bill last year). At that point, you start working to eliminate the permit system (or supplant it with constitutional carry).
All throughout that process, you also need to hold the line in those areas (such as open carry) that are already freer. The fact that it was already legal to open carry in restaurants made it easier to get concealed carry allowed.
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. This year, we may not get mandated parking lot carry, but we could take a step in that direction by removing liability for the parking lot owners. Then, next year (or the following year) we can take that one more step towards full parking lot carry by protecting the carry in your own car.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing every step of the way. Is it a perfect solution? No, but it's an imperfect world. It's better to take those smaller steps than to be blocked from taking the bigger steps entirely.
Your absolutely correct in that light...what you're mistaken in is that baby steps that give CHP'ers perks (AKA P4P) over OC'ers is the direction to go. It isn't for several reasons.
Baby steps arenecessary sometimes, but if they don't go in the right direction, they're worse than useless...They're self defeating!
VCDL has taken a pretty moderate line IMO..this year. Last year I was ready to burn my membership card. If the search engine is working, you'll see discussions between Philip and myself over the agenda.
This year, what I'm seeing is a trend to give CHP holders the same rights OC'ers have... for instance, carry any legal weapon they choose.
That's fine with me and I felt the same way about the restaurant carry.
What wouldn't be acceptable would be (an example)
have a parking lot bill that allowed CHP'ers to store their guns in their cars, but not OC'ers.
When bills like that come up it gives a double whammy. Old Va doesn't have the clout to pass most bills, but I'm damn good at killing them. Of course to do that, I have to rely on anti's as well as fence sitters to vote them down. That amounts to making a deal with the devil.
That truly creates a major rift in the gun community. A bigger one than already exists. Take a look at Richmond guns sometime and see what the LM's think of OC (lawful carry without a permit).
I don't have a problem with what you call P4P,
For example, I prefer the current one-handgun-a-month setup (which exempts CHP holders) to one that is a blanket prohibition.
The only way I can see that it would create a major rift is either if after passing the "perks",
SNIP How about a 4th amendment permit...
Well, I guess there isn't any reason to discuss it any longer. You stand on your side of the voting block and we'll stand on ours.
There are always people who claim to be Pro 2nd like John Kerry, Creigh Deeds, Novacop, Etc, but are just babysteppers to a permit state.
What purpose is there for you to mention Kerry, Deeds, or Novacop in your response to me? I am definitely not in agreement with any of them on such issues, and your insinuations don't do anything to help the discussion.
Because you all have the same dance routine!
I am simply pointing out that permits are what we have to deal with for the time being.
I don't!
We have the same ultimate goal (constitutional carry). It does neither of us any good to be turning on each other
I'm not turning on you, we we never got that far. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean we're on the same wavelength.
It's a little like city people moving to the country. They talk about loving the charm, then try to have the roads straightened.
.