Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Hello all! New to the forum (been reading around, finally got around to joining.) And I thought I'd open it up with a question I have.

I was reading the qualifications for getting a concealed carry permit (I hope to be dropping off the application before this week ends). While I read it one regulation stuck out:

(from the VA State Police website)

#13. An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth may submit to the court a sworn written statement indicating that, in the opinion of such sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth, based upon a disqualifying conviction or upon the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.

What does that mean exactly? Has anyone ever seen anyone denied because of this regulation?

Anyhoo I hope to be a part of many discussions here and want to thank you in advance for entertaining my curiosity.

If they have any personal knowledge of your character, ie: both you and the chief of Police have kids in boy scouts, and he has seen you come to meetings drunk, or he has observed you with a abusive attitude towards your family... something that they have seen or heard you say that may make them believe you are a risk....if you have a history of fighting with your neighbors, etc.... you get my drift. They have to sign off that they have no reason to think you might go berserk.....thats about it, I'm sure its more technical than that, but thats it in a nutshell, no pun intended. Someone will be along soon with the legal answer........

Read it again, Based on a DISQUALIFYING CONVICTION . If they have any type of criminal record then they are not SUPPOSED to be able to get a permit. This would go along with what GS78 said.
Someone will give you the legal ramifications sooner or later on this board.
Bill

That's interesting. Assuming that GS78 is correct, I wonder what the burden of proof would have to be. Would it have to be an established pattern or recurring event or could one relatively major event be sufficient to bar one from a CHP? And would it have to be firsthand knowledge (from the Chief/Sheriff) or could they have simply wrote (or even just read) a police report on a complaint they received?

Just seems a little ambiguous to me. But I don't even pretend to understand laws.

RocKor wrote:That's interesting. Assuming that GS78 is correct, I wonder what the burden of proof would have to be. Would it have to be an established pattern or recurring event or could one relatively major event be sufficient to bar one from a CHP? And would it have to be firsthand knowledge (from the Chief/Sheriff) or could they have simply wrote (or even just read) a police report on a complaint they received?

Just seems a little ambiguous to me. But I don't even pretend to understand laws.

It does not have to be first hand knowledge,no. Depending on where you live, I know some areas actually interview your neighbors etc..obviously if they can read your criminal record, then that means you have one. If you don't have a criminal history, or at least haven't since you were young, then you don't have much to worry about . If you do have a criminal history or have been recently convicted of domestic violence, then you will have to go to New York City and buy a gun on the streets..........

RocKor wrote: Has anyone ever seen anyone denied because of this regulation?

Yep. Seen it.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=36177&forum_id=54&highlight=chp+denied

Wow that really sucks, but glad that guy got his permit in the end. I guess now when my friends come to me with that question (sadly I tend to be the most knowledgeable about firearms stuff in my group of friends) I can explain it to them with more than uh "Well I think it's..."

But I seriously this thing is a little too may-issue-ish for my tastes. Rights shouldn't be open to too much interpretation. Besides it's stupid because there is no similar clause (to my knowledge) for buying a gun! So... I don't see the point. Because you can buy the gun but you can't... carry it concealed. Carrying it concealed won't make you more or less dangerous.

Oh well. What're ya gonna do?

The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence - in other words, the same as for a civil case: "more likely than not."

Evidence consists of oral testimony of a witness with personal knowledge of the facts, given under oath. A police officer who has conducted an investigation can testify as to the fact of his having done so, and what his investigation revealed. That doesn't mean that what he says is necessarily true, and it can be rebutted. Neither does it allow the introduction of hearsay or otherwise objectionable information. That is to say, the cop can testify, as a matter of a fact within his own personal knowledge to the effect that someone told him "Blah". But that cannot be used to assert that "Blah" is a true statement.

The code section at issue here would allow the local police, upon having received an application from the court for the background check, to report back and say that the applicant has a history of specific acts which indicate that he is not a safe risk for a concealed carry permit. The circuit court judge may, but is not required to, consider that information and decide to reject the application on that basis. At that point, the applicant is entitled to a hearing in support of his application, which is a regular evidentiary hearing with sworn witnesses and the rules of evidence and procedure apply.

That's generally when they call me.

Ugh that sounds like a pain though. And since it's more or less up to the opinion of Law Enforcement and then the Judge you can't predict what they might say and can't properly prepare for it until they send you back a denied application.

Oh well. Who said rights were just given to us?