Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

As I have stated before on this forum, a bill like this is not needed. All we need has already been enacted in the second amendment of the Constitution. "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."

IMO, permits ARE an infringement!

This is a dangerous bill! Enactment of this bill WILL lead to national gun registration/databases. Granted, it may not happen right away, but it WILL happen!

The Brady bunch be damned! I will never, under any circumstances tell anyone outside of my family the number and types of weapons that I have.

I agree with those who oppose this bill. We should NOT start down that slippery slope of allowing the feds to regulate yet another area of our lives and again infringe on state and individual rights. The 2nd amendment is clear. This bill is not "expanding" on our freedom, instead it entrenches a principle that is just plan wrong - the idea that this is an area they can step in and meddle with. Scrap it.

Andy

P.S. I'll again ask the question I asked when the fed proposed requiring farmers to adhere to federal transportation regulations (obtaining ccl licenses, logging hours, etc.)... by what AUTHORITY do they propose such nonsense. As far as I can see, they have NO SUCH AUTHORITY for either activity.

seeknulfind wrote:P.S. I'll again ask the question I asked when the fed proposed requiring farmers to adhere to federal transportation regulations (obtaining ccl licenses, logging hours, etc.)... by what AUTHORITY do they propose such nonsense. As far as I can see, they have NO SUCH AUTHORITY for either activity.

+1000!

As nice as this sounds I fear this is Pandora's box. The federal gov't screws everything up that it touches. The ability to defend my family is too important to give states like Ill. and NY to have any say in how I protect my family in VA. So if the fed can give--the fed can take away--I do not want them involved any more than they already are.

Now if they want to reafirm the 2nd amendment and state that because the 2nd amendment comes before the 10th neither they nor any state can infringe the ability of a person to keep and bear arms--then I am ok with that.

mamabearCali wrote:As nice as this sounds I fear this is Pandora's box. The federal gov't screws everything up that it touches. The ability to defend my family is too important to give states like Ill. and NY to have any say in how I protect my family in VA. So if the fed can give--the fed can take away--I do not want them involved any more than they already are.

Now if they want to reafirm the 2nd amendment and state that because the 2nd amendment comes before the 10th neither they nor any state can infringe the ability of a person to keep and bear arms--then I am ok with that.

Exactly.

I'd rather just avoid setting foot in states like NY or IL to begin with.

Kreutz wrote:I'd rather just avoid setting foot in states like NY or IL to begin with.

Trouble they, as well as MD are in between places I like to be.

jdonovan wrote:

Kreutz wrote:I'd rather just avoid setting foot in states like NY or IL to begin with.

Trouble they, as well as MD are in between places I like to be.

Just gotta do the cumbersome separation of weapon in glovebox and ammo in trunk I guess. It sucks but beats having NY standards dictated to you in your home state.

Kreutz wrote:I'd rather just avoid setting foot in states like NY or IL to begin with.

Unfortunately not everyone has that option if they have inlaws there and wish to remain married.

This is NO difference than drivers licenses. Your license has to be recognized in other states no matter what standards there are for the license, but you need to follow NY driver's law in NY, not VA driving law.

Kreutz wrote:...beats having NY standards dictated to you in your home state.

Where did this come from? The bill is about having NY laws apply in NY state, but at least your (say) VA CHP is recognized.

tursiops wrote:Where did this come from? The bill is about having NY laws apply in NY state, but at least your (say) VA CHP is recognized.

If your tinfoil hat was on tight enough you'd be able to see that 822 is a ploy to enforce national CCW permit standards, and make all subjects submit to a NYS like permit system.

jdonovan wrote:

tursiops wrote:Where did this come from? The bill is about having NY laws apply in NY state, but at least your (say) VA CHP is recognized.

If your tinfoil hat was on tight enough you'd be able to see that 822 is a ploy to enforce national CCW permit standards, and make all subjects submit to a NYS like permit system.

Sorry, I don't wear any hat that tight, much less one made of tinfoil.
Tight hats make your brain do weird things.

tursiops wrote:

jdonovan wrote:

tursiops wrote:Where did this come from? The bill is about having NY laws apply in NY state, but at least your (say) VA CHP is recognized.

If your tinfoil hat was on tight enough you'd be able to see that 822 is a ploy to enforce national CCW permit standards, and make all subjects submit to a NYS like permit system.

Sorry, I don't wear any hat that tight, much less one made of tinfoil.
Tight hats make your brain do weird things.

Yes seriously. There are similar laws for driver's licenses, and yet Indiana still allows 15 year olds to get a driving permit; while NY would never allow such a thing.

It's kind of scary that we and the Washington Post agree that this is a bad bill. Of course, they think so for very different reasons. And I have to agree with Yarddawg - can't you just see a state like NY telling us; "Fine, we recognise your CHP/CWP, however, upon entering the state you must go straight to the nearest police/sheriff station and register your firearm."

And I'd share that OpEd piece with you except the WaPo can't figure out how to make their Editorials available on the web.

KaosDad wrote:And I'd share that OpEd piece with you except the WaPo can't figure out how to make their Editorials available on the web.

Courtesy of my scanner and OCR program:

Have gun, will travel
A unnecessary House bill seeks to rewrite concealed-carry laws.

FORTY-EIGHT STATES — 49 in November, when Wisconsin joins the pack — allow
their residents to carry concealed weapons. Illinois remains the only holdout.
Until now, states have been able to set their own rules for concealed-carry permits. New York, for instance, has fairly stringent standards that ban licenses to those convicted of certain misdemean¬ors, require individuals to demonstrate a legitimate need and mandate firearms training. Utah's is laxer, essentially issuing licenses to residents and nonresidents alike.
These differences would be obliterated by the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which was taken up by a House panel last week. The act would force states that allow concealed-carry to permit out-of-town visitors to tote hidden handguns if they have obtained a license elsewhere — regardless of the issuing state's standards. Advocates say that the law will allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves wherever they are and to ensure that their right to travel — with gun handy — is not impeded by an obstinate state. This approach is bad policy and unnecessary law.
Many states already have agreements to recog¬nize concealed-carry licenses from other jurisdic¬tions. Virginia, for example, honors licenses from 27 other states that have similarly robust standards; Maryland, which strictly regulates con¬cealed-carry, and the District, which essentially prohibits it, do not recognize out-of-state licenses. These are legitimate choices that would be overridden by a federal legislature that too easily bends to the will of the gun lobby. Nevada, a strong gun¬-rights state, rescinded its agreement with Utah because Utah does not require live-fire training.
Why should Congress overrule that judgment? Allowing more guns on the streets and high¬ways would also increase the risks to law enforce¬ment officers, which explains why the Interna¬tional Association of Chiefs of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association are among the organizations that oppose the measure.
The Supreme Court in 2008 recognized an indi¬vidual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. But the Second Amendment, like every other constitutional provision, has its limits. "Noth¬ing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” the majority concluded. Regulating who is allowed a concealed weapon should be left to the states.

Washington Post, September 21, 2011; page A20