Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

GeneFrenkle wrote:how would that be any different than the IRS providing a binding opinion once the fee has been paid? You certainly can get different opinions from CPAs, Auditors, HR Block employees, and whatnot. Even the Commissioner can have a different opinion. For _a_ particular question in _a_ particular situation you can get a formal and binding answer from the IRS upon payment.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CPAs, Auditors, HR Block employees, and the Commissioner of the IRS are not lawters and/or acting as attorneys and not giving legal opinions or advice. There's a big difference. Apples and oranges.

I think you are misinterpreting what was asked.

Specifically, he wanted the OPINION of how he wanted to enforce it. It was not an asking for the actual scope of the law. I saw nothing that said he wanted to know what the law was in actuality.

As far as the exigencies of promulgating information, that is not my problem.

dorminWS wrote:

GeneFrenkle wrote:how would that be any different than the IRS providing a binding opinion once the fee has been paid? You certainly can get different opinions from CPAs, Auditors, HR Block employees, and whatnot. Even the Commissioner can have a different opinion. For _a_ particular question in _a_ particular situation you can get a formal and binding answer from the IRS upon payment.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CPAs, Auditors, HR Block employees, and the Commissioner of the IRS are not lawters and/or acting as attorneys and not giving legal opinions or advice. There's a big difference.

They're performing duties and providing opinions based upon an interpretation of tax law. The Commissioner of the IRS has a role in the court system as a witness and subject matter expert in the prosecution of tax law violations - seems to me to be pretty up there in terms of impact. Failures in following tax law can be pretty harsh, too, from simple fines and interest to liens to jail and various forfeitures. Maybe I'm missing some information about the practice of law as they _can_ have exclusivity (various Bars) and can operate as an Officer of the Court. I'm just seeing tax professionals as operating within the area of tax law rather than criminal law. It just seems weird that one can pay to get an official and binding opinion from an Agency that executes tax law enforcement but it's considered verboten to get a similar clarification from criminal law enforcement or those that actually crafted the law.

dorminWS wrote:Apples and oranges.

see http://www.improbable.com/airchives/pap ... pples.html LOL

@GeneF:
The person who empties your bedpan at the hospital is dealing with your excretory equipment and processes, but that don't make them a proctologist.

Does that help?

Would the materiel in the bedpan be the law as passed by the legislative colon? Would the emptier of the bedpan be the lawyer or the tax professional? (being half-facetious here, really trying to understand the metaphor)

I guess I'm just stuck on law practitioners, on one hand, provide (with fee) a binding decision on whether or not a circumstance will be prosecuted while on the other hand (a "different" kind of law) practitioners will not shed light on whether or not a circumstance will be prosecuted.

GeneFrenkle wrote:
see http://www.improbable.com/airchives/pap ... pples.html LOL

Although that is meant to be a humorous article, is is filled with technical inaccuracy and misleading conclusions. For example, a range of wave numbers from 4000 cm-1 to 400 cm-1 is a range of wavelengths from 2.5 to 25 microns, NOT 2.5 to 25 mm. Just because the SWIR to LWIR spectra have a similar structure in this region, the absolute transmission values are different (I can't read the y-axis, so I can't tell how quantitatively significant this is). Futhermore, if this experiment would have been done in the visible, they would have different transmission spectra (which is obvious from their differing colors that we see), and if a BRDF measurement would have been done, they would also look quite different: apples are specular (you can polish an apple), whereas oranges are more diffuse.

Now that I've brought this to your attention, you may resume your concealed rifle discussion.

MarcSpaz wrote:Jim, you were right.

I'm ALWAYS right....just ask my wife!

ProShooter wrote:I'm ALWAYS right....just ask my wife!

She said she was waiting on the AG's opinion

We're talking only about loaded long guns, right? Isn't that one of the reasons for box magazines? The firearm isn't loaded until the magazine is inserted.

OakRidgeStars wrote:

ProShooter wrote:I'm ALWAYS right....just ask my wife!

She said she was waiting on the AG's opinion

LOL! Now, that is funny.

FiremanBob wrote:We're talking only about loaded long guns, right? Isn't that one of the reasons for box magazines? The firearm isn't loaded until the magazine is inserted.

J.C. didn't specify. Honestly, the best answer I heard so far is, "I'm always on my way to the range." LOL

Seriously though. Keeping a rifle in a back or hard case with no mag in it is not great for and ambush, but it might do the trick if things get really nasty on a large scale wherever you may be. Just remember you have that bugger stashed in the vehicle if you thing about heading to DC or MD.

Trailrunner, that was awesome LOL Been quite a few years since i've done seps and spectroscopy. i feel really old now.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I don't know guys... the more I look at it, the more it looks like a handgun is the only thing you can keep in the vehicle all the times or conceal. Those exemptions I am reading specifically say "handgun". Anyplace it says "weapon", there is a contingent that you are going to or from a gun store or repair facility, a range, training, or hunting.

The only exception I saw for a concealed rifle is if someone is hunting in inclement weather, its okay to keep it covered to preserve the weapon.

I really think if you just go cruising around with a rifle in the vehicle... loaded or not... you are violating the law.

But open carry is ok...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

For the record Marc, you are right.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

MarcSpaz wrote: ...
I really think if you just go cruising around with a rifle in the vehicle... loaded or not... you are violating the law.

Can you be more specific? Can you point to the law you would be violating? Or the caselaw / precedent?

Read § 18.2-308. The law says it's illegal to carry or transport concealed weapons. There are only limited exemptions for handguns and other firearms.

Excluding handguns, it says it is illegal to transport a firearm unless certain conditions are met. All of those conditions (other than exempting certain gov employees) specify something about you going to or from a gun store or repair facility, a range, training, trade/collectors meet or hunting. Also, it needs to unloaded and securely wrapped.

Again, the law doesn't say transporting a "concealed" weapon is illegal; it say "transporting" a weapon is illegal unless those conditions are met.

Bottom line... if they say it's illegal except for limited exceptions, then if you don't meet those exemptions, then you are violating the law.

But, open carry of a rifle is legal.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

MarcSpaz wrote:Read § 18.2-308. ...

Excluding handguns, it says it is illegal to transport a firearm unless certain conditions are met.

...

Again, the law doesn't say transporting a "concealed" weapon is illegal; it say "transporting" a weapon is illegal unless those conditions are met.

I don't see where it says "it is illegal to transport a firearm."

§ 18.2-308 A says it is illegal to carry concealed. § 18.2-308 C describes circumstances where § 18.2-308A *does not* apply.

IANAL, but that is how I read it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That's correct... if it is concealed. Unless you plan on driving a pickup truck with a rifle rack in the back window... I am not sure how you could transport a rifle in a vehicle and have it in plain view.

Something else to think about... we see videos all over the internet about people getting tossed out of stores for carrying a rifle. You going to try to unrack it and carry it in every public place you go? Plus, if you do open carry and transport "in plain view", do you really want to leave it in plain view in your vehicle while you go in stores, restaurants, etc. to avoid being unfairly scrutinized or mistreated out of fear? Seems like a good way to get your window broken and a nice rifle stolen.

You might be able to get one of those in-car locking rack systems police use for there shotguns and AR's and mount it somewhere in plain view, but who has room for one in there vehicle?

Dang! Some of these in-vehicle locks look pretty bad!

I wonder if I can get one of these for my Mustang? But WTH would I put it? LOL

http://www.galls.com/universal-gun-lock

http://www.galls.com/tufloc-single-vert ... h-gun-lock

http://www.atlantictactical.com/product ... pF8nieFcfg

http://www.atlantictactical.com/product ... pF82CeFcfg