Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I recently applied for my Virginia CHP and was asked by my brother in law if along with all the privileges that come along with it does a holder of a Virginia CHP
still have to go through a background check each time he purchases a firearm? I could not find an answer on the VSP website.

As far as my experience goes, you still go through the check.

The reasoning behind it was that you could have committed an offense since receiving the CHP.

While there are some states that the CHP exempts the holder from the background check for firearms purchase VA is not one of them. You will still have to do the background check.

You will still have to go through a background check here in Virginia.

A priviledge of having a CHP however, is that you are not restricted to purchasing only one handgun every 30 days.

Doug

Thanks everyone for your quick response

Dreamerx4 wrote:A priviledge of having a CHP however, is that you are not restricted to purchasing only one handgun every 30 days.

Along with the primary one of being able to carry a gun concealed.

A side note to the CHP and purchasing a gun. When purchasing a gun, you can use your CHP as the second form of ID (drivers license is 1st). You will want to use this if you are purchasing more than one gun in a month. If not, then I'd use another document, such as a voter ID card, etc.
My experience has been that when using the CHP as the 2nd ID, I get held up on the background check. Hours, rather than 15-20 minutes. Not sure why, but others have mentioned similar experiences. YMMV.

Parry

t33j wrote:

Dreamerx4 wrote:A priviledge of having a CHP however, is that you are not restricted to purchasing only one handgun every 30 days.

Along with the primary one of being able to carry a gun concealed.

That's a right, not a privilege.

newdovo wrote:A side note to the CHP and purchasing a gun. When purchasing a gun, you can use your CHP as the second form of ID (drivers license is 1st). You will want to use this if you are purchasing more than one gun in a month. If not, then I'd use another document, such as a voter ID card, etc.
My experience has been that when using the CHP as the 2nd ID, I get held up on the background check. Hours, rather than 15-20 minutes. Not sure why, but others have mentioned similar experiences. YMMV.

Parry

I have heard folks say this many times and I am always curious why. I do the backgrounds online, and the State Police have no idea what forms of id are being used. I simply am inputting the information they ask for, which does not even have a section to put in such information.

They only find out the following week when I send in the SP-65's, what forms of id were used.

Doug

Dreamerx4 wrote:

newdovo wrote:A side note to the CHP and purchasing a gun. When purchasing a gun, you can use your CHP as the second form of ID (drivers license is 1st). You will want to use this if you are purchasing more than one gun in a month. If not, then I'd use another document, such as a voter ID card, etc.
My experience has been that when using the CHP as the 2nd ID, I get held up on the background check. Hours, rather than 15-20 minutes. Not sure why, but others have mentioned similar experiences. YMMV.

Parry

I have heard folks say this many times and I am always curious why. I do the backgrounds online, and the State Police have no idea what forms of id are being used. I simply am inputting the information they ask for, which does not even have a section to put in such information.

They only find out the following week when I send in the SP-65's, what forms of id were used.

Doug

Interesting. I have had a similar experience when using my CHP as a second form of ID. Doug indicates that the ID type isn't even known to the background checkers. Must just be a coincidence, then.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:

t33j wrote:

Dreamerx4 wrote:A priviledge of having a CHP however, is that you are not restricted to purchasing only one handgun every 30 days.

Along with the primary one of being able to carry a gun concealed.

That's a right, not a privilege.

One doesn't have to ask for permission to exercise a right. Carrying a concealed handgun is illegal. 18.2-308 also creates exemptions for those with CHPs. I'm not saying that's the way it should be; it's just the way it is.

t33j wrote:One doesn't have to ask for permission to exercise a right. Carrying a concealed handgun is illegal. 18.2-308 also creates exemptions for those with CHPs. I'm not saying that's the way it should be; it's just the way it is.

So it's an infringed right? I don't that changes its status as a right though.

gunderwood wrote:

t33j wrote:One doesn't have to ask for permission to exercise a right. Carrying a concealed handgun is illegal. 18.2-308 also creates exemptions for those with CHPs. I'm not saying that's the way it should be; it's just the way it is.

So it's an infringed right? I don't that changes its status as a right though.

It's absolutely an infringed right. SCOTUS has decided that laws barring the carry of concealed firearms are not infringements (before McDonald interestingly enough) and that's what we're living with. As a matter of practicality it's not a right, so I think it's disingenuous to call it one. Call it a right all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't currently meet that definition.

t33j wrote:

gunderwood wrote:

t33j wrote:One doesn't have to ask for permission to exercise a right. Carrying a concealed handgun is illegal. 18.2-308 also creates exemptions for those with CHPs. I'm not saying that's the way it should be; it's just the way it is.

So it's an infringed right? I don't that changes its status as a right though.

It's absolutely an infringed right. SCOTUS has decided that laws barring the carry of concealed firearms are not infringements (before McDonald interestingly enough) and that's what we're living with. As a matter of practicality it's not a right, so I think it's disingenuous to call it one. Call it a right all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't currently meet that definition.

The concept of natural rights does not need any government, including our own, to recognize them at all. The whole idea is that they exist outside and above all governments. As a matter of technically, if a government has the power to determine what is and isn't a right, then by definition there are no rights.

gunderwood wrote: The concept of natural rights does not need any government, including our own, to recognize them at all. The whole idea is that they exist outside and above all governments. As a matter of technically, if a government has the power to determine what is and isn't a right, then by definition there are no rights.

One of my pet peeves and IMHO we the people are virtually any without rights as they are all encumbered by some law.

@Any doubters - Get your copy of the Constitution and start going through the amendments you think are rights. Come back and lets us know which ones are not encumbered with law or have some law associated with their use or execution...

IMHO and I honestly believe this to be the unadulterated truth -- the ONLY true and pure rights we have are what we think or believe. As soon as that thought or belief manifests itself in word or deed then it (and you) are subject to some sort of government control or law. There are very few exceptions...

gunderwood wrote:As a matter of technically, if a government has the power to determine what is and isn't a right, then by definition there are no rights.

The branches of our government have been doing that almost all along. I don't know that I'd put the second part of your sentence in quite the same way though. To put it plainly, our government has determined that laws forbidding the carry of concealed firearms do not infringe on any right. That is, carrying a concealed firearm is not a right (otherwise they couldn't take it away eh??). The 2A and article I section 13 make no distinction between OC and CC yet somehow it has been decided they only protect the former.

@t33j - maybe I misunderstood your response to gunderwood but if not - what part of shall not be infringed is unclear...also, please see my post right above yours. A right means I can do it period without fear of legal interference...AFAIK there isnt much left these days that falls into that bucket...except for thinking and believing...

zephyp wrote:@t33j - maybe I misunderstood your response to gunderwood but if not - what part of shall not be infringed is unclear...also, please see my post right above yours. A right means I can do it period without fear of legal interference...AFAIK there isnt much left these days that falls into that bucket...except for thinking and believing...

The phrase shall not be infringed is pretty clear to me... It's just that it has been infringed (by the permit system where applicable, and outright where it's difficult/impossible to get a permit). I'd say I agree with your definition of a right as well as your observations about it.

t33j wrote:

gunderwood wrote:As a matter of technically, if a government has the power to determine what is and isn't a right, then by definition there are no rights.

The branches of our government have been doing that almost all along. I don't know that I'd put the second part of your sentence in quite the same way though. To put it plainly, our government has determined that laws forbidding the carry of concealed firearms do not infringe on any right. That is, carrying a concealed firearm is not a right (otherwise they couldn't take it away eh??). The 2A and article I section 13 make no distinction between OC and CC yet somehow it has been decided they only protect the former.

That's not how the philosophers of the 18th century defined them.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... gal_rights

The Constitution did not create those Rights, it simply acknowledged that society demanded the various levels of government respect them and to what degree. "Shall not infringe" is a vastly different standard than "shall make no law." Governments are always trying to redefine and limit the Rights of the people because the whole concept Rights actually limits their power. In fact, the whole Natural Rights philosophy grew out of the idea that governments are not limitless and that there are in fact some things which they can never legitimately do to their citizens. The measure of how well a particular government adheres to the Rights of the people is not a revocation of the Right, but rather a measure of how tyrannical the government is.

Out government deciding that the 2nd can be infringed "a bit" by redefining what infringed means because they want power over the people does not change the natural right to defense (which includes against other citizens and governments). It doesn't change the natural right at all, it simply changes the legal right which is nothing more than government whim. The government has no such power in our original system of governance, but they claim it anyways through the threat of force. It is not a legitimate claim, but it is immensely practical because we all know that to challenge their claim is ruinous for us.

gunderwood wrote:The Constitution did not create those Rights, it simply acknowledged that society demanded the various levels of government respect them and to what degree.

Yes, I'm familiar with that train of thought. See the usage of protect in the last quote.

gunderwood wrote: "Shall not infringe" is a vastly different standard than "shall make no law." Governments are always trying to redefine and limit the Rights of the people because the whole concept Rights actually limits their power. In fact, the whole Natural Rights philosophy grew out of the idea that governments are not limitless and that there are in fact some things which they can never legitimately do to their citizens. The measure of how well a particular government adheres to the Rights of the people is not a revocation of the Right, but rather a measure of how tyrannical the government is.

Out government deciding that the 2nd can be infringed "a bit" by redefining what infringed means because they want power over the people does not change the natural right to defense (which includes against other citizens and governments). It doesn't change the natural right at all, it simply changes the legal right which is nothing more than government whim. The government has no such power in our original system of governance, but they claim it anyways through the threat of force. It is not a legitimate claim, but it is immensely practical because we all know that to challenge their claim is ruinous for us.

I think the only difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that I do not claim something which is a natural right but not a legal right as a real right, because using zephyp's definition I simply can't can't practice it without fear of legal interference. What use is it to me otherwise? (Other than perhaps an ideal to work towards) The reality of what I can't do without permission and without consequences imposed by my government forbids me from making that claim.