User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/3/2016 11:49:04 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://media4.giphy.com/media/zLBQYkwGGQdJC/200w_d.gif The sky is always falling for some and will continue to fall. People forget politics is a game, whoever plays the game better comes out on top. This time it was our CHP that won. I wouldn't be surprised it the GOV vetos the CHP reciprocity bill (SB610) when it gets to his desk despite what he has said. That is the deal in the works right? We get SB610 and he gets the voluntary background checks, etc. We will see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2016 7:23:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Just saw this:
https://www.gunowners.org/state02022016.htm The Compromise with Governor McAuliffe Poses Real Dangers in Virginia Published: Tuesday, 02 February 2016 20:13 Last December, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced his intention to unilaterally revoke Virginia’s concealed carry reciprocity agreements with most other states, on the grounds that the other states did not have sufficiently stringent controls on who could obtain a permit. In response, there was significant uproar among Virginian gun owners, and many Republicans in the General Assembly, who vowed to undo the damage that Herring had caused -- possibly through the budget process which is moving forward this month. Recently, it was reported that Virginia Republican legislators have reached a “deal” with Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe to suspend Herring’s unlawful revocation of concealed carry reciprocity with 25 states. The “deal” would supposedly reinstate reciprocity -- and even extend it to more states -- but establish “voluntary” gun show private background checks and impose additional restrictions on persons with restraining orders. The Bloomberg anti-gun crowd is supposedly livid about the deal, and many of our Second Amendment friends are declaring victory. But as Gun Owners of America has looked at this deal, we conclude that there are several things that should concern Virginia gun owners, as well. -Warren- |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2016 7:38:45 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just saw this: https://www.gunowners.org/state02022016.htm The Compromise with Governor McAuliffe Poses Real Dangers in Virginia Published: Tuesday, 02 February 2016 20:13 Last December, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced his intention to unilaterally revoke Virginia’s concealed carry reciprocity agreements with most other states, on the grounds that the other states did not have sufficiently stringent controls on who could obtain a permit. In response, there was significant uproar among Virginian gun owners, and many Republicans in the General Assembly, who vowed to undo the damage that Herring had caused -- possibly through the budget process which is moving forward this month. Recently, it was reported that Virginia Republican legislators have reached a “deal” with Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe to suspend Herring’s unlawful revocation of concealed carry reciprocity with 25 states. The “deal” would supposedly reinstate reciprocity -- and even extend it to more states -- but establish “voluntary” gun show private background checks and impose additional restrictions on persons with restraining orders. The Bloomberg anti-gun crowd is supposedly livid about the deal, and many of our Second Amendment friends are declaring victory. But as Gun Owners of America has looked at this deal, we conclude that there are several things that should concern Virginia gun owners, as well. -Warren- Pretty much sums up what I was thinking also. IMO we are making a deal with the devil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2016 6:11:59 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just saw this: https://www.gunowners.org/state02022016.htm The Compromise with Governor McAuliffe Poses Real Dangers in Virginia Published: Tuesday, 02 February 2016 20:13 Last December, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced his intention to unilaterally revoke Virginia’s concealed carry reciprocity agreements with most other states, on the grounds that the other states did not have sufficiently stringent controls on who could obtain a permit. In response, there was significant uproar among Virginian gun owners, and many Republicans in the General Assembly, who vowed to undo the damage that Herring had caused -- possibly through the budget process which is moving forward this month. Recently, it was reported that Virginia Republican legislators have reached a “deal” with Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe to suspend Herring’s unlawful revocation of concealed carry reciprocity with 25 states. The “deal” would supposedly reinstate reciprocity -- and even extend it to more states -- but establish “voluntary” gun show private background checks and impose additional restrictions on persons with restraining orders. The Bloomberg anti-gun crowd is supposedly livid about the deal, and many of our Second Amendment friends are declaring victory. But as Gun Owners of America has looked at this deal, we conclude that there are several things that should concern Virginia gun owners, as well. -Warren- Yep. Pretty much exactly what some of us have said. It's a dangerous precedent. Let's just hope we can fight them off in the future. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2016 8:22:16 AM EDT
[#5]
Again, no one has provided alternatives of how we get our rights back.
GOA, who has done nothing for firearm rights in VA, sits and complains. So, again, how would we have gotten reciprocity back this year lacking a veto proof majority? Please, someone with real answers other than "not negotiating with terrorists" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2016 8:44:55 AM EDT
[#6]
As usual, GOA would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. If the deal goes through as has been reported, then we gain or maybe regain some things, and we lose nothing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2016 10:48:04 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, no one has provided alternatives of how we get our rights back. GOA, who has done nothing for firearm rights in VA, sits and complains. So, again, how would we have gotten reciprocity back this year lacking a veto proof majority? Please, someone with real answers other than "not negotiating with terrorists" I have no clue, just saying that sometimes the fastest solution isn't the right solution. Not saying SOA is right or wrong, just that some of there concerns are the same as mine. I will be glad if reciprocity is reinstated but I don't feel that we should be giving in to other areas to get back something that we should already have. I have a feeling that McAwful has more in store than just what has happened so far. We have to think chess not checkers. ETA: It is pretty obvious with the timing of this being right before the legislative session, it puts gun owners in a precarious position to make rash decisions in order to quickly get back reciprocity. ETA 2: I can see headlines that VA gun owners overwhelmingly support closing the gun show loophole and all kinds of other propaganda. I don't see this going well. We might win the battle and all that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2016 10:52:32 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As usual, GOA would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. If the deal goes through as has been reported, then we gain or maybe regain some things, and we lose nothing. They specialize in hysteria. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2016 11:11:38 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They specialize in hysteria. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As usual, GOA would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. If the deal goes through as has been reported, then we gain or maybe regain some things, and we lose nothing. They specialize in hysteria. I can see that this might also be true in regards to GOA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2016 5:49:43 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You claim that the code infers that CHP holders may carry a handgun, but does not exempt them. Your reading of the code is simply incorrect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most of the "loopholes" that allowed the Dems to take advantage were included in the original reform bill back in 95 by the NRA's paid lobbyist and/or the Republicans - they made a big point of adding language that made reciprocity difficult if not as "rigourous" as Virginia's. Technically if you read the code the CHP law does not negate Virginia Concealed Weapons law - it is inferred that pernit holders are allowed to carry a gun but nowhere does it say that you are exempt. "Red" Herring could put out an opinion tomorrow saying the cops can arrest CHP holders for carrying concelaed handguns and have his cronies in the media blame the Republicans. VCDL is the 800 lb gorilla in Virginia - not NRA. I suspect that the Dem's - or at least McAwful realizes they overreached and is trying to portray himself as a winner when he is giving us a win. That said I'd like to see the deal include the govt building gun ban being overturned. § 18.2-308.01. Carrying a concealed handgun with a permit. A. The prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun in clause (i) of subsection A of § 18.2-308 shall not apply to a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this article... Er.... what? http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-308/ Permit holders are not a listed exemption in the code itself - the code relating to permits says you are exempt yet the concealed weapons code doesn't. If Herring put out an opinion saying the CHP code was flawed as it conflicted with the concealed weapons code it would open up a new can of worms. We need to make the permit a concealed weapons permit. This is a good deal when you realize that historically Republican Governors make sure no pro-gun bill ever make it to their desk unless it is weak stuff like the "right to hunt" - VCDL has had the most succes when the Republicans pass bills hoping a Dem governor will pass or veto it. You claim that the code infers that CHP holders may carry a handgun, but does not exempt them. Your reading of the code is simply incorrect. Read the section of code dealing with concealed weapons - many classes of people are exempt but not CHPs. Yes another section of code says permit holders care can carry handguns concealed - and the second ammendment "shall not be infringed'.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2016 6:41:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can see that this might also be true in regards to GOA. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: As usual, GOA would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. If the deal goes through as has been reported, then we gain or maybe regain some things, and we lose nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 10:57:13 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read the section of code dealing with concealed weapons - many classes of people are exempt but not CHPs. Yes another section of code says permit holders care can carry handguns concealed - and the second ammendment "shall not be infringed'.... OK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 8:35:55 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As usual, GOA would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. If the deal goes through as has been reported, then we gain or maybe regain some things, and we lose nothing. This whole deal is subtle political subterfuge in my opinion. Herring takes something away that never should have been yanked in the first place, then it gets dangled back to us as part of a "deal." I don't think any of this is coincidence. We're eager to get it back, so we agree to some other things. I do not agree that we "lose nothing." That is accurate only if you take a myopic view of this situation. The VSP doing "voluntary" background checks at gun shows is a bigger deal than people realize. It's the narrow end of the wedge for making them mandatory next time there is a "deal" to be made, and their mere availability becomes a wedge for someone to try to create liability if a gun is sold at a gun show without a background check and goes onto be used illegally. I'll take this deal, but it's not as good as you think it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 8:39:26 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
2) The VSP are required to be present at gun shows to give people the opportunity to do voluntary background checks on private sales. This is new, but it is not mandatory. I know that some are fearful that this will lead to the institution of background checks for all gun sales down the road. It will. Just wait. People talk about chess versus checkers - this is a chess move. This is a positional move even if it appears to have no substance right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 8:51:41 AM EDT
[#15]
The day the GA has the votes to make UBC mandatory in this state, they are going to force it through. It doesn't matter if it's been voluntary or not before. I actually take the opposite view, in that we can say that the voluntary checks will quiet some of the whiners down. It won't stop the hardcore antis, but maybe some of the fence sitters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 8:56:06 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The day the GA has the votes to make UBC mandatory in this state, they are going to force it through. It doesn't matter if it's been voluntary or not before. I actually take the opposite view, in that we can say that the voluntary checks will quiet some of the whiners down. It won't stop the hardcore antis, but maybe some of the fence sitters. And normalizing their presence at gun shows, and already having the administrative mechanisms (and budget) in place, will push fence-sitters in the GA over the edge toward making it mandatory. It has great soundbite momentum. "We've had these checks at gun shows for years, with state police there, but not everybody does them. It's time to fix that." Again, subtle move. Chess. Positional. This move was not casual. Then you have the tort law problem of making the checks available. Right now there is no background check system for private sales. If there is one, and it's available to you, and you don't use it - do you have any liability if that buyer goes on to do something bad? I know plenty of lawyers who would love to test that out. VSP background check becomes the de facto "reasonable person" standard of care for selling a gun, just like doing a DMV check on someone before renting them a car or hiring them to drive a vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 9:49:39 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And normalizing their presence at gun shows, and already having the administrative mechanisms (and budget) in place, will push fence-sitters in the GA over the edge toward making it mandatory. It has great soundbite momentum. "We've had these checks at gun shows for years, with state police there, but not everybody does them. It's time to fix that." Again, subtle move. Chess. Positional. This move was not casual. Then you have the tort law problem of making the checks available. Right now there is no background check system for private sales. If there is one, and it's available to you, and you don't use it - do you have any liability if that buyer goes on to do something bad? I know plenty of lawyers who would love to test that out. VSP background check becomes the de facto "reasonable person" standard of care for selling a gun, just like doing a DMV check on someone before renting them a car or hiring them to drive a vehicle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The day the GA has the votes to make UBC mandatory in this state, they are going to force it through. It doesn't matter if it's been voluntary or not before. I actually take the opposite view, in that we can say that the voluntary checks will quiet some of the whiners down. It won't stop the hardcore antis, but maybe some of the fence sitters. And normalizing their presence at gun shows, and already having the administrative mechanisms (and budget) in place, will push fence-sitters in the GA over the edge toward making it mandatory. It has great soundbite momentum. "We've had these checks at gun shows for years, with state police there, but not everybody does them. It's time to fix that." Again, subtle move. Chess. Positional. This move was not casual. Then you have the tort law problem of making the checks available. Right now there is no background check system for private sales. If there is one, and it's available to you, and you don't use it - do you have any liability if that buyer goes on to do something bad? I know plenty of lawyers who would love to test that out. VSP background check becomes the de facto "reasonable person" standard of care for selling a gun, just like doing a DMV check on someone before renting them a car or hiring them to drive a vehicle. Would these "voluntary" checks be available outside of gun shows? If not, I don't see how anyone could attach any more liability for a non-gun show FTF sale than they could now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 9:58:52 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And normalizing their presence at gun shows, and already having the administrative mechanisms (and budget) in place, will push fence-sitters in the GA over the edge toward making it mandatory. It has great soundbite momentum. "We've had these checks at gun shows for years, with state police there, but not everybody does them. It's time to fix that." Again, subtle move. Chess. Positional. This move was not casual. Then you have the tort law problem of making the checks available. Right now there is no background check system for private sales. If there is one, and it's available to you, and you don't use it - do you have any liability if that buyer goes on to do something bad? I know plenty of lawyers who would love to test that out. VSP background check becomes the de facto "reasonable person" standard of care for selling a gun, just like doing a DMV check on someone before renting them a car or hiring them to drive a vehicle. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The day the GA has the votes to make UBC mandatory in this state, they are going to force it through. It doesn't matter if it's been voluntary or not before. I actually take the opposite view, in that we can say that the voluntary checks will quiet some of the whiners down. It won't stop the hardcore antis, but maybe some of the fence sitters. And normalizing their presence at gun shows, and already having the administrative mechanisms (and budget) in place, will push fence-sitters in the GA over the edge toward making it mandatory. It has great soundbite momentum. "We've had these checks at gun shows for years, with state police there, but not everybody does them. It's time to fix that." Again, subtle move. Chess. Positional. This move was not casual. Then you have the tort law problem of making the checks available. Right now there is no background check system for private sales. If there is one, and it's available to you, and you don't use it - do you have any liability if that buyer goes on to do something bad? I know plenty of lawyers who would love to test that out. VSP background check becomes the de facto "reasonable person" standard of care for selling a gun, just like doing a DMV check on someone before renting them a car or hiring them to drive a vehicle. Since when do background checks have information about future crimes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 10:01:57 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since when do background checks have information about future crimes? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The day the GA has the votes to make UBC mandatory in this state, they are going to force it through. It doesn't matter if it's been voluntary or not before. I actually take the opposite view, in that we can say that the voluntary checks will quiet some of the whiners down. It won't stop the hardcore antis, but maybe some of the fence sitters. And normalizing their presence at gun shows, and already having the administrative mechanisms (and budget) in place, will push fence-sitters in the GA over the edge toward making it mandatory. It has great soundbite momentum. "We've had these checks at gun shows for years, with state police there, but not everybody does them. It's time to fix that." Again, subtle move. Chess. Positional. This move was not casual. Then you have the tort law problem of making the checks available. Right now there is no background check system for private sales. If there is one, and it's available to you, and you don't use it - do you have any liability if that buyer goes on to do something bad? I know plenty of lawyers who would love to test that out. VSP background check becomes the de facto "reasonable person" standard of care for selling a gun, just like doing a DMV check on someone before renting them a car or hiring them to drive a vehicle. Since when do background checks have information about future crimes? Find the minority report! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 10:48:12 AM EDT
[#20]
What are the technological impediments to having a fully automated system? Is the VSP physically going and searching this stuff? Isn't all this stuff in an easily query-able database?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 11:05:49 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are the technological impediments to having a fully automated system? Is the VSP physically going and searching this stuff? Isn't all this stuff in an easily query-able database? It is in a database format but I am sure it is labeled as Law Enforcement Use Only as is any other system like that which contains PII is. Probably also has third party info from other GOV agencies which can't be released outside of VSP without authorization from that agency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 11:21:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since when do background checks have information about future crimes? Go Google "negligent hiring." Same concept. I guarantee you it will happen once the door to private sale background checks gets opened and you "could" have done one. If you sell a gun to a prohibited person when you could have done a background check with minimal effort, I GUARANTEE you you're going to get the same argument from the plaintiff's bar regarding failing to do a DMV and background check on an employee who drives for work and, it turns out, has DUIs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 11:24:01 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would these "voluntary" checks be available outside of gun shows? If not, I don't see how anyone could attach any more liability for a non-gun show FTF sale than they could now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And normalizing their presence at gun shows, and already having the administrative mechanisms (and budget) in place, will push fence-sitters in the GA over the edge toward making it mandatory. It has great soundbite momentum. "We've had these checks at gun shows for years, with state police there, but not everybody does them. It's time to fix that." Again, subtle move. Chess. Positional. This move was not casual. Then you have the tort law problem of making the checks available. Right now there is no background check system for private sales. If there is one, and it's available to you, and you don't use it - do you have any liability if that buyer goes on to do something bad? I know plenty of lawyers who would love to test that out. VSP background check becomes the de facto "reasonable person" standard of care for selling a gun, just like doing a DMV check on someone before renting them a car or hiring them to drive a vehicle. Would these "voluntary" checks be available outside of gun shows? If not, I don't see how anyone could attach any more liability for a non-gun show FTF sale than they could now. Because if you sold the gun at a gun show, then you did in fact have easy access to a background check that would have required minimal cost and effort. If you didn't sell it at a gun show, you had no access to a BG check and thus it was not reasonable to expect you to do one. Pretty simple. I'm not saying I like this theory, I'm just saying it WILL be used if a BG check is available, not used, and a prohibited person causes harm with a gun sold at a gun show. Which, again, is one reason why this "deal" is not a total win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 1:04:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go Google "negligent hiring." Same concept. I guarantee you it will happen once the door to private sale background checks gets opened and you "could" have done one. If you sell a gun to a prohibited person when you could have done a background check with minimal effort, I GUARANTEE you you're going to get the same argument from the plaintiff's bar regarding failing to do a DMV and background check on an employee who drives for work and, it turns out, has DUIs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since when do background checks have information about future crimes? Go Google "negligent hiring." Same concept. I guarantee you it will happen once the door to private sale background checks gets opened and you "could" have done one. If you sell a gun to a prohibited person when you could have done a background check with minimal effort, I GUARANTEE you you're going to get the same argument from the plaintiff's bar regarding failing to do a DMV and background check on an employee who drives for work and, it turns out, has DUIs. I get your point, the plaintiffs will claim that the seller had a duty to ensure (not just to guess, but to be positive) that the buyer was not a prohibited person. I disagree, but then that's what courts are for, to adjudicate disputes. It shifts a LOT of duty back onto a private seller of a very common piece of personal property. I would argue that the seller of any product has no duty with regard to how the item is used in the future. They also have very little control over the buyer, especially after the sale. Control often goes with duty, of course. But I can imagine the first few test cases would be heavily subsidized by MAIG, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 3:00:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get your point, the plaintiffs will claim that the seller had a duty to ensure (not just to guess, but to be positive) that the buyer was not a prohibited person. I disagree, but then that's what courts are for, to adjudicate disputes. It shifts a LOT of duty back onto a private seller of a very common piece of personal property. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get your point, the plaintiffs will claim that the seller had a duty to ensure (not just to guess, but to be positive) that the buyer was not a prohibited person. I disagree, but then that's what courts are for, to adjudicate disputes. It shifts a LOT of duty back onto a private seller of a very common piece of personal property. I don't personally agree with the theory, I'm simply stating that the theory is going to be advanced. And by advanced, I mean private sellers at gun shows who don't use the available VSP check are going to get sued if the gun goes to a bad guy that does something bad with it. When the preventative mechanism (the BG check) is put there and is easily utilized, and you don't utilize it, it makes the argument a lot easier. Sort of like how the law allows employers to do DMV checks on employees prior to letting them drive company cars/trucks. The mechanism is there, if you don't use it and your employee turns out to be a habitual DUI, you're going to be in deep shit when he runs your company car into a carload of nuns. I would argue that the seller of any product has no duty with regard to how the item is used in the future. They also have very little control over the buyer, especially after the sale. Control often goes with duty, of course.
But I can imagine the first few test cases would be heavily subsidized by MAIG, etc. That's a whole 'nother area. Reasonably foreseeable use (in some cases including reasonably foreseeable MISuse) can form the basis for product liability. It's more complicated than that, but those concepts are there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 6:24:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Torn on this. I for one like the voluntary nature of the proposal.
But, it is a matter of time before Bloomberg and the like go hunting for an instance like described above. Will it pan out in civil court? Well, doesn't matter if they can virtually bankrupt a person trying to do so. Of course we can't hold people responsible who actually commit crimes. But, it is all a catch 22. As dbrown stated - if someone who was prohibited buys a gun from you and uses it in a crime it sets the scenario up (w/o a background check) - to me that is the perfect reasoning for USING the system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 7:12:04 PM EDT
[#27]
I saw this linked from the VCDL page. Interesting blog on the GOA's stance here.
http://gunfreezone.net/index.php/2016/02/05/the-one-where-goa-goes-dudley-brown/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 4:12:42 AM EDT
[#28]
Reject the deal.
Why? Who is going to pay for the state troopers at the gunshow? They don't work for free. And they won't turn down weekend OT pay. It's a very sneaky way of imposing a hidden tax on a gunshow. Basically only decently large gunshows would be able to absorb reimbursing VASP for the costs. Small shows? Nope . And if it's a legal requirement that they have to be there for the show to go ahead? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 10:40:22 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reject the deal. Why? Who is going to pay for the state troopers at the gunshow? They don't work for free. And they won't turn down weekend OT pay. It's a very sneaky way of imposing a hidden tax on a gunshow. Basically only decently large gunshows would be able to absorb reimbursing VASP for the costs. Small shows? Nope . And if it's a legal requirement that they have to be there for the show to go ahead? Reading is fundamental. They are already there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 12:19:41 PM EDT
[#30]
You can't pull security and do background checks on demand at the same time with the same manning level unless VASP is trialing robocop.
So more cops = more cost to hold a show. And will there be enough cops to do it if other events are competing for manpower? At the recent Timonium toy train show last weekend they had two MD SP cruisers parked outside, for example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 12:43:25 PM EDT
[#31]
And as others have said before me in this thread, this is a subtle positional move wrt background checks to move the Overton window towards 100% UBCs, in much the same way people now accept NICS as 'okay'.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 6:26:28 PM EDT
[#32]
I remember when McAulilffe got elected, the common analysis (by everyone, including VCDL) was that we wouldn't lose any ground, but we wouldn't gain any either. Nobody expects McAulliffe to sign any pro-gun legislation AT ALL.
So the fact that he very well may sign legislation into law that significantly expands the rights of Virginia CHP holders with regard to reciprocity is pretty damn huge. Don't forget that side of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 6:48:49 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't pull security and do background checks on demand at the same time with the same manning level unless VASP is trialing robocop. So more cops = more cost to hold a show. And will there be enough cops to do it if other events are competing for manpower? At the recent Timonium toy train show last weekend they had two MD SP cruisers parked outside, for example. VSP is already there running BGCs for the dealers. The show doesn't pay for them, VSP pays them out of their budget. There is no cost to the show. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:25:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
VSP is already there running BGCs for the dealers. The show doesn't pay for them, VSP pays them out of their budget. There is no cost to the show. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You can't pull security and do background checks on demand at the same time with the same manning level unless VASP is trialing robocop. So more cops = more cost to hold a show. And will there be enough cops to do it if other events are competing for manpower? At the recent Timonium toy train show last weekend they had two MD SP cruisers parked outside, for example. VSP is already there running BGCs for the dealers. The show doesn't pay for them, VSP pays them out of their budget. There is no cost to the show. Thought experiment. Liberal politicians cut funding for these troopers to attend the shows. No trooper, no show? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 9:30:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:VSP is already there running BGCs for the dealers. 
Why...do this...when NICS exists? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 8:13:54 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why...do this...when NICS exists? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:VSP is already there running BGCs for the dealers.
Why...do this...when NICS exists? Maybe the dealers don't want to bring a computer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 8:50:27 AM EDT
[#37]
I live in FL.
Can I carry in Virginia today? What is the status on this? I know the senate passed a bill but is it in effect? As of Feb 1 I was no longer allowed to CCW in Virginia. P.S. Get that fucking guy out of office. Geez. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:30:10 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why...do this...when NICS exists? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:VSP is already there running BGCs for the dealers.
Why...do this...when NICS exists? In VA, all gun sales from a FFL go through the VSP, not directly through NICS - that's the law here. A couple of years ago, there was a "slow down" at the VSP because they wanted to raise the fee for this service from $2.00 to $5.00 - that caused a bunch of folks wanting to get rid of the VSP background check and go directly to NICS. After a bunch of back and forth, the state raised the funding to VSP to keep the $2.00 fee to the dealers. Bob S. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 9:37:33 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I live in FL. Can I carry in Virginia today? What is the status on this? I know the senate passed a bill but is it in effect? As of Feb 1 I was no longer allowed to CCW in Virginia. P.S. Get that fucking guy out of office. Geez. Today? Yes, you can carry today. After 3/1/16 - maybe... Legal review conducted in 2015 pursuant to § 18.2-308.014 of the Code of Virginia identified several jurisdictions that currently fail to meet the statutory requirements for recognition of the concealed carry permits they issue. Effective March 1, 2016, concealed carry permits issued by the following jurisdictions are NO LONGER VALID in Virginia: Alaska Arizona Arkansas Delaware Florida Idaho Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Minnesota Mississippi Montana Nebraska New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Will "the deal" be passed and signed? Maybe - we'll have to see. Bob S. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 4:03:04 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because if you sold the gun at a gun show, then you did in fact have easy access to a background check that would have required minimal cost and effort. If you didn't sell it at a gun show, you had no access to a BG check and thus it was not reasonable to expect you to do one. Pretty simple. I'm not saying I like this theory, I'm just saying it WILL be used if a BG check is available, not used, and a prohibited person causes harm with a gun sold at a gun show. Which, again, is one reason why this "deal" is not a total win. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And normalizing their presence at gun shows, and already having the administrative mechanisms (and budget) in place, will push fence-sitters in the GA over the edge toward making it mandatory. It has great soundbite momentum. "We've had these checks at gun shows for years, with state police there, but not everybody does them. It's time to fix that." Again, subtle move. Chess. Positional. This move was not casual. Then you have the tort law problem of making the checks available. Right now there is no background check system for private sales. If there is one, and it's available to you, and you don't use it - do you have any liability if that buyer goes on to do something bad? I know plenty of lawyers who would love to test that out. VSP background check becomes the de facto "reasonable person" standard of care for selling a gun, just like doing a DMV check on someone before renting them a car or hiring them to drive a vehicle. Would these "voluntary" checks be available outside of gun shows? If not, I don't see how anyone could attach any more liability for a non-gun show FTF sale than they could now. Because if you sold the gun at a gun show, then you did in fact have easy access to a background check that would have required minimal cost and effort. If you didn't sell it at a gun show, you had no access to a BG check and thus it was not reasonable to expect you to do one. Pretty simple. I'm not saying I like this theory, I'm just saying it WILL be used if a BG check is available, not used, and a prohibited person causes harm with a gun sold at a gun show. Which, again, is one reason why this "deal" is not a total win. That was sort of my point. Perhaps I didn't phrase the question well - it was about the possibility of a non-gun show FTF seller being subjected to litigation if something happened with that non-gun show buyer. That would not seem reasonable to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 2:15:50 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In VA, all gun sales from a FFL go through the VSP, not directly through NICS - that's the law here. A couple of years ago, there was a "slow down" at the VSP because they wanted to raise the fee for this service from $2.00 to $5.00 - that caused a bunch of folks wanting to get rid of the VSP background check and go directly to NICS. After a bunch of back and forth, the state raised the funding to VSP to keep the $2.00 fee to the dealers. Bob S. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:VSP is already there running BGCs for the dealers.
Why...do this...when NICS exists? In VA, all gun sales from a FFL go through the VSP, not directly through NICS - that's the law here. A couple of years ago, there was a "slow down" at the VSP because they wanted to raise the fee for this service from $2.00 to $5.00 - that caused a bunch of folks wanting to get rid of the VSP background check and go directly to NICS. After a bunch of back and forth, the state raised the funding to VSP to keep the $2.00 fee to the dealers. Bob S. Correct - VSP is the "exclusive point of contact" for NICS. Dealers in VA are REQUIRED to run all checks through the VSP system, which satisfies NICS. They couldn't bypass VSP and just run a NICS check even if they wanted to, NICS won't even let them do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 3:29:24 PM EDT
[#42]
From the latest VCDL email
On the three “deal” bills, HB 1163 (deal #1), Delegate Webert’s reciprocity bill was changed to remove the enactment clause and, instead, the Virginia State Police would be required by law to determine which states require an agreement to honor Virginia CHPs and to enter into any such agreement. The bill passed the House 72 to 26 and heads to the Senate. Any thoughts on this change? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 3:48:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From the latest VCDL email Any thoughts on this change? Quote HistoryQuoted: From the latest VCDL email On the three "deal” bills, HB 1163 (deal #1), Delegate Webert’s reciprocity bill was changed to remove the enactment clause and, instead, the Virginia State Police would be required by law to determine which states require an agreement to honor Virginia CHPs and to enter into any such agreement. The bill passed the House 72 to 26 and heads to the Senate. Any thoughts on this change? Didn't the original version of HB163 require the AG to do that exact same thing? What exactly changed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 4:30:53 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't the original version of HB163 require the AG to do that exact same thing? What exactly changed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From the latest VCDL email On the three "deal” bills, HB 1163 (deal #1), Delegate Webert’s reciprocity bill was changed to remove the enactment clause and, instead, the Virginia State Police would be required by law to determine which states require an agreement to honor Virginia CHPs and to enter into any such agreement. The bill passed the House 72 to 26 and heads to the Senate. Any thoughts on this change? Didn't the original version of HB163 require the AG to do that exact same thing? What exactly changed? That's what I'm hoping to find out. The other two "deal bills" sailed through with hardly any opposition where this one had a fair bit, I was curious if the change is the reason for the resistance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2016 4:43:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the latest VCDL email Any thoughts on this change? Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the latest VCDL email On the three “deal” bills, HB 1163 (deal #1), Delegate Webert’s reciprocity bill was changed to remove the enactment clause and, instead, the Virginia State Police would be required by law to determine which states require an agreement to honor Virginia CHPs and to enter into any such agreement. The bill passed the House 72 to 26 and heads to the Senate. Any thoughts on this change? I'm interested in this, too. What difference does this change actually make? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
