Things that bug me about laws and lawmakers
This is a discussion on Things that bug me about laws and lawmakers within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-308
This is VA's CCW law. I'll post sections relevant to the topic below, my comments in bold .
C. This section shall also not ...
March 13th, 2007 11:37 AM
Things that bug me about laws and lawmakers
This is VA's CCW law. I'll post sections relevant to the topic below, my comments in bold.
C. This section shall also not apply to any of the following individuals while in the discharge of their official duties, or while in transit to or from such duties:
1. Carriers of the United States mail;
Not allowed to carry anyway!
2. Officers or guards of any state correctional institution;
Shouldn't they have the same right to carry as LEOs?
5. Noncustodial employees of the Department of Corrections designated to carry weapons by the Director of the Department of Corrections pursuant to § 53.1-29; and
In other words the absconders unit (escapee retrieval) and investigators
6. Harbormaster of the City of Hopewell.
Why is this guy special?
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.
This is a tortuous little section that allows LEOs to say, "Well, he hasn't done anything wrong, we just don't like him." Makes Shall Issue a little watered down.
"Personal knowledge" means knowledge of a fact that a person has himself gained through his own senses, or knowledge that was gained by a law-enforcement officer or prosecutor through the performance of his official duties.
Says a lot about the logic of the preceeding section, that they have to define "Personal knowledge."
G. The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun and the applicant may demonstrate such competence by one of the following, but no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence:
1. Completing any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or a similar agency of another state;
I can hunt safely, so I am competent with a handgun!
J1. Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun, who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
But you still can't carry a concealed gun in a restaurant that serves alcohol:
J3. No person shall carry a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; however, nothing herein shall prohibit any sworn law-enforcement officer from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of such restaurant or club or any owner or event sponsor or his employees from carrying a concealed handgun while on duty at such restaurant or club if such person has a concealed handgun permit.
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
March 13th, 2007 11:46 AM
Yeah, they sound pretty stupid... but those are the folks we elected, even if it was in a indirect way.
The only one I have an answer for is #2... they are guards, not LEO's. In most states ( I am assuming VA is this way) Corrections folks have different training and certification than a LEO has. They also dont have the same bonds and insurances to protect them.
Some have a dual cert., and if they need to carry for a job related reason they can as a state LEO, but not as a corrections worker.
March 13th, 2007 11:49 AM
Yeah, there are very stupid laws!! Steve48
March 13th, 2007 11:51 AM
Two thing I wish they did--
- got rid of the prohibition of CC in restaurants
- Fund the lifetime CC permit provisions...
I haven't heard much about the lifetime permit in VA lately.
Also--starting in July, if you move, you're supposed to inform the county of your new address. However, will there be a cost? Can I wait until renewal and be grandfathered? Bueller? Bueller?
March 13th, 2007 01:06 PM
Lots Of Stupid Laws...
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
March 13th, 2007 01:09 PM
In response to the comments...
1. USPS can specifically carry if authorized. Although it is not common now, it could happen in time of emergency.
2.Guards or Correctional Officers in many agency's are not "sworn" officers,thus they are not authorized to carry.This is true at my own agency, which runs a Detention Center. Although the guards wear uniforms, they only carry spray and handcuffs. The guards couldbe 'deputized" and armed in the event of an emergency.Usually in an man hunt for an escapee, these are put with a Deputy to double the manpower and cover more turf.
5.If the person is authorized by his agency, then the state law will not prevent him from doing his duty while armed.
6. Most harbor masters can be legally armed if they desire to do so and the state cannot prevent them from it.
13. Most states have provisions in their law that the CLEO can prevent a person from receiving a permit IF the CLEO deems the person as unworthy. The "preponderance of evidence" must be able to stand in court if challenged.
For instance, if the Sheriff Dept has been called to your house multiple times for domestics disputes but you have never been officially charged with anything, you might have a hard time getting a permit. If the officers know that you are a jerk and your past practices can prove that you are a jerk, you probably wont get one.
Just because someone might not "like you" is not enough reason in a "Shall Issue" state.
G. Doesn't mean anything except that by having certain requirements that the state has its tail covered by issuing you a permit.
J1. Cant help you there. A few years ago we had our law amended to be able to carry in a restaurant that serves more food than alcohol. Should be no problems if you can handle it. If for some reason the po get called on you and you are carrying, it could be a problem. The trick is to not let that happen.
When a law is written up, there must always be consideration allowed for things that may not be obvious. To many times laws are written up that have unintended consequences that no one thought about at the time, and sometimes it really hoses things up. The things is, once a law is passes, it takes years for it to be corrected and that ain't worth a dang if you happen to be the one that got hung up on some technicality because the law was not researched enough before hand.
Sometimes what appears to be "stupid" and written into a law,actually has a reason for it somewhere that makes sense. You just have to know and understand why it was written.
I want to have a job where the is no accountability,a job where I can do as I dang well please and make my own laws and act like a KING. I want to be on the Supreme Court.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
March 13th, 2007 01:25 PM
That's why it's so important that one follows even their local & state elections. It is important!
"Use human means as though divine ones didn't exist, and divine means as though there were no human ones." Baltasar Gracian
Integrated Close Combat
Glock 19 & 26, Kahr CM9 & P45, Para P12, Kel-Tec P-32, S&W 442, & Dan Wesson 14-2.
March 13th, 2007 01:41 PM
there are all kinds of stupid laws on the books that should of been taken off years ago. It seems like we just keep adding laws to correct laws that dont work or are not being inforced. the cure for everything is to pass a new law.
March 13th, 2007 02:03 PM
Item 13 is for when the LEOs "know" someone is guilty, but they don't have enough evidence to prove it in court, and so they want to be able to ignore the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and take the guys rights away. No offense to the LEOs on here, but this really annoys me. If you can't prove it in court then I don't care what you may think you "know," the guy is NOT guilty!
"Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the most fundamental concepts on which this nation was founded. Laws that attempt to circumvent that are, in my opinion, a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment and therefore blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, this is one case where the Supreme Court does not agree with me!
March 13th, 2007 02:13 PM
I really don't like the sta. . . commonwealth of Virginia, for a variety of reasons.
Two top ones:
- the CCW law there is That whole thing about having to open carry in restaurants if they serve any alcohol whatsover is just so frickin' wrongheaded it's not even funny.
- they outlaw radar detectors. Not that I even have one or want one. (I usually drive within a range over the limit that is not conspicuous; and besides, radar detectors usually just tell you when you're already busted.) I just think it's tyrannical to tell drivers that their speed can be surveilled, but they are not allowed to determine for themselves when the police are checking on them. That would be sort of akin to passing a law that said you could not purchase or use electronic "bug detectors" in the home to find out if they are surveilling/investigating you.
I won't ever move to VA while this kind of stuff is the law.
March 13th, 2007 02:20 PM
Don't get me wrong...VA is a great place to live. Sometimes the northern (VA) influence becomes too much, but right now, there's no place I'd rather be.
I like the option of OC--but don't do it all of the time. Whereas in other places if your gun accidentally shows (like Limatunes post) it is against the law (you might frighten the sheep)
March 13th, 2007 02:41 PM
Originally Posted by paramedic70002
This one is purely political in nature. There are MANY other harbor masters in Virginia, NONE of the others are spelled out in the law. Hopewell's harbor is small, it is on the James River between Richmond & Norfolk.....not to mention IT IS A 100 MILES FROM THE OCEAN!
Originally Posted by HotGuns
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
By msgt/ret in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: March 8th, 2011, 09:24 PM
By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: April 24th, 2009, 02:07 PM
By CT-Mike in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: July 8th, 2008, 07:14 AM
By Dihappy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: February 14th, 2008, 11:07 AM
By flagflyfish in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: May 12th, 2007, 04:29 PM
Search tags for this page
harbormaster of the city of hopewell.
Click on a term to search for related topics.