My letter to Wayne LaPierre / VA is NOT "Shall issue"

[paramedic70002]

I wonder if this letter, submitted on the NRA's "Contact us" form, will actually reach it's intended target. Then I wonder if he'll care. I'm sure that my "complaint" is looked upon as a "compromise" up in northern VA.

I read with interest Wayne LaPierre's comments in this month's issue of American Hunter. Mr. LaPierre laments the fact that US Attorney General Gonzales may one day be able to prohibit firearms ownership through a determination of suspicion. Mr. LaPierre's outrage is obvious and well deserved. But I would like to make Mr. LaPierre aware of a similar situation, right here in Virginia. Code of Virginia section 18.2-308, the (concealed handgun code) allows Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police to deny citizens their right to acquire a concealed handgun permit based solely on suspicion. The actual wording is a bit vague, but since there are significant disqualifiers already built into the law, suspicion is about all that is left to stand on. In my opinion, this is not a true "right to carry" law, as chief law enforcement officers are still able to block access to permits that would otherwise be issued, just as they used to under "may issue" laws. In fact, this section has been a stumbling block in the past in regard to reciprocity with other states, as it prevents Virginia's law from being "similar" to other states' laws for the purpose of reciprocity. It is my hope that Mr. LaPierre will be just as offended by such an odorous section of Virginia's law as he is by Mr. Gonzales' attempt to restrict gun ownership. Please forward this email to Mr. LaPierre. I look forward to a reply.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[woodstock]

The text of the pertinent section of Virginia Code is copied below:

"18.2-308, B. 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."

How do other Virginia residents read ths section? I see where it says "based upon a disqualifying conviction or specific acts..." That could present potential for abuse by unscrupulous persons, but I haven't heard of any specific cases. Do you know of a particular case or is your concern mainly to do with potential abuse?

I just submitted the form to renew my permit yesterday. I live in Culpeper county and the people in the Clerk's office there were very professional. I learned that they no longer require me to pick up the permit in person; they'll mail it to my home. Last time I was on my way from work to pick it up and was rear-ended in Manassas. Got to see the doctor's office instead of the court clerk! This time I've left it a bit close on the tiiming. They have the statutory 45 days, but my current permit expires in 36 days (I was out of town on business and broke my ankle on the day I came back!)

I hope they won't take the full 45 days!

Rcik

[PaulG]

Sounds like the Sheriff must provide examples of a specific event that he believes would show that the "applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others".

It is still up to the court to decide based on "a preponderance of the evidence".

I would be curious to know if this has been used since Virginia went "shall issue" and if so, how often.

I have not heard of anyone being denied based on a Sheriff's letter.

[paramedic70002]

Sheriff Charlie Phelps of Isle of Wight County denied me a CHP using this code section. My only recourse was to move out of the county and wait five years so that the City of Portsmouth wouldn't check with him in their background check. Could have gotten a Florida permit immediately anyway.

So, what were my grievous offenses to get on Charlie's bad side?

1. Used to work for him. I was 21. Got caught sharing beer with my 20 year old friend. Forced to resign. Yeah I know I was wrong. No argument there, but does this make me dangerous? Something I did 19 years ago? (Funny when I took out my issued weapon to give to Charlie, he took in a big breath with both his hands on his desk, like he thought I was going to ventilate him)

2. Problem neighbor made a criminal complaint on me for brandishing. Went to court and explained that I was merely carrying my handgun from my car to my house. Case held for 1 year, dismissed. This was about 11 years ago.

3. A 17 year old volunteer at my rescue station confided in me and another member that her legal guardian (Aunt, also in the squad, nutty as a fruitcake) was abusing her. Took her to Sheriff's Lieutenant for advice, then to social services, which advised us to take her to her biological father. Aunt charged us both with contributing to juvenile delinquency for leaving her without proper adult supervision. Later found out father was a convicted child molester, and the juvenile denied the abuse. Case held for 2 years, dismissed. This was about 9 years ago.

So these make me look "bad." I suppose you could argue that there may be a pattern, but they still don't rise above the level of suspicion. I don't think there are but a few other states that have a provision in their law like this one. I have no convictions on my record. I can open carry in Virginia. My wife has a CHP. But giving me a CHP makes me dangerous? Not to mention my status as a public safety EMS provider, prior corrections, and prior armed security. And I now have a CHP from another jurisdiction in VA. Good since I've been threatened by a former Dept. of Corrections inmate from when I worked there, and I've pulled or readied myself to pull my weapon a few times as well.

And now I read this from the VCDL newsletter (see highlights):

10. Isle of Wight does renewals right
**************************************************

Member Cathy Roberts is nothing if not tenacious! I love that
qualify in VCDL's membership.

Hi Philip,

I wanted to share my experience with my concealed handgun permit
renewal in Isle of Wight yesterday afternoon. I first went to the
court clerk's office to turn in my application and pay my fee. The
lady there updated my folder and handed it to me, and then told me to
take it over to the Sheriff's department. She told me that I probably
would not have to be fingerprinted since this was a renewal. Things
were off to a good start!

I walked my folder over to the Sheriff's office. Two deputies came
out of the office and said they'd get somebody to help me. One deputy
came back, took my folder, and said for me to come back for
fingerprints. I told him that I didn't need fingerprints since my
permit application was a renewal. He said, "We always fingerprint for
renewals." I politely said that they were not supposed to be doing
that, and showed him the excerpt from your recent VA-ALERT titled
"Keep this for the next time you renew your permit" that quoted code
section 15.2-915.3. (Thank you for that!)

The deputy looked at the printout and said that the change did not
take effect until July 1. I said that I thought it was currently law.
The deputy said he'd ask someone else. (Ding! Round Two!) The other
deputy he had been with said that the change takes effect on July 1
of this year, so since it was June 29, I'd have to be fingerprinted.
I respectfully disagreed, and he said he'd check on it.

Next, a third younger deputy came back and said that he'd fingerprint
me. I said that I did not have to be fingerprinted since my permit
application was a renewal. (Ding! Round Three!) I showed him the
excerpt from the VA-ALERT, and he said he'd look it up in the code.
He asked his supervisor, who was the second deputy who had met me at
the door in Round Two. The supervisor repeated that they always
fingerprint for renewals. (Ding! Round Four!)

I showed him the excerpt from the VA-ALERT again, and this time added
that the Clerk's office also told me I would not have to be
fingerprinted. He asked if the paper I had with the law in it was
from the Clerk, and I said that it was from the VCDL! He said he'd
check on it, and grumbled under his breath that the Clerk's office
never tells them anything! I laughed, and then I had a pleasant chat
with the younger deputy while we waited. He said it would be great if
they didn't have to do these renewal fingerprints anymore, because
they do a lot of them and they take a lot of time. I agreed, and said
that they have better things to do!

Soon, the supervisor came and got me, and Sheriff Charlie Phelps was
waiting to talk to us out front. He explained to the deputies that
they do not have to fingerprint renewals, and gently chided them that
even if the law did take effect this July 1, he would not fingerprint
me on the afternoon of June 29 (Friday) anyway! (Ahhh...common sense is not
dead after all.)

We all laughed, and then the deputies asked the Sheriff why renewals
like mine even had to come over to their department at all now
anyway. The Sheriff explained to them that the renewals still have to
come across his desk for signature. He said that as long as the
applicant had a clean record for the past five years, it was a
"rubber stamp" situation. So, he said that all the deputies have to
do is to run the check on the applicant for the previous five years,
which apparently takes about five seconds since it had already been
done before I even raised the fingerprint question.

So, there was a happy ending for everyone involved, thanks to your
VA-ALERT! The deputies were happy because they realized they don't
have to waste time on the renewal fingerprints anymore. I was happy
because I dropped off my folder and headed on my way (after being
thanked by the deputies for bringing this to their attention). And
Sheriff Phelps will be happy because he will get my support in the
upcoming elections.

Cathy
--
Dr. Cathy Roberts
Smithfield, VA

--

Since I may be moving back to Isle of Wight soon to take care of my mother, I may have to apply for renewal before Charlie retires. Anybody want to take a bet what he'll do when he sees my application? Maybe I'll get an early renewal before I move!

[Rob99VMI04]

Did you challenge the sheriff?

I remember the first time I applied for a CHP, I got denied based on a drivers license address issue. My address was differn't on my license then what I was currently living at. Just moved! But they did say I could have a hearing, or I could just fix it and reapply.

I guess my point is, its not wrong until its challenged!

Sheriff Charlie Phelps of Isle of Wight County denied me a CHP using this code section. My only recourse was to move out of the county and wait five years so that the City of Portsmouth wouldn't check with him in their background check. Could have gotten a Florida permit immediately anyway.

So, what were my grievous offenses to get on Charlie's bad side?

1. Used to work for him. I was 21. Got caught sharing beer with my 20 year old friend. Forced to resign. Yeah I know I was wrong. No argument there, but does this make me dangerous? Something I did 19 years ago? (Funny when I took out my issued weapon to give to Charlie, he took in a big breath with both his hands on his desk, like he thought I was going to ventilate him)

2. Problem neighbor made a criminal complaint on me for brandishing. Went to court and explained that I was merely carrying my handgun from my car to my house. Case held for 1 year, dismissed. This was about 11 years ago.

3. A 17 year old volunteer at my rescue station confided in me and another member that her legal guardian (Aunt, also in the squad, nutty as a fruitcake) was abusing her. Took her to Sheriff's Lieutenant for advice, then to social services, which advised us to take her to her biological father. Aunt charged us both with contributing to juvenile delinquency for leaving her without proper adult supervision. Later found out father was a convicted child molester, and the juvenile denied the abuse. Case held for 2 years, dismissed. This was about 9 years ago.

So these make me look "bad." I suppose you could argue that there may be a pattern, but they still don't rise above the level of suspicion. I don't think there are but a few other states that have a provision in their law like this one. I have no convictions on my record. I can open carry in Virginia. My wife has a CHP. But giving me a CHP makes me dangerous? Not to mention my status as a public safety EMS provider, prior corrections, and prior armed security. And I now have a CHP from another jurisdiction in VA. Good since I've been threatened by a former Dept. of Corrections inmate from when I worked there, and I've pulled or readied myself to pull my weapon a few times as well.

And now I read this from the VCDL newsletter (see highlights):

10. Isle of Wight does renewals right
**************************************************

Member Cathy Roberts is nothing if not tenacious! I love that
qualify in VCDL's membership.

Hi Philip,

I wanted to share my experience with my concealed handgun permit
renewal in Isle of Wight yesterday afternoon. I first went to the
court clerk's office to turn in my application and pay my fee. The
lady there updated my folder and handed it to me, and then told me to
take it over to the Sheriff's department. She told me that I probably
would not have to be fingerprinted since this was a renewal. Things
were off to a good start!

I walked my folder over to the Sheriff's office. Two deputies came
out of the office and said they'd get somebody to help me. One deputy
came back, took my folder, and said for me to come back for
fingerprints. I told him that I didn't need fingerprints since my
permit application was a renewal. He said, "We always fingerprint for
renewals." I politely said that they were not supposed to be doing
that, and showed him the excerpt from your recent VA-ALERT titled
"Keep this for the next time you renew your permit" that quoted code
section 15.2-915.3. (Thank you for that!)

The deputy looked at the printout and said that the change did not
take effect until July 1. I said that I thought it was currently law.
The deputy said he'd ask someone else. (Ding! Round Two!) The other
deputy he had been with said that the change takes effect on July 1
of this year, so since it was June 29, I'd have to be fingerprinted.
I respectfully disagreed, and he said he'd check on it.

Next, a third younger deputy came back and said that he'd fingerprint
me. I said that I did not have to be fingerprinted since my permit
application was a renewal. (Ding! Round Three!) I showed him the
excerpt from the VA-ALERT, and he said he'd look it up in the code.
He asked his supervisor, who was the second deputy who had met me at
the door in Round Two. The supervisor repeated that they always
fingerprint for renewals. (Ding! Round Four!)

I showed him the excerpt from the VA-ALERT again, and this time added
that the Clerk's office also told me I would not have to be
fingerprinted. He asked if the paper I had with the law in it was
from the Clerk, and I said that it was from the VCDL! He said he'd
check on it, and grumbled under his breath that the Clerk's office
never tells them anything! I laughed, and then I had a pleasant chat
with the younger deputy while we waited. He said it would be great if
they didn't have to do these renewal fingerprints anymore, because
they do a lot of them and they take a lot of time. I agreed, and said
that they have better things to do!

Soon, the supervisor came and got me, and Sheriff Charlie Phelps was
waiting to talk to us out front. He explained to the deputies that
they do not have to fingerprint renewals, and gently chided them that
even if the law did take effect this July 1, he would not fingerprint
me on the afternoon of June 29 (Friday) anyway! (Ahhh...common sense is not
dead after all.)

We all laughed, and then the deputies asked the Sheriff why renewals
like mine even had to come over to their department at all now
anyway. The Sheriff explained to them that the renewals still have to
come across his desk for signature. He said that as long as the
applicant had a clean record for the past five years, it was a
"rubber stamp" situation. So, he said that all the deputies have to
do is to run the check on the applicant for the previous five years,
which apparently takes about five seconds since it had already been
done before I even raised the fingerprint question.

So, there was a happy ending for everyone involved, thanks to your
VA-ALERT! The deputies were happy because they realized they don't
have to waste time on the renewal fingerprints anymore. I was happy
because I dropped off my folder and headed on my way (after being
thanked by the deputies for bringing this to their attention). And
Sheriff Phelps will be happy because he will get my support in the
upcoming elections.

Cathy
--
Dr. Cathy Roberts
Smithfield, VA

--

Since I may be moving back to Isle of Wight soon to take care of my mother, I may have to apply for renewal before Charlie retires. Anybody want to take a bet what he'll do when he sees my application? Maybe I'll get an early renewal before I move!

[paramedic70002]

Oh yeah, went in and talked to him. Wouldn't budge. A real jerk. And to top it off, the J&D court that the juvenile delinquency charge was in, was showing the case as active even after the 2 years. Found that out when I went to the sheriff's office to get a background check / criminal history done. The clerk was another jerk, wouldn't even listen to me when I told her to read the conditions because the case should have been closed. Still, the VSP crim check came back clean.

[paramedic70002]

Funny I should find this today. Seems at least one state thinks Sheriff's meddling in CCWs is a bad idea.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/...711News001.asp

Law axes local permits for small guns
Federal rules still apply on background checks.

By JASON ROSENBAUM of the Tribune’s staff
Published Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Gerik Parmele photo
Dave Shene, manager of Powder Horn Guns & Sporting Goods Inc., arranges handguns today at the Columbia shop. A provision in recently signed legislation will eliminate a decades-old process that required county sheriffs to issue a permit to anyone seeking to possess a concealable firearm.

Dave Shene said recently signed legislation that will eliminate permits to possess concealable weapons is a blessing that cuts through a layer of paperwork and bureaucracy.

"What’s going to happen is it’s going to take a redundant piece of paperwork out of the loop," said Shene, manager of Powder Horn Guns & Sporting Goods Inc. in Columbia.

After Aug. 28, the Boone County Sheriff’s Department will no longer be required by state law to issue permits to anyone who wants to purchase a concealable firearm. The change was tucked into legislation that Gov. Matt Blunt signed last week to shield people who use deadly force against intruders from lawsuits or prosecution.

Under existing law, anyone who wants to buy a concealable firearm must apply for a permit from the county sheriff, who conducts a background check. If the applicant meets statutory requirements, the sheriff issues a permit.

Boone County sheriff’s Maj. Tom Reddin said anyone purchasing a handgun after Aug. 28 still faces a background check by the federal National Instant Check System. The NICS searches records for disqualifying factors such as prior felonies or a court-ordered confinement for mental health treatment.

The Boone County Sheriff’s Department in 2006 issued 1,869 permits to possess. Reddin said the department rejects 1 percent to 2 percent of all applications each year, or 19 to 38 permit requests. Rejections can be appealed to the associate circuit court.

Jessica Robinson, spokeswoman for Blunt, said the bill "eliminates the duplication and redundancy of having a background check done at both the local and federal levels. So now what was duplicative, what was a repeat of the same test, will be done once to ensure that there are protections and it’s law-abiding citizens that have access to the firearms."

Rep. Brian Munzlinger, R-Williamstown, sponsor of the provision eliminating the permit requirement, called the permit process inconvenient. "In some counties, it was basically used as a way to throw up another roadblock for law-abiding citizens to legally obtain a handgun," he said.

Munzlinger said sheriff’s departments were allowed to charge as much as $10 for each permit. Both Munzlinger and Shene said that conducting background checks likely cost sheriff’s departments money.

Reddin said the change could benefit people who buy several concealable firearms. He said most people who apply for permits are "good, law-abiding citizens" who are issued permits.

"We saw a lot of the same people applying for permit after permit after permit because you had to buy one permit per gun," Reddin said. "And if you deal a lot in handguns, you may buy two permits in June and another one in July and three more in August. And for every one they apply for, we have to do the same checks. So it’s really kind of an inconvenience for them, and it’s certainly burdensome to us."

Still, Reddin said he would rather see a three- to five-year permit on concealable firearms permits, similar to the license needed to carry and conceal a firearm. He said the federal background check doesn’t look at local jail or civil litigation records.

"The federal check isn’t near as comprehensive as that," he said. "You lose the local knowledge or the local documentation on the person’s conduct, which can be used to qualify or disqualify them from the permit."

Shene sees things differently.

"Nothing against the Boone County Sheriff’s Department - a little better resources on the federal level," Shene said. "And it doesn’t cost anything. So why should the citizen have to come in here and pay $10 and wait seven days to get a lesser check?"

[Protect]

So you had to buy 1 permit per handgun in MO?