Today in Richmond the Senate defeated bill SB 48, introduced by Dick Black, which would have allowed anyone who is legally eligible to carry a gun to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. The vote was strictly on party lines, except for Emmett Hanger who crossed over to vote with the democrats (as he often does) which resulted in a tie vote. LG Ralph Northam as chair broke the tie, defeating the bill.
Senator Black referred to the bill as “Constitutional carry”, saying,
“It’s based on the idea that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right and that citizens have a right to carry firearms without permission of the government,” Black explained recently. “It’s analogous to the First Amendment, where you don’t need a government permit to tell you what you can say and what you can’t.”
Makes sense to me, but of course Democrats will never support any bill that supports our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Anti Second Amendment Democrats across the state are still very angry over the deal McAuliffe made last with week with Republicans to restore reciprocity with other states honoring their concealed carry permits.
29 comments
That is your circus, and those are your monkeys.
You’re a democrat? So noted.
Keep trying.
Then I have no idea what your original comment meant.
Jeanine – you never get anywhere with these drive by types. I ignore such comments.
People shouldn’t go around insulting others either.
People shouldn’t go around insulting others either.
There is an old polish saying “not my circus, not my monkeys”. Well this is the bull elephants circus/monkey.
What/who is our circus/monkey?
Emmett Hanger would be the “what/who”. And the GOP/Bull Elephant would be “our”
In Virginia we can open carry without a permit but if I want to put my jacket over it, Ricktorn here thinks I need to pay a fee, fill out paperwork and have training. He’s so serious about guns that he wants more of our freedom kept from us. With friends like these….
I’m glad that they defeated the bill. It is not unreasonable to require gun owners to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit in order to carry a weapon concealed. I am a serious gun owner, and think that if anything, it should be tougher than it is to get. People can get concealed carry licenses online, with no real training or shooting required. Personally, I would require training and a license to carry … open or concealed.
What is so difficult to understand about the words — right, unalienable, uninfringed — all strung meaningfully together?
More questions:
1) Do you think the George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison every applied for a concealed carry anything?
2) And what compels performance in a man or woman in the first place to have to apply for a permission to carry a weapon? Show me where the contract is, and then we might be getting somewhere?
3) And while you are at it, please tell me what kind of law you claim to follow — Ecclesiastical, Common Law, Equity, Admiralty. Lex Mericatoria, Marshall?
You may seriously like guns, but do you like Liberty?
Yes, Dave. I love liberty and the founding fathers. I am NRA and VCDL. Would just like to see some common sense training requirements in gun handling and the legal issues involved. One of the best way to get gun-carrying thugs off the street is to be able to arrest and charge them with not having a CCW. I favor “stop and frisk.”
So I guess we’d all love to see some common sense indoctrination before people are able to have Freedom of Speech ? Is this REALLY the government’s responsibility ? People are, amazingly enough, able to decide on their own to be responsible and safe without being forced to.
Great. So I guess we don’t need police, courts, jails, or mental hospitals.
Another dodge, a tactic of the left, make ridiculous, out of context assertions when you are losing big.
So, misdirection and strawman. About what I expected.
Typical! You throw out some ‘credentials,’ and then proceed to trash liberty of travel unimpeded by the state, all in the name of safety.
Now the question is, can you remember what Benjamin Franklin said about liberty and safety?
And by the way, I notice that you did not or could not answer any of my questions, and I suspect that is part of the problem here, long on opinions but short on knowledge.
Dave, why so angry?
Why is it that those who won’t or can’t answer basic questions always fall back on that it’s the other guy who is angry? This is a rather pathetic come back.
Again, by what contract is the man in Liberty compelled to perform to the state’s demand that he apply to the state for a permit to carry? Does the man in Liberty have to accept the state’s offer of a piece of paper, the CCP? Tell me why or why not. (Clue: rights are either unalienable and absolute, or else they are civil and conditioned by the state. Which rights are you for?)
There lots of Liberty illiterates around. They are chuck full of opinions, but short on any knowledge of law.
When people resort to insults to try to win arguments, it’s usually not a good sign. Anyway, I concede. You are just too smart for me.
You cannot read English for comprehension. Nobody insulted you, Dave did not insult you. Apparently you got your little panties in a twist because you cannot put forth a coherent argument for your statism.
Well, aren’t you a good little totalitarian.
Big time. Under the same test, “liberty lovers” like rick who want to enforce training on everyone to utilize a right could be forced to have a permit to write anti-rights jackassery on the interwebz.
Poor rick doesn’t understand the difference between a right and a privilege.
the permits go thru CA’s office, sheriff’s office & to judge for signature. this might serve to eliminate one or two that shouldn’t have a gun–like a nut
As much as I like Sen Black I have to disagree with hs constitutional carry bill. It is better to have this other layer for law enforcement purposes and the protection and identification of mentally ill folks who should not have a gun.
There shall always be a bone of contention between those who think that layers of paper shuffling by state employees can impose upon the public a measure of public safety, and those who are certain that this dreamful wish will never be fulfilled. This is an issue which will never be settled to anyone’s full satisfaction. Be this so, and whether we shall have a world of liberty carry (constitutional), concealed carry permitting, or outright total gun confiscation, the world shall remain an imperfect place.
When my wife and I travel, we always carry with us a weapon. We are especially mindful to do so at night, just in case our automobile ever breaks down. We do so that our lives not be placed in jeopardy, nor at the mercy of some happen-by bad actor in a sometimes cruel world.
God, the Creator of all things, gave us the Right, the responsibility to preserve our lives and that of our families against evil doers. This is a Right which may not be Lawfully abridged by the civil state, not even by permission slips. So thought the framers of our American constitutions, and in this view they depended upon Scripture.
So I ask, how is it that the American people have so easily put upon themselves the garments of a self-imposed slavishness? How is it that we so glibly invent our reasons by which we enter into slavery … and relinquish our Right?
Right – understood. And I’d require people with only two brain cells to rub together to get a permit requiring “permission” to use the internet, and post horsecrap about restricting rights therein. Just think – because the pen is mightier than the sword, people like you who have established that they don’t understand the first thing about liberty, should have a permit to share dangerous anti-rights ideas in public.
Do you understand just how crazy that is? The fact that you posit you understand we have a Constitutional Republic, then write crazy stuff like requiring licensing and permits to own or carry a gun demonstrates that you either possess diminished mental capacity, or are content to write about this being a Republic while wanting a Mobocracy.
The tired old “I’m an gun owner, NRA member, and VCDL member and I want to restrict gun ownership to only those who can afford training” is along the same lines of crap that the KKK Southern Democrats use to keep newly emancipated slaves and free black men (and women) from owning guns. Just google “racist roots of gun control,” or check out the documentation at JPFO.ORG.
BTW – you knew that Ted Kennedy was, for a time, on the “no fly list” and so couldn’t legally purchase a gun, right? Any lists you are on prohibiting same?
The fact that you believe that a poor, underclass citizen who can barely afford to purchase a Hi-Point 9mm and a box of ammo should go through some sort of tactical training (determined to be adequate by whom – or what government group??) illustrates your so very typical upper-class white privilege.
I won’t bother to wear my “gunny expertise” or gun club memberships and training on my chest. The fact that you, and people like you, are content to turn over your ability to own or carry a gun based upon either training or some other government mandated program shows me that you are content with a boot on your neck.
Funny thing is – when constitutional carry happened in the states it’s already happened in, NOTHING happened. Guess what – the bad guys were still carrying, and just more of the good guys now are.
I’m just thankful that you (who wrote 21 hours ago on this site that you understand this is “a Constitutional Republic,” then write “I would require training and a license to carry … open or concealed”) are not a legislator. you would be as bad as the ones many states already have.
So – under your test of “I would require” – what happens when someone like you gets into office and convinces his other legislators that anyone who posts online must first pass a civics test? Clearly, you would fail a civics test. But – what the heck – if it’s for the good of the public, why would reasonable people object? After all, there are consequences for shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Why not for writings that are so repugnant to the Republic?