From the Richmond Times Dispatch:
Concealed-carry permit questions
The application for a Virginia concealed-carry permit asks several mental-health-related questions:
Have you ever been committed to the custody of the commissioner of mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services?
Have you been acquitted by reason of insanity, adjudicated legally incompetent, mentally incapacitated or adjudicated an incapacitated person by a court of Virginia or any other court?
Have you been involuntarily admitted to a facility or ordered to mandatory outpatient treatment, or were you the subject of a temporary detention order . . . who later agreed to voluntary admission?
Have you received mental-health treatment or substance-abuse treatment in a residential setting within the five years prior to the date of this application?
Are these questions fair? What back ups are there to make sure that people are being truthful? What prevents them from lying? Is this the honor system?
If Virginia is going to be relaxing its hand gun laws, what should the state do to ensure that guns are being bought by responsible people rather than by unstable people?
Does having a conceal-carry permit prevent a person from being limited to one hand gun purchase every 30 days?
Given the nature of those questions, I would think that you would be in the records somewhere so that an electronic check would find out if you were not telling the truth –at least in Virginia. But, then, I’m not sure how privacy laws apply in some of these instances. Nor do I know if the same kind of electronic checks can be made for other states. I cannot see any point to such questions if the answers cannot be crosschecked — except maybe to make legal penalties heavier if you have not told the truth and wind up in some sort of non-lethal trouble because of that gun. Perhaps recent attempted rectifications by the Commonwealth after the Virginia Tech shootings will close this kind of loophole, if it exists.
Let’s see, if I recall correctly, there are a few other questions. Essentially, they are the same questions as when you’re purchasing a handgun. There’s one that asks about citizenship. There’s one that asks very directly if you are an illegal alien. We should have a way to cross-check these questions for truthfulness.
It seemed odd to me but certainly not my area of expertise.
Does having a conceal-carry permit allow one to disregard the 1 in 30 rule?
The answers would be verified by the background check. However, as seen with VT shooter Cho, unless you are actually committed, its not in your records
Having a CCW allows one to buy more than one gun per month.
What is the 1 in 30 rule?
Yes, those with permits are already exempted from the 1 handgun a month rule.
You do realize that the people most caught under the mental issues of the concealed handgun permit process are battered women. Any woman that has been abused and seeks treatment is barred from having a CHP in Virginia.
Thanks Cho. I hope you rot.
1 gun in 30 days. My short cut. Sorry.
So, if there are ways were legitimate gun owners can avoid the 1 in 30 restriction, and the 1 in 30 rule was originially to cut down on the gun running, why on earth do we want to do away with the law? Exactly who is being inconvenienced?
I keep reading that there are excemptions and so therefore the law is meaningless? I am not sure I buy that. If we have gone from #1 to #6 ias far as VA weapons being found in the commission of felonies outside the state, it seems to me that the law is serving its purpose, to some degree.
Serving it’s purpose in what respect? In denying law abiding Virginian’s from buying firearms in any quantity that they choose? I don’t think I’d be proud of such a law.
Purchase of a firearm in VA does not require a permit. So, for those that lack a CHP there ability to make multiple purchases is stymied.
Yes
According to the link in the post, there are other ways around multiple purchases if one has a need to do so. I approved of the law 17 years ago and I still approve of it. I feel it is a moderate position.
I expect folks probably also resent having to get a permit to carry concealed also.
I say privacy be damned when it comes to guns. It is when it comes to buying life insurance.
Yes, there are electronic records, but I think a psych test is in order for anyone who wants to own a gun. Has to be a state mandated, certified, recent test.
And there should be safety questions that test the knowledge of the applicants, up to and including a field test. We have road tests for drivers, right? Why not guns?
So I’m a violently insane person who lies on the psych test and now I get to buy an arsenal in a dayl?
I love it.
@Posting As Pinko
You are not asked to do a psych test to have an email account or to write a letter to a local newspaper or to goto a church of your choosing or lastly to associate with anyone you want.
Why is the 2nd any different?
@marinm
Because guns can kill when they are in the hands of the dangerously psychotic. Letters to the editor, churches, etc. generally don’t.
Nice caveat. Generally don’t. You accept that they can. So, why limit one deadly thing and not another?
With over 270 million civilian firearms in the United States (more firearms than personal automobiles) automobiles kill more Americans than firearms. We don’t limit them to 1 purchase a month.
Just doesn’t make sense why we would limit someone buying a product to once every 30 days.
Sweet. WashPo is running the following.
The Democratically-controlled Virginia Senate has voted to allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry guns in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the person carrying the weapon does not drink. The gun bill passed on a 22 to 18 vote, after senators had a vigorous debate about whether or not people might have a reasonable reason to carry guns in restaurants.
A few other pro-gun bills also passed the Senate. I’m mostly interested in the 10th Amendment gun bill and giving civil immunity to a homeowner using a firearm to protect themselves in their own home. Today’s been a good day! 🙂
I am sitting here with an arsenal on my living room at the moment.
How does one regulate if a person carrying concealed is drinking or not? Give me a break.
There is probably a companion bill that holds the restaurant responsible if some dude carrying concealed blows away someone.
Am I missing the point or perhaps definition of the word ‘concealed?’
Virginia Senate Votes to Allow Concealed Guns in Restaurants:
According to the WaPo ” Senator Emmett Hanger (R), who sponsored
the bill, said this was a paticular issue for women who carry guns
in their purses to defend themselves in the Red Lobster.”
What the hell is that all about? Slow wait staff that needs “motivation”?
Lobster’s reaching off plates to pinch women?
Good questions but I want to fully understand them and not misinterpret your position.
Under the proposed law a person that is carrying concealed cannot consume alcohol. Under current law they cannot carry concealed but can carry openly and consume but cannot be intoxicated. So, plainly you can open carry and consume but not get drunk or you can carry concealed and not legally drink.
I don’t know of a companion bill that makes the restaurant liable but how is it really different than holding them liable for patrons that consume to excess and then drive. The law also holds homeowners just as liable – if you provide drinks at a home party and then that guest leaves, drives and hits someone the homeowner can be held liable for damages.
The last question I’m confused on. What is it that your asking?
@marinm
When was the last time a letter to the editor was used to kill someone? “Excuse me while I beat you over the head with this piece of paper”? (Sorry, it struck me as a funny visual.)
As far as the driving analogy, we must take drivers’ ed, a written test, a vision test and a road test to hold a license. We cannot have certain physical conditions. We must have insurance and adhere to certain laws. We can be pulled over and even sent to jail for infractions that do not include murder.
This same kind of regulation and testing plus a psych test should be mandated for potential gun holders, IMO.
I’m not against people wanting to defend themselves in their homes. I’m not against responsible hunters. I AM against letting people buy guns like they would a pack of cigarettes. There are simply too many nut cases out there and/or too many people who want to misuse their weapons as a means for unwarranted intimidation.
@Posting As Pinko
Driving is a privilege, not a right. The State can do what it wishes in terms of who they decide can drive and who can’t.
As it is now, Virginia doesn’t allow women that have been abused by thier boyfriends, husbands or partners the ability to have a gun. I’m sure your ok with that. I don’t think that’s fair nor do I believe that to be acceptable.
Marin, (do you mind if I leave the M off?) I was being a smart aleck about the last question…
I am one of those people who think guns and alcohol are a horrible mix. Responsible gun use requires good judgement. Alcohol takes away judgement. If I were Queen of this land, I would not allow bar patrons to bring guns into any establishment. Isn’t it all left up to the proprietor anyway for carrying open?
The arsenal owner who is a bartender says that guns are sneaked (snuck?) into bars all the time.
Poor Richard, are you kidding about the Red Lobster thing? Please tell me yes, you are kidding. I am getting so that during this legislative session I can’t tell what is kidding and what is not. It is just getting too ridiculous. I still haven’t recovered from micro-chipping.
@Moon-howler
I think the Red Lobster quotes were being carried by the WashPo.
The debate was concluded by Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D). “As a final comment, let me just say this. I’ve really never been afraid for my life at the Red Lobster,” she said.
Another was:
A bill by 26-year-old freshman Del. James W. “Will” Morefield that would allow deadly force against intruders from whom “bodily injury” is reasonably feared left Morrissey incredulous. And Morrissey grilled him, invoking scenario after scenario in which people not reasonably likely to inflict serious injury or death could enter another’s home and be shot dead without legal recourse against the shooter.
In one hypothetical scenario, Morrissey described “Jessica,” a spurned girlfriend, showing up at the home of ex-boyfriend, “Tony,” to find him with a new girlfriend. “She goes to slap Tony in the face, and Tony pulls out his Glock and shoots her in the head,” Morrissey said. “Under your statute, can Tony be prosecuted?”
“Jessica should not have been dating Tony,” Morefield replied as the House chamber dissolved in laughter.
I agree that guns should not be used or carried when the owner is impaired. Current law already defines impairment of a gun carrier.
Private property owners have the right to ban guns on their property. For example, if I were to visit you at your home my gunrights stop at your door (actually at your property line but go with me on this one). As a law abiding person I must respect your property rights and disarm or choose not to go on to your property.
But, real life being what it is. A sign, a sticker, a piece of paper will not stop John Q. Criminal from doing the same. He’ll do what he wants because he doesn’t care about the law or who he injures. And, unfortunatly the way prosecutors work they tend to drop this charge to get pleas on the bigger ones.
Thanks for the info, Marin. I consider myself a moderate on guns and gun ownership. I often get the impression that moderates are suspect of wanting to round up everyone’s gun, going house to house. Nothing could be further from the truth.
@marinm
Hi! I enjoy your comments. Keep ’em coming!
You said… “As it is now, Virginia doesn’t allow women that have been abused by thier boyfriends, husbands or partners the ability to have a gun.”
I hadn’t heard of that one. Could you pass along a link that verifies that? I haven’t been able to find one.
A while back, a Virginia newspaper published a list of all CHP holders in VA and it came under heavy fire (pun intended) because it included names of victims of abuse that had obtained a CHP to protect themselves.
Just trying to jibe what you said with what I thought I already knew. 😉
I would like to see the boyfriend link also.
Why would a newspaper publish names of CHP holders? Need to know and all.
I suppose it is the same mentality that published salaries of all PWC employees by name. Again, need to know.
I can’t help but think the intent was to harm in both cases.
Isn’t the intent of CHP to protect one’s self regardless of why?
@marinm I’ve heard of cases in other states where women were deprived of gun ownership because both partners are often charged in domestic violence disputes. I seem to recall a case where a woman brandished a pistol during a domestic dispute. She lost her right to own a gun, and her partner came back and killed her. The details are fuzzy in my mind, and I don’t believe it happened in VA, but I was wondering if you were referring to that issue.
I don’t think owning a gun will necessarily protect abused women. In many cases, a gun in the house could prove to be more dangerous to the victim of domestic abuse. The last thing you want is an angry abuser with a weapon, especially if that abuser has more strength than the abused (which is usually the case).
That said, victims of domestic violence should not be singled out in being refused the right to own a gun. If nothing else, that sends the wrong message.
Victims of domestic violence require more protection legally and physically. “Buy a gun and protect yourself” doesn’t cut it, IMO (not that anyone is saying that here).
@RingDangDoo
Reference http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm and http://www.vsp.state.va.us/downloads/SP-248_Application_for_Concealed_Handgun_Permit_Rev_1-1-2009.pdf regarding involuntary mental health treatment.
In a conversation with VSP I had a year back they mentioned that they [VSP] would block a handgun purchase/permit to a woman that had sought mental health treatment for being a battered woman. Sick, is it not?
I guess a female could go through the courts to have her ‘rights restored’ but frankly that’s discriminatory in my opinion as you just don’t see men deal with the same issue.
The Fredericksburg Star posts a monthly list of CHP applicants/holders. A few papers did list out the CHP database including police officers, family of law enforcement, and persons with protective orders. While I agree that the papers have a right to inspect records and even publish those results it would’ve been prudent to have worked with the VSP and as much as they could exlude from publushing the names of those at great risk.
Emma, I wasn’t referring to that issue specifically but in general – the law is stacked against women if they’ve been abused. I don’t think that’s right. But, with Torian and Colgan being my state delegate and senator – I have no chance of introducing a bill to either correct or clarify the issue.
Pinko, I know I will not change your mind and I respect your choice to disagree. But, I will point out that in Warren v. District (also Castle Rock v. Gonzales) that the police have no duty to protect any individual.
The court held that: By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police. The court held that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.
Details of Warren are as follows:
In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas’ second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas’ screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.
Warren’s call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a “Code 2” assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as “Code 1.” Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. (This suggests that when they heard that there had been a burglary, the police must have felt that they had a promising lead on a culprit.)
Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.
Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas’ continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as “investigate the trouble;” it was never dispatched to any police officers.
Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent’s apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
Good to know that DC is a gun free zone however – so the city is safe.