Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman At-large Corey Stewart (R) announced a controversial proposal to eliminate all county concealed handgun permitting fees.
If passed, Prince William County will be the first locality in Virginia to eliminate permit fees, and Stewart expects other jurisdictions may do the same.
According to Stewart’s media release, he believes the proposed policy would benefit all of the law-abiding citizens who pass existing state background checks and meet state statutory requirements for the issuance of the permit.
Stewart insinuates the proposal is a response to Attorney General Mark Herring’s (D) announcement that Virginia would no longer recognize out of state concealed handgun permits.
“I support the rights of Prince William County citizens. Look no further than here in Virginia, where our current Attorney General has put gun owners in a position of defending the exercise of their Second Amendment rights rather than expanding them,” said Stewart. “This policy allows well-qualified citizens to freely exercise their Second Amendment rights. Eliminating the fee will remove another barrier for our citizens.”
Stewart says the Prince William County Sheriff and Clerk of the Court have been recognized for offering citizens high levels of service, including the timely processing of concealed handgun applications.
Gun control issues are among the most highly divisive in the nation and in purple Virginia. Generally, Democrats want somewhat stricter gun control laws to keep guns out the wrong hands; while, Republicans believe responsible gun owners can help protect a citizenry from criminals with guns.
Corey, don’t be an ass. Seriously. Your lame efforts in no way will allow more people to carry a concealed weapon. I am not so sure people who can’t afford the $50 fee should be carrying concealed.
Good. Maybe all the street people who are begging at the stop signs can now be CHP holders. They can just hold us up at the stop lights. That makes about as much sense as you getting back at Mark Herring.
PWC needs all the revenue it can get. I hope your policy is rejected soundly. This isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing. Its a matter of stupid vs even more stupid.
Corey, if you want to get your conservative cred, take a leadership role on coal ash release into the Potomac. CONSERVE our water. Lower class size. CONSERVE our kids. Oh, but wait, that takes money that you are giving away to the gun owners. Fix the effen potholes. That would CONSERVE our cars and prevent wrecks which would CONSERVE our lives.
Anyone who wants to be a CHPper can jolly well pay for it. We don’t want every Tom, Dick or Harry to be running around playing cops and robbers Stop confusing cheap with conservative.
HOW TO GET A CHP IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
Stop giving away PWC revenue! For the record, I wouldn’t mind refunding some of the money in the event a permit is denied, for whatever reason.
I like it. Is there a fee to exercise the right to vote? How about obtain a drivers license? Considering the costs associated with taking the mandatory safety courses, removing the permit fees is lessening the financial burden of obtaining a CHP.
It isn;t like PWC is in the position to be giving away money.
There are hidden costs to voting. Getting that ID for starters. Then, if you vote absentee, guess who buys the stamp.
How about marriage? Hmmmm…there are all sorts of fees associated with it.
I would rather contribute to a fund. Sorry, when I have to license my dogs, I am not in the mood to be letting a CHP holder off the hook. Why must I pay to have a dog? Why must I pay to have permits to build a deck?
This is all a ruse anyway. Corey wants his conservative cred and I will give him a hard time about it.
So much for fiscal responsibility. When I was active as a Republican, one of the party’s hallmarks was budgetary discipline. It costs money to process applications. I paid around $45 in Fairfax for my CHP. I have no problem with that. The costs of the mandatory safety courses (which are meaningless) are all of $20.
I agree, Scout. To show how little I know about it, I thought the State got the money until I heard Corey.
Corey always confuses cheap with conservative.
One of the afflictions of what passes for “conservatism” or “Republicanism” in our shallow times is the absence of seriousness about fiscal responsibility. Instead, most candidates (who, by the way don’t stop being candidates after election to make way for governance) just look for ways to throw candy at voters in the form of tax cuts or opposition to revenue measures. Fiscal responsibility is an equation between efficient provision of necessary government services and ensuring adequate revenues to pay for those services.
I realize that this post, however, is about candy in the form of relaxed gun regulations, but it does also reflect on fiscal discipline. On the public safety side, how thorough and efficient do we expect review of CHP applications to be in Prince William if there is no money to pay for the review process?
You have brought up an excellent point, Scout. Will there be any residency requirement or will people flock from all over the state to pick up their cheap (free) permit? Will we be slammed with requests?
I don’t think Corey thought this one through to its logical conclusion.
Back in the day, being a conservative was all about protecting how money was spent and protecting people from outside change. It wasn’t about trumped up artificial values. I hate to do it, but I am going to use Richard Nixon as an example. He knew that, for example, it saved money to make sure people, especially young people, didn’t have unwanted children that the government would have to support. That was a true conservative value.
Now all you hear is shrieking about the gubbmint in your business and then more shrieking about abortion and having to have contraception as part of health care. It makes no sense to me.
I think you both are missing the point, and the broader objective, which is “Constitutional” or “permitless” carry. Currently, 7 states have carry without permit. In this respect, permits can be issued if one wishes to carry within another state, which recognizes these. Otherwise, no permit required to carry in-state.
I don’t have a problem if someone guards their home without a permit. I do have a problem if someone is walking around with a concealed weapon without a permit. This isn’t the wild west. I think a permit is needed. There need to be fees to process said permit.
@ Steve: That may YOUR broader objective, but I’m not sure that it can or should be a County Board of Supervisors member’s objective. If Virginia is to sweep away even the gossamer filaments of what passes for its current regulations governing access to deadly weapons in the Commonwealth, I would favor that discussion happening in Richmond, not at the McCoart Center. In the meantime, this looks to me like a fiscally irresponsible pol gimmick, using public monies to pay for campaign enticements.
One of Stewart’s perennial weaknesses is that he has always been a gimmick pol, always looking for the next one issue to carry him forward. He has had mixed success, but the constant is that he rides a selects out a horse that he thinks will get him votes to the next station, and rides it until it’s dead. Then he picks the next thing. You can trace it through since the beginning of his public career – Rural Crescent, developer contributions, Immigration nonsense, etc. It’s sort of like a new prom theme until the next one comes along. Now this.
@Scout
Scout,
I agree with your characterization of Stewart’s career political strategy. Rarely does he develop novel ideas…he coopts them. This is no different. VCDL has been asking for this for a couple of years, ans Stewart has picked it up as a campaign issue. Having the support if VCDL in a statewide race is something Stewart sees as advantageous. Really though, is this any different than an anti-gun organization preparing a “study” comparing the gun-laws of various states whose permits Virginia recognizes, handing it to the AG, and having the AG direct the VSP to cease recognition or reciprocity? No, it isn’t any different. Herring wants to make guns an issue to first secure his party’s nomination for Governor, and then use this issue to win the general. The AG has created a “solution” to a non-existent problem and is using ( or perhaps abusing) the power of his office to do so. Stewart’s actions are no different, although I might point out that Stewart’s plan marginally expands Constitutional rights, while the AG’s actions massively restrict them.
On paper it looks good…in both cases. As long as mental health and guns work apart rather than together there will be no solution.
I am one of those who doesn’t lump urban gun violence to crazed gun violence. Totally different causes, etymology, etc. The only similarity is the tool.
Then there is suicide and just pure old rage gone wrong. I don’t like suicide being lumped into the gun stats. I am one of those people who also thinks if people want to off themselves, at some point that becomes their business. Does it really matter if they use a gun, a knife, pills or run off a cliff? My only request is that they hurt no one else. I wouldn’t risk my own life to talk someone off a ledge unless it were one of my kids.
How many politicians are doing the same thing as you just described with reproductive rights? It’s really the same thing in many cases. Political grand standing.
My gripe with Herring’s actions would be now every jackass in the world can come in and open carry. I would much rather the issue be subtle. CHP beats ak-47 in Walmart any day of the week.
Much as I like Scout, he and I disagree on open vs concealed. I prefer the ostrich approach. Actually, I think open carry is confrontational and concealed is far safer.
I base this on some of the yahoos I have known in my life. People who carry concealed are far more respectful and less flamboyant than those who don’t, in my opinion. Does that equal “law-abiding?” Not sure but it the CHP were far less disruptive. The confrontation is gone unless there is a need for it.
The bottom line is, no one really has any clue what to do about serial blaze of glory killers. The guns rights people want to protect their turf and dig in. The anti guns rights people want to fix it but don’t pay much attention to cause and effect.
Probably the best answers can be found talking to Creigh Deeds. Then you cross over into an entirely different set of rights that are protected.
No arguments here. Take the current GOP and Dem front-runners for President. Lot’s of “evolving” positions.
@Moon-howler
I also prefer concealed carry to open-carry. One of the reasons why it is less “flamboyant” by its very nature, it is intended to go about armed, discreetly, and not draw attention to the carrier. If, as a by-product, people are less “alarmed” by this discretion, all the better.
I predict the AG and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence will come to regret this action. Open-carry will become a regular practice, with out-of-staters, and in-staters wishing to stand with them…and there is nothing the AG and this Bloomberg/Brady front-group can do to stop them. Since there wasn’t a problem with out-of-state permit holders engaging in criminal acts, the AG’S actions will not reduce crime. The site of open-carry will make some feel less safe, negating any “feel good” benefits from severing recognition.
And the authority to regulate reciprocity and recognition might get stripped from the AG’S office, by legislation. This might be a politically costly decision for the AG.
It sounds good but I don’t know of any cases where an out of state concealed carry person has done any dastardly deeds.
Back to Creigh Deeds.
I will be honest…I think both sides are blocking the way to real solutions.
@Moon-howler
Moon, We need to deal with Mental illness in a much broader context, than the gun-control discussion. I’m with you there. Deed’s son attacked him with a knife, then shot himself. He knows 1st hand how the mental health system is an abject failure. I support his efforts to strengthen the emergency custody laws, and the resources needed to provide care. As long as the final product ensures due process for the subject, I have no issues.
What that has to do with CHP’s escapes me. CHP’s are vetted…in every state that issues them. If there is a definition of “Law-abiding armed citizen”, it is a CHP holder. The AG poked the wrong bear.
To your last point, CHPs are vetted with widely varying degrees of assiduousness, Steve. As I’ve noted before, there is virtually no vetting in Virginia. A $20 on-line “training” certificate and a clean police/protective order record and you’re there. A laughable as that is, I’m sure that there are other states where the standards are even lower, crazy as that may seem. Would not we expect open carry people to be just as law-abiding as concealed carry people? If we required open carry, but also required a permitting process that had the same trivial requirements as CHP holders now must meet, I would expect open carry folks to be “law-abiding armed citizens.”
I find it interesting that both Moon and Steve favor concealed carry for similar, but not identical reasons. Moon describes her view as the “ostrich approach” and sees open carry as “confrontational”. Steve is concerned that if we didn’t have concealed carry, the citizens would feel “less safe” or “alarmed” by a lot of open carry. He describes open carry as “flamboyant” and notes that concealed carry doesn’t “draw attention” to the bearer.
My campaign for abolishing concealed carry and requiring those who need deadly force on their persons to go about their daily business to do so openly is based on several distinct, but complementary ideas: 1) we would have better public firearms policy discussions if people could see how prevalent firearms reliance is; 2) people who think it a sign of extreme bad judgment, fearfulness and/or poor risk analysis for folks to carry deadly weapons about with them could avoid a visible firearm bearer without infringing on his/her rights to carry; 3) I suspect that a sizable proportion of the folks who walk around carrying weapons have some kind of fantasy life idea that they are a kind of Junior G-Man who will foil the next bank robbery, terrorist attack, or carjacking that occurs in their presence or, alternatively, they have some psychological issue that makes them feel more important or meaningful to have a gun on their person. Carrying open would force them to think a bit about whether those motivations are reason enough to carry a weapon with those foibles on display and would, in all likelihood, substantially reduce the number of people carrying weapons or at least limit the occasions on which they do so. I think if you gave truth serum to a lot of concealed carriers, they’d admit that they carry because it makes them feel good or more important or something along those lines, and that they wouldn’t do so if their neighbors knew that they were using guns to address those emotional or psychological issues. As with item 2), above, open carry also permits their fellow citizens to give this latter category of people a wide berth, a right that I feel the state owes me.
I have no doubt that the Second Amendment would permit states or municipalities to ban concealed carry altogether. It would have no impact on the right to bear arms, but would put all of us in a better position to react to the prevalence of weapons in our daily lives.
By the way, I should add that I don’t consider Steve to fall into these categories. I recognize that he is a conscientious, well-trained bearer who no doubt has rational reasons that support his conclusion that he has use for a weapon in his daily life. If every gun-bearer was as skilled and conscientious as Steve, I would be less concerned about the proliferation of firearms in this country. Nonetheless, I see no reason for there to be a constitutional right that has to be hidden. I also suspect that his correct analysis that widespread open carry would cause alarm and make people feel less safe has a political component. Because Steve advocates minimal regulation of firearms, I think he sees concealed carry as a way of damping down pro-gun control advocacy and opinion. He’s quite right about that, but I would prefer that citizens know exactly what’s going on when they form their views.
First off, I agree about Steve. I can tell you for a fact that I was once very glad that he did. I also assumed he was carrying. I was right. I knew he was, in my own mind. Now, would I have felt that secure had I been standing on a corner talking to someone who wasn’t Steve? Probably not. I know Steve isn’t going to hot dog a situation or make matters worse. I also know people who would exacerbate a situation and make it 10 times worse.
I suppose the difference here is that I would give Steve unlimited gun rights because he is a responsible, well-trained individual. I don’t want to extend those rights to just anyone. That’s my problem.
Scout said
Unfortunately, I feel this statement describes some people. I have known several that fit this description. I don’t want to give them a wide berth. I want someone to take those people’s guns away.
I want to know who is such a confrontational a-hole or has lots of criminally-minded violent enemies that s/he needs a gun to protect themselves. I want to avoid such people because they make a place dangerous. I don’t want to be collateral damage.
I also want to avoid those who don’t have a grounded sense of the risk of guns being misused and think that carrying a loaded firearm is a magic talisman against evil. That mental instability is not in itself dangerous as long as they don’t have a dangerous weapon readily available in a public place. Thus I object to concealed carry except for a few exceptions like trained guards and plain-clothed police.
Yes I am one who complains to the establishment when I see people with guns in a restaurant or department store. Gun owners don’t want private places banning guns so their end run around my freedom from collateral injury is to hide risk information from me by allowing everyone (including criminals) to carry weapons concealed. Concealed carry is a fraud perpetrated on the public by gun owners.
Ed, would you be happy if guns were banned totally or limited to just military use?
Under what circumstances do you think it is ok for someone to have a gun, either personally or professionally?
Actually I want to thank you for Paragraph 1. I laughed. I know you were being serious but just how you said it made me laugh.
Moon – we both agree that Steve could meet almost any standard that might be imposed for carrying a deadly firearm, whether openly or concealed. However, we live in a state where there are no requirements for carrying open, and the most gossamer threads constraining those who wish to carry concealed. My notion is to have high standards of training and competence before one issues an open carry permit. No concealed carry for anyone other than Law Enforcement Officers.
In the situation you allude to with Steve, would you not have felt equally as safe if he had been carrying open?
I have this feeling that the concealed carry issue is much more central to our national discussion about firearms than is openly acknowledged. It has kind of slipped in under the radar. However, I can think of no constitutional reason that we have to permit concealed carry at all, let alone view it as a default position for citizens arming themselves as they go to the grocery store. If someone wants to exercise a constitutional right at the Giant, they should be willing to do it openly.
The only difference would have been, if he had been carrying open, would be that I would have KNOWN rather than assumed.
@moon, I would be happy if handguns were banned from any public space with a population density higher than say 5 people per acre. I’m OK with people having handguns for home defense and long guns for hunting or whatever. At a population density of 1 person per 10 acres or less I think any gun is permissible in public. (Thus one could carry a gun while hunting or killing varmint provided the hunter stays away from populated areas.)
In densely populated areas, the presence of a gun in public is a danger to too many people. Since there is no hunting opportunity the constitutional right to life free of accidental gun discharge or the prejudicial use of a gun to kill others because the gun owner was overly frightened by the presence of a person of color or a gang of people or is just crazy overrules the right to carry a gun. The right to life of a gun owner and the right to life of a victim must be balanced and in a high density area the balance tips to banning handguns for the safety of everyone else.
In a perfect world, I might be inclined to agree with you. What do we do about criminals who wish to harm us?
It is easier to have guards and cameras and other protective devices in highly populated areas to eliminate the need for each person to have a deadly device to protect themselves from criminals. Most people already have an excellent protective device–a car. If I was up against a band of thugs wanting to do violence I’d trade a gun for a car to improve my chances of survival.
Protection in a home is a different matter since most often the criminal is known to the victim. Thus I support giving more freedom to people in their homes to have guns if that is what they determine they need. I prefer non lethal defenses, but it is hard to have much sympathy for violent attackers who get killed by their intended victim who has a gun.