Virginia Halts Concealed Carry Reciprocity With 25 States

[Jarlaxle]

Wrong....he wants to ban muslims who cannot be properly vetted.....nice lie though.

Not a lie. Trump wants a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". His exact words.

Followed by the rest of his exact words where he said until the government can get it's act together...but thanks again for lying.

Oh. I see. Then we better ban all guns until the government can get its act together and properly vet gun owners. After all, there have been 12,924 gun homicides in the US so far this year.

Compare that to 19 people killed by Muslim terrorists.

Thanks again for playing.

Sorry.....owning a gun is a Right that "Shall not be infringed" ....being from Syria and trying to move to America is not a right.....try getting that straight.

States rights, dude. 10th Amendment.

Virginia does not have to honor the concealed carry permits of killers from other states. The risk is just too great.

Vigilance!

Full Faith and Credit Clause, dude...Article IV, Section 1.

The states affected should simply announce that, as of February 1, they will no longer honor drivers' licenses from Virginia!

 

[AVG-JOE]

If you are an Alabama wife beater, don't be going to Virginia with a gun. Y'all hear now?

I live in Nevada, but my CWP is from South Carolina because that is where I lived when I had it issued. Nevada has a reciprocity agreement with South Carolina so my CWP is good here until it expires in 2017. If the State Attorney General suddenly decreed Nevada would no longer honor CWPs from SC suddenly I'd no longer legally be able to carry despite the fact I've only ever fired either of my guns at a gun range and I've never been arrested for anything in my life.

As I said before, I suspect this is nothing more than a lame attempt by a gun grabbing leftist to push an agenda they can't win on when it comes to a vote by the people and you, for what ever reason, seem to be swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

I'm also curious how the Attorney General of Virginia can suddenly just wave his hand and declare this. In Nevada, these agreements are voted on by the legislature. His action may not even be legal.

Sounds like it wouldn't be terribly difficult for you to get one issued by Nevada if your SC card became void... and it sounds like you would have no problem passing a national standard for a permit.

I think that's the point and I think that a national standard that all the states can recognize is a good idea both for folks like you who obey the law, and for the folks who work in law enforcement trying to deal with the assholes who don't.

I agree. Being the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, there should be a national standard, but you're never going to get the blue state representatives to agree to one. They already tried to pass a nation concealed carry bill a few years ago and it died in the Senate because a couple of Republicans wouldn't go along.

I don't have a FL card yet, but I'm considering it for 2016.

It's strange... some national standards would solve a lot of problems. The drawback is that a database is required and privacy is an issue.

On the other hand I trust the federal government as least as much as I trust the good ol' boys currently running The Great State Of Florida.

**** knows I trust them both with my personal records a hell of a lot more than I trust some corporation that can be sold to another corporation now headquartered in Dubai.



I'd love see a federal weapons permit along with a rule that says that if you put a gun in the hands of someone with out one, and they shoot someone with malice, you're fucked.

`​

You trust the federal government? The same government that admitted its personnel files including agents has been hacked?

What organization worth hacking hasn't been hacked?

We, The Peeps appear to be doing right by our employees... at least there has been relatively little bitching about it in the news.

 

[The Rabbi]

I like keeping my IRS records with an organization I get a vote in.

What election was Koskinen on the ballot of?

 

[AVG-JOE]

and

 

[JoeB131]

I agree. Being the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, there should be a national standard, but you're never going to get the blue state representatives to agree to one. They already tried to pass a nation concealed carry bill a few years ago and it died in the Senate because a couple of Republicans wouldn't go along.

How about the standard in the Constitution. You know, the one about a "well-regulated" militia.

You can have a gun if you are in a militia, regularly reporting for duty. That seems reasonable.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No... the right of individual citizens to bear arms is undeniably there. What's vague is any definition to the word 'arms'.

Obviously limits have been set. It doesn't matter how deep your pockets are, you can't buy an armed F-16.

Those who define 'arms' as without limit crack me up. Obviously, We, The Peeps can and do set limits.

 

[The Rabbi]

No... the right of individual citizens to bear arms is undeniably there. What's vague is any definition to the word 'arms'.

Obviously limits have been set. It doesn't matter how deep your pockets are, you can't buy an armed F-16.

Those who define 'arms' as without limit crack me up. Obviously, We, The Peeps can and do set limits.

Scalia covered this in Heller. It means what an individual soldier would carry, as opposed to a crew served weapon.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Which makes perfect sense: a militiaman's weapon is, in fact, an infantryman's weapon. In 1789, it was a flintlock musket. In 1860, it was a rifled musket, a Sharps breechloader, or possibly a Spencer lever-action. In 1916, it was a bolt-action rifle or a BAR. In 1940, it was an M1 Garand or a BAR.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No... the right of individual citizens to bear arms is undeniably there. What's vague is any definition to the word 'arms'.

Obviously limits have been set. It doesn't matter how deep your pockets are, you can't buy an armed F-16.

Those who define 'arms' as without limit crack me up. Obviously, We, The Peeps can and do set limits.

Scalia covered this in Heller. It means what an individual soldier would carry, as opposed to a crew served weapon.

Thank you. Limits can and are being set as to the availability of firearms to the general public.

Once more of us get past that fact, the actual negotiating toward a better future can begin.

 

[The Rabbi]

No... the right of individual citizens to bear arms is undeniably there. What's vague is any definition to the word 'arms'.

Obviously limits have been set. It doesn't matter how deep your pockets are, you can't buy an armed F-16.

Those who define 'arms' as without limit crack me up. Obviously, We, The Peeps can and do set limits.

Scalia covered this in Heller. It means what an individual soldier would carry, as opposed to a crew served weapon.

Thank you. Limits can and are being set as to the availability of firearms to the general public.

Once more of us get past that fact, the actual negotiating toward a better future can begin.

There is no negotiating. All restrictions are ineffective on keeping guns from criminals.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I disagree.

Few and far between are the modern mass shooting incidents involving crazy people with money to burn and M-1 tanks.

Somewhere between BB guns and aircraft carriers is a list of weapons that is reasonable for the general public in America to have access to. Negotiating that list has been underway since the explosion of available weapons between the World Wars and We took Tommy-guns away from us in the 1930's and 1940's.

 

[FA_Q2]

I notice that you didn't bother to back that up.

Perhaps you would like to show how they count burglaries where the resident was at home differently than they count them here.

I don't usually bother citing studies, because you guys ignore them. You live in your own fantasy worlds of NRA Propaganda that the rest of the world that doesn't let every yahoo own a gun is somehow less safe than we are.

Cop in the Hood: Burglary, Guns, and the UK

One of the thing 2nd-Amendment advocates love pointing out is the England has a much higher burglary rate than the US. Best I can tell this is due the mostly to the publications of one professor.

The subtext (or main text) of the more guns equals fewer burglaries argument, of course, is that if the government restricts guns (the U.K. has strict gun control laws) then burglars become fearless and break into our home, steal our property, and rape our children.

In the US, thanks to God and guns, we shoot our burglars. Ergo there are fewer burglaries. Hence our properties (and children) are safe.

Well best I can figure (looking at those pesky figures we call "facts") burglary in the U.S. is much more common than burglary in the U.K.

So why the confusion? Over here in England and Wales (that's a statistical unit in the U.K., which is really what I'm refering to when I say the U.K.), if you're trying to get into a property with intent to "cause damage," that's burglary. "Attempted burglaries" are counted as burglaries in the U.K. Not in the U.S. In the U.K., you don't have tosteal something to be a burglar. You don't even have to break in!

Now I'm not here to tell you which is a better definition of burglary. Frankly, I don't give a damn. But I do want to point out that the official stats for burglary in the U.K. are going to be much higher than the official stats for burglary in the U.S. because burglary in the U.K. is defined much more broadly.

In the U.S., a UCR-defined burglary means you broke into a place to commit theft. In the U.S., criminal trespassing as a seperate charge. In the U.K. it's burglary. In the U.K., even attempted criminal trespassing is burglary. That makes a big difference in the stats.

The relevant point was burglaries while a member of the household was PRESENT. I can locate that figure in the US crime statistics. I am having more difficulty doing so in UK statistics.

 

[The Rabbi]

I disagree.

Few and far between are the modern mass shooting incidents involving crazy people with money to burn and M-1 tanks.

Somewhere between BB guns and aircraft carriers is a list of weapons that is reasonable for the general public in America to have access to. Negotiating that list has been underway since the explosion of available weapons between the World Wars and We took Tommy-guns away from us in the 1930's and 1940's.

Plenty of people have Thompson subs. So your assertion is wrong.
I already laid out what Scalia said: Whatever goes by the term personal weapon is something the militia would use.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree.

Few and far between are the modern mass shooting incidents involving crazy people with money to burn and M-1 tanks.

Somewhere between BB guns and aircraft carriers is a list of weapons that is reasonable for the general public in America to have access to. Negotiating that list has been underway since the explosion of available weapons between the World Wars and We took Tommy-guns away from us in the 1930's and 1940's.

I think that was the relevant point when he stated it was anything that a general infantryman would carry. There is no negotiation in that - it is a fairly clear distinction and is pretty damn reasonable if you ask me. You cannot have a fully automatic grenade launcher. You can, however, carry an M-4. The constant bickering about magazine size and weather or not it can have a bayonet attachment is asinine - such restrictions are meaningless.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree.

Few and far between are the modern mass shooting incidents involving crazy people with money to burn and M-1 tanks.

Somewhere between BB guns and aircraft carriers is a list of weapons that is reasonable for the general public in America to have access to. Negotiating that list has been underway since the explosion of available weapons between the World Wars and We took Tommy-guns away from us in the 1930's and 1940's.

Plenty of people have Thompson subs. So your assertion is wrong.
I already laid out what Scalia said: Whatever goes by the term personal weapon is something the militia would use.

You can but they are regulated. That is not a relevant point when talking about weather or not the regulations are effective unless you compare the likelihood of a mass shooting with such a weapon to a time when those regulations were not present.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The Governor feels so strongly about it, the GOP Legislature is going to accommodate his passion and remove armed protection for the gubner. Take a gun away from a Liberal elite and watch them shit themselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

I disagree.

Few and far between are the modern mass shooting incidents involving crazy people with money to burn and M-1 tanks.

Somewhere between BB guns and aircraft carriers is a list of weapons that is reasonable for the general public in America to have access to. Negotiating that list has been underway since the explosion of available weapons between the World Wars and We took Tommy-guns away from us in the 1930's and 1940's.

Plenty of people have Thompson subs. So your assertion is wrong.
I already laid out what Scalia said: Whatever goes by the term personal weapon is something the militia would use.

You can but they are regulated. That is not a relevant point when talking about weather or not the regulations are effective unless you compare the likelihood of a mass shooting with such a weapon to a time when those regulations were not present.

All guns are regulated. The full auto stuff is more so. And there has been only one case of someone committing a murder with one. A cop killed his CI.
And if someone tried a mass shooting with a full auto the results would be better (i.e. fewer people killed) than with a semi.

 

[JoeB131]

The relevant point was burglaries while a member of the household was PRESENT. I can locate that figure in the US crime statistics. I am having more difficulty doing so in UK statistics.

Technically, those would be home invasions, not burglaries.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Democrat elite depend on armed protection yet have issues with people clinging guns for protection. When is America who votes for these elites going to realize they are being played: "Do as I say, not as I do!" These dem sheeple are being duped.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well you would be wrong on that assumption.

I go through the same thing as a landlord. I don't care about the color of a person, all I care about is that they pay rent on time, keep the place clean, and be quiet after 11:00 pm on work nights. The less problem they are for me, the more I value their residency.

However, I cannot say that I'm comfortable renting to blacks. Why? Because they have special laws protecting them that can be a real problem for me even if I'm within my rights.

For instance my Uncle had to go to court several times to protect himself from a discrimination charge by former black tenants. They didn't need any evidence that race was even an issue, only the charge counted.

That takes a lot of time, a lot of money, and you still risk being found guilty because of black judges or juries. In most cases, it's thrown out of court, but again, it's expensive, time consuming and anything can go wrong.

If I rent to white people, I don't have to worry about things like that. If they become a pain in my ass, I just kick them out or raise their rent considerably. I don't have to worry about being dragged into court. My leases are on a month-to-month basis and I can throw them out anytime I desire.

I owned rental property between 1987 and 2000. The most fucked up tenants I had were white people who pulled a "Midnight move" owing me two months rent. Oh, yeah, and they had a big old Confederate Flag in their living room. That was classy. But we were talking about jobs, not rentals... SO let's try to get back to that, okay?

An employer faces the same dilemma. I've seen it with our customers who had black employees. They are in great fear of getting rid of those blacks who are lazy and don't do very much work. If an employer hires a white person, those burdens are lifted from his or her shoulders. If they don't work out, they fire the employee or lay them off. They don't have to worry about being labeled and having to face lawsuits.

Frankly, I've seen employers fire black folks without much of a second thought. One black lady I worked with was the one who got fired so that Mr. Mid Life Crisis could rehire his young drinking buddy to be a "Production Scheduler", a job he had no qualifications to do.

I've seen another lady who was fired when management realized she was gay. I personally got let go after having medical issues.

So frankly, I really don't believe employers when they make any claims.

strikes me if you have an employee who isn't motivated, you kind of suck as a manager.

Sure it's a concern. How could it not be? Do you know how many ambulance chasers take cases like that?

And again, it's not that the minority has any real chance at getting such a case decided in his or her favor. But if you have nothing better to do, what the hell? It's like buying a lottery ticket. And even if that's not the motivation, getting even with the employer that fired you can be.