Applications for concealed weapons permits up sharply in Va.

[beevul]

Applications for concealed weapons permits up sharply in Va.

By LARRY O'DELL Associated Press Writer
Published: April 11, 2008

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) _ Doug and Cheryl Camden were raised around guns but agreed not to keep them in their house after they got married and began raising five children of their own.

Then violent crime began to dominate daily news reports. Several businesses near their Chester restaurant were robbed, home invasions seemed to increase and the world just seemed to be getting much more dangerous.

So the Camdens are following the path taken by a sharply increasing number of Virginians: They’re applying for concealed weapons permits so they can begin carrying a gun for self-protection.

“It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse, for instance,” Hamm said.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/state_regional/article/applications_for_concealed_weapons_permits_up_sharply_in_va/13815/

How long has CCW been available in VA?

And that wacky petey hamm...suggesting he doesn't understand why reasonable people don't think allowing police and judges to decline someone a CCW arbitrarily is a good thing...

In the context of the article, that IS what is implied.


All in a good read though.

[iverglas]

1. wacky wackoid wackeroo

And that wacky petey hamm...suggesting he doesn't understand why reasonable people don't think allowing police and judges to decline someone a CCW arbitrarily is a good thing...

Was someone offering remedial reading referrals here recently?

I'll see whether I can find it for you.

[beevul]

2. Take remedial reading your self.

Hamms statement was:

"It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse, for instance,” Hamm said."

Now you go right ahead and explain, what form YOU think "allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse"
would take. Oh, and do make sure it fits the context of the article.


Ta.

[iverglas]

3. so's yer old man

It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse, for instance,” Hamm said.

Yup, that was indeed Hamm's statement. Now let's have it again, with a bit of emphasis:

It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse, for instance,” Hamm said.

And now here's your representation of that statement, with some corresponding emphasis:

And that wacky petey hamm...suggesting he doesn't understand why reasonable people don't think allowing police and judges to decline someone a CCW arbitrarily is a good thing...

not a good idea for SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN THREATENING A SPOUSE to be carrying a gun around
vs
declining someone a permit to be carrying a gun around ARBITRARILY

If ya take of those funny spectacles, you might be able to see the difference.

Here's yer context:

The General Assembly passed legislation in 1995 that eliminated most judicial discretion in approving or denying applicants. Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said that was a mistake.

“It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse, for instance,” Hamm said.

Another interesting wee bit:

Political considerations also are a factor for some permit applicants. Kliesen said many of his students fear a victory by either of the Democratic candidates for president could lead to tighter gun controls.

Yes, they're not paranoid right-wing assholes. Not at all.

Oh wait. Maybe they don't fear a victory by a Democratic candidate; maybe the just fear what a victorious Democratic candidate might do. Obviously, they're really Democratic Party supporters (you can tell by how well-informed they are, and what issues stir them to action), and everybody should be very concerned about losing their votes.

[beevul]

4. Nice try. Again, take that remedial reading your so fond of mentioning

"It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse, for instance,” Hamm said."


He did NOT say "It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if YOU have been threatening a spouse, for instance,”.


He did NOT say "not a good idea for SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN THREATENING A SPOUSE to be carrying a gun around"

Either you need remedial reading lessons, or hammie needs remedial speech lessons. If he meant what YOU say he did, he would have said EXACTLY that. He didn't. There are quite a few ways to say unambiguously exactly what YOU say he meant. He used none of them. The fact that he didn't MEANS something. Well, to everyone except you, apparently.


And once again, what form might police or judges saying "we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse" come in?

The form hammie is referring to is arbitrary denial of CCW.




"Kliesen said many of his students fear a victory by either of the Democratic candidates for president could lead to tighter gun controls." "Yes, they're not paranoid right-wing assholes. Not at all."

You madame, are full of it. Even Democrats can be alarmed by statements by Democrats to the effect of wishing to "ban all semi-automatic weapons" for example. Such alarm does not make one an right wing, nor does it make one an paranoid. Nope, doesn't even make one an asshole. Though some might say claiming those things would.


Entertaining, as always.

[iverglas]

5. remedial ethics may be in order

Can you just give your interpretation of what Hamm was saying -- your allegation as to what he meant?

I won't see it until tomorrow, but I'll be waiting with bated breath to see what weird and wonderful contortions you come up with in an attempt to prove whatever it is.

Maybe you would write to him and ask him. Instead of pretending that something -- something that is, by the way, a transcription of oral speech, which is sometimes crystal clear to a listener but less obvious to a reader -- means something, whatever you're pretending it means, different from what it so obviously means to anyone of moderate goodwill and moderate intelligence reading it.

At this point, I just haven't got the first clue what you're trying to say. Or not say.

[Tejas]

12. You and your "Hamm is indifferent" act is priceless

Where DO you come up with this stuff?


Hamm indifferent to gun policy......ha, that'll be the day!

[SteveM]

13. Yeah, pretty Hamm-handed of him.

[iverglas]

16. Where does who come up with this stuff?

Hamm indifferent to gun policy......ha, that'll be the day!

If you say so.

You being the only one who has said so.

Are you attempting to persuade someone that I said so?

Why would you be attempting to persuade someone of something that is the opposite of the truth??

[beevul]

15. Look...

"moderate goodwill and moderate intelligence"

Anyone of moderate goodwill or intelligence that intended to convey the message that "we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if YOU has been threatening a spouse" would actually say using those exact words "we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse".

Anyone of moderate goodwill or intelligence that intended to convey the message that "we don’t think it’s a good idea for someone to carry a gun around if that person has been threatening a spouse" would actually say using those exact words "we don’t think it’s a good idea for someone to carry a gun around if that person has been threatening a spouse".

People of moderate goodwill or intelligence don't usually utter a dogs breakfast such as the one in question, let alone defend it.


And thats entirely the point, right from the beginning, that you missed.

[iverglas]

17. no answer, eh?

So we'll take it as read that you have admitted that when you claimed that Hamm meant something other than what anyone of moderate intelligence and moderate goodwill knew he meant, you in fact knew perfectly well what he meant too.


typo fixed

[bossy22]

6. here i go

"It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse, for instance,” Hamm said."

i would not object to something like this if it was kept under strict scrutiny- but too often it turns into arbitrary denials- like here in Nassau County. The problem is the leeway they wan't is the way new york has it, in which a judge can basically say "i don't like black people, so i won't issue them any permits"...then again many judges in NYS upper regions are fair about it and truly make well thought out decisions based on the facts but when you get to the lower areas- its arbitrary denial city.

[Firethorn]

9. Already the case with restraining orders in some areas...

In some states having a restraining order against you is an automatic disqualification for possessing arms - you have to dispose of them immediately when a restraining order is signed against you.

Why is this a problem? In some of those same states it's a standard maneuver by divorce lawyers representing the woman to file a restraining order against the man. They'll quote vague fear, whatever and the Judge will grant it.

The theory is that having a restraining order against the man will predispose the court to find more towards the woman for various things like child custody, support, assets, etc... Heck, sheer disorientation as he tries to essentially answer an unanswerable question 'So when did you stop beating your wife?'. Note, I have no sympathy for beaters, whether they be male or female, beat on their spouse or children.

The bad part, of course, is the severe violation of the man's rights, as he's suddenly not allowed into his own home, he has to get rid of his guns(often he'll 'give' them to a friend/relative), his bank account has been emptied and credit cards maxed.

I've seen it. The woman decides that she wants a divorce, and proceeds to essentially loot the assets before filing.

[Testament]

7. Length that CCW has been around in VA.

Beevul,

Right to carry was passed in 1995, before then it was may issue. I do not know how long that goes back, but probably to the jim crow days.

[Redneck Socialist]

8. Hamm is no doubt aware that someone with a restraining order against them can't buy a gun

legally.

More of the usual from the Brady bunch.

That's what passes for 'balanced' reporting these days. If you've got a quote from a NRA nut and a Brady bunch nut you've got all the bases covered and it's roll the presses.

[russ1943]

10. Arbitrary

“It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support allowing police or judges to say we don’t think it’s a good idea for you to carry a gun around if someone has been threatening a spouse, for instance,” Hamm said.

And that wacky petey hamm...suggesting he doesn't understand why reasonable people don't think allowing police and judges to decline someone a CCW arbitrarily is a good thing...

In the context of the article, that IS what is implied.


Since Hamm, (as you quoted,) clearly provided an example, a scenario, that being; “if someone has been threatening a spouse”. He isn’t saying nor suggesting declining a CCW arbitrarily is a good thing at all.
A lot of people, IMHO most people, think that granting requests for CCW licenses under a “must or shall issue” basis is what is too arbitrary (the without rhyme or reason definition).
The prior (in many states) “may issue” standards had some safeguards that were eliminated. I know the gun enthusiasts seem to think that change, an improvement but there have been some folks who are getting CCW licenses that the old may issue standard could have prevented and that was a good thing. People well known to local law enforcement, spouses, families , neighbors even friends of people who have, um er “problems”. Many folks who aren’t disqualified under the law are just shy of legal prohibition but are just trouble waiting to happen.
Here in Michigan two of the three people who made the determination whether or not to approve the CCW shall issue license were elected officials. Point being, they reflected the citizens/voters views or they were voted out.
Didn’t stop our state legislature though from quoting “Professor” Lott and buying into the fraud known as “More Guns Less Crime” as they changed the law (during a lame duck session).

As to the Federal restriction of a spouse under a restraining order being prohibited from having or buying firearms, obviously there isn't always a restraining order in place and sometimes the local LEO may be aware of or at least can find out about, threats while their spouse is unaware.

[Tejas]

11. oh come on

You: "He isn’t saying nor suggesting declining a CCW arbitrarily is a good thing at all."

Hamm: "It’s hard to understand why reasonable people wouldn’t support....."


The day Hamm is indifferent will be the day flying pigs do exibitions at the local air show.



"Here in Michigan two of the three people who made the determination whether or not to approve the CCW shall issue license were elected officials. Point being, they reflected the citizens/voters views or they were voted out."

Your point isn't flying very well in DC at the moment, is it?

[SteveM]

14. "May issue" laws are ripe for abuse...

This kind of approach was used in the "literacy tests" given to black voters in much of the South prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Put another way, those giving the test can and did "flunk" back voters for ignorance of government functions, even when blacks had attended college and could answer most of the questions. Put another way, Diane Feinstein (a virulent prohibitionist) was issued a CCW and actually packed.

But you don't get one.

Shall issue is the only fair way to go with regards the regulations on concealed carry.

[iverglas]

18. how soon the tide turns

When it serves the gun-head agenda, it's all "women need gunz to protect themselves against big bad menz!!!"

When it serves the gun-head agenda, it's all "women are lying conniving bitches who will say anything to separate a man from his gunz!!!"

Transparent as water.

[bossy22]

19. can't they be

both? :)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. How about law abiding people, men or women, should have the right to defend themselves vs. criminals

[iverglas]

23. how about

Men who threaten their intimate partners with violence, or commit said violence, should not have legal access to firearms?


Damned hard to say, I know.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. It's already taken care of and all of us gun nuts approve.

It they have a restraining order against them, a domestic violence conviction or are a felon, they don't have legal access to firearms.

David

[virginia mountainman]

26. Iverglas,

If you will read the links, about Virginia CCW, you will see, that your concerns are covered...

Here are the requirements, that must be met, in order to purchase a firearm you must fill out several forms, these are the questions, that must be answered, if you lie, you will be caugt, their is a database, you will most likely be arrested before you leave the store, if you lie...It is a felony..

Also, if you fail to meet these reqiremnts, you are what is called a "prohibited possessor" and just being in the same room with ANY gun(under most circumstances), will mean hard time in prison.It is settled law, everyone in a room, is in possession of a gun that is stored.

A person who answers "yes" to any of the below questions may be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm pursuant to state and/or federal law.

1. Are you under indictment for a felony offense?

2. Have you ever been convicted, as an adult, in any court of a felony offense?

3. If you are 28 years old or younger, have you ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult?

4. Were you adjudicated delinquent on or after July 1, 2005, as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent after July 1, 2005 for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of you current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.)

5. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received?

6. Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court?

7. Is there an outstanding felony or misdemeanor warrant of arrest pending against you from any jurisdiction?

8. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any controlled substance? The Federal Gun Control Act defines an addicted person, or unlawful user, as a person who has a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.

9. Have you ever been adjudicated legally incompetent, mentally incapacitated, or been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?

10. Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable discharge?

11. Are you an alien illegally in the United States?

12. Are you a nonimmigrant alien? A nonimmigrant alien is prohibited from receiving a firearm unless he or she falls within an exception to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition (e.g., hunting license/permit; waiver).

13. Are you a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced your citizenship?

14. Have you ever been convicted for the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? This includes all misdemeanors that involve the use, threat of, or attempted use of physical force (e.g., simple assault, assault and battery) if the offense is committed by one of the following parties: a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

15. Are you a person who, within a 36 consecutive month period, has been convicted, under Virginia law, of 2 misdemeanor offenses for Possession of Controlled Substance or Possession of Marijuana?

EDITED, for clarification...

[krispos42]

27. It's usually men that are served up restraining orders, isn't it?

I don't know who files for divorce more often, women or men, but I'm pretty sure that the bulk of domestic restraining orders are against the male of the species. You've worked in this area for years, so you probably can offer a better opinion on it than I can.

Assuming that is true, then it is far more often that the men are separated from their guns then women from their guns.

And in a contested divorce, things get nasty, and emptying bank accounts and keeping your spouse's personal sentimental property just to irritate and annoy is par for such a thing. It happened to my boss.

Thank god mine was amicable.

[Firethorn]

29. Restraining orders... Common

And in a contested divorce, things get nasty, and emptying bank accounts and keeping your spouse's personal sentimental property just to irritate and annoy is par for such a thing. It happened to my boss.

It's my understanding that applying for a restraining order is pretty much standard procedure for some divorce lawyers in some jurisdictions, and the presentation to the judge is essentially a rubber stamp as they're always granted. The husband is then left trying to prove a negative (no, he didn't threaten/isn't threatening/isn't a danger to his wife).

Note, I'm not saying that they're not sometimes justified, but when you look at divorce proceedings and see a 90% restraining order rate, you know something is up. Especially when most aren't kept as soon as the court date arrives.

[SteveM]

28. Have a source for your quotes? Oh, sorry, it's you again. (nt)

[benEzra]

20. Ah, you can ALREADY deny someone who is making threats.

You cannot, however, deny someone who has not contributed sufficient cash to your reelection campaign, or who has not been in your circle of friends long enough, or whose lawful lifestyle choices you don't like.

[bossy22]

21. sounds like NYC

during Jooliani's reign

[virginia mountainman]

25. My wife and I both, hold VA CCW's

We have for almost 10 years...

Brady bunch is nothing more than a group full of petulant children..

Here is a link to the actual form you must fill out, to get a VA CCW...OUT OF STATERS TAKE NOTE...VA OFFERS "NON RESIDENT" PERMITS, that are honored by MOST (but not all) other CCW states, that VA has reciprocity with, or honors a VA CCW permit.. Just the thing for you folks in anti-gun bastions like Illinois, or NYC that like to travel.....

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/downloads/SP-248_revised_07-1-2006.pdf

Reciprocity Information...

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_Reciprocity.shtm


And since Brady Bunch, is talking PURE BULLSHIT again, here is the req to get a CCW in Virginia...

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_ResidentConcealed.shtm

Non Resident info...(LOL Wouldn't, that Sara Brady soil herself forcefully and repeatedly, if she knew out of state folks could get a VA CCW, more proof that, that disgusting republican "female" don't actually know bat shit about what she spouts)

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_NonresidentConcealed.shtm