Getting permit was the easy part

[TxD]

I wonder if any states will drop reciprocity with Virgina over this issue.
Even though this guy sounds like a member of the "Brady Bunch" there's
quite a bit to think about here.
http://www.roanoke.com/columnists/casey/wb/217144" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Getting permit was the easy part
By Dan Casey
Dan Casey is The Roanoke Times' metro columnist.

Thank you, Commonwealth of Virginia.
Thank you, Concealed Carry Institute.
Thank you, state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli.

All of you deserve my gratitude, because on Wednesday I joined 203,131 other Virginians who hold state-issued permits to carry loaded, concealed handguns in the commonwealth.

I can also carry a concealed handgun in 12 other states that grant reciprocity to Virginia permit holders. Among them are North Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Never mind that I have never fired a pistol.

Never mind than I have never gripped one in my fingers.

Never mind that, as of this column, I have never laid a finger on a handgun in my life.

Under Virginia law, that is no bar to obtaining a concealed carry permit.

You might wonder how something like this could come to pass.

Can any idiot get a concealed carry permit?

In Virginia, the answer is pretty much "Yes," with a few caveats.

You have to be at least 21. You need a clean criminal record. You can't be mentally ill, or be a drug addict or dealer. Or have a restraining order against you.

And you have to demonstrate "competence" with a gun.

That fine print about "competence" always was the sticking point for a handgun virgin like me.

In states such as Arizona, you have to take an eight-hour, in-person class to demonstrate gun competence. In Florida, an instructor must witness you handling and firing a weapon. In Delaware, you have to fire at least 100 rounds on a range with the instructor present.

Not in Virginia.

Thanks to a law introduced by Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax County, and passed by the Virginia General Assembly this year, you no longer need to demonstrate your competence to a live person.

Instead, you can take a one-hour, $40 streaming video course on the Internet, courtesy of the Concealed Carry Institute, whose owner, Robert Marcus, in December donated $1,000 to Cuccinelli's campaign for attorney general.

You can do it in the privacy of your own home, while you nurse a six-pack if you like.

And if you pass the true/false and multiple-choice quiz that comes after the video, your certificate pops up on your computer screen. You just press a button to print it out. It's easier than pulling a trigger.

Cuccinelli's law requires circuit court judges to accept my Concealed Carry Institute certificate as proof of competence.

None of that touching bullets, loading a gun or actually firing it stuff.

Then you take your printer-paper certificate down to the courthouse, fill out an application in the circuit court clerk's office, submit your fingerprints and photo, and then wait a month or so. The clerk calls when your permit is ready.

That is how I obtained my concealed carry permit without ever touching a handgun.

I spoke to Cuccinelli's campaign spokesman about this Thursday. He was not amused.

Chris LaCivita said, more or less, that nobody besides me would be foolish enough to get a permit without knowing how to handle a gun.

"You can go on your crusade about this ... but the bottom line is this: If you, as an individual, want to carry a concealed weapon without having the common sense to know how to use it, that's your choice," LaCivita said. "It's stupid, but it's your choice."

And it was legislation Cuccinelli wrote that gave me that choice.

The Virginia General Assembly passed this bill six times: three times in the state Senate and three time in the House of Delegates. Del. Steve Shannon, D-Fairfax, who is Cuccinelli's opponent in the attorney general's race, voted for it, too.

In a fit of common sense, Gov. Tim Kaine vetoed it.

Both the House and Senate voted to override that veto. So now it is the law of the land. It took effect July 1.

And I have my permit. Even though I have never laid a finger on a pistol in my life.

To me, that's final proof that Virginia's concealed carry law is insanely weak, utterly ridiculous and absolutely reckless.

It makes about as much sense as the General Assembly giving blind people permits to drive.

[Carrots]

"You can go on your crusade about this ... but the bottom line is this: If you, as an individual, want to carry a concealed weapon without having the common sense to know how to use it, that's your choice," LaCivita said. "It's stupid, but it's your choice."

This pretty much sums it up. You can't legislate against stupid, and stupid people will always do stupid things. Some folks will get away with it and some folks won't. Pay your money, make your choice and take your chance. Life 101 &c

[joe817]

I share your curiosity TxD. Thanks for posting.

[lonewolf]

I may be going out on a limb here, but there is no profieciency requirement that I am aware of with regards to owning/purchasing a handgun in the Great State of Texas. I am not saying that any nut case out there ought to be legal to carry concealed, but what does proficiency really have to do with it? IMHO, its more a case of understanding the can's and can't's, or do's and don't's of concealed carry. When, how, and under what circumstances, and what are the consequences of our actions? While it is true that it's very nice to have all license holders pass a proficiency test, that is just piece of the pie. My class passed two people that had never held a handgun before in their lives. Both asked enough questions of others at the range to qualify. Just barely, but qualify they did. While I hope to never have to use my weapon in a SD situation, I would really hate to have one of these folks backing me up. But the choice is theirs. If they make a bad decision and have a bad shoot, the burden is on them.

Having said all that, I personally believe that all CHL applicants should be reasonably proficient firearm operators and that the test right now is inadequate. I try to have a simplistic approach to matters like this. Having a weapon and carrying it, whether open or concealed, means that I will have to endure the consequences of any actions I may or may not take with that weapon.

A proficiency test does not mean one is proficient. If it did, then the idiots on crotch rockets that blow by me through traffic at 90+ doing wheelies would never have got a driver's license. Its just not a problem for them until they have to suffer the consequences of their actions. I guess I'm a little conflicted here.

[dicion]

Just gonna throw this out there, because someone else will eventually

The second amendment doesn't say anything about proficiency, or passing any tests.

That being said, I don't see a problem. A Firearm is a tool.

Do they make you pass a proficiency exam to carry a hammer?
What about a Staple gun?
A Knife?

So why should they to let you carry a firearm?
If you mess up and shoot someone negligently, well, then you go to jail for a very long time.
It's in YOUR best interest to know how to handle it.

[CLTX11]

Seems like a columnist would have a little better grammar....

[nitrogen]

Personally, I think it's a good idea to require a class for concealed weapons licensees.

IT's a good idea that they get a primer on the law, and someone verifies they can hit the broad side of a barn. I think it's a good way to allay fears of some of "any idiot" on the street wth a gun.

Having said that, I also think the requirement is unconstitutional. But I wouldn't fight it. I think its a good idea, and helps our cause more than hurts it, as long as it's not an excuse to deny a license. (i.e. a test impossible to pass.)

[PappaGun]

Do they make you pass a proficiency exam to carry a hammer?
What about a Staple gun?
A Knife?

So why should they to let you carry a firearm?
If you mess up and shoot someone negligently, well, then you go to jail for a very long time.
It's in YOUR best interest to know how to handle it.

I have to disagree. There is a big difference between a gun and a hammer or knife.
I realize the results can be the same with any of the above.
Yes, you (hopefully) will go to jail if you commit a crime with any of these "tool"('s).

A person who is not proficient with a hammer PROBABLY will not kill someone while working with said hammer.
The same can not be said for the firearm.

[Bart]

It's a smaller problem than not having literacy tests for voting.

[Liberty]

I don't believe much in classes, Most of its is just commonsense. Fer most of what needs to be said or understood about safety could be done with a small pamphlet explaining the 4 rules. Safety classes don't teach common sense. all the training in the world won't make a driver or a shooter any safer. Seems to me a lot of accidental discharges we see are from people that know better.
I think letting people vote that can't read and don't have a proper understanding of our Constitution is far more dangerous than letting the unwashed masses own guns.

There is no requirement in Texas to take any classes to buy guns today, and the biggest problem I see in Texas today is there are too many good guys running around unarmed. We need to fire out ways to to arm more good people, not to figure out way to make it more difficult.

[joe817]

I have to disagree. There is a big difference between a gun and a hammer or knife.

Put me in there too. I have to disagree.

After all, you DO have to have a driver's license to drive. And It has been proved again and again, a reckless driver can and does kill people. Is it any different to have a license to carry a gun with you all day, or 24/7 for that matter?

To simply purchase a gun? No. One shouldn't have to take a course merely to be able to purchase a gun. To have the ability to carry one everywhere you go in public? I say yes. Just as one has to demonstrate an ability to safely drive a vehicle on the public roads, one is required to display an ability to safely use a handgun....even in a deadly force situation, to get a CHL, and carry in public.

Could you imagine the absolute terror and chaos that would reign if we did NOT have driver's license laws in the State? I can't. Nor can I imagine what it would be like to have NO CHL laws to regulate who carries a gun in public.

[lfinsr]

It's a smaller problem than not having literacy tests for voting.

Criminals are not going to waste the time necessary to get the CHL.

Larry

[boomerang]

And it's easy to see the damage done by governments far exceeds that by guns in private hands.

[mbw]

Dicion- you are right on the money. I like the way you think!

There is no constitutionally protected right to be able to drive a car on public roads. Therefore governments can make a drivers license be as difficult or as easy to obtain as they like. The same is not true when it comes to our rights regarding firearms. Even though some in government service don’t seem to understand that there is a difference.

If memory serves-

There is a constitutionally protected right to “Keep and Bear” firearms. I believe that it is number 2 on the list of ten.

And what was the other part of number 2? Oh yeah now I remember, “Will Not Be Infringed”!

Too bad that so many in government service choose to not understand or dismiss outright guaranteed enumerated rights, while on the other hand choosing to recognize rights that fit their particular political agenda

[shootthesheet]

I believe that any law abiding person that has not committed a violent crime should be able to "keep" (own) and "bear" (carry with them without restriction) arms. It is an abomination to me that any government has any control over arms. To suggest we must have government permission to exercise this right verges on tyranny if it is not tyranny. We have laws against violent crime so we should not ever let a person back into the society until they can prove they will not use any weapon to take the rights of others. We need no law to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms. We do not need to continue to punish the innocent majority because of the criminal behavior of a small minority that commits the majority of crime. Free men and women have no need for laws that "control" their actions. That is the personal responsibility of every free person. Anyone who cannot control themselves should be removed from it until they are sufficiently punished to the point they will not risk loss of self control that infringes on the rights of others. Punish the guilty and leave the innocent to their own choices.