Tuesday, September 22, 2020
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Carrying a gun: Legal, yes, but…

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
A holstered Glock 17: No, this is not how I dress to wear a weapon in public.
A holstered Glock 17: No, this is not how I dress to wear a weapon in public.

Like many Americans, I have a concealed carry  permit, issued by a Circuit Court in Virginia.

My weapon of choice when I choose to carry is a Glock 17, a large and accurate 9mm semi-automatic sidearm that is not easily hidden.  It holds 17 rounds in the magazine and has another in the chamber whenever I carry.

In Virginia, like a growing number of states, I don’t need a CCP to carry a weapon openly.  Virginia has Open Carry, which allows just about anyone without a felony conviction or a record of mental commitments to sport a weapon in public.

Why do I carry?  Primarily because I can, under the law.  I also support the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and believe in self defense.

Is a Glock 17 overkill as a self-defense weapon?  Some might say so.  I want an edge when it comes to protecting my family, although some might also say my wife doesn’t need protection.  She also carries and is a dead shot.

Fortunately, I’ve never had to pull my weapon against another person in a civilian situation.  I hope I never do.

Unfortunately, I see a number of people in public nowadays who strut like military wannabes with an AR-15 assault style rife slung over their shoulder.  Too many states, Virginia included, have relaxed their laws to the point where people with no training can, and do, walk around with lethal armament.

Most jurisdictions in Virginia allow residents to take an online course to provide the only documentation they need when applying concealed for a carry permit.  The open carry law allows people who have never touched a gun in their lives to purchase one legally and carry it out in the open.

No actual gun training, on a range or for use or safety, is required.

The veteran with service in Afghanistan owned his weapons legally and killed five police officers and wounded seven more in Dallas last week.  The man who opened fire and killed 49 and wounded 53 more in an Orlando nightclub in June legally purchased his weapons.  He had been the subject of an FBI inquiry and had expressed support for international terrorism.

Are laws strong enough to control those who have legal access to firearms?

Some might say no.  Others say yes.  The arguments are varied and sometimes contradictory.  In Virginia, the state attorney general wanted to cancel reciprocal concealed carry agreements with states that allow individuals convicted of domestic abuse or sexual abuse to obtain a CCP.  Virginia outlaws CCPs for such people.  Other states do not.  The Federal Government now prohibits gun purchases by those with domestic abuse records.

Last year, a candidate for sheriff in my home county publicly questioned whether or not I should be allowed to own or carry a firearm because I suffered TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) in a motorcycle crash in 2012.

The Circuit Judge who signed my CCP renewal in December laughed about the statement by the candidate, who was motivated not by legality but by my writing about his actions in the campaign.

The retiring sheriff laughed too.

“Everyone here knows you were brain damaged long before your crash,” he said.

Brain damage like mine can restrict driving privileges in Virginia.  A doctor can notify the Department of Motor Vehicle, which can and sometimes does, suspend drivers’ licenses of those who suffer TBI.  I was not suspended.

I did contact the Chief Deputy of the sheriff’s department after I got out of the hospital and asked if my injury, which affects my memory, required a note or anything else from the neuro-surgeon who treated me.

“No,” he said.  “People with brain damage may not be able to drive in Virginia but the state does not limit their ownership or use of a gun.”

A loophole?

_______________________________________________________

Copyright © 2016 Capitol Hill Blue

(Updated with additional information and to correct calling a gun magazine a “clip.”   That gave the gun brigade apoplexy.  I have clips that feed magazines for some firearms.  A Glock uses a magazine. Not enough coffee on the morning when this was originally written.  Guess these folks never mistakenly used a reference. 🙂 )

160 thoughts on “Carrying a gun: Legal, yes, but…”

  1. 4 quick responses:
    A. Mental condition is the problem, not guns. This is particularly true in the black community where we see a significant portion of their constituents with social mores that deviate from that of the majority of people.
    B. I’m a staunch believer in the 2nd Amendment and the unabridged rights that it confers upon citizens. I do not look favorably upon any effort to diminish those rights because the incrementalism never ends.
    C. The 2nd Amendment does not require any specific training. We grew up shooting guns and being taught gun responsibility. The break down in the family unit has corrupted that however informal training ground. Some people are again, not mentally equipped to own a gun without a well developed sense of propriety for its care and use.
    D. Because of the 2nd Amendment, the federal government should be in charge of coordinating all state laws regarding gun ownership, use, storage and reciprocity. I want the right to go from my home state to a more regulated state with the same rights I have in my state.

  2. In many cases, your right to carry (open or concealed) might end at the state line of your home state. In NYS, your right to carry is further restricted at the city limits of NYC. If I were to enter CA, I would be a criminal because my magazines hold more than 10 rounds.

  3. I have been a law enforcement officer for 35 years, and concealed carry whenever I leave my house. My pastor even encourages me to carry to church, “just in case”. I have had occasions to draw my weapon while off-duty and confronted with a crime in progress, but so far have not been forced to discharge my weapon. I currently live in a state where concealed carry (with a permit) is allowed. As long as the carrier is well-trained, and has passed the background check, I am for CCW. Unfortunately, I deal almost daily with those carrying without a permit. I believe the term for these is “criminal or “felon”:.

  4. Federal law prohibits possession of firearms or ammunition by persons convicted of domestic violence, persons under restraining orders for harassing, stalking or threatening family members, and drug addicts. Therefore, state law is irrelevant.

    Many states have allowed open carry for decades without problems. Vermont, which has always permitted concealed carry by anyone eligible to possess firearms, is the safest state in the union.

    Omar Mateen qualified for a concealed carry permit and was licensed as an armed security guard. Micah Johnson received an honorable discharge from the US Army. Both could and did pass background checks.

  5. Well you probably won’t see this, but it appears the moderators are censoring comments having to do with the trustworthiness of this author.

    • Comments which are critical are not censored. Some comments are blocked if they use obscenities or attack another person who comments. Our anti-spam software checks email addresses and other items and often blocks comments without us even seeing them. Many of the comments about my use of the word “clip” instead of “magazine” also used obscene language and were stopped by the anti-spam software. Yes, I used the wrong term. It was a mistake but one that I sometimes make because incorrect words are a symptom of TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury). At least that is what the therapists who still provide rehab for my 2012 brain injury tell me. I own rifles with clips and handguns with magazines. I know that. My bad. I’m sorry that all the gun fanciers out there are perfect and never made mistakes. Good for them. 🙂

  6. I suspect that Doug Thompson is not a proponent citizen of gun rights. Making statements like “overkill” when talking about a Glock 17 and the one statement that caught my eye and outed him as a reporter who is reporting his own narrative is when he described his magazine as a “clip”. He completely blew apart any credibility to his story with his lack of knowledge on guns. Nice try Dougie! Better luck next time.

  7. To keep and bear is the most quoted part. A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. And it says so right in the second amentment. A well regulated militia is so important that it is stated first. With all the shootings, it is time to call out the militia. they are the good guys.

    • Unfortunately the states do not run a ‘militia’, well regulated or otherwise. A militia is a group of volunteers, not paid (though like jury-duty, could be compensated modestly). National Guard are still professional soldiers (same as active reserves of any branch)… Might propose putting together some militia and getting them regulated first… then you can call them.

  8. Dyed in the wool Hoosier…we have open carry too….I use it now and then (or lose it)…but I do carry every single day….the current status of America dictates to be armed or be dead.

  9. I don’t really own any weapons but when I pretend that I do, I pretend I carry a glock, Did I mention I can open carry? oh ya and 17 rounds… Who really cares?
    Do you know karate too?

  10. Justice: Then and now. THEN. The recent shootings got me thinking about police officers who died in the line of duty. That got me looking at the history of Rapid City. The first police officer who died ” in the line of duty” in Rapid City was City Marshal Billy Wilson. In 1885 the city of Rapid City had a ” no guns” rule. Three cowboys rode into town and did not check their guns. Marshal Wilson confronted them. A shoot out resulted and Marshal Wilson was killed. The three cowboys were tried for murder. They were found not guilty. While they did break the law about no guns, being threatened with lethal force was unacceptable. Marshal Wilson drew first. They were found not guilty because it was seen as a case of self defense. Marshal Wilson had no cause to draw his gun, he threatened them and they simply defended themselves. NOW. We find it acceptable for cops to draw their guns when checking out a building, when there might be a “bad guy” in the area, when they think they might be at risk or if they even see a gun. We have gone from treating cops as members of the community, held to the same standards as the rest of us to demi – gods who do no wrong, even if they shoot a kid with a toy gun. Liberals say our passing of concealed carry laws will return us to the days of the Wild West. IMHO that is not a bad thing if you take it all into account, police were held accountable for their actions unlike today were they get a free pass no matter who they shoot, white, black or pink. IMHO if a police officer shoots someone it should require a mandatory grand jury, so we the people, white, black and pink can decide if he did should face a jury.

  11. Open carry is okay, for bumming in the woods and such. Otherwise I don’t advocate open carry, not even to make a political statement, which is what most open carry is about. (They may be some “wanna be” types but most guys are trying to make a political statement.) If you carry openly and a madman happens to be about and intends to start shooting people, you will likely be the first target since you have identified yourself as a threat to his plans. Not a good game plan, and not worth the political statement.

    • I open carried in the woods for years but never in town. There are too many pansies who see a gun, panic and call the cops about a “guy with a gun.” Considering the response of cops, it is not worth the time wasted.

  12. Okay…I’m kind of on point with the first guy. You who are suppose to be a proponent of the 2nd Amendment just called a magazine a clip? So I take it that you’re concealed carrying an M1 Garand? Because I do believe that that would be considered overkill by the majority of everyone. Also, when you were describing the magazine capacity, you misspelled “another.”

    I think that everyone who has a working knowledge of firearms would not consider a Glock 17 overkill by any means. Yeah, it is a full sized pistol, but with full size pistols comes more accuracy and a better grip purchase. That means you can have more recoil control when firing said weapon.

    As far as your comment on lethal armament, I think you missed the whole intent of that. A slingshot can be lethal. I do agree that anyone who wants to carry a firearm should get some kind of training, but I ask you where does it end?

    Today, a fanatic is labeled as a jihadist/ISIS/terrorist in general. So if the government made a law saying “no one who is labeled and/or associates with fanatics can purchase a firearm,” I think most people would like the sound of that. Now fast forward six months. Trump or Hillary or whoever just won the election. What if the new President labeled everyone who voted for the other guy as a fanatic? So if Trump wins, whoever voted for Hillary is a fanatic; and if Hillary wins, everyone who voted for Trump is a fanatic. And we both know that which ever side of the camp you’re sitting on, there are plenty of people who would label the other side as fanatical. So today, fanatic is defined as a legit terrorist while tomorrow who knows how they’re going to define it?

    Now tying it all together:

    You’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I am beyond confident that there are those who have suffered brain injuries who should not handle firearms. However, the brain is one of the most unique organs of the entire body; I’m no brain surgeon or brain doctor in general but shouldn’t that be left to the professionals? Yeah maybe make a law that says if you can’t drive, you can’t conceal carry or open carry or whatever. But once again, where does it end? A migraine affects the brain…could that be considered a brain injury?

  13. I really do not get the point of his article? Could someone explain this article to me..?
    Is he stating ok for him to carry but not others? He left out the Orlando Shooter had a Class G license which means he could use his Gun for $$ Security/employment…. As a CCW holder myself this would be a Felony.. Socialist of the highest order.

  14. As far as I know, the 2nd Amendment addresses the issue of a well-regulated militia – read it for yourself. It doesn’t talk about the right to walk into, say, Walmart, armed to to teeth.

    • Richard, “well regulated” in 18th century speak means to make regular or to be created or used. Militia means all able bodied men between the ages of 16-60… So carrying in Wal-Mart shouldn’t be an issue anymore than a police officer carrying in Wal-Mart

    • I say “Clip”, too. “Magazine” just has too damned many syllables.

      …..(I carry a revolver,….. no need for a “clip”).

    • Good call my friend. Have you noticed how the quantity of anti-gun messages have vastly diminished in the past year or so, and the pro-gun messages increased. This republic may be saved yet.
      – Convention of States my fellow Americans. Research and participate.

    • Yeah, he doesn’t sound like a “Gun Guy”, does he? Just because you claim to be, doesn’t mean you actually are, and that applies to just about everything in this old world…

    • To Jason,good eye. I saw and questioned the same thing. Makes you wonder,doesn’t it.A Glock 17??

    • People who advocate open carry have puzzled me. if you are serious about your safety why give away the element of surprise , while at the same time elevating yourself to the top of the victim list ?

    • He also called it an “AR15 Assault Rifle” which it is not. I’m thinking the same as you. FRAUD!

    • Itz a shill, no doubt. It wasn’t the Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorney (In VA Commonwealth’s Attorneys represent ONLY Counties and Cities), it was the Attorney General. In VA almost without exception Circuit Court Judges do NOT sign CHPs; they are signed by the Clerks of the Courts. …and so on. Sounds liek mostly brain-damaged made-up stuff to me.

  15. My grandfather was sheriff of Newton County Georgia (1940’s, 50’s). He said the the advantage to open carry was that if someone saw and knew you had a gun, you were less likely to have to use it.

  16. Obviously you’re not up on laws, especially federal. When Bill was president (Clinton, Mr. Molester, yep, that’s him) many police officers lost their jobs because of the domestic violence bill he signed into FEDERAL law.
    Get a life, a G17 is a wonderful carry gun, and who the heck are you to decide who knows what about guns? Seriously, pull your head out of your arse before trying to spin an anti-2ndA left BS agenda.

  17. what gun owner calls his glock’s magazine a “clip”. Sounds like some hollywood/SF liberal speak

  18. If a single person mis-uses a kitchen knife by stabbing dozens of people ( in a gun-free zone of course) Should we then be required to regulate the acquisition and use of all kitchen knives by all people??? This seems to be your argument. I would argue that it is that deviant person that needs to be limited and controlled not the tool he used to commit a crime. There is only one “common sense gun law” and that one is “Anyone who should not have access to guns should not be walking around loose to begin with!”

    • Well the more people that drive cars the more accidents you will have. Logic therefore suggest more people will die in car accidents. Guns are no exception. In order to cut down on car accidents people are required to get the proper training to drive those cars. Your required to renew you drivers license every few years and prove that you can still see. People are required to have car insurance in the event they hurt someone else with their car.

      So I don’t believe that we should restrict the right of people to be able to own firearms or carry them. However as a gun owner and a CCW holder myself I am not on board with how loose the gun restrictions have become. The NRA which I am a member (I will not be renewing) is pushing for all kinds of laws that are doing away with requirements for training. I think that’s a very bad idea, its unsafe and flat out irresponsible. What difference does it make if the bullet that kills you or your loved one comes from the barrel of someone who means to do you harm or if it comes from the barrel of someone who didn’t mean to do you any harm they just lacked the proper training with a firearm before they decided to start carrying it? If a law abiding citizen wants to carry a gun that’s fine but a law abiding citizen needs to be trained on how to do it safely. I am completely on board with laws that require that you take some type of training and prove that you are proficient with a firearm before you are allowed to carry it. Without that training you are as big of a risk to me and the safety of my family as the thug who wishes to do me and my family harm.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: