Senate bill 347 West Virginia concealed carry law has passed

SB 347, introduced by state Senator Dave Sypolt (R-14), would recognize your right to legally carry a concealed firearm without the requirement of having to obtain a costly and time-restrictive Concealed Handgun License (CHL). This is a necessary update to concealed carry statutes in West Virginia, allowing law-abiding gun owners the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones. In West Virginia, it is already legal to carry a firearm openly, as long as the individual is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. However, under current law, if a firearm becomes covered by a coat or if a woman prefers to carry a firearm for self-protection in her purse, he or she would need to possess a concealed pistol permit.

SB 347 gives you the freedom to choose the best method of carrying, based on your attire, gender and/or physical attributes. Also critically important, this legislation would keep in place the current permitting system so that people who obtain a permit could still enjoy the reciprocity agreements that West Virginia has with other states across the country.

It passed with a 32-2 vote. I think this is a win for gun owners in the state. It's now heading for the House.
Link
A sheriff had issues with the bill:

It also puts officers in danger because you'll have a lot more people out here carrying weapons that may not know how to use them, how to unload them, how to load them properly.

Link
For one, officers are taught to approach people as if they are armed while at the academy. As far as safety, knowing how to load and unload goes, people at gun stores usually show you how to load and unload a firearm. Most even have a shooting range so you can get a feel for the weapon.

I think he may really have the concerns he stated but I think the following also has something to do with his being against it:

On the financial side of the measure, Keith Morgan, president of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, said the only change the law would make would be the removal of a $100 fee to conceal a firearm. Police said the $100 fee often helps pay for bullet proof vests.

Link

Not only that but the money goes into a fund for other things as well, such as gas or whatever.

Kansas is also working on it's own concealed carry law.

Link

Costly and time restrictive, hmmm seems like that is not a reasonable reasoning when it comes to ID's for voting...

It is always "Who doesn't have the time and money to get a simple ID".

I probably just don't get it though, guns are different I bet.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Costly and time restrictive, hmmm seems like that is not a reasonable reasoning when it comes to ID's for voting...

It is always "Who doesn't have the time and money to get a simple ID".

I probably just don't get it though, guns are different I bet.

Do you have to wait weeks or months to get an ID to vote?

WOW!

originally posted by: seeker1963

Do you have to wait weeks or months to get an ID to vote?

WOW!

Or are you limited with the number of times you can vote with a particular ID like I am with a handgun permit?

a reply to: seeker1963

Ya like I said, it must be different.

And actually last time I got a new ID from the DMV, they had to process my request, after me paying, and they snail mail it to me. Took 2-3 weeks IIRC. Albeit it has been a bit since I have gotten a new one, maybe things have changed.
Does yours give you one same day?

It it just the reasoning of 'cost and time restrictive' and how it can be applied to one right but not another.
When people who are against voter ID laws use that reasoning it is seen as petty and not reasonable.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: seeker1963

Do you have to wait weeks or months to get an ID to vote?

WOW!

Or are you limited with the number of times you can vote with a particular ID like I am with a handgun permit?

Ha!

Just a thought, but perhaps our friend Sremmos has made a point to actually make voting as restrictive as purchasing a weapon!

Politicians sure have proven just as or more dangerous than a person with a weapon, don't you think?

originally posted by: seeker1963

Just a thought, but perhaps our friend Sremmos has made a point to actually make voting as restrictive as purchasing a weapon!

I would actually prefer if we went in the other direction and made it easier to utilize Second Amendment rights.

Politicians sure have proven just as or more dangerous than a person with a weapon, don't you think?

You know it brother.

I agree that politicians can be more dangerous than people with weapons. Some of their laws can kill people.
I love how they call this new bill "constitutional carry". I never understood the need for permits, since only law abiding citizens are allowed to legally get guns anyway.
I expected a flame war and a lot of arguing when I posted this because that's what usually happens with a thread that has anything to do with gun rights. I was pleasantly surprised to see you all being civil. Thank you for that.

a reply to: Skid Mark

The only thing I see is now if Im pulled over, a license check on me and my auto turns up Im legally registered carrying.

Anyone else? The LEO's have to assume every traffic stop or any stop anywhere that that person or person COULD be carrying. I could see them being on immediate edge-defensiveness every stop.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

They're already trained at the academy to assume that whoever they encounter is armed. I don't see what difference it makes.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Costly and time restrictive, hmmm seems like that is not a reasonable reasoning when it comes to ID's for voting...

It is always "Who doesn't have the time and money to get a simple ID".

I probably just don't get it though, guns are different I bet.

Geez, the FBI already does background checks in WV. You think it's just a free for all?

Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.)

West Virginia is not a point of contact state for NICS. West Virginia has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate a background check prior to transferring a firearm. In West Virginia, all firearms transfers by licensed dealers are processed directly through the FBI, which enforces the federal prohibitions referenced above.
smartgunlaws.org...

West Virginia pop. 1,852,994 Murders in 2010 55 Gun murders in 2010 27 % of gun owners 55.4% Gun murder rates per 100K 1.5

D.C. Gun Laws Some of the Strictest in the U.S. but look at their gun murder rates:

District of Columbia pop. 601,723 Murders in 2010 131 Gun murders in 2010 99 % of gun owners 3.6% Gun murder rates per 100K 16.5

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: StoutBroux

That's right. It's not like there's no oversight. It's monitored, just like everything else.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Wasn't the point, my point was that they are using the reasoning of 'costly and time restrictive' to justify the elimination of the license.

And how are the private sales monitored?

Private firearms transfers (i.e., transfers by individuals who are not licensed dealers) are not subject to a background check requirement in West Virginia

Also if you want to throw some stats out, I notice yours is from 2010, well lets see what happens a year later.

The Brady Center, a pro-gun legislation group, gave West Virginia a rating of only four out of 100 on its annual scorecard of how stringently each state controls the purchase of guns. As a result of such lax regulations, the number of homicides involving firearms jumped from 27 to 43 from 2010 to 2011, while the number of aggravated assaults with firearms increased from 339 to 780, representing an increase of over 130 percent, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

mountaineernewsservice.com...

Have your gun, just go get he license if you want to conceal it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80


Have your gun, just go get he license if you want to conceal it.

I won't post all my research material here but I concede, you are correct. I answered in haste because of my ignorant assumption that CCW permit holders would also be the purchasers and owners (who had already passed a background check) of said guns. Also, most if not all CCW permits require a firearms safety class of which I wholeheartedly agree. The questions on a CCW permit are more detailed than a background check.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Well glad we can find some middle ground there.

I carried a forty-four snubbie when I was in utero

a reply to: HUMBLEONE

That was funny, just picturing it. I bet that would've felt great coming out.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: HUMBLEONE

That was funny, just picturing it. I bet that would've felt great coming out.

If I brought a smile to your face, that makes me very happy!

a reply to: Skid Mark

Makes none for me.....I'm clean and clear always.....and carrying. Legally.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

That's always a good thing. I intend to be carrying soon.