[jdavionic]

It's a few months old, but I didn't see this one posted. Curious as to how it all unfolded. I found it interesting that he fought off the attack, retrieved his gun from the glovebox, and then shot the attacked. Just seems like it would be pretty challenging to retrieve a gun from a glovebox in that situation. Regardless, I'm happy to read that the couple survived the encounter.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/20...ty-police-said

[Schlitz]

The man who shot Rigby has a license for a concealed weapon, police said.

I hate when they include stuff like this. Why does it matter if he had a concealed handgun license? Would this story be different if he hadn't? I feel this does nothing more than slowly brainwash people into thinking they need a license or permit for what is supposed to be your right. Can't an American defend his life without getting permission from the state?

[beatcop]

1. When scum is observed, keep scum in sight
2. Actually look at your surroundings
3. If you are in a shady area keep windows up & doors locked

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

I hate when they include stuff like this. Why does it matter if he had a concealed handgun license? Would this story be different if he hadn't? I feel this does nothing more than slowly brainwash people into thinking they need a license or permit for what is supposed to be your right. Can't an American defend his life without getting permission from the state?

Unfortunately the answer to your last question is no...not without possible punishment. I agree with the basis of your comment though. I don't think we should have to pay the gov't for the permission to carry a firearm, purchase a suppressor, purchase firearms that are deemed a special class of firearm, etc.

With all that said, I think the shooter would have faced some charges if they had not been able to legally carry. The article states no charges placed and that it's still under investigation. I believe they pointed out the permit to support the last comment in the article.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

I hate when they include stuff like this. Why does it matter if he had a concealed handgun license? ...

Well in more than a few jurisdictions not having the permit but having the gun is a crime. And long term it probably helps us more when the person protecting himself is not violating a firearms law.

[cowboy1964]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

I hate when they include stuff like this. Why does it matter if he had a concealed handgun license?

If he HADN'T had a license, would it have been illegal for him to have had a loaded weapon in the vehicle? If so then it's completely relevant to the story.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

I hate when they include stuff like this. Why does it matter if he had a concealed handgun license? Would this story be different if he hadn't? I feel this does nothing more than slowly brainwash people into thinking they need a license or permit for what is supposed to be your right. Can't an American defend his life without getting permission from the state?

Schlitz, there are many, many people who believe that the Concealed Handgun Permit shows the individual is a responsible person who has been vetted through the permitting process. Those people are themselves members of the carry community.

Without an CHP in Virginia, the other option is the natural Right to open carry.

Noting in the story that the person possesses a CHP is good publicity. Hopefully others will seek their own CHP.

[Schlitz]

Originally Posted by RussP

Noting in the story that the person possesses a CHP is good publicity. Hopefully others will seek their own CHP.

I think it is subtle brainwashing, slowly getting more and more (as if there is not enough) people to accept the licensing and fees associated with exercising what was supposed to be an unalienable right they were born with as the norm.

[Schlitz]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

If he HADN'T had a license, would it have been illegal for him to have had a loaded weapon in the vehicle? If so then it's completely relevant to the story.

It's my understanding that in Va. you can carry in a vehicle so long as the weapon is clearly visible. As soon as it is out of sight you immediately turn into an evil criminal, oh, unless you pay the state for a permission slip, then you can put it in your glove box.

[jfost11]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

It's my understanding that in Va. you can carry in a vehicle so long as the weapon is clearly visible. As soon as it is out of sight you immediately turn into an evil criminal, oh, unless you pay the state for a permission slip, then you can put it in your glove box.

This story was talked about in another forum for VA gun owners. As far as the glove box issue when discussing not having a VA CHP, the VA attorney general was asked to clearly define the law which stated "in a secure container".

Basically he stated a VA resident that can legally possess a firearm does NOT need a CHP to have a handgun in their vehicle and out of sight as long as it is in a "secure container within the vehicle". Furthermore, that container does not have to lock, can be within reach of the driver, AND the handgun does NOT have to be unloaded while in that "secure container".
Here's the document.

http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions%...1%20Newman.pdf

I have copies printed that I keep in the glovebox of all my vehicles in case I happen to forget my CHP.

[Schlitz]

Originally Posted by jfost11

This story was talked about in another forum for VA gun owners. As far as the glove box issue when discussing not having a VA CHP, the VA attorney general was asked to clearly define the law which stated "in a secure container".

Basically he stated a VA resident that can legally possess a firearm does NOT need a CHP to have a handgun in their vehicle and out of sight as long as it is in a "secure container within the vehicle". Furthermore, that container does not have to lock, can be within reach of the driver, AND the handgun does NOT have to be unloaded while in that "secure container".
Here's the document.

http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions%...1%20Newman.pdf

I have copies printed that I keep in the glovebox of all my vehicles in case I happen to forget my CHP.

outstanding research. good on you.

So, I guess the CHP really didn't have anything to do with this story.

[jfost11]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

outstanding research. good on you.

So, I guess the CHP really didn't have anything to do with this story.

Other than the news stating that the man had one, not really. But, perhaps they reported it because the gun was in his glove box and the officer involved felt that the only reason the shooter wasn't breaking a law was because he had a CHP.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by jfost11

This story was talked about in another forum for VA gun owners. As far as the glove box issue when discussing not having a VA CHP, the VA attorney general was asked to clearly define the law which stated "in a secure container".

In the discussions elsewhere, did anyone discover more information on the specifics between the start of the attack and how the individual was able to fend off the attack while getting a gun out of the glove box? That's the part of the story that left me curious for details.

[jfost11]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

In the discussions elsewhere, did anyone discover more information on the specifics between the start of the attack and how the individual was able to fend off the attack while getting a gun out of the glove box? That's the part of the story that left me curious for details.

Here's what I could find from the reports on the other forum.

The man who fired the gun was not seriously injured, but he did have some wounds that Kennedy said were consistent with being involved in a struggle. Deputies were able to locate the second man who ran from the scene, and Kennedy said the man provided a statement to detectives that supported the information provided by the shooter and the woman who was with him during the incident.
http://fredericksburg.patch.com/arti...r-fatally-shot

and...
The driver was not seriously injured but had fresh wounds consistent with a struggle, police said
http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012...ot-ar-1937183/

I would have to assume that the shooter was able to grab the arm of the man with the knife and hold onto it with one hand while retrieving the gun with the other. Or the passenger got the gun out. Both reports leave out the how.

[SouthernBoyVA]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

I hate when they include stuff like this. Why does it matter if he had a concealed handgun license? Would this story be different if he hadn't? I feel this does nothing more than slowly brainwash people into thinking they need a license or permit for what is supposed to be your right. Can't an American defend his life without getting permission from the state?

I don't mind it from the standpoint that it helps to educate the general public that the carrying of a defensive firearm is not only a good thing, but on rare occasions it can make the difference between life and death.

However, I do agree with your assessment and your reasons for making it. I think you are spot on with this.

[SouthernBoyVA]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

If he HADN'T had a license, would it have been illegal for him to have had a loaded weapon in the vehicle? If so then it's completely relevant to the story.

No, not at all. He was in Virginia. You can carry a firearm on or about your person in the open without a permit (that is the normal method of carry in Virginia). If you have it in your glove compartment or console, it can also be loaded and ready for use without a permit even though it's concealed. This is perfectly legal in Virginia.

[SouthernBoyVA]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

It's my understanding that in Va. you can carry in a vehicle so long as the weapon is clearly visible. As soon as it is out of sight you immediately turn into an evil criminal, oh, unless you pay the state for a permission slip, then you can put it in your glove box.

This is incorrect.

[whoflungdo]

This is the part that just grinds my gears..

Police say another man, who was with Rigby before the attack, told them he witnessed Rigby attack the couple, because he was angry they did not give him money when he asked for it.

[cowboy1964]

Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA

No, not at all. He was in Virginia. You can carry a firearm on or about your person in the open without a permit (that is the normal method of carry in Virginia). If you have it in your glove compartment or console, it can also be loaded and ready for use without a permit even though it's concealed. This is perfectly legal in Virginia.

In that case I would have preferred the reporter had stated something to that effect rather than commenting on his CCW license since the former would be more relevant to the situation than the latter. Still, a typical news story about situations like this are usually far more amateur.

[Trent]

"And long term it probably helps us more when the person protecting himself is not violating a firearms law."

I can understand why people would think that way, but strategically I believe it only helps in the short term. Those who are law abiding enough to obtain a CC license become looked upon more favorably for short term purposes. Long term it is just the opposite, as it reinforces the belief that only a "bad person" would carry concealed unless having permission. It would actually assist with long term approval to show "good folks" going to prison or suffering harsh consequences for carrying and using a firearm only to protect their lives, but the short term effects of that would be most unpleasant.

Nobody wants to "fix" something unless it appears to be broken.

For example, there are undoubtedly changes being discussed about NYC firearm laws due to the relatively recent rash of military and traveling personnel who are sterling citizens, but are being arrested due to draconian and quite frankly "illegally enforced" (due to the unconstitutionality) laws, having to receive a waiver (in the Marine's case) despite dire consequences pending, going to prison because of a flight being delayed and receiving the declared firearm in the airport, etc. Without these incidences of obvious injustice no one would say a word about it and it is unlikely that any changes would take place at all as nothing would need to be changed.

[SouthernBoyVA]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

In that case I would have preferred the reporter had stated something to that effect rather than commenting on his CCW license since the former would be more relevant to the situation than the latter. Still, a typical news story about situations like this are usually far more amateur.

That's because most reporters or those who write copy are generally ignorant about matters pertaining to firearms and their use.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

... The criminals are the ones that make laws criminalizing the carry of arms for lawful self defense without first giving their first born to the state, taking a class, giving finger prints to the state, a photo, an application, an application fee- some would argue the criminals are the armed men enforcing the laws against the very people they claim they serve and protect. What is the point of the license if criminals are just going to concealed carry anyway?

Now if you could just convince legislators and their staffs who write the laws and a couple thousand judges that they are criminals this idea might work. Of course those people would have to pretty much ignore both substantial portions of their constituents who don't seem to think that licensing is that bad and the part of the public who don't think anyone should have access to firearms.

But until (or unless) that firearms utopia world becomes real, those that follow the law and end up using a legally obtained and carried probably do help us, both short and long term.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Schlitz

I hate when they include stuff like this. Why does it matter if he had a concealed handgun license? Would this story be different if he hadn't?

Yes - he'd be dead. I think it's good that people see these stories and realize that a CCW permit saved a couple of lives. To ignore that is counterproductive.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Bren

I think it's good that people see these stories and realize that a CCW permit saved a couple of lives. To ignore that is counterproductive.

That was a key point here. Even on GT in this section, we get a constant bombardment of negative stories about errors that have been made by those who carry. Is their intent to support a position that carrying is too much responsibility for the general public? Or is their intent to cite reminders for those to carry to be aware of? With at least one individual, I believe the intent is the former.

[Schlitz]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

Now if you could just convince legislators and their staffs who write the laws and a couple thousand judges that they are criminals this idea might work.

lol yea I know right.

Originally Posted by Bren

Yes - he'd be dead. I think it's good that people see these stories and realize that a CCW permit saved a couple of lives. To ignore that is counterproductive.

Yes! Twas the permit that saved their lives! Had he been an average good samaritan with a gun that defended himself without first obtaining the privilege to bear arms from the state we would all feel obligated to look down on him.