In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
WV . Step closer to freedom. Senate Bill 347
LesWVa
Member Posts: 10,490 ✭✭
With a room filled with gun advocates, law enforcement officials and several members of the House of Delegates, a committee of state senators approved a bill on Monday that would allow people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit in West Virginia.
Days after first appearing on the Senate Judiciary Committee's agenda, Senate Bill 347 was finally discussed and unanimously approved by lawmakers, despite concerns from some law enforcement officials.
If enacted, West Virginia would join Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont as the only states in the nation to not require concealed handgun permits. The bill, however, would not supercede gun restrictions put in place by local governments.
Although gun owners can openly carry a gun without a permit, anyone that wants to cover up their weapon is required to obtain one. The Senate bill, which now will head to the chamber floor, would change that requirement.
Under current law, county sheriffs may issue concealed carry permits after an individual goes through an application process that includes a background check. An applicant must also complete a training course in order to ensure the proper handling and firing of a gun.
Proponents of the bill, including Sen. Kent Leonhardt, R-Monongalia, say the bill is simply an issue of freedom.
"The vote you're about to take is a vote for your Second Amendment rights," Leonhardt said prior to the Judiciary Committee's unanimous vote.
Despite the vote, there was significant discussion on the bill, as representatives from both gun rights groups and law enforcement were called to testify in front of the committee.
Rodney Miller, executive director of the West Virginia Sheriff's Association, remained worried over the fact that the mandatory training that goes with the current application process would be eliminated, if the bill passes.
"A person needs to understand their responsibility," he said.
Randolph County Sheriff Mark Brady questioned why the proposed law is necessary, saying no one in his county has asked for changes to the current law.
"If it's not broke, why are we fixing it?" Brady asked.
Sens. Mike Romano, D-Harrison, and Robert Karnes, R-Upshur, questioned several speakers over the necessity for training. Romano, who said he has used guns since childhood, said he believed proper training is necessary.
Delegate Josh Nelson, R-Boone, who was among several other House members present, said gun owners generally take it upon themselves to learn about their weapons and that there should be no requirements to take classes.
Daniel Carey, a state liaison for the National Rifle Association, said the decision to seek training should ultimately be up to the individual gun owner. Carey likened the decision of a gun owner to seek training to someone that needed assistance for operating an iPad.
"The difference between an iPad and a gun is you can't kill anybody with an iPad," Romano said in disagreement.
At several points throughout the committee's discussion of the bill, lawmakers and speakers mentioned the Pinch pharmacist who shot and killed a potential robber last week. Miller said it was clear the pharmacist had training and the situation could have been different if he hadn't.
"Without that training we don't know what's going to happen," he said.
Citing the U.S. Constitution, Karnes questioned Miller over whether training is a necessity.
"Do you think it's appropriate to require training for something that it says in Constitution?" Karnes asked. "Should we require training for people who want to vote? Should we require training for things that are an inherent right?"
Miller also said the state's sheriffs would see a reduction in revenue should the bill pass, given the fees associated with the permitting process.
Although he remained concerned, Miller wanted to make it clear that the state's sheriffs had no intention of infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. Instead, he stressed the importance of keeping certain things in place, such as background checks and training courses.
Despite some concerns, the majority of lawmakers on the committee spoke in favor of the legislation.
Romano unsuccessfully offered an amendment to the bill that would have required training courses before the committee voted to send the bill to the chamber floor.
Although gun owners can openly carry a gun without a permit, anyone that wants to cover up their weapon is required to obtain one. The Senate bill, which now will head to the chamber floor, would change that requirement.
Under current law, county sheriffs may issue concealed carry permits after an individual goes through an application process that includes a background check. An applicant must also complete a training course in order to ensure the proper handling and firing of a gun.
Proponents of the bill, including Sen. Kent Leonhardt, R-Monongalia, say the bill is simply an issue of freedom.
"The vote you're about to take is a vote for your Second Amendment rights," Leonhardt said prior to the Judiciary Committee's unanimous vote.
Despite the vote, there was significant discussion on the bill, as representatives from both gun rights groups and law enforcement were called to testify in front of the committee.
Rodney Miller, executive director of the West Virginia Sheriff's Association, remained worried over the fact that the mandatory training that goes with the current application process would be eliminated, if the bill passes.
"A person needs to understand their responsibility," he said.
Randolph County Sheriff Mark Brady questioned why the proposed law is necessary, saying no one in his county has asked for changes to the current law.
"If it's not broke, why are we fixing it?" Brady asked.
Sens. Mike Romano, D-Harrison, and Robert Karnes, R-Upshur, questioned several speakers over the necessity for training. Romano, who said he has used guns since childhood, said he believed proper training is necessary.
Delegate Josh Nelson, R-Boone, who was among several other House members present, said gun owners generally take it upon themselves to learn about their weapons and that there should be no requirements to take classes.
Daniel Carey, a state liaison for the National Rifle Association, said the decision to seek training should ultimately be up to the individual gun owner. Carey likened the decision of a gun owner to seek training to someone that needed assistance for operating an iPad.
"The difference between an iPad and a gun is you can't kill anybody with an iPad," Romano said in disagreement.
At several points throughout the committee's discussion of the bill, lawmakers and speakers mentioned the Pinch pharmacist who shot and killed a potential robber last week. Miller said it was clear the pharmacist had training and the situation could have been different if he hadn't.
"Without that training we don't know what's going to happen," he said.
Citing the U.S. Constitution, Karnes questioned Miller over whether training is a necessity.
"Do you think it's appropriate to require training for something that it says in Constitution?" Karnes asked. "Should we require training for people who want to vote? Should we require training for things that are an inherent right?"
Miller also said the state's sheriffs would see a reduction in revenue should the bill pass, given the fees associated with the permitting process.
Although he remained concerned, Miller wanted to make it clear that the state's sheriffs had no intention of infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. Instead, he stressed the importance of keeping certain things in place, such as background checks and training courses.
Despite some concerns, the majority of lawmakers on the committee spoke in favor of the legislation.
Romano unsuccessfully offered an amendment to the bill that would have required training courses before the committee voted to send the bill to the chamber floor.
Days after first appearing on the Senate Judiciary Committee's agenda, Senate Bill 347 was finally discussed and unanimously approved by lawmakers, despite concerns from some law enforcement officials.
If enacted, West Virginia would join Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont as the only states in the nation to not require concealed handgun permits. The bill, however, would not supercede gun restrictions put in place by local governments.
Although gun owners can openly carry a gun without a permit, anyone that wants to cover up their weapon is required to obtain one. The Senate bill, which now will head to the chamber floor, would change that requirement.
Under current law, county sheriffs may issue concealed carry permits after an individual goes through an application process that includes a background check. An applicant must also complete a training course in order to ensure the proper handling and firing of a gun.
Proponents of the bill, including Sen. Kent Leonhardt, R-Monongalia, say the bill is simply an issue of freedom.
"The vote you're about to take is a vote for your Second Amendment rights," Leonhardt said prior to the Judiciary Committee's unanimous vote.
Despite the vote, there was significant discussion on the bill, as representatives from both gun rights groups and law enforcement were called to testify in front of the committee.
Rodney Miller, executive director of the West Virginia Sheriff's Association, remained worried over the fact that the mandatory training that goes with the current application process would be eliminated, if the bill passes.
"A person needs to understand their responsibility," he said.
Randolph County Sheriff Mark Brady questioned why the proposed law is necessary, saying no one in his county has asked for changes to the current law.
"If it's not broke, why are we fixing it?" Brady asked.
Sens. Mike Romano, D-Harrison, and Robert Karnes, R-Upshur, questioned several speakers over the necessity for training. Romano, who said he has used guns since childhood, said he believed proper training is necessary.
Delegate Josh Nelson, R-Boone, who was among several other House members present, said gun owners generally take it upon themselves to learn about their weapons and that there should be no requirements to take classes.
Daniel Carey, a state liaison for the National Rifle Association, said the decision to seek training should ultimately be up to the individual gun owner. Carey likened the decision of a gun owner to seek training to someone that needed assistance for operating an iPad.
"The difference between an iPad and a gun is you can't kill anybody with an iPad," Romano said in disagreement.
At several points throughout the committee's discussion of the bill, lawmakers and speakers mentioned the Pinch pharmacist who shot and killed a potential robber last week. Miller said it was clear the pharmacist had training and the situation could have been different if he hadn't.
"Without that training we don't know what's going to happen," he said.
Citing the U.S. Constitution, Karnes questioned Miller over whether training is a necessity.
"Do you think it's appropriate to require training for something that it says in Constitution?" Karnes asked. "Should we require training for people who want to vote? Should we require training for things that are an inherent right?"
Miller also said the state's sheriffs would see a reduction in revenue should the bill pass, given the fees associated with the permitting process.
Although he remained concerned, Miller wanted to make it clear that the state's sheriffs had no intention of infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. Instead, he stressed the importance of keeping certain things in place, such as background checks and training courses.
Despite some concerns, the majority of lawmakers on the committee spoke in favor of the legislation.
Romano unsuccessfully offered an amendment to the bill that would have required training courses before the committee voted to send the bill to the chamber floor.
Although gun owners can openly carry a gun without a permit, anyone that wants to cover up their weapon is required to obtain one. The Senate bill, which now will head to the chamber floor, would change that requirement.
Under current law, county sheriffs may issue concealed carry permits after an individual goes through an application process that includes a background check. An applicant must also complete a training course in order to ensure the proper handling and firing of a gun.
Proponents of the bill, including Sen. Kent Leonhardt, R-Monongalia, say the bill is simply an issue of freedom.
"The vote you're about to take is a vote for your Second Amendment rights," Leonhardt said prior to the Judiciary Committee's unanimous vote.
Despite the vote, there was significant discussion on the bill, as representatives from both gun rights groups and law enforcement were called to testify in front of the committee.
Rodney Miller, executive director of the West Virginia Sheriff's Association, remained worried over the fact that the mandatory training that goes with the current application process would be eliminated, if the bill passes.
"A person needs to understand their responsibility," he said.
Randolph County Sheriff Mark Brady questioned why the proposed law is necessary, saying no one in his county has asked for changes to the current law.
"If it's not broke, why are we fixing it?" Brady asked.
Sens. Mike Romano, D-Harrison, and Robert Karnes, R-Upshur, questioned several speakers over the necessity for training. Romano, who said he has used guns since childhood, said he believed proper training is necessary.
Delegate Josh Nelson, R-Boone, who was among several other House members present, said gun owners generally take it upon themselves to learn about their weapons and that there should be no requirements to take classes.
Daniel Carey, a state liaison for the National Rifle Association, said the decision to seek training should ultimately be up to the individual gun owner. Carey likened the decision of a gun owner to seek training to someone that needed assistance for operating an iPad.
"The difference between an iPad and a gun is you can't kill anybody with an iPad," Romano said in disagreement.
At several points throughout the committee's discussion of the bill, lawmakers and speakers mentioned the Pinch pharmacist who shot and killed a potential robber last week. Miller said it was clear the pharmacist had training and the situation could have been different if he hadn't.
"Without that training we don't know what's going to happen," he said.
Citing the U.S. Constitution, Karnes questioned Miller over whether training is a necessity.
"Do you think it's appropriate to require training for something that it says in Constitution?" Karnes asked. "Should we require training for people who want to vote? Should we require training for things that are an inherent right?"
Miller also said the state's sheriffs would see a reduction in revenue should the bill pass, given the fees associated with the permitting process.
Although he remained concerned, Miller wanted to make it clear that the state's sheriffs had no intention of infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. Instead, he stressed the importance of keeping certain things in place, such as background checks and training courses.
Despite some concerns, the majority of lawmakers on the committee spoke in favor of the legislation.
Romano unsuccessfully offered an amendment to the bill that would have required training courses before the committee voted to send the bill to the chamber floor.