Buy at Cabela's - Support VSSA

Monday, November 30, 2009

Obama Care and Gun Rights

Last week, Second Amendment scholar David Kopel wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy how the pending health care bill may have a negative impact on the rights (or at least the wallets/purses) of law abiding gun owners. Many commentators have discussed how a bill as overarching as the Pelosi and Reid bills will by its very nature have to touch many aspects of the individual lives of Americans. With the supposed purpose of covering everyone while reducing costs, it is not a stretch to presume that at some point the government will begin telling us what we can eat, what we can drink, and even if we can own guns if it means reducing the cost of health care.

Sounds paranoid? Take a look at Kopel's analysis and decide for yourself.

Let’s look at the bill. The rules for a “Wellness Program” begin on page 87. In brief, if you participate in a Wellness Program, you can get a health insurance premium
discount of up to 30%. Stated another way, if you don’t participate in a Wellness Program, you will pay a substantial insurance rate penalty for not doing so. The definition of a “Wellness Program” begins in paragraph (B) on page 88:

“(B) The wellness program shall be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease. A program complies with the preceding sentence if the program has a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing disease in, participating individuals and it is not overly burdensome, is not a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health status factor, and is not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease.”

Pages 29–30 mention some of items that “Wellness and Prevention Programs” “may include.” The phrasing does not appear to exclude other items. In any case, the item for “Healthy lifestyle support” is broad enough to include almost anything.

Kopel writes that the definition of "Wellness and Prevention Programs" is very broad and that the assertion that it is not broad enough to include gun ownership is most likely incorrect. We have all heard of antis siting "public health scholarship" claims linking gun ownership to the health risks of families with guns in the home. While we know this is junk science, the antis will site the dozens of articles in journals to get an anti-gun Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create an anti-rights definition of said "Wellness Program."

A regulation which said that a Wellness Program may (or “shall”) include a discount for not owning a gun (or not owning a handgun, or not owning a so-called “assault weapon”, or for not owning more than a certain number of guns) might be argued to be “overly burdensome.” But there’s no guarantee that a reviewing court would consider a mere discount for people who don’t own guns to be “overly” burdensome on gun owners.

Kopel reminds us in his post that Senator Reid is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms and Kopel does not believe Senator Reid intends any harm to gun owners. But we all know that the intent of a senator or the Senate does not necessarily bind the hands of some political appointee and President Obama has appointed enough anti-gun appointees to make us all a little wary.

Kopel offered a fix to make sure the bill is clear in it's intent.

An amendment might say something like: “No wellness program, nor anything else in this bill or any regulation, policy, or practice thereunder, may create any discount or any other incentive that discourages the ownership, possession, use, or carrying of firearms, air guns, or ammunition, or of any type or quantity of firearms, air guns, or ammunition. This aforesaid prohibition shall be broadly construed, and in case any conflict with any other provision of this bill, the prohibition shall control. Further, the prohibition on incentives against the exercise of constitutional rights shall also protect the exercise of each and every right in Amendments I through VIII of the United States Constitution.”
Just one more example how a 2000 page bill that on its face would appear to have nothing to do with gun ownership can do a great deal of harm to gun owners.

Hat tip to Mark Levin.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Sussex Range Restrictions Fails - For Now

Last night the Sussex County Board of Supervisors heard from about two dozen gun owners who were opposed to requiring special use permits for the establishment of shooting ranges in the county. In the end the Board was not happy with the definition that the planning commission came up with to describe "pistol range" and sent the proposal back to the commission. The fight will not be over until the proposal is dead for good. For now, it is on life support. There does not seem to be any appetite for it on the Board, especially from the one member with which I spoke on Wednesday.

Please contact the Board of Supervisors and thank them for their action last night and urge them to defeat this proposal for good when it comes before them again.

Blackwater District
Wayne M. Harrell
406 Jasper Lane
Post Office Box 1
Waverly, Virginia 23890
Home: (804) 834-2603

Courthouse District
T. Wayne Birdsong
116 Nicholson Drive
Wakefield, Virginia 23888
Home: (757) 899-3806

Henry District
Rufus E. Tyler Sr., Vice-Chairman
25359 Blue Star Highway Jarratt,
Virginia 23867
Home: (434) 246-4246
Office: (434) 634-2490 or (804) 834-3522

Stony Creek District
Charlie E. Caple, Jr.
12038 Palestine Road
Stony Creek, Virginia 23882
Home: (434) 246-2602

Wakefield District
C. Eric Fly, Chairman
38411 Rocky Hock Road
Wakefield, Virginia 23888
Cell: (757) 647-8190
Email: cefly@seamcorp.net

Waverly District
Harris L. Parker
300 Barkley Place
P.O. Box 616
Waverly, Virginia 23890
Home: (804) 834-3136



Hat tip to VA-Alert.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Sussex County Range Ordinance Update Part II

VSSA has received the definition of "Pistol Range" as it relates to Sussex County's proposed ordinance to require special use permits for new shooting ranges.

Pistol Range means any facility or grounds, where a monetary fee is charged and/or membership dues are collected, utilized for the purpose of shooting at regulation targets with firearms capable of being held, aimed and fired with one hand. Shotguns and rifles (long guns) are not included in this definition.
Sussex also plans to "grandfather" in existing ranges, meaning they will not have to apply to continue operation but there is no mention of how expansion or changes to the range would affect the grandfather status. VSSA is still opposed to the proposed change eventhough existing ranges are grandfathered and urges all gun owners that live or shoot in Sussex County to attend the public hearing tonight at 7:00 PM. The hearing will be held in the Sussex County General District Courtroom located at 15080 Courthouse Road in Sussex.

You can read the complete proposal and explaination as it will be presented to the Board by clicking here.

Chesterfield Defers Vote on Bowhunting Ordinance

Dozens of citizens turned out last night at the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors meeting to express their concerns with a proposal that would limit shooting a bow and arrow to not closer than 600 feet from a building or residence. Most of those speaking were opposed to the ordinance.

One of those speaking in opposition was Kevin Carroll who was representing the Virginia Deer Hunters Association. Carroll told the Board:

This ordinance, as it's penned right now, would hamstring the ability for us to control and manage the deer growth in Chesterfield County, and it's already exploding in the Midlothian District.
Of course there were some that supported the ordinance. Resident Jennifer Lemler went a little overboard in her description of what the situation is:

In my neighborhood, kids run and play in the yards and the woods that border the yards, as it should be. I don't want to put blaze orange on them in order to go out in the backyard.

Commonsense was on display in most of the comments however with many residents talking about the hazard of deer/car collisions and how the proposed ordinance may cause these to increase. It was such commonsense that caused the Board to put off a vote on the ordinance for 90 days to further study the proposal.

Current policy in the county is to allow property owners to shoot bows and arrows on their property as long as they do not cross onto their neighbors property without permission. This allows people to cull deer that come on their residential property which has become an increasing issue in many parts of the county. It also allows things like Boy Scouts to practice archery in their back yard. If the proposal to limit shooting of bows and arrows is limited to areas that are at least 600 feet from another building or home, it will have consequences beyond what is intended. There is likely a compromise that can address the safety issue and still allow residents to address increasing deer populations in suburban areas.

VSSA will continue to monitor this issue.

You can read the Richmond Times Dispatch article here.

Update: The Times Dispatch reported that the vice president of the Home Owners Association (HOA) hired a bow hunter. That was also posted here. That is incorrect and has been removed from the post. It was a resident that hired a hunter and Mr. Molloy, the vice president of the HOA, stated that the HOA was adamently opposed to residents hiring hunters to control the deer in the neighborhood.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Reminder - Chesterfield To Look At Bow-hunting Rules Tonight

Earlier this month I posted that the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing tonight about a proposal to prohibit the use of bows and arrows within 600 feet of a home in the county.

The ordinance change is proposed in reaction to concerns expressed by residents in Midlothian's Salisbury community that people are hunting too close to homes.

Currently, Chesterfield property owners and permitted guests are allowed to use bows anywhere on their property, as long as the arrow does not cross the property line. Because of growth in the county's deer population, the state Department of Game and Inland Fisheries allows additional bow hunting with site-specific "kill permits" on property adjacent to or within residential neighborhoods.

County staff suggested the 600-foot limit because it is the same distance from which use of a firearm is prohibited. In addition to homes, use of a bow would be prohibited at the same distance from businesses, public buildings and gatherings.

The 600 foot limit sounds like overkill given the difference between a bow and firearm and some hunters agree. The Richmond Times Dispatch quoted one in this morning's paper:

"If you got a problem in the subdivision, deal with it in the subdivision. Don't mess with the other part of the county that's rural," said Larry Bicking, a Chesterfield bow hunter.

"You take a piece of property that's 15 acres and you may not be able to get 600 feet from an existing dwelling," he said. "In those big subdivisions, the houses are so close together you can't hardly get a car between them, so I don't know how you hunt them anyway."

Bicking made what seems like a reasonable suggestion that the county could limit the distance from homes in Salisbury only and maybe require the user to be at an elevation 10 feet above ground level so the arrows would not soar into unintended areas.

Midlothian Supervisor Daniel A. Gecker has suggested decreasing the distance from 600 feet to 150 feet as a compromise.

Bow hunters are urged to let their voice be heard at the public hearing which will take place during the 6:30 PM portion of today's board meeting.

What: Public Hearing on Bow Hunting in Chesterfield County
When: November 18, 2009 - Meeting begins at 6:30 PM
Where: Lane B. Ramsey Administration Building
9901 Lori Road, Chesterfield, VA 23832-0040

Gun Ban Crowd Following "Concealed Handgun Incidents"

Chicago radio station WBBM reports that the Violence Policy Center has a new web site that tracks the illegal use of firearms by concealed carry permit holders.

According to a new Violence Policy Center Web site:

Concealed handgun permit holders killed eight law enforcement officers and 77 private citizens (including 10 who killed themselves) from May 2007 through October 2009.
Not to down play the the deaths, but we are supposed to believe that the fact that a relative handful of the millions of CHP holders committed crimes is reason enough to not allow the vast majority of law abiding gun owners to protect themselves and their families?

Kristin Rand said in a press release announcing the new site:

This new Web site makes clear that contrary to the false promises of the gun lobby, the simple and deadly fact is that state concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers, mass shooters and other murderers.
I long ago stopped being amazed at the spin these people put on their press releases. The hyperbole in Rand's comment cannot even be quantified. The vast majority of CHP holders are law abiding. Austin Gun Rights Examiner Howard Nemerov researched the likelihood of Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders committing a crime and he found:

Overall, CHLs are over 9 times more law-abiding than the non-licensee population, and non-licensees are over 10 times as likely to commit a major FBI violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault).

I'm willing to bet that research will translate to other shall issue states.

Update on Sussex County

Yesterday VSSA received notice of an ordinance restricting the creation of "pistol and sporting clay" ranges in Sussex County. Since posting an alert to gun owners about the ordinance being considered at this Thursday's Board of Supervisors meeting I have learned that this ordinance was originally considered at the Board's August 20 meeting and the Board unanimously returned the proposal back to the Planning Commission (the entity that came up with the scheme in the first place) with the following charge:

clearly define the terms 'sporting clays fields and pistol ranges in Sussex County
There will be a special public hearing at 7:00 PM before the regularly scheduled Board meeting. VSSA is working to get a copy of the current proposal and will post it as soon as it is in hand. The hearing will be held in the Sussex County General District Courtroom located at 15080 Courthouse Road in Sussex.

If you are unable to attend, please contact the Board of Supervisors and respectfully urge them to oppose this ordinance.

Blackwater District
Wayne M. Harrell
406 Jasper Lane
Post Office Box 1Waverly, Virginia 23890
Home: (804) 834-2603

Courthouse District
T. Wayne Birdsong
116 Nicholson Drive
Wakefield, Virginia 23888
Home: (757) 899-3806

Henry District
Rufus E. Tyler Sr., Vice-Chairman
25359 Blue Star Highway
Jarratt, Virginia 23867
Home: (434) 246-4246Office: (434) 634-2490 or (804) 834-3522

Stony Creek District
Charlie E. Caple, Jr.
12038 Palestine Road
Stony Creek, Virginia 23882
Home: (434) 246-2602

Wakefield District
C. Eric Fly, Chairman
38411 Rocky Hock Road
Wakefield, Virginia 23888
Cell: (757) 647-8190
Email: cefly@seamcorp.net

Waverly District
Harris L. Parker
300 Barkley Place
P.O. Box 616
Waverly, Virginia 23890
Home: (804) 834-3136

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Urgent Alert - Sussex County Board of Supervisors To Consider Shooting Range Ordinance Thursday

The Sussex County Board of Supervisors will consider an ordinance that would require pistol and shotgun ranges in A-1 zoning areas to apply for a conditional use permit to operate. The Public Hearing on the issue is Thursday, November 19 at 7:00 PM. This is becoming an all to familiar story. Gun owners in Sussex County need to turnout in big numbers at this meeting to show their opposition to this proposal. It should be noted that this is an idea of the Planning Commission and was not instigated by the Board of Supervisors.

While existing ranges like VSSA affiliated club Airfield Shooting Club and Sussex Shooting Sports may be grandfathered in by the proposal, approval of the recommendation may mean that future additions to the club and existing ranges may require them to apply for a permit. Further, this will impact numerous groups that need shooting facilities in the county like Boy Scouts, 4H, NRA Events (i.e. Women on Target Clinics etc). Below are the minutes from the August 20th Board meeting where the issue was originally discussed.

ORDINANCE AMENDMENT #2009-02Ms. Shannon C. Drew, Assistant to the Director of Planning, presented the staff report to the Board. The Zoning Ordinance
currently allows a sporting clays field and a pistol range by right in the A-1, General Agricultural District. Staff is requesting that Section 16-22, § 21 be amended to require a conditional use permit for the location of any sporting clays fields and/or pistol ranges in Sussex County. The requirement of a conditional use permit will allow proposed sites to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are safe for the environment, the surrounding community and range patrons. Surrounding localities such as Prince George County, Surry County and Dinwiddie County require a Special Exception to be granted by the governing body, which is equivalent to Sussex County’s Conditional Use Permit, for the location and operation of a sporting clays field and/or a pistol range.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission at their July 6, 2009 meeting voted unanimously (8-0) to send this item to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval to be read as follows:

"NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Sussex County:That the Sussex County Code, Chapter 16 (Zoning), Article II (General Agricultural District), Section 16-22 (Use Regulations), § 21 is hereby amended as follows: Add the requirement of a conditional use permit to Sec. 16-22 §21.21. Sporting clays field and/or pistol range, with a conditional use permit."

Ordinance Amendment #2009-02 ON MOTION OF SUPERVISOR BIRDSONG, seconded by SUPERVISOR CAPLE and carried: RESOLVED that the Sussex County Board of Supervisors hereby sends Ordinance Amendment #2009-02 of the Sussex County Code, Chapter 16, (Zoning) Article II (General Agricultural District), back to the Planning Commission to clearly define the terms “sporting clays fields and pistol ranges in Sussex County,” prior to the Board of Supervisors considering again said ordinance amendment. Voting aye: Supervisors Birdsong, Caple, Fly, Harrell, Parker Voting nay: none Absent: Supervisor Tyler.
Supervisor Wayne Birdsong said the way to beat this is a large turnout. I know this is short notice but if you live in Sussex and can attend please do so.

Hat tip to VA-Alert.

Meanwhile Holder Sends Mixed Message on AWB

While a binational task force is urging a reinstatement of the Clinton Gun Ban, The Hill newspaper reported on Sunday that Holder is "dialing back" his commitment to a new ban. According to The Hill, Holder’s recent statements were delivered to senators in writing, and clearly indicate the Obama administration is in no rush to reinstate the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Noting his February statements, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Holder, “Is it still your intent to seek a reinstitution of the ‘assault weapons’ ban?” Holder stressed that he wasn’t breaking new ground earlier this year.

...Regarding the administration’s next step, Holder stated, "The department is currently reviewing existing gun laws to determine how best to combat gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others prohibited from possessing them."

Obama and Holder have read the tea leaves and know they don't have the votes. You can bet if they did they would be pushing the ban. That doesn't mean they won't try some other means of getting what they want - such as a gun control treaty with the United Nations to regulate "international gun trafficking." That makes it even more important that we protect our pro-rights majorities in both houses of congress in next year's election to make sure such a treaty never sees the light of day in the U.S. Senate which must ratify it.

Hat tip to NSSF.

Former Border Patrol Commissioner Calls for Renewed AWB

The Washington Times reports this morning that the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection during the Bush Administration has urged the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on so called "assault weapons" and more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels.

Robert C. Bonner, who served as chairman of the CBP during the administration of George W. Bush, also served in the administration of George H.W. Bush. Bonner heads a binational task force on U.S.-Mexico border that called on the Obama administration and Congress last week to reinstate an expired ban on assault weapons and for Mexico to overhaul its frontier police and customs agencies to mirror the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

"In turn, large quantities of weapons and cash generated from illegal drug sales flow south into Mexico, which makes these criminal organizations more powerful and able to corrupt government institutions," he said.

Someone needs to tell Bonner that the Cartels prefer automatic weapons, something that reninstating the Clinton Gun Ban will have no effect and thus will not make either country safer.

Currently there is no appetite in Congress to reinstate the gun ban. Don't expect that to stop the gun ban crowd that is struggling to find a reason for existance after an election day trouncing, to continue this drumbeat.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Campaign 2009 Post Mortem - Big Win for Gun Owners

Election 2009 was a huge victory for Virginia gun owners. In addition to electing VSSA endorsed Bob McDonnell to be our next Governor, Virginia voters also re-elected VSSA endorsed Lt. Governor Bill Bolling and VSSA endorsed Ken Cuccinelli as Attorney General.

While the pundits will debate the significance of this year's election and its impact on national politics, there is one thing that is clear - the big loser yesterday was the gun control crowd. All you have to do is look at the results of those who made gun control an issue in their campaign or who were solid anti-gun votes in the General Assembly.

For instance, Delegate Steve Shannon decided in the last two weeks of the campaign to run an outlandish ad against Senator Cuccinelli that tried to paint Cuccinelli's pro-rights stance as favoring the arming criminals and terrorists. This was clearly a reference to the non-existent "gun show loophole." Senator Cuccinelli's internal polling however showed that Shannon's ads backfired and actually drove up Shannon's own negatives among voters.

Of equal importance, a handful of vehemently anti-gun members of the House of Delegates were defeated yesterday - in Northern Virginia no less.

In House District 32, NRA "F" rated David Poisson was defeated by NRA "AQ" rated Thomas "Tag" Greason.

In House District 34, NRA "F" rated Margaret Vanderhye was defeated by NRA "AQ" rated Barbara Comstock.

Additional races of interest included the defeat of Delegate Danny "Dan" Bowling in House District 3. Delegate Bowling had been a reliable pro-rights vote in the House of Delegates until he pulled a "Creigh Deeds" in 2008 and voted against killing a bill that would have required background checks on private sales at gun shows. It was that vote that cost Delegate Bowling the endorsement of VSSA in 2009. Bowling was defeated by James W. "Will" Morefield who received an "AQ" rating on his NRA questionnaire.

Filling the open seat in the 55th District of retiring Frank Hargrove is John Cox. Cox was rated "AQ" by the NRA (VSSA only rates incumbents based on their voting record). This is a slight improvement as Hargrove always voted against repeal of the ban on carrying concealed in restaurants that serve alcohol.

Also an improvement is the defeat of 23rd District Shannon Valentine who will be replaced by the NRA "AQ" rated T. Scott Garrett.

In a race that will likely go to a recount, VSSA endorsed Ron Villanueva defeated decidedly anti-gun incumbent Bobby Mathieson. Villanueva's margin of victory is a mere 16 votes - showing that every vote is indeed important.

VSSA member Bill Janis cruised to victory over anti-gun James Towey. Janis was endorsed by both VSSA and NRA and is a stalwart supporter of our firearms freedom.

Another reliable vote is Delegate John O'Bannon who also fought off a spirited challenge from Tom Shields. O'Bannon was endorsed by both VSSA and NRA and is one of our true friends in the House of Delegates.

Overall, the House of Delegates should be a few votes stronger in support of our rights when it convenes next January. VSSA would like to thank all of Virginia's gun owners and sportsmen who voted yesterday and who voted Freedom First. It was truly the best election for gun owners since 1993 when George Allen was elected Governor and led to Virginia's "shall issue" concealed carry reform.

There is every reason to believe that should repeal of the "Restaurant Ban" pass the General Assembly again next year, that we will finally see the bill signed into law. VSSA will be working hard to make this a reality. We have a lot to celebrate after last night's election results. VSSA will now turn its attention to the legislative session and as we did last year, we will keep keep gun owners informed using this blog, and using out email alert list. If you are not already subscribed, please take a minute to click the link on the right side of the page and subscribe today. We won't inundate you with email, just information that will be necessary for you to protect your rights.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

What Will the Message of Today's Election Be Tomorrow?

Polls opened in Virginia at 6:00 AM and will remain open until 7:00 PM. If the supporters of Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli turn out in the numbers that the pre-election polls have indicated, it should be an early night in Virginia with all three winning clear victories. But, we must turn out as the only poll that really counts is the one taken today.

There has been much talk about what the elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York's 23rd Congressional District will mean for the Obama agenda which up to now has pretty much been about seizing as much power for the federal government as quickly as possible. Congressional Quarterly reported this morning that more times than not, off year elections are more about local concerns than sending any message to Washington. There have however been exceptions - 1993 being one.

Sometimes, these odd-year elections can look oddly predictive, as in 2003, when Republican pickups for governor in Mississippi and Kentucky preceded the re-election of Republican George W. Bush as president in 2004, and in 2005, when the Democratic candidates scored hard-won holds for governor in New Jersey and Virginia on the eve of their party’s takeover of Congress in the 2006 elections.

But the big off-year races in 2007 ended up a wash, with a Republican takeover for governor of Louisiana, a Democratic take-back in Kentucky and a GOP hold in Mississippi. And the next year, the Democrats nonetheless celebrated Barack Obama ’s victory for president and big seat gains in Congress, governors’ offices and state legislative races.
One thing seems to be clear from this election cycle - more people are aware of what is going on around us - and what is being done to us by those in Washington. Jim Shepherd of the Shooting Wire writing yesterday about his travels around the country the last eight weeks where he evaluated new firearms and accessories that will be introduced next year, shared this observation:

In Virginia this weekend, I spent time with a group of professionals of varying ages. There were the usual conversations about golf handicaps, sports teams and the kids' sports, but once small-talk was out of the way, the tone changed. It is safe to say that many Virginians are looking to tomorrow's gubernatorial election as an opportunity to be one of the first states to deliver the message that the electorate is beyond disgusted with the status quo in government. They were also extremely aware of important races in other states. One that got special attention was New Jersey, a state described by them as "full of great people who are also fed-up with the current state of affairs."

So, whatever the outcome tonight, both sides will be spinning the results to fit their narrative. But one thing is sure, the citizens of this country have been awakened and the 2010 elections will be very interesting and will get underway tomorrow.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Chesterfield Proposes Restrictions on Bow Hunting

Richmond's WWBT NBC12 reported last week that safety concerns may prompt a change for bow hunters in Chesterfield County.

A re-write in Chesterfield's ordinance would require hunters to be at least 600 feet away from homes, businesses and public areas.



A public hearing on the matter is scheduled for November 18, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia.

The ordinance in question is Section 14-10 relating to discharging a firearm and the county is recommending amending the ordinance to include shooting arrows from bows near buildings.

Section 14-10 currently reads:

Sec. 14-10. Same--Discharging firearms.
(a) No person shall discharge any firearm within the county within 600 feet of a (i) dwelling of another; (ii) business establishment; (iii) public building; (iv) public gathering; or (v) public meeting place.

(b) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00.

(c) This section shall not apply to a (i) law-enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties; (ii) any person whose discharge of a firearm is justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of life or property; (iii) the discharge, on land of at least five acres that is zoned for agricultural use, of a firearm for the killing of deer pursuant to Code of Virginia, § 29.1-529; (iv) the discharge of a firearm that is otherwise specifically authorized by law; (v) the discharge of black powder firearms using blanks as part of historical re-enactments, historical living history programs and historical demonstrations; (vi) the discharge of starter blank weapons to initiate athletic competitions; or (vii) ceremonial and patriotic displays.

(Code 1978, § 15.1-22.3; Ord. of 9-21-05(1), § 1; Ord. of 12-13-06(2), § 1) State law references: Authority of county to adopt this section, Code of Virginia, § 15.2-1209; penalty, Code of Virginia, § 18.2-280.

A copy of the ordinance is on file in the County Administrator’s Office and the Clerk to the Board’s Office (Room 504) at the Lane B. Ramsey Administration Building, 9901 Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, for public examination between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of each regular business day.

Delegate Dan Bowling and the "Gun Show Loophole"

Over the weekend, I was asked why VSSA did not endorse Delegate Danny "Dan" Bowling (D-3) in his House of Delegates re-election race. There is a good reason for VSSA making this decision. While Delegate Bowling has been a good friend of gun owners on most issues, in 2008, he pulled a Creigh Deeds on the so called "gun show loophole." In 2008, House Bill 745, was introduced, adding the definition of firearms show vendor to state law and would have required background checks on the private sale of firearms at gun shows. The bill was assigned to the Militia, Police and Public Safety committee on which Delegate Bowling is a committee member. When the vote came to "Pass By Indefinitely" (PBI- to kill the bill), Delegate Bolling was one of seven committee members voting "No" on killing the bill.

VSSA does a very thorough review of votes cast by legislators to determine who is deserving of our endorsement. The gun show issue is very important to VSSA members and gun owners in general. While questionnaires give an indication of what a candidate says he or she will do, a voting record is a true indication of where a candidate really stands. It is because of the vote on HB 745 in 2008 that Delegate Bowling did not receive the endorsement of VSSA. In addition, the NRA-PVF gave Delegate Bowling a rating of "B" likely because of his vote on HB 745. Bowling's opponent, James W. "Will" Morefield does not have a voting record therefore VSSA did not make an endorsement (he did receive an "AQ" from NRA-PVF based on his questionnaire). Gun owners in the 3rd House of Delegates district should decide who is likely to be a better friend, a candidate that voted against their interests when it comes to gun shows, or a candidate that has indicated on his NRA questionnaire that he will be with us.