Complacency is the Gun Owner's Worst Enemy

Earlier today, VSSA Executive Director, Lu Charette, forwarded to me the weekly ISRA member email. In the email, ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson talks about complacency in Illinois.  It got me to thinking.  In a state like Virginia where we haven't had a new gun control law passed or signed into law since 1993 (one gun-a-month), and since 1995 we have had many pro-rights victories, even the repeal of the one gun-a-month, it is easy to slip into the same behavior.  As Pearson noted, complacency is certain death for gun rights or any other civil right.

Pearson went on to write in his email to ISRA members, the one thing the "bump stock" controversy after the Las Vegas shooting did do is pull the mask off of gun ban leaders like Diane Feinstein.  Feinstein's admission that what they are proposing would do nothing to stop these type of events tells us all we need to know about their real goal.  Whether they are at the national, state or local level, these people are dangerous and should not be underestimated.  These people have unlimited money thanks to Michael Bloomberg and the only way to stop them is to join organizations like our sister organization ISRA and VSSA to fight them.  When people become complacent, they drop their membership in state associations like ISRA and VSSA, thinking that NRA is all they need.  As Pearson said, that is always a mistake.

Diane Feinstein's "Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act" is a prime example of what the gun ban lobby always tries to make out of something like the "bump stock."  While she says her bill is narrowly written, what is proposed is anything but narrow. In fact, the bill bans any “accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.” I've seen YouTube videos where people do exactly what the "bump stock" is designed to do, simply by placing their thumb on the trigger and placing it in a belt loop on their pants.  As Dr. AWR Hawkins writes,

This language is very crucial because it goes after bump stocks for being exactly what the ATF described—an accessory, not a conversion device.

It is already illegal to convert a semiautomatic into an automatic and Feinstein’s bill is a way for leftists to make it illegal to add an accessory that allows the gun to fire rapidly without being converted to automatic.

In other words, a semiautomatic firearm with a bump stock is still a semiautomatic firearm; it only fires one round per each pull of the trigger, period. Yet Feinstein wants to ban them and—because she has to focus her ban on accessories—it means the ban is broad enough that it already includes numerous other devices that do not convert semiautomatics into automatics either. Her legislation explicitly lists “a trigger crank” as something that would be banned as well.

Did the Vegas attacker use a trigger crank? No, he did not. Yet it would be banned because Feinstein wants to ban any accessory that allows the gun owner to “accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.”

The language of her bill would include bans on other devices, bans that are only implicit at this point. It would simply come down to a bureaucrat deciding the threshold at which semiautomatics are being fired too fast and any accessory that allowed a gun owner to meet that threshold would be banned.

Feinstein’s bill currently has 38 co-sponsors, all of whom are Democrat. But numerous Republicans—including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX), Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Marco Rubio (R-FL)—have voiced openness to gun control via bump stock legislation and/or hearings on such legislation. 

In Virginia, Governor Terry McAuliffe has indicated he plans to introduce legislation on the way out the door that would ban "bump stocks" and Democrat Gubernatorial Candidate Ralph Northam has indicated he will also push to ban modern sporting rifles (he calls them "assault weapons) if he is elected.

Now is the time to join or renew your VSSA membership.  We need every Virginia gun owner to fight this battle.  And, we need every gun owner engaged in this year's election to insure that a pro-rights Governor is elected.   You can find out how to get involved in the election by clicking here.

Don't let complacency doom us to another four years of good legislation dying in the Governor's Office.

RTD: McAuliffe Says He'll Seek New Gun Restrictions in Virginia After Las Vegas Massacre

If we did not already know that this year's election is important to gun owners, the Richmond Times Dispatch reported earlier today that Governor Terry McAuliffe will seek new gun ban initiatives as he walks out the door.  McAuliffe, who cannot seek reelection, knows any such legislation faces an uphill battle, but according to the RTD, his intent is more cynical than realistic, hoping to put GOP candidates in a tough position in the final weeks of the campaign having to defend their opposition to his proposals after the Las Vegas shooting:

Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced Friday that he'll seek new gun-control legislation in Virginia in the aftermath of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, including bans on bump stock devices, high-capacity magazines and "military-style assault rifles."

McAuliffe has already pushed unsuccessfully for universal background checks and restoring the state's scrapped one-handgun-a-month law, but the Republican-controlled General Assembly has routinely blocked new gun restrictions.

The legislation McAuliffe called for Friday would also face steep odds, but the announcement might put Republican lawmakers on the defensive with all 100 seats in the House of Delegates up for grabs in next month's election.

This is a call to action for Virginia gun owners to get involved in this year's election.  You can find out how you can help by clicking here.

FBI Report on Alexandria Shooting Throws Cold Water on Calls for More Gun Control

You will recall that last week, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe used his time at the microphone to call for more gun control after the assassination attempt on several Republican congressional members in Alexandria.  It would seem from a brief FBI Report on the shooting that was just released that none of the things that McAuliffe called for would have prevented the attack.  National Review's Charles Cooke has the details:

For a start, the guns weren’t bought in Virginia; they were bought in Illinois, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. And they weren’t purchased privately, illegally, or without attendant background checks, but “legally through federal firearms licensees” that are obliged under federal law to run checks. Moreover, Hodgkinson only got the weapons after he obtained an additional possession-and-purchase license (FOID) of the sort that more extreme gun-control advocates want to see made mandatory in all states.

Or, put another way: Illinois has stricter rules than even Barack Obama endorsed — it quite literally licenses all gun-owners in the state — and those rules made no difference to this case. This is not rare. It is typical.

McAuliffe likes to talk about so-called "universal" background checks but the shooter passed background checks - twice - so, exactly how would criminalizing the private sale of personal property between gun owners have stopped the shooter in this case?  Read Cooke's full article as he provides even more details on where the gun ban crowd got everything wrong on this. But that's not really unexpected, is it.

Gun Ban Groups Can't Wait to Push Gun Control After Alexandria Shooting of Congressman and Others

It took all of a little over an hour for Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to use yesterday's shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, an aide, and two police officers at an Alexandria baseball field to turn it into an opportunity to push gun control.  Other's joined the fray as well.  David Frum from the Atlantic:

“Virginia: No background checks No licensing No registration No permit req’d for concealed carry of long guns Open carry long guns & handguns,” the pundit tweeted to over 450,000 followers.

Frum was completely wrong on so many levels - first of which was you cannot carry a concealed long gun in Virginia.  Concealed handgun permits are what the name states - for carrying concealed handguns.  Secondly, Virginian's have to undergo background checks when they purchase a firearm from an FFL just like any other state.  But as  Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon told Cam Edwards of NRATV yesterday, some journalists don't care; they simply want to tweet out their anti-gun talking points. Gutowski said that he was somewhat encouraged by political leaders who chose not to politicize the attack.
NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch also appeared on Fox News yesterday opposite Mark Glaze, former executive director of Michael Bloomberg's Everytown For Gun Safety and said the shooting wasn't about guns as the gun ban lobby and politicians like Terry McAuliffe would have us believe.
One more thing, the shooter was a resident of Illinois, and we don't yet know where he obtained his firearms, so all this talk about Virginia's gun laws is a bit premature. And as the CBS News article linked above states, Illinois' gun laws could also be at issue if the shooter obtained his firearms there. Illinois' gun laws are much stricter.  According to CBS News, ATF is tracing the firearms the shooter used to determine where they were purchased, which can take 24 hours.  We should know more in the coming days.

CBS News Posts Video of McAuliffe Saying 93 Million Americans are Killed Each Day by "Gun Violence" Before Media Gives Him Chance to Correct Himself.

From the CBS News Twitter feed earlier today.  That's a lot more than are killed each year in firearm related deaths much less a day.  McAuliffe made the comment then continued talking about the nonexistent "gun show loophole" and background checks before repeating the claim a second time.  CBS posted the video a little too quick and apparently removed the tweet and the video.  A member of the press gave McAuliffe a chance to correct himself.  The CBS video did not originally include the entire comment and media exchange.

Real Clear Politics has the video of the statement and the media query that allowed him to correct his comment.


Update:  A member of the Virginia General Assembly, Delegate Todd Gilbert, showed more class than Governor McAuliffe:

Del. C. Todd Gilbert, a Shenandoah County Republican and ardent gun rights advocate, said the gun debate can wait.

“While I would love to respond to what I know the governor means by that, I think we can resume debate on this topic when we know more about what happened and when victims are not still lying on operating tables,” Gilbert said in a text message.

New Quinnipiac University Poll Addresses Gun Issues in Virginia

WTVR CBS 6 reports that a new Quinnipiac University poll shows that a substantial number of respondents support background checks for all gun buyers and reinstatement of handgun rationing:

The poll found that 94 to 5 percent, of voters, including 90 to 8 percent among Republicans, want the background checks.

Voters also support 62 to 32 percent a Virginia law, repealed in 2012, which limited a person to buying only one handgun per month, as opposed to current law which has no limit on handgun purchases.

Republicans oppose the limit 57 to 39 percent.

White men are divided, with 46 percent supporting the limit and 50 percent opposed. Every other listed party, gender, educational, age and racial group supports the limit on handgun purchases.

Virginia voter attitudes on other gun issues, according to the poll, are:

• Support 54 – 41 percent stricter gun laws in the state;
• 49 percent say it’s too easy to buy a gun in Virginia, while 2 percent say it’s too difficult and 38 percent say it’s “about right;”
• Voters say 66 – 23 percent that new gun laws will not interfere with the right to own guns;
• If more people carried guns, Virginia would be less safe, 53 percent of voters say, while 35 percent say it would be safer.

“Many observers have commented about how much Virginia has changed politically from its deep red history to a leaning Democratic hue in little more than a decade,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

“They generally cite the Democrats’ ability to carry the state in the most recent presidential, U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races. But what also seems to be lining up in the Democratic column is Virginia voters’ values on some hot-button issues.”

When I see polls about back ground checks, I always want to see the actual question that was asked.  In this case, there was no additional information given, just a generic question:

31. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

Given the actual question, I'm not surprised the number is so high.  It would be interesting to see where those numbers would fall if the poll had given some background before asking the question.  Knowing that so-called "universal" background checks barely got 51% support in Nevada last election and failed to pass in Maine, being informed on exactly what "background checks for all gun buyers" entails makes a big difference.  The same could be said for the question about stricter gun laws.  It was a one line question with no context.  Nothing was said about Virginia having crime rates that are at all time lows.  So, exactly what did those polls think stricter laws would accomplish?

The poll does indicate some important trends however.  Several years ago, VSSA members heard then Delegate and VSSA member Bill Janis at a VSSA Annual Meeting, discuss the changing demographics of the Commonwealth and what that would mean for our firearm freedoms going forward.  The trends on the "hot-button issues" that were part of this poll, including gun control, seem to confirm what Janis predicted at that meeting - that we need to come to grips that Virginia will change and we need to change with it.  Our parent organization, the NRA, has already moved in that direction by adding faces like National and World Champion Shooter Julie Golob,  Latino shooter Gabby Franco, and Colion Noir, a black pro-rights activist, to the faces spreading the NRA message.  We need to go beyond the "old white-guy" if we are going to preserve our freedoms.

I'll be on NRATV.com at 3:40 today talking about the poll with Cam Edwards of NRANews' Cam and Company.

General Assembly Veto Session Wrap-up

Photo by Richmond Times-Dispatch

Though it is disappointing, it is not completely unexpected that Governor McAuliffe's vetoes of several firearm related bills were upheld, as attempts in both the House and Senate fell one or more votes short of an override.  Here is how the Virginian Pilot described it:

At veto ceremonies, Gov. Terry McAuliffe often calls himself the “brick wall” against what he calls bad bills delivered by the Republican-controlled General Assembly.

GOP lawmakers didn’t have enough sledgehammers to break down that wall Wednesday during a one-day session in which lawmakers handled budget amendments and addressed the governor’s vetoes.

And now, McAuliffe is the most successful brick wall in Virginia history – 111-0 in vetoes.

That’s 21 more vetoes in an administration than Gov. Jim Gilmore’s 90 in the late 1990s.

McAuliffe also takes the single-year record with 40, beating Gilmore’s 37 vetoes in 1998.

Votes were largely along party lines on the 40 vetoed bills, but some Democrats did join with Republicans in a few votes.  The one bright spot was McAuliffe's attempt to reinstate handgun rationing failed.  Unfortunately, the underlying bill, SB1023 will likely be vetoed now that the substitute was returned as being unconstitutional.  Governor McAuliffe said after all of the firearm bill vetoes were upheld:

“We blocked bills that would have injected firearms into volatile domestic violence situations, making victims less safe, not more. Others would have created an unwarranted expansion of persons allowed to carry concealed handguns, including service-members considered by the military as unqualified to bear arms to be issued a concealed carry permit.

“While we successfully stopped legislation that would have threatened the safety of Virginians, I am disappointed that the General Assembly did not reinstate Virginia’s One-Handgun-a-Month law. The legislature’s ill-advised step to repeal this common-sense policy has made Virginia a go-to state for criminals to purchase weapons in bulk again. You needn’t look further than the 627-count gun-trafficking indictment earlier this month that included 22 Virginians. One of those suspects even bragged on a police wiretap about how easy it was to acquire guns in Virginia. By preventing the reenactment of this rule, Republicans have ensured the Commonwealth will continue a negligent approach to preventing gun crime.”

The Second Amendment related bills that were vetoed are:

HB1432/SB1347 Switchblade knife; exception to carry concealed.
HB1582/SB1362 Concealed handgun permits; age requirement for persons on active military duty.
HB1852/SB1299 Concealed handguns; protective orders.
HB1853/SB1300 Victims of domestic violence, etc.; firearms safety or training course.

SB1023, a bill that limited the sharing of concealed handgun permit holder information with states that do not have reciprocity with Virginia, was amended in the nature of a substitute to reinstate handgun rationing and was an effective veto as McAuliffe knew it was not going to be approved.  Because the State Senate ruled the change to the originating bill was unconstitutional, it now goes back to the Governor where he will likely veto the underlying bill.  McAuliffe has previously vetoed similar legislation.

Yesterday illustrates how important it is that gun owners band together to elect a pro-gun governor this year.  We have passed a number of pro-rights bills in the last four years only to see them vetoed by McAuliffe.  Now is the time to elect a pro-rights Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General so that we can go on offense in the next General Assembly and pass into law the bills that McAuliffe has vetoed, as well as pass other pro-rights legislation.

McAuliffe Substitutes Handgun Rationing for SB1023 CHP Privacy

Photo by Richmond Times-Dispatch

In the final day to act on 2017 legislation, Governor Terry McAuliffe sent back an amendment in the nature of a substitute to SB 1023, Senator Richard Stuart's bill to protect the privacy of Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders when they are traveling in states that do not have reciprocity agreements with Virginia.  The Richmond Times Dispatch has more:

In a statement announcing the proposal, McAuliffe, a Democrat, cited a 627-count indictment that charged 22 Virginians with running more than 200 guns bought in Virginia north to New York and selling them to an undercover officer. One of the suspects was overheard on wiretaps mocking Virginia’s gun laws, saying he could buy as many guns as he wanted.

McAuliffe said in a statement: “One-handgun-a-month was enacted almost a quarter century ago to counter Virginia’s shameful reputation as the gun-running capital of the East Coast. Five years ago, the General Assembly took the ill-advised step of repealing this commonsense limitation. As a result, Virginia is once again becoming the go-to state for criminals to purchase weapons in bulk.”

The governor’s proposal elevates the repealed law as a political issue in an election year, but it will likely face a hostile reception when the General Assembly reconvenes for the April 5 veto session.

McAuliffe is seeking to tack his amendment onto Senate Bill 1023, sponsored by Sen. Richard H. Stuart, R-Stafford. Stuart’s measure would bar sharing information regarding Virginia concealed-handgun permits with law enforcement in states that do not recognize a Virginia concealed-handgun permit as valid. The bill already passed both chambers of the General Assembly.

Stuart called it unfortunate Monday evening that he hadn’t seen the amendment. The governor’s office announced it late Monday afternoon.

“I also find it unfortunate that the governor chooses to place his priorities with New York City instead of the citizens of Virginia,” Stuart said in an email. “This bill was to protect Virginians that are in lawful possession of a firearm from being arrested by out-of-state jurisdictions that don’t give reciprocity to our concealed-carry permit. The bill very simply is designed to protect the people that are playing by the rules.”

Delegate Todd Gilbert is correct that this is just a political stunt.  SB1023 passed by veto proof margins in both the House of Delegates and the State Senate.  It is not clear those margins would have held had McAuliffe just vetoed the bill but he clearly wanted to try and continue to score political points off of the New York gun traffickers a couple weeks ago.  The amendment has little chance of succeeding.

I'll be on NRATV talking more about this with Cam Edwards of NRANews Cam and Company at 2:40 today.

Update: Yesterday's discussion with Cam Edwards:

RTD's A. Barton Hinkle Explains What's Wrong With Gun Rationing

It didn't take long after it was reported that 22 Virginia residents were involved in a firearm trafficking scheme and arrested by New York City authorities for people like Governor Terry McAuliffe to call for the reinstatement of handgun rationing:

Last week, the Richmond Time-Dispatch opinion writer A. Barton Hinkle had a column titled "Maybe it's time for gun owners and Muslim advocates to join hands."  Hinkle combined two issues into one to make the case that throwing a wide net to deal with bad people often negatively impact the majority who don't do bad things more than it impacts those who do.  On the gun issue, I found this to be a strong argument in response to Governor McAuliffe:

A few things about the story bear noting: Two of the ringleaders are violent convicts. Some of the bulk firearm sales were effected through straw purchases, which are illegal. And shipping the guns up to New York also is illegal. That is, after all, why authorities were able to bring charges in the first place.

This should chasten gun-control advocates, since it shows that the system works: Guns were seized and bad guys charged, and a successful operation makes an odd basis on which to build a case for even more restrictions. But the outcome also should chasten gun-control opponents, since laws against gun-running and straw purchases are part of gun control. Not every attempt at gun control is an abject failure.

Yet a bigger point needs drawing out. The trouble with the one-gun-a-month law is that it truncates the rights of all Virginians, in order to thwart the designs of a minuscule minority who want to run guns to New York. To the ordinary gun owner in Virginia, who follows the law and leaves other people alone unless they mess with him first, it must seem brutally unfair to restrict his right to keep and bear arms because of something somebody else did, or might do in the future.

Current laws worked.  Law enforcement caught a lot of bad actors.  And, they did so without the rest of us having to have our rights infringed.

Gabriella Hoffman: Let Victims of Domestic Violence Conceal Carry in Virginia

Gabriella Hoffman, a conservative blogger and media strategist, wrote in Monday's Richmond Times Dispatch that Governor Terry McAuliffe should sign two bills currently sitting on his desk, HB1852 and SB1299, which would allow victims of domestic violence to carry a concealed firearm without a permit for 45 days.  If they apply for a concealed handgun permit during that time, they would get an additional 45 days from the date of the application.

Two bills sitting on Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s desk — House Bill 1852 and Senate Bill 1299 — would make it easier for victims of domestic abuse to protect themselves. If signed into law, these bills would allow anyone seeking a protective order to temporarily carry a concealed handgun without a permit. Virginia already allows law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm openly without a permit. The bill would protect a woman from criminal prosecution if she placed her handgun in her purse or under a jacket. It just makes sense.

In Virginia, a person seeking to carry a concealed handgun must get a state-issued permit. The process requires submitting an application to your local circuit court, paying a $50 fee and consenting to a background check. Under Virginia law, the state has up to 45 days to process a CHP application. That waiting period is often too long for victims of domestic abuse.

In March 2014 a 43-year-old mother of five in Loudoun County, Michelle Castillo, was found murdered in her home, allegedly at the hands of her estranged husband. Last April, a Leesburg mother of three, Christina Fisher, was shot to death at her home, allegedly by her ex-boyfriend. Last November in Big Stone Gap, 38-year-old Janina Jefferson was allegedly murdered by her ex-husband. What do these three cases have in common? The murdered women each had a restraining order against the men who allegedly killed them. All three women might be alive today if they had been able to protect themselves with a concealed handgun.

Last year, McAuliffe vetoed similar legislation saying:

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto Senate Bill 626, which provides that for a period of 45 days after the issuance of a protective order, the person who has issued the order may lawfully carry a concealed handgun. This bill eliminates the application and training requirements associated with concealed handgun permits and allows petitioners to carry a concealed handgun immediately upon the issuance of any protective order.

That bill allowed any person 21 years of age or older who is not prohibited from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm under state or federal law and is protected by a protective order for 45 days after such order was issued or until such order expires or is otherwise dissolved by the issuing court, whichever occurs first. If the individual applied for a concealed carry permit during that time, the exemption would be extended for an additional 45 days until the application was processed.  So, McAuliffe is presuming that everyone that may take advantage of the statute would just get a gun and not be trained in how to protect themselves.  Remember that even a hunter safety course qualifies someone in Virginia to apply for a CHP so McAuliffe is on thin ice on the training issue.

In his veto message, McAuliffe also referenced the compromise that restored the reciprocity/recognition agreements with 25 states which had been ended by Attorney General Mark Herring in December of 2015.  Part of that agreement included legislation that required abusers that were subject to a protective order to get rid of their firearms (to date 28 firearms have been turned over to law enforcement) as a reason SB626 would be unnecessary, as if someone bent on doing harm is going to comply with the law.

Gun owners need to contact the Governor's office and urge him to sign both HB1852 and SB1299.

Governor Vetoes Bill Allowing Military Personnel Under 21 to Have CHP

Yesterday Governor Terry McAuliffe announced he had vetoed HB1582, a bill that would have allowed active duty and retired military members who are under the age of 21 to apply for concealed handgun permits.  The Governor stated:

Contrary to the assumption of House Bill 1582, weapons familiarization training as a component of an individual's military basic training does not qualify that individual to carry weapons in follow-on service. Under the bill, an individual who has completed basic training but who subsequently was disqualified (for medical or other reasons) from having access to weapons could nevertheless apply for a concealed handgun permit.

My concerns about the bill are in no way a reflection of my respect and support for the brave young men and women who serve our nation in uniform. I have made this decision to veto this bill after consultation with military leadership, including Secretary of Veterans and Defense Affairs Admiral John Harvey, USN (Ret), who dealt with this issue extensively throughout his 39-year career in our Navy. House Bill 1582 reflects an incomplete understanding of weapons qualification practices within our military and is an unwarranted expansion in the number of people allowed to carry handguns in the Commonwealth. It would do nothing to protect the safety of our citizens.

Governor McAuliffe is the one who reflects an incomplete understanding of the CHP process.  It also plays into the stereotype that CHP holders don't seek additional training beyond the basic requirements to apply for a permit.  If McAuliffe completely understood it, he would know that the current process allows someone who had only completed a hunter safety course to qualify for a CHP.

I've never served in the military but I have to believe that "weapons familiarization training" provided during basic training has to at least provide the level provided in a hunter safety course.  Even if someone who completed basic training but was disqualified for medical or other reasons that resulted in an honorable discharge would have the basic knowledge to be approved for a CHP.  We trust these folks to defend our nation but we don't trust them to properly carry a concealed firearm?

The Governor also vetoed HB1432, a bill that authorizes any person to carry a switchblade knife concealed when such knife is carried for the purpose of engaging in a lawful profession or lawful recreational activity the performance of which is aided by the use of a switchblade knife. The bill removes switchblade knives from the list of weapons the selling, bartering, giving, or furnishing of which is a Class 4 misdemeanor. McAuliffe's veto message stated in part:

There is no compelling need to add to the list of weapons that can be lawfully concealed from public view and easily traded. Legalizing the concealed carry of switchblade knives would needlessly endanger the lives of Virginians. Furthermore, the laws of the United States prohibit the manufacture, transportation or distribution of switchblade knives.

HB1582 passed the House of Delegates 78-19, a veto proof margin that included a significant number of Democrats.  It passed the State Senate 24-15 with Senator Frank Wagner not voting.  That is three votes short of being able to override the Governor's veto.  Presuming that Senator Wagner, who is running for Governor touting his Second Amendment bona fides, votes with the majority, that leaves the total two short.  Some of those who voted against the bill live in areas representing a large number of military personnel.  Gun owners should immediately contact their Delegate and State Senator and urge them to override the Governor's veto.

HB1432 failed to pass either house by a veto proof margin.  Its fate faces an uphill climb to find the votes to override the veto.

Governor McAuliffe's Unintended Consequences

A. Barton Hinkle points out in the Richmond Times Dispatch that gun rights are getting a push from an unexpected individual - Governor Terry McAuliffe:

This session, the governor has proposed a commendable criminal-justice reform package. It includes a badly needed adjustment to the state’s standard for felony grand larceny. The figure was set at $200 in 1980, and has not been changed since. Had the threshold kept pace with inflation, it would be more than $500 today.

Critics call the proposal a cost-of-living adjustment for thieves, which is clever but misleading. Pegging the standard to inflation keeps it constant in real-value terms. Failing to adjust for inflation actually lowers the threshold in constant dollars. Today’s $200 threshold is the equivalent of only $68 in 1980 dollars. Twenty years from now, assuming only 2.5 percent inflation, the threshold will fall to only $42 in 1980 dollars. (Assuming 5 percent inflation, it would fall to only $25 in 1980 dollars.)

Adjusting the felony standard does not allow criminals to steal more; refusing to adjust it makes a felony out of ever-smaller offenses. That gets expensive fast. Virginia spends about $25,000 year per prison inmate, so a 20-year stretch for felony theft costs the state half a million dollars. Does the public really benefit from lowering the felony ceiling year after year? Do Virginians want to spend a half-million dollars to punish someone for boosting a mid-range kitchen blender from Target?

Probably not. So adjusting the felony threshold make sense. And it carries an ancillary benefit: protecting the voting rights — and the gun rights — of nonviolent offenders who otherwise would be swept up by “felony creep.”

Gov. McAuliffe probably did not intend that result of his proposal. But as he already has learned, sometimes the most powerful law is the one about unintended consequences.

This isn't the first time Governor McAuliffe's actions have unintentionally made it easier for nonviolent offenders to regain their gun rights.  When he started restoring the rights of felons who had completed their sentences he took away one of the steps that those individuals had to take to restore their gun rights - petition a court:

Four months later, the governor grandly announced that he was restoring the voting rights of 206,000 felons. Republican heads exploded, and the ensuing debate eventually had to be settled by the Virginia Supreme Court, which struck down McAuliffe’s order, requiring him to continue making restorations on a case-by-case basis.

In the meantime, though, a question arose: What about gun rights? Although McAuliffe’s order stipulated that “nothing in this Order restores the right to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms,” the governor’s order made it much easier for a felon to get his gun rights back. Formerly, an offender first had to petition for restoration of his civil rights, and once they were restored, go to court to retrieve his gun rights. McAuliffe’s order eliminated the first step.

That was purely unintentional. “My actions were about giving you the right to vote, to serve on a jury and run for political office,” McAuliffe admitted. “My action, I didn’t think it had anything to do with gun rights. I stayed away from that.”

Republican Del. Greg Habeeb has introduced legislation that would automatically restore gun rights to nonviolent felons.   VSSA will be tracking this bill along with all other firearm related legislation this session.  If it passes, given McAuliffe's own statement that these individuals have completed their sentence, he will be hard pressed to veto it.

Hinkle was on NRANews' Cam and Company on Thursday to discuss the issue in more detail.

Public Hearing on McAuliffe Ban on Carry in State Buildings This Wednesday

From WTVR CBS 6:

The public hearing will be held from 10 a.m. until noon on August 31, 2016, in the auditorium of the Pocahontas Building located at 900 E. Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. Seating and access will be provided on a first-come basis. Anyone who wishes to speak at the public hearing must sign up at the event. Sign-up begins at 9 a.m., and speakers will be called in the order in which they signed up. There is no pre-registration. All speakers are limited to two minutes. All persons and bags are subject to search prior to entering the auditorium. No signage will be allowed.

Members of the public who attend but are not able to speak or who cannot attend the hearing can submit written comments on the Virginia Town Hall regulatory website at http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/viewchapter.cfm?chapterid=2905. The full text of the proposed regulation can also be found at that link.

McAuliffe's ban put into place by executive order can only become permanent if it is approved through the normal regulatory process. Now is the time to make your voice heard using the above link.

CPRC on Why McAuliffe Can't Restore Felon Voting Rights Without Restoring Their Gun Rights

The Crime Prevention Research Center has this piece about Governor McAuliffe's Executive Order giving over 200,000 felons the right to vote in violation of the Virginia Constitution.  Republicans have responded to this action by saying McAuliffe's failure to make a distinction between violent crimes and less serious offenses will mean that murderers and rapists will be able to serve on juries, among other things.  CPRC sights the specific section of the Constitution McAuliffe violated - Article II, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution:

No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. 

Note the section references "civil rights" which includes gun rights. Most believe McAuliffe took the actions he did to help Hillary Clinton in the state in November since, according to the CPRC article, at least one piece of research shows felons tend to be Democrats. 
McAuliffe claims his action is to undo one of the last remnants of Reconstruction that was instituted to keep blacks from voting.  It should be noted that the earliest gun control was also instituted to keep blacks from owning guns. No one in the media asked McAuliffe about that however.  Sounds like a good question for him the next time he is on his monthly radio "Ask the Governor" on AM1140 WRVA.

Another McAuliffe Veto - HB766/S626 Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence

Governor Terry McAuliffe has vetoed HB766 and SB626, bills that would have allowed anyone who had obtained a protective order to carry a concealed handgun for 45 days without having to go through the normal permit-application and training process. The person would have to be eligible to possess a firearm. Those who apply for a concealed handgun permit (CHP) during that 45-day period could have received a 45-day extension.

Calling the legislation "a very, very dangerous gamble that will lead to more tragedies," McAuliffe said the bills "may have been well-intentioned" but would make it easier for deadly firearms to be inserted into volatile situations where the gun could be turned against the person who sought it for protection.

McAuliffe had already tried to amend the bills by sending down a substitute before the end of the session but both the House of Delegates and the State Senate rejected the substitute bill, which would have required the victim to have already applied for a CHP and received training, thus requiring the victim to know ahead of time they were going to need, and be issued a protective order. In addition, the victim would not have been allowed to utilize the online training option that every other CHP applicant has the option of using.  The House, after defeating the substitute then passed the original bill again by a 2/3 margin and sent it to the Senate. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to muster the required 2/3 majority to pass the original bill into law over the Governor's objections. The House and Senate will have one more chance when the legislature reconvenes to take up vetoes and amendments.

McAuliffe Vetoes Bill Allowing Security Officers to Carry Firearms on Campus

Though it has not been posted on the Legislative Information System as of this posting, the Richmond Times Dispatch (RTD) reported last night that Governor McAuliffe has vetoed HB1234, a bill that would authorize a school security officer (an individual who works for a private security firm) to carry a firearm in the performance of his duties if he is a retired law-enforcement officer.  The bill states that the individual must meet the firearms training standards for active law-enforcement officers and the local school board must grant him or her the authority to carry a firearm in the performance of their duties  and is not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm.  According to the RTD, the Governor's veto message states:

“This bill would expose schools and students to unnecessary risk and potential harm by allowing individuals without adequate training to carry firearms on school grounds,”

McAuliffe said the difference between school resource officers (SROs) and someone who is a retired officer working for a private security company is that SROs undergo regular training and private security officers don't.

Bob Owens at BearingArms.com noted that at least on this one, McAuliffe may have a point:

What McAuliffe is objecting to is the arming of school guards who are retired law enforcement officers who lack the current training that the SROs receive.

It’s hardly a public secret that while law enforcement officers are generally good folks, most do not have significant firearms training, and their training varies significant from area to area within states, and from state to state. Unless these law enforcement officers (LEOs) are “gun guys” who seek out additional training on their own time (spending some of the meager salaries to do so), or are detailed to special units, their training is typically rudimentary.

LEOs* generally (notice the qualifier) are limited to training on static targets on a square range with generous time allowances. If they are not trained for the very specialized conditions—long hallways, individual bad guys hiding among a panicked, fleeing mass of “no-shoots”—then simply putting more guns into the equation likely raises the risk of innocent students getting caught in a crossfire. Likewise, the bill McAuliffe vetoed seems expressly designed to address retired officers. Retired officers come in a wide range of conditions and ages, from super-fit, hyper-competent folks I see competing in 3 Gun competitions on the national level in their mid-40s, to doddering 70-somethings that can barely move or see much past their front sight.

For once, I think McAuliffe’s decision may be the correct one.

The bill's sponsor, Delegate Scott Lingamfelter said this was a political veto:

Lingamfelter pointed out that the bill gave school systems the option to allow for armed security officers and would have required them to maintain firearms training to current standards.

"This is the sort of veto that’s done in indelible ink because one day — sadly after a tragedy — people will look back and remember this veto and say ‘We should have put that bill in law,' " he said in a statement.

"This was a bill that had all the right prudent precautions and it died a political death. Let’s hope no more deaths will be tied to this veto, but I fear more will.”

HB1234 did not pass the State Senate with a veto proof majority.

VSSA would be interested on the thoughts of our readers on this one as we have a number of firearm trainers in our membership and reading audience.

Governor McAuliffe Playing Games with Bill to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence

HB 766, and SB 626, bills that would effectively make a protective order a temporary concealed handgun permit (CHP), covering the person being protected by the order while waiting for their CHP application to be processed and their permanent CHP to be issued.  Both bills passed the House and Senate.  During consideration of the bills in committee, both the gun ban lobby and groups representing domestic-violence survivors said women would not be capable of defending themselves with a firearm in an emergency.  Apparently, they shared the same views with Governor McAuliffe because instead of signing the bills, he has sent down a substitute bill for consideration that neuters the bill’s intent of allowing a victim to immediately begin to carry a concealed handgun for protection.

The Governor’s substitute does the following:

1.  Allows judges to arbitrarily deny the temporary permit. 
2.  Requires the victim to have already applied for a CHP before the protection order was requested, basically making the victim have to know ahead of time that they are going to need a protective order and thus apply for the CHP in anticipation of the violence against them.
3.  Requires the victim to have already completed the firearms training needed to get a CHP, but prohibits the use of the online option that other CHP applicants can currently use.

The original bills passed with veto proof margins in both houses.  The bills are now on the calendar for consideration by both the House and Senate and both were passed by for the day today.  Contact your delegate and state senator today and urge them to defeat Govornor McAuliffe's substitute.

Update: The House and Senate passed the bills by for the day on Thursday.  Continue to make your voice heard to your delegate and state senator.

Washington Post Suggests Herring Not Happy With McAuliffe Deal

This morning the Washington Post posted this article on their web site titled "Five Things That (kid of) Explain McAuliffe's gun deal with Republicans."  To some extent, it continues the meme that McAuliffe has crafted that he got real concessions in return for overturning Herring's actions on out-of-state concealed carry permits.  A Post article Friday pretty much showed how hollow that claim is, describing how the deal almost fell through Friday morning when Delegate Todd Gilbert told a local Richmond morning show host that, given the deal that was detailed in the Post Thursday afternoon, he would take it any day.  According to the Post, any public comment was supposed to express that all sides gave and got something.  For Gilbert's transgression, the GOP had to agree to make possession of a firearm while a permanent protective order is in place a felony instead of a misdemeanor.  Even with that change, gun owners came out much better than the gun ban side.

Today's article goes on to explain why pro-rights activists are much happier about the deal than the gun ban lobby:

Does this deal expand gun rights?
Yes. The deal goes beyond restoring the reciprocity rights that Herring had planned to revoke, directing him to strike reciprocity deals with every state that offers them. If the legislature approves the deal, more out-of-state gun owners will be allowed to carry concealed weapons in Virginia, and Virginians will be able to carry concealed weapons in other parts of the country.

Does it also tighten restrictions on guns?
Yes, but in a more nuanced way.

The deal would make it a felony under Virginia law for someone subject to a two-year protective order to possess a gun. Possession for such a person is already illegal under federal law. But because local police, not federal agents, respond to domestic incidents, abusers could be more likely to face charges. And because possession in such cases would be a felony, anyone convicted would lose the right to possess a firearm for life, barring subsequent restoration of civil rights through the governor.

The deal also calls for putting a state trooper at every gun show to run background checks for private sellers who currently have no way to check buyers’ criminal histories. But those checks would remain optional.

Then the Post gets to the question of where is Attorney General Herring in all of this?

It’s unclear, but he hardly seems happy about it.

The governor’s office was working on the deal to undo one of Herring’s biggest achievements for at least a week before it let him know what was in the works. Herring has not taken a public position on the deal and was notably absent from a news conference Friday, when McAuliffe and GOP leaders rolled out the deal. Herring’s spokesman said he had a prior commitment.

McAuliffe and his team have artfully credited Herring for bringing everyone to the table — suggesting that by yanking reciprocity, Herring so freaked out the gun-rights folks that they were willing to make a deal. But Herring’s absence on this has been conspicuous, particularly at Friday’s event, when McAuliffe asked the crowd to give the absent AG a round of applause. Awkward!

For all the talk by McAuliffe and Herring's spokesman, it is clear Herring was thrown under the bus.  And, it appears from the Post article, he is not at all happy about it.

Update: Even Bloomberg's anti-gun mouthpiece The Trace notes today the deal was "in the works for a week before Herring was clued in."

No Wonder the Gun Ban Lobby is Upset by McAuliffe's Concealed Carry Deal With GOP

Late Friday afternoon, the Governor's office emailed out the press release detailing the specifics of the deal reached to restore recognition of concealed carry permits for 25 states that had been listed by

The deal encompasses the following bills:

Voluntary Background Checks at Firearms Shows: Delegate Lingamfelter (HB1386) and Senator Edwards (SB715)

• Currently, only firearms dealers with a federal firearms license (FFL) can access the National Instant Checks System (NICS) to perform background checks on firearms purchases/transfers.
• The Virginia State Police cannot access the system on behalf of private citizens selling or transferring firearms.
• This bill would give the Virginia State Police statutory authority to perform background checks on behalf of private citizens at firearms shows, which is required by the FBI. 
• Private sellers feel it is their civic duty to obtain the results of a background check prior to selling or transferring a firearm and they currently do not have the ability to access background checks for this purpose.  This would allow them access on voluntary cases.
• This bill requires the Virginia State Police to be present at every firearms show in the Commonwealth to perform background checks on a voluntary basis.

This bill had already cleared Senate Courts of Justice on Thursday night and rereferred to Finance as it has a fiscal impact. Delegate Lingamfelter's bill is currently awaiting action in the Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee

Protective orders: Delegate Murphy and Senator Howell (SB49)

• Currently, a person subject to a protective order is prohibited from purchasing or transporting a firearm, but not from possessing a firearm.
• This bill would prohibit a person subject to a permanent protective order from possessing a firearm for the duration of the order. 
• Permanent protective orders are issued by a judge and are served to the subject.  They can last up to 2 years and can be extended by the judge as necessary.
• This bill allows the subject of the protective order 24 hours to transfer or sell the firearm to a non-prohibited person.  The subject of the protective order may possess or transport the firearm during that 24-hour period only for the purposes of selling or transferring the firearm.
• If a person violates this section, they could be guilty of a class 6 felony.

Senator Howell's bill is still awaiting action in Senate Courts of Justice

Reciprocity: Delegate Webert (HB1163) and Senator Reeves (SB610)

• Reciprocity for all states with a concealed carry permitting process.
• Prevents state-shopping. If a person has ever been revoked in Virginia, they cannot go to another state to get a permit and have that permit be recognized in Virginia.
• Retains the 24-hour verification clause for law enforcement purposes which allows the VSP or other law enforcement agencies to verify the validity of a permit for an out-of-state person 24 hours a day when states that offer that process.  Permit-holders must carry another valid state-issued ID for the purpose of verification.
• Governor McAuliffe will also extend the effective date for the planned implementation of the revocation of reciprocity agreements with other states to March 1^st.

SB 610 is now before the full Senate and will be on final passage on Tuesday.  HB1163 has been heard by the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Subcommittee #1 and the subcommittee recommended reporting the bill.  It now awaits action by the full committee.

The reciprocity portion of this deal is the most important part.  This isn't just undoing Herring's action of unrecognizing the permits of 25 states, this is expanded recognition.   Delegate Webert was on Friday's NRANews' Cam and Company and explained how this will work.

It should be noted that none of this is a completely done deal until the bills pass and are signed into law by the Governor.  VSSA was in consultation with one of the negotiating legislators before the deal was announced and the legislative team will continue to monitor developments.  For now however, not withstanding reports to the contrary from the media, gun owners came out on the better end of this deal.  Background checks are not "expanded" the way McAuliffe and the gun ban lobby would like.   They are simply voluntary.  He can spin this any way he wants but he backed down on reciprocity/recognition of out-of-state concealed carry permits and got little in return, which is why gun ban advocate Andy Parker and Everytown for Gun Safety are so upset with McAuliffe.

Gun Ban Activists Use McAuliffe's Gun Control Executive Order as Model

On Tuesday, there were two stories on the same topic, but from slightly different angles, that the gun ban crowd is turning their attention to states to get what they can't get from Washington.  The first report was in USA Today and said even as Obama looks for ways to move forward on gun control with extra-constitutional measures, he will look to governors to help move the ball down the field:

"I think what people are realizing, and I have realized as governor, is that we have a tremendous number of tools at our disposal to take action," said Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat who signed an executive order on guns in October. It required gun tracing for all guns used in crimes, started a gun crime tip line and banned guns in state office buildings.

Republicans in the Virginia legislature called those actions "shortsighted," and threatened to repeal them in the next legislative session.

But McAuliffe said the White House has been very supportive. "I think they realize that when they’re stymied at the congressional level, that governors are willing to step up," he said.

The second story was in The Hill and noted that gun ban activists are focusing on states to move their pet policy initiatives:

The Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report Tuesday outlining dozens of executive orders state governors could issue to reduce gun violence.

The gun control recommendations range from strengthening background checks to collecting gun violence data and monitoring gun dealers more closely. 

These are executive orders that governors and attorneys general could take without the consent of their state legislatures or Congress, CAP argues.  

The report follows promises by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) to take such action.

The fact that gun ban groups are focusing on states is not really new.  This has been their tactic since the mention of gun control spelled certain defeat as a campaign issue.  Be that as it may, gun ban friendly politicians are now turning to tactics used by President Obama when he can't get what he wants from Congress - take "executive action."  Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Connecticut Governor Daniel Malloy have both taken this approach in recent months. 

Notice how McAuliffe was mentioned in both articles.  And, it appears he is not finished putting out executive orders.