SCOTUS Hears Arguments in Wolford v. Lopez

Yesterday,  the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Wolfold v. Lopez.  The issue in the case is whether Hawaii's law, which prohibits concealed carry on private property open to the public by default, requiring owners to give express permission (often via signs) for guns to be allowed.  The Plaintiff in the case (Jason Wolford) and pro-rights advocates say this effectively bans guns in most places, turning public spaces into "no-carry zones" and infringing on rights established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen. Hawaii's AG, Anne E. Lopez, argues the Second Amendment doesn't grant a right to carry on others' property without consent and that the law upholds property owners' rights. 

VSSA Life Member Stephe Halbrook has a piece over at The Volokh Conspiracy explaining what came up several time in the arguments.

One issue that was alluded to several times in the argument is the scope of the so-called "sensitive places" limitation on the Second Amendment's protections. Wolford is not really a "sensitive places" case—it is actually about the handful of places Hawaii did not separately declare "sensitive," since the no-carry-default rule applies only to places that the state has not made no-carry-no-matter-what. Nevertheless, it is quite probable that in dealing with the issue the Court will touch on, and possibly explain, its previous statements on the issue.

The Court's "sensitive places" dicta have been the source of some significant confusion for courts and litigants alike. In District of Columbia v. Heller, as it struck down D.C.'s handgun ban, the Court cautioned that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on … the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Later, in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Court explained its statement in part as a way of demonstrating its historical method, writing that "although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century 'sensitive places' where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions." But Bruen cautioned, "there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place' simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department."

This list of locations (which Bruen got from the article by David B. Kopel and Joseph Greenlee, The "Sensitive Places" Doctrine, Charleston L. Rev. 2018) -- legislatures, polling places, and courts -- has led to significant disagreement among judges and litigants, even litigants on the same side of the issue. What restrictions do those three places have in common?

In his article Dangerous, but Not Unusual, Georgetown JL&PP 2024, Mark W. Smith surveyed the variety of historical "principles" that were being advanced to unite these historical laws and to analogize to modern statutes. He catalogued and criticized arguments that defined "sensitive places" as (1) places where "core government functions" are carried out, (2) places that meet a "collateral damage test" because misuse of a firearm would seem to be particularly problematic there, (3) places where "vulnerable people" congregate (more an issue for the schools that Heller mentioned than the legislative assemblies mentioned in Bruen), and (4) places where people exercise other constitutional rights. Professor Smith rejected each of these principles with good reasons -- who is not "vulnerable" to the misuse of a firearm? and why should we make those targets softer? Instead, he suggests a fifth principle that fits the evidence better: the presence of comprehensive government security in those locations. 

The case could set a precedent for similar laws in other states (like California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) and determine if states can default to a "no-carry" rule on private property, or if they must justify such bans historically, notes SCOTUSblog. 

Initial reports from the hearing indicated that the conservative majority appeared skeptical of Hawaii's law, questioning whether it imposes an undue burden on the right to public carry established in earlier precedents. A final decision is expected by the summer of 2026.

Outdoor Hub: The Sig P365 Takes the Concealed Carry Gun Concept to a New, Needed Level

OutdoorHub.com has a great review of the Sig P365 pistol.  The review wastes no time in going down the list of things that are great about the pistol starting with the most important part - reliability:

In my book, nothing about my EDC gun matters more than whether it goes “bang” when I press the trigger. The P365 shines in this department. I’ve challenged it by running aluminum-cased FMJ mixed with two brands of HP in the magazine; no problem. It cycles like a champ.

The reviewer did find one issue that he considered a minor problem:

A couple of reviewers have reported extraction issues with the P365; I’ve never experienced that even under rapid fire. What I do experience consistently is a failure of the slide to lock back after the last round. This might be due to the gun’s minimalist construction—it’s the first I’ve seen not to have a slide lock notch that’s visible from the exterior of the slide, for example. I believe other components were minimized in an effort to squeeze maximum round capacity into that small space.

If you are not familiar with the latest addition to the concealed carry firearm line-up, read the entire review.

Will New 4th Circuit Court Ruling Allow Virginia CHP Holders to be Harassed in States Like Maryland?

Earlier this week, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in an en banc opinion, in U.S. v. Robinson that after a lawful traffic stop, police may frisk a person suspected of having a firearm, regardless of whether that person has a concealed carry permit. VSSA Life Member and Second Amendment attorney and scholar Steve Halbrook told NRATV on Wednesday that the overly broad decision effectively means that armed is dangerous.

In states like Maryland and New Jersey, as well as the District of Columbia, it is not uncommon for someone stopped for a routine traffic violation to be harassed by the police once they learn the individual is a concealed handgun permit holder.  Currently, the Virginia State Police inform out-of-state law enforcement inquiring during a traffic stop if an individual has a CHP. This ruling could make the practice of harassment by anti-gun law enforcement even more frequent.


There is an opportunity to keep this from occurring however. There is currently a bill in the General Assembly that would prohibit the Virginia State Police from sharing information on concealed handgun permit holders with states that do not have CHP reciprocity with Virginia.  A similar bill passed in the General Assembly last year but Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed the legislation.  VSSA will alert members if the bill passes the full legislature this year so you can contact the Governor and urge him to sign the bill.

Guns at Polling Places

The media has made a big deal about this in the last couple of weeks, most recently the Chicago Tribune via the Washington Post.  The report used a story from the Huffington Post to illustrate that people open carrying at polling places are doing so to intimidate voters:

On Friday, voters headed to drop off their absentee ballots at a voting location in Virginia's Loudoun County were greeted by a man sporting both a Trump shirt and a gun strapped to his waist, the Huffington Post reported.

"He's like, 'Who are you going to vote for, crooked Hillary?' And I was like, that's really none of your business," Erika Cotti, an active Democrat, told the website.

It may not have been the most effective mode of political outreach. But it wasn't an illegal one. Virginia is an open carry state - and, as in most open carry states, there is no exception for polling places.

Most states have no laws regarding guns in polling places, because, for the most part, they haven't really needed to make them. The confluence of firearms and polling places isn't something America has been concerned about on a national scale - until now.

It's a right to carry firearms for personal protection, in Virginia, that includes both open and concealed.  As gun owners, we should decide the best methods so as not to draw unnecessary attention to ourselves.

Was the Peruta Ruling a Set-up to get Gun Rights Supporters to Appeal

The Peruta decision was the top topic on the various gun rights radio programs over the weekend.  Tom Gresham had Gene Hoffman of CalGuns Foundation on Gun Talk Radio to talk about the decision, and Gun for Hire Radio had Attorneys Dan Shmutter and Scott Bach on to give their take on the ruling.  Scott Bach is also the Executive Director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, the New Jersey State Association.  In the clip below, Scott says he believes the majority opinion was actually a set-up to get gun rights supporters to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.  He also said we need to be very measured in the cases we bring in the future.

Steve Halbrook: Peruta Appeal Decision Ignores Context of the Law

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals over ruled an earlier three 9th Circuit three judge panel decision and upheld the lower court decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego, ruling that the Second Amendment does not include the right to carry a concealed firearm.  San Diego appealed the three judge panel decision to the full court which heard the case about a year ago.  The summary of the ruling begins: “The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” VSSA Life Member and Second Amendment attorney Steve Halbrook told NRANews yesterday that the decision completely ignores the context of the law. The judges have virtually covered their eyes while reaching it. He notes that the longest part of the decision is a discussion of the decrees of English kings, while ignoring today’s realities. 

Before the death of Scalia this was probably going to be the case that had the best chance of getting us a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court because California not only prohibits open carry but the may issue carry varies from locality to locality.  But now that the court is maybe split 4-4 (one or more of the five judges in Heller and McDonald have not wanted to hear additional cases so who knows if we can even get four on our side), I agree with Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned that the plaintiffs should not appeal this decision:

If Hillary wins this election, there will be no judicially enforceable Second Amendment of any meaning. That’s not hyperbole, it’s what’s going to happen. I also am very skeptical that losing three national elections in a row is going to make a lot of GOP and Dem politicians start whispering among themselves that NRA and the gun vote isn’t such the big deal they think they are.

This is one more illustration of why we must do everything we can to defeat Hillary Clinton this fall.

NPR Asked "Do Pistols Make You Safer?"

Earlier this week, National Public Radio (NPR) had this report on Morning Addition that asks the question "Do Pistols Make You Safer?"  He starts out admitting being puzzled why so many people (13 million by his estimate) choose to arm themselves when statistics show the nation's crime rate has had dramatic decreases in the last 20 years.  Maybe the reporter should look at this recent Gallup Poll to understand this question.

The reporter mostly avoids making judgements and lets his interviews be the real story.  He spoke with a gun show organizer, A Girl and a Gun Executive Director Robyn Sandoval, and three people who used a firearm, one who likely prevented being a victim of a gun shot, one who used a firearm against individuals who attempted to rob her, and one who made the poor decision to intervene in a property crime that was not life threatening.  Darrell Standberry, had to use his firearm in self-defense and told the reporter how that decision affected his life:

"I was parked at the pump right in front of the gas station. I exited my vehicle and before I could even get to the door of the gas station, the young man was already sitting in the driver's seat of my vehicle," says Standberry, who just earned a degree in green energy technology. He'd left his Yukon XL running with the key in the ignition.

He says he told the young man to get out of his car. The young man told him to step back. That's when Standberry says he saw the carjacker reach toward his pocket.

Standberry unholstered his Sig Sauer .45, reached through the passenger-side window, and fired one shot. He hit the carjacker in the torso. Gravely wounded, the carjacker drove away, crashed into a tree and died. Police found a pistol in his pocket.

"It changed a lot in my life," he says. "Matter of fact, in my English class, I just did a report on it. I named it, 'The incident that changed my life forever.' "

Standberry went to counseling. He became fearful of gas stations. And he carried the burden of killing a 19-year-old.

"You know why? Because my son was 19 at the same time. It really bothered me that I had to take a 19-year-old's life. His life was just beginning. But he was into the wrong things. To this day, I still ask God for forgiveness," he says.

The person who intervened in the property crime ended up getting probation for reckless discharge of a firearm.  I've heard folks like Tom Gresham say numerous times that choosing to carry a firearm is not a decision to be taken lightly, it may be necessary to use it some it someday and with that comes consequences.  A class required for a concealed carry permit in most cases is not real training as this Detroit firearms instructor points out to the reporter:

"One of my concerns about the [Michigan] state requirements for getting a CPL is they don't really include the tactics and the strategy that one will need to win or prevail in an actual gun situation," Cortis says. "A hostile attack by a violent criminal is a fight."

The reporter closes with a very strong endorsement from the Detroit Chief of Police, James Craig, who has urged residents to get a concealed carry permit.  When asked isn't he worried about so many people having guns?

"What concerns me, more than anything else, is guns in the hands of criminals, guns in the hands of terror suspects. That's what keeps me up at night. Not armed citizens," Craig says.

While there are one or two things that our side of the issue could find fault with in the article, overall, it is not bad considering the source.

2016 General Assembly Wrap-up

The Virginia General Assembly adjourned it's 2016 Session a day early on Friday, March 11. The big success of the session came on February 26 when Governor Terry McAuliffe signed into law legislation to address Attorney General Mark Herring’s cancellation of concealed carry reciprocity/recognition agreements with 25 states. House Bill 1163 and Senate Bill 610, patroned by Delegate Michael Webert and state Senator Bryce Reeves, will recognize all valid out-of-state concealed carry permits. This legislation also expands Virginia's reciprocity with other states by requiring the Virginia State Police to enter into reciprocal agreements with certain states so they will recognize Virginia’s concealed carry permit. This new law will go into effect on July 1, 2016.  In  the meantime, the State Police have updated their web site to reflect that agreements in place before December 22nd are still in effect.

Last week, the Governor’s amendment in the nature of a substitute to Senate Bill 626 and House Bill 766 was rejected and the bills were sent back to the Governor’s desk for his final consideration.   The Governor’s recommendations would have completely negated the intended purpose of the bills and turned the bills into domestic predator protection bills. Patroned by state Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel and Delegate Todd Gilbert, SB 626 /HB 766 would allow the petitioner of a protective order to temporarily carry a concealed handgun without a permit, giving them immediate self-defense options while waiting for their CHP to be approved.  McAuliffe's substitute would have required the petitioner to have already applied for the CHP before the protective order was issued (basically knowing ahead of time they were going to be in need of a protective order), required that they had already completed the required training (which by the way could not be an online course as other applicants can use), and would allow a judge to deny the use of the protective order as a temporary permit.  Senate Bill 626 and House Bill 766 are now heading back to the Governor’s desk in their original form.  He can either sign them or veto the bills.  Please contact the Governor and urge him to sign HB766 and SB626.

House Bill 1096 and House Bill 382 also head to the Governor’s desk for his consideration. HB 1096 patroned by Delegate Michael Webert would prohibit any state entity from adopting or enforcing any rule, regulation, policy, or administrative action governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage, or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof unless expressly authorized by statute. The bill invalidates any such rule, regulation, policy, or administrative action adopted by a state entity prior to July 1, 2016.  HB 382 patroned by Delegate Buddy Fowler would prohibit state agencies other than the Department of Corrections, Department of Juvenile Justice, and Virginia Port Authority and institutions of higher education, from adopting any regulation or workplace rule preventing officers or employees of such agencies from storing a lawfully possessed firearm and ammunition in a locked private motor vehicle at their workplace unless the adoption of the regulation is expressly authorized by statute. The bill also provides that any such regulation or rule adopted prior to July 1, 2016, is invalid.

I had the opportunity to speak with Cam Edwards of NRANews earlier this week about the session.

Thank you to the VSSA members and other readers of this blog who contacted their lawmakers this session, especially on SB626 and HB766 last week.  We would also like to thank VSSA members who answered our fundraising request  to support the War Chest at the start of the session.  Your generous support allowed us to raise all of the funds necessary to pay our legislative lobbying bill this session.  Whether you contributed $5.00 or $500, your support is greatly appreciated and VSSA thanks you. You can continue to check the Legislative Tracking Form on the VSSA web site to monitor whether the Governor has signed, amended, or vetoed the bills now before him and this blog will continue to keep you informed of all legislation.  Know that as Virginia's oldest gun rights organization, VSSA will continue to fight for your Second Amendment rights in the Commonwealth of Virginia!

General Assembly Rejects McAuliffe's Changes to Victim Protection Bills

Earlier this week, Governor Terry McAuliffe sent substitute bills as amendments to HB766 and SB626.  These companion bills would have turned a protective order into a temporary concealed handgun permit (CHP) until the victim was able to secure a permanent permit.  McAuliffe's substitute bills turned these bills from a victim protection bill to a predator protection bill by allowing judges to arbitrarily deny the temporary permit, requiring 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, and requiring the victim to have already completed the firearms training needed to get a CHP, but prohibiting the use of the online option that other CHP applicants can currently use.

Today, the State Senate rejected the Governor's substitute on a vote of 11-29 but fell six votes short passing the bill in it's enrolled version, meaning that had they done so, the Governor would have had no further options to stop the bill from becoming law.  Several Democrats changed their vote from when the bill originally passed as the bill originally passed with a veto proof margin.

The House of Delegates however not only rejected the Governor's substitute 28-71 then went on to pass the bill in it's enrolled form on a vote of 66-33.  Unfortunately, when the bill got to the Senate, it met the same fate as the Senate bill, falling six votes short of the 2/3 majority needed to pass. The actions are now communicated back to the Governor.

McAuliffe Continues to Walk Fine Line Regarding Herring and Out-of-State Permit Deal

In the Richmond Times Dispatch story on the defeat of Constitutional Carry, the reporter circled back to the deal on overturning Attorney General Mark Herring's attack on out-of-state concealed carry permits.  The RTD noted that McAuliffe appeared on a radio station Monday continued his praise for Herring "getting everyone to the table" he admitted there was no evidence that people with out of state permits had committed crimes in Virginia:

In a media blitz Monday morning that included three radio appearances and one TV spot, McAuliffe walked a fine line that alternated between praise for Herring and defending the rationale of reversing an action that Herring had said would make Virginians safer.

“I appreciate the work the attorney general did on this. It got us to the table,” McAuliffe said in an interview with conservative radio host John Fredericks. “But we have no record of anyone in the last 25 years being injured or hurt with someone who came into our state with a concealed weapon.”

The governor’s remarks echo critiques leveled at Herring’s decision by pro-gun activists, who question the need to tighten out-of-state permits if the state could not produce statistics showing a problem.

McAuliffe contrasted the lack of crimes involving concealed carry permits with statistics on other elements of the deal. The compromise would require state police to be present at every gun show to perform background checks for unlicensed sellers and force anyone under a permanent restraining order for domestic violence to give up their guns or face a felony conviction that would mean losing gun rights altogether.

Four people were killed last year after taking out a protective order, McAuliffe said, and state police were present at 42 of 77 gun shows.

This blog reported yesterday via "The Trace" that the deal was in the works for a week before Herring was clued in.

New York Times: Concealed Carry on School Grounds Causes Rift Among Gun Owners in Michigan

The New York Times has a story this morning about legislation in Michigan that, according to the Times, has split gun owners.

When Kenneth Herman visits his daughter’s school, the handgun holstered to his right hip is visible to anyone. And that has caused him problems.

School officials have denied Mr. Herman access to school buildings, asked him to wait in the principal’s office and called the Sheriff’s Department on him. So Mr. Herman, a paramedic who grew up in this semirural community 85 miles northwest of Detroit, sued Clio Area Schools for the right to carry his weapon openly on school grounds, and in August he won the case. The district has appealed.

 

Now his dispute with the school district has become part of a statewide debate over guns in schools that has exposed a rare split among firearm owners. It pits proponents of widespread open carry like Mr. Herman against other gun owners who believe concealed weapons are more appropriate in some settings.

 

The two sides are divided over legislation introduced by Republicans in the State Senate that would allow people with the proper permits to carry concealed weapons at schools, but would ban open carry there. The measure could come up for a vote before the end of the year. 

The Times notes that Mr. Herman and other open-carry proponents oppose the legislation, and that they have formed an alliance with gun ban activists who oppose the legislation because they do not want any weapons carried on school grounds, openly or concealed.

State-level gun owners’ groups have come down on both sides of the issue. Michigan Open Carry, which publishes a guide on how to legally carry a gun in schools, is campaigning against the legislation. The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners — another prominent pro-gun group, whose board of directors includes Mr. Meekhof and another Republican sponsor of the legislation — supports the legislation. 

On political battles over gun laws, concealed-carry and open-carry groups are in agreement “99 times out of 100,” Mr. Meekhof said. But the debate over his bills reveals how the two camps sometimes embrace conflicting views on displaying firearms in public. 

Michigan Open Carry advocates the visible carrying of holstered handguns, similar to what an on-duty police officer might wear. Its members cite a variety of reasons — practical, legal and symbolic — for choosing to display their guns in public.

Regarding that reference to "symbolic" I go back to what Master Firearms Trainer Massad Ayoob wrote on the topic of open carry.

A few years ago, Mark Walters hosted a three-way debate on the topic on his show “Armed American Radio.” The “pro” speaker came, IIRC, from Georgia Carry.  The “anti-open carry” speaker was a cop from the Midwest who, though generally pro-armed citizen, thought open carry was counterproductive to both the public peace and the Second Amendment cause. I took the middle ground, which I still hold. One the one hand, I would like for every state to allow any citizen who has a clean record and hasn’t been adjudicated mentally incompetent to be allowed to open carry a holstered, loaded handgun. First, because there are some jurisdictions where if the wind blows your coat open and reveals the gun you are legally carrying concealed, a genuinely frightened citizen or vindictive anti-gunner can combine with an anti-gun prosecutor to create a perfect storm of criminal charges for illegal open carry. Second, because if a good person suddenly becomes a stalking victim or the target of death threats, I don’t want them to have to wait up to 90 days (gun-friendly Florida) or six months (the time it takes before a new resident can even apply for a concealed carry permit in California, which for the most part is decidedly non-gun-friendly).  But on the other hand, I don’t think we win any friends for gun owners’ civil rights by flaunting deadly weapons in the face of a general public conditioned to fear guns and their owners by generations of anti-gun media and political prejudice.

He followed up that piece with this:

Gun-banners will never convert most who read this blog, and we who support a responsibly armed citizenry will never win over the Pelosis and Bloombergs of the world. The battleground lies with the vast majority of people who are in the middle on this polarized issue.  I am old enough to remember when Massachusetts and California each held a referendum on whether possession of handguns should be banned in their states.  Neither state had a majority of gun owners in the voting pool, but in each case our side won the referendum, because “the people on the fence” didn’t want to go that far.

Doing things that alarm those people in the middle will do nothing to help the pro-gun side.  Fear is the key ingredient that creates hatred.  Doing things that put the general public in fear will cause more people to hate us, and anyone who seriously thinks flaunting rifles around schools in cities and suburbs will somehow acclimate the public to an acceptance of armed citizens is simply delusional.

The fastest way for us to loose our rights is to let the antis divide us and have us fighting among ourselves.  It seems they may have found a way to start that process in Michigan.

General Assembly Fails to Override McAuliffe Veto of Gun Bills, Spikes Anti-gun Substitute Bill

Governor Terry McAuliffe had his way yesterday with the three vetoes he issued to pro-rights bills in late March.  The State Senate failed to override the veto of SB948, a bill that would have protected concealed carry permit (CHP) holders from the fishing expeditions of law enforcement in states that do not have permit reciprocity with Virginia. The vote fell three short of the 27 needed to override the veto and mirrored to vote on passage during the regular session.  The Senate also failed to override the veto of SB1137, Senator Tom Garrett's bill that would have allowed CHP holders to carry loaded long guns in their vehicles.  Senator Garrett requested the bill go by for the day rather than subject it an override vote that was likely to fail.  Senator Garrett has vowed to try again next year.  Finally, the State Senate failed to override McAuliffe's veto of HB2009, a bill that would have established uniform approval standards across the Commonwealth for NFA items by requiring when the certification of a chief law-enforcement officer is required by federal law for transfer of a firearm as defined in the National Firearms Act, such certification must be provided within 60 days if the applicant is not prohibited by law from receiving the firearm. If the applicant is prohibited by law from receiving the firearm, the chief law-enforcement officer or his designee shall notify the applicant in writing of the reason for the prohibition.  The House of Delegates has overridden the veto earlier in the day but the Senate vote was actually four less than the vote on passage during the regular session.  The vote to override was 21-18, while the vote on passage in February was 25-14.

There was some good news however yesterday.  The House rejected McAuliffe's amendment to HB2286.  As passed by the House and Senate, HB2286 provided that the prohibition on the possession and transportation of firearms and ammunition by convicted felons does not apply to a felon whose right to possess firearms or ammunition has been restored under the law of another state.  Governor McAuliffe submitted an amendment in the nature of a substitute that added new misdemeanor crimes for any person who knowingly and intentionally possesses, transports, or carries any firearm following a misdemeanor conviction for an offense that occurred on or after July 1, 2015, for the offenses of (i) stalking in violation of § 18.2-60.3 when the victim was a family or household member, (ii) sexual battery in violation of § 18.2-67.4 when the victim was a family or household member, (iii) assault and battery of a family or household member, or (iv) any offense substantially similar to clause (i), (ii), or (iii) in the laws of any other state or political subdivision thereof is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.  A bill with these provisions had previously been defeated in both the House and the State Senate.  Yesterday, the House ruled that the substitute was not germane.  The original bill is now before the Governor and he may sign it as is or veto it.

Yesterday's votes show the importance of this year's General Assembly elections where all 100 members of the House and 40 members of the State Senate are up for re-election.  Gun owners need to gain at least three Senate seats to have the opportunity to advance pro-rights legislation in the next two years.

Glock Looking to Shake Up the Concealed Carry Firearm Market

The Motley Fool has an article over on Nasdaq.com on the new Glock 43:

Last month, Austrian arms maker Glock unveiled its latest handgun for the civilian market, and it's tailor-made for concealed carry. Dubbed the "43," Glock describes its new polymer pistol as a "subcompact slimline" and a "single-stack 9mm" -- meaning rounds are loaded into the magazine straight up and down, permitting a narrower grip.

It's not the first carry handgun Glock has produced (the Glock 42) but the previous effort in .380 received less attention.  The Glock 43 follows in of the Ruger LC9 footsteps by being chambered in .9mm.  It weighs just over a pound unloaded and the magazine holds 6 rounds (making it 6 plus 1), one round less than the popular Smith and Wesson Sheild.

Looking forward to seeing this later in the week at the NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits in Nashville.

McAuliffe Vetoes Bill Protecting Concealed Handgun Permit Holders

As expected, today Governor Terry McAuliffe two firearm related bills, including one that would have prevented law enforcement in states that do not have concealed permit reciprocity with Virginia from having access to the information on those permits. From the Richmond Times Dispatch:

The vetoes, detailed Wednesday in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, include a rejection of several gun bills that would have let concealed handgun permit holders drive with loaded shotguns or rifles in their vehicles, and would have prevented the state from sharing permit holder information with any other state that does not have a firearms reciprocity agreement with Virginia.

The bill protecting concealed handgun permit holder information, SB948, in no way endangers law enforcement.  In fact, there is evidence that concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law abiding people in the nation.  All this bill does is protect Virginia CHP holders from fishing expeditions that law enforcement in states like Maryland and New Jersey typically take when they learn someone they stop for routine traffic violations is a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder.

The other bill he vetoed is Senator Tom Garrett's bill (SB1137) that would allow concealed handgun permit holders to have a loaded rifle or shotgun in their vehicle.

The General Assembly will take up the Governor's vetoes and amendments on April 15.  Be sure to contact your State Senator and urge him or her to vote to override Governor McAuliffe's vetoes on SB948 and SB1137.

Restaurants Where You Can Carry In Nashville During the NRA Annual Meeting

For those who will be attending the NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits in Nashville in April, Dr. John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center interviewed restaurant managers to determine which venues would welcome patrons carrying concealed.  The post has a list of restaurants that post "no firearms" signs and those that don't.  One restaurant had NRA decals in the window.  I guess it's safe to say gun owners carrying are welcome there.

Legislative Update

With just a couple days left until the end of the 2015 Session of the Virginia General Assembly, six bills have made their way to the desk of Governor Terry McAuliffe.  A few bills have gotten stalled and are likely dead for the session.  I spoke with Cam Edwards of Sportsman Channel's NRANews Cam and Company earlier this week about the bills that passed and what bogged down other legislation in the final days.

Mark Warner May Hold Deciding Vote on National Reciprocity

The Hill has an article this morning on the renewed push for National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.  Texas U.S. Senator John Cornyn recently introduced the bill for the current session and has been making the rounds talking it up.

The last time the National Reciprocity bill fell just short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.  Now that Republicans are in the majority of the U.S. Senate, there is hope that there will be enough votes to push the bill over the top:

Supporters of the legislation believe they can secure enough Democratic votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster and get the legislation to President Obama’s desk.

While Obama is unlikely to sign the bill, given his support for stricter gun controls, getting the legislation through Congress would give Second Amendment advocates a significant victory.

Gun-control groups are planning to fight back hard, setting the stage for what promises to be a contentious battle over Second Amendment rights ahead of the 2016 elections.

Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk voted against the bill the last time it came up.  That means it would need the support of all of the remaining 53 Republicans and seven Democrats to pass.  The list of Democrats being targeted includes Virginia Senator Mark Warner.

Advocates plan to focus much of their lobbying on the Senate Democrats who have voted for the concealed carry bill in the past: Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Tom Udall (N.M.) and Mark Warner (Va.).

Warner has a mixed record on issues related to our Second Amendment rights.  As Governor of Virginia, he signed a number of pro-rights bills, including a preemption bill that put all matters related to firearms in the hands of the General Assembly. He did not veto any pro-rights legislation.  For his record as Governor, Warner earned an "A" rating from the NRA Political Victory Fund when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2008.  But after the Sandy Hook school shooting, he made some comments that maybe it was time to consider new gun control and he voted for the Schumer/Manchin/Toomey background check amendment which would have criminalized private sales of firearms between friends and gun club members, among others.  That earned him a "C" rating when he ran for re-election in 1014.

Yes, Warner voted for National Reciprocity in the past.  But the only way to make sure he votes for it this time is if he hears from gun owners.  The gun ban lobby is going to go all out to try and stop the bill from reaching that all important 60th vote.

Violence Policy Center's Misleading Concealed Carry Study

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) comes out with a study each year that purports to show concealed carry permit holders are dangerous.  Yesterday the New York Times editorialized about the latest study in the usual fawning manner they do with anything having to do with gun control.  Even if VPC's number of 722 "non self-defense" deaths caused by 544 concealed carry permit holders were correct, you would still be talking an infinitesimal percentage of the estimated 11 million permit holders in the country.  But, as Bob Owens over at BearingArms.com points out, there are a lot of caveats that go with the particular incidents VPC includes in their study:

In order to demonize the practice of concealed carry, the Violence Police Center ran into the insurmountable hurdle of not being able to find a significant number of concealed carriers using their legally concealed weapons to commit violent crimes.
In order to pad their report, VPC was forced to:

1. include incidents where concealed carry was in no way part of the alleged crime.
2. include incidents where there wasn’t even a conviction, but just allegations of a crime.
3. include unsubstantiated, apparently mythical “crimes” without a named victim or perpetrator.

Owens also noted that and some of the people that VPC called murderers were either exonerated in court or had charges against them dismissed.

There is no getting around the fact that concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law abiding people in the country.  That's why groups like VPC have to use "slight of hand" tactics to try and make their case.  People like the editors at the New York Times won't check VPC's numbers.  Thankfully there is the new media to get the truth out.

Garrett's SB1132 Defeated in Full Senate Today

Senator Tom Garret's SB 1132 fell two votes short of passage today in the full Senate.  SB 1132 would have provides an exception to the crime of possessing a firearm on school property if a person has a valid concealed handgun permit and possession of a concealed handgun occurs outside normal school hours. The bill also provided an exception if a person with a concealed handgun permit stores a concealed handgun in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school. Current law allows possession while the person is in the motor vehicle in one of those areas.

GOP Senators John Watkins (R-Chesterfield), Stocsh (R-Henrico) and Norment (R-James City) and usually pro-rights John Edwards (D - Roanoke) and other Democrats in defeating the bill.

All Anti-rights Bills Defeated in Senate Courts of Justice

After almost four hours, Senate Courts of Justice wrapped up a meeting that was dominated by consideration of firearm related bills.  The Committee defeated all of the anti-rights bills before the committee and move forward a handful of pro-rights bills. 

Update: At the time this was originally posted, it appeared that SB943 had passed the committee and been referred to Finance but a full vote recount was done and it failed miserably, so all of the bad bills heard today died.
Below is the list of bills bad bills that failed in Senate Courts this morning:

SB 768 - McEachin bill outlawing private sales - Defeated.

SB 798 Reinstating handgun rationing - Defeated.

SB 909 Prohibiting anyone subject to a protective order from possessing a firearm, without the protections of due process - Defeated.

SB 943: Prohibits a person who has been convicted of stalking, assault and battery of a family or household member, or sexual battery from possessing or transporting a firearm. - Defeated*

SB 993 Prohibiting private transfer of firearms - Defeated.

SB 1108 - Revocation of CHP for delinquent child support - Defeated.

SB1178 Containing numerous anti-rights provisions - Defeated. 

SB 1179 Criminalize teaching children 4 or younger to use firearms or BB guns - Defeated.
 

SB 1429: Removal of firearms without due process by law enforcement or commonwealth attorney from persons posing substantial risk - Defeated.

There were also some good bills that were reported out of committee:

SB 689 - Lifetime CHPs -  Reported and referred to Senate Finance.

SB 1132 - Exception to the crime of possessing a firearm on school property if a person has a valid concealed handgun permit and possession of a concealed handgun occurs outside normal school hours. The bill also provides an exception if a person with a concealed handgun permit stores a concealed handgun in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school; current law allows possession while the person is in the motor vehicle in one of those areas.  - Reported.

SB1137 - Provides that lawful concealed carry permit holders shall not be subject to the provisions of certain local ordinances that make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess, or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within such locality - Reported

SB1155 - Replaces current requirements that law-enforcement agencies report information regarding confiscated firearms to the Department of State Police with a requirement that information be reported to a firearms tracing system maintained by the U.S. Department of Justice. The bill requires law-enforcement agencies to return stolen firearms to the rightful owner unless the person is prohibited from possessing the firearm or it is needed in a criminal prosecution. - Reported.  

SB1191 - Amends statute that makes it a Class 6 felony to possess a firearm on school property or school bus to require that the person must have knowingly possessed the firearm- Reported

Finally, Senator Dick Black's bill  (SB 828) that would have allowed firearms on the property of private and religious schools was stricken from the docket.

All of the bills reported this morning with the exception of SB 943 and SB 689 are headed to the full Senate for a final vote that will likely take place Wednesday or Thursday.  SB 943 and SB 689 must be taken up in Senate Finance to determine their fiscal impact.

Please contact your state senator and urge him or her to vote for the list of good bills above.


*Note: This is an edited version of a post from January 26th. When this was originally posted, based on initial votes in the committee, it was believed SB 943 had been reported by the committee and referred to Senate Finance.  VSSA tweeted live as did another gun rights group and gun ban advocate that the bill had reported.  When the votes were posted by the Senate clerks office, SB943 had been soundly defeated.  The Washington Post reported on January 27 that due to the confusion, the committee will vote on the bill a second time.