Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: examiner.com - Bloomberg backed gun control 'freak' loses Va. Lt. Gov. primary

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    examiner.com - Bloomberg backed gun control 'freak' loses Va. Lt. Gov. primary

    http://www.examiner.com/article/bloo...n-first-ballot

    SNIP

    . . .

    National attention though is being focused on not who won the nomination, but on who lost the first convention ballot cast – Jeannemarie Devolites Davis - who previously lost her Northern Virginia Senate seat to a moderately pro-gun state delegate named Chap Petersen (D – Fairfax) in 2007. As a state Senator, Devolites Davis introduced bills to ban private firearm sales, opposed legalizing gun carry in restaurants serving alcohol, and sought support from the nation’s most ardent gun control advocate, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D).

    OpenCarry.org co-founder and Virginia resident John Pierce said Devolites Davis’ early convention loss "was to be expected."


    "Come on," said Pierce, "do you really think that a Mayor Bloomberg backed gun control freak is going to be elected Lieutenant Governor in Virginia?"

    . . .

  2. #2
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    http://www.examiner.com/article/bloo...n-first-ballot

    SNIP

    . . .

    National attention though is being focused on not who won the nomination, but on who lost the first convention ballot cast – Jeannemarie Devolites Davis - who previously lost her Northern Virginia Senate seat to a moderately pro-gun state delegate named Chap Petersen (D – Fairfax) in 2007. As a state Senator, Devolites Davis introduced bills to ban private firearm sales, opposed legalizing gun carry in restaurants serving alcohol, and sought support from the nation’s most ardent gun control advocate, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D).

    OpenCarry.org co-founder and Virginia resident John Pierce said Devolites Davis’ early convention loss "was to be expected."


    "Come on," said Pierce, "do you really think that a Mayor Bloomberg backed gun control freak is going to be elected Lieutenant Governor in Virginia?"

    . . .
    Great quote!!! Name:  woohoo.gif
Views: 271
Size:  6.2 KB

  3. #3
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    Thanks for the post Mike!
    Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be well informed. ALL rights matter.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."

    --Robert A. Heinlein

    Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    VCDL PAC = Self Licking Ice Cream Cone

    VCDL PAC went down a very devisive and self destructive path when it endorsed only one of two good candidates for Attorney General? Why would VCDL PAC do that? The article provides a straightforward answer. Because Obenshain helped VCDL's P4P agenda, getting a confidentiality carveout for CHP holders. This again proves that focusing on P4P instead of fundamental rights has a positive VCDL PAC effect for politicians.

    Understand what this is all about. VCDL PAC decided not to simply endorse all of the gun rights candidates. VCDL PAC endorsed some pro gun politicians over other pro gun politicians because P4P support was seen as more important to VCDL-PAC than Constitutional Carry support.

    Of course there is only so far P4P carve outs can go. VCDL PAC is approachig that limit. By focusing on ever diminishing P4P wins instead of fighting the hard fight for Constitutional Carry and endorsing politicians that support their P4P agenda, even though there were other very strong pro gun rights candidates, VCDL PAC has become a very sloppy self licking ice cream cone.
    Last edited by Thundar; 05-21-2013 at 06:22 PM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Because Obenshain helped VCDL's P4P agenda, getting a confidentiality carveout for CHP holders.
    I'm confused. How is keeping CHP info private P4P? OC info is already private (by virtue of the government not having it), so it's simply restoring for CHPs what other carriers already have.

    It's like the change to allow CCers to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. It's not P4P if it's removing a restriction that was previously placed on CHP holders.

    Not everything that related to CHPs is P4P.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post

    Not everything that related to CHPs is P4P.
    If you want to be endorsed by VCDL-PAC it certainly is.

    In Virginia Article 1 section 13 of the Commonwealth Constitution is extremely clear that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no mention of an open or concealed carry method. So the acceptance of a concealed carry permitting system is the acceptance that the government has converted a right (carry of firearms in a concealed manner) into a priveledge (need Commonwealth CHP permission slip)

    If VCDL-PAC and legislators believe that the Virginia Constitution means what it says, then they have a duty to preserve our self executing rights and our liberties. This is a long and hard fight. In their efforts to "do something" VCDL-PAC and some politicians work to deliver special priveledges for the CHP holder, including carrying loaded semi-automatic rifles in certain urban areas of the state.

    Have no doubt that it is hard work to repeal the CHP system and revert to constitutional carry. Lazy politicians and lazy PACs avoid this hard work and instead work on incrementally improving the fundamentally flawed system of requiring concealed handgun permits. The sad part is that they then tell us that they are improving our gun rights. , which is usually a lie.

    Remember efforts to improve P4P do not help your liberties, they normalize the conversion of a right to a priveledge.

    Live Free or Die.
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    If you want to be endorsed by VCDL-PAC it certainly is.

    In Virginia Article 1 section 13 of the Commonwealth Constitution is extremely clear that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no mention of an open or concealed carry method. So the acceptance of a concealed carry permitting system is the acceptance that the government has converted a right (carry of firearms in a concealed manner) into a priveledge (need Commonwealth CHP permission slip)

    If VCDL-PAC and legislators believe that the Virginia Constitution means what it says, then they have a duty to preserve our self executing rights and our liberties. This is a long and hard fight. In their efforts to "do something" VCDL-PAC and some politicians work to deliver special priveledges for the CHP holder, including carrying loaded semi-automatic rifles in certain urban areas of the state.

    Have no doubt that it is hard work to repeal the CHP system and revert to constitutional carry. Lazy politicians and lazy PACs avoid this hard work and instead work on incrementally improving the fundamentally flawed system of requiring concealed handgun permits. The sad part is that they then tell us that they are improving our gun rights. , which is usually a lie.

    Remember efforts to improve P4P do not help your liberties, they normalize the conversion of a right to a priveledge.

    Live Free or Die.
    Thundar
    There are two problems I see with your approach.

    First, in a perfect world there wouldn't be a permitting system at all. Our ultimate goal is constitutional carry, which is as it should be. However, we have to start with the world the way it is, not the way that we wish it to be. We already have one form of constitutional carry (i.e. OC). The goal needs to be to get the full thing. One of the ways to do that is to move the current system closer by smaller steps (as we don't currently have enough reliable support to abolish it outright). I agree that P4P is a problem, but the specific example you gave (making the CHP records private) isn't a P4P. It is instead moving CHPs closer to the constitutional carry ideal.

    Second, even if/when we achieve constitutional carry in Virginia, a permitting system will not be a bad thing. We would still want to offer permits, if only for reciprocity purposes. Otherwise, Virginians traveling in other states would face the same dilemma that residents of Vermont do, compared with the option of a permit (for reciprocity purposes only) that Arizona and Alaska offer. They would also work with federal laws (like the GFSZA) where required. As things stand right now, we aren't about to get either the federal laws or the other states' laws changed before we can get Virginia to adopt constitutional carry.

    I agree that we need to avoid adding P4Ps, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to achieve the possible in making CHPs closer to constitutional carry. Measures that single CHPs out for special treatment (such as allowing them special exemptions on what or where they can carry, as compared to someone who is openly carrying) are P4P. However, that doesn't mean that every law relating to a CHP is a P4P.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    There are two problems I see with your approach.

    First, in a perfect world there wouldn't be a permitting system at all. Our ultimate goal is constitutional carry, which is as it should be. However, we have to start with the world the way it is, not the way that we wish it to be. We already have one form of constitutional carry (i.e. OC). The goal needs to be to get the full thing. One of the ways to do that is to move the current system closer by smaller steps (as we don't currently have enough reliable support to abolish it outright). I agree that P4P is a problem, but the specific example you gave (making the CHP records private) isn't a P4P. It is instead moving CHPs closer to the constitutional carry ideal.

    Second, even if/when we achieve constitutional carry in Virginia, a permitting system will not be a bad thing. We would still want to offer permits, if only for reciprocity purposes. Otherwise, Virginians traveling in other states would face the same dilemma that residents of Vermont do, compared with the option of a permit (for reciprocity purposes only) that Arizona and Alaska offer. They would also work with federal laws (like the GFSZA) where required. As things stand right now, we aren't about to get either the federal laws or the other states' laws changed before we can get Virginia to adopt constitutional carry.

    I agree that we need to avoid adding P4Ps, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to achieve the possible in making CHPs closer to constitutional carry. Measures that single CHPs out for special treatment (such as allowing them special exemptions on what or where they can carry, as compared to someone who is openly carrying) are P4P. However, that doesn't mean that every law relating to a CHP is a P4P.
    I guess that our perspectives are a bit different. I have sene a Republican majority waste an opportunity in Richmond, "fixing" the concealed restaurant serving alcohol carry issue instead of trying to restore our rights. After they fixed the concealed restaurant serving alcohol carry problem they had a cake that proclaimed the they were restoring rights. It was an illusion. With a permission slip concealed carry is not a right, but a priveledge. I don't like it that way so I push for constitutional carry. No permission slip necessary.

    I agree that those that desire a permit for less free states should be able to get a permit like they have in Alaska.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    I guess that our perspectives are a bit different. I have sene a Republican majority waste an opportunity in Richmond, "fixing" the concealed restaurant serving alcohol carry issue instead of trying to restore our rights. After they fixed the concealed restaurant serving alcohol carry problem they had a cake that proclaimed the they were restoring rights. It was an illusion. With a permission slip concealed carry is not a right, but a priveledge. I don't like it that way so I push for constitutional carry. No permission slip necessary.
    I agree with all of that, but I think you are making the mistake of assuming that a Republican majority means a pro-gun majority. As we've sadly seen, not all Republicans fully support our firearm rights. In the Senate, Republicans have the barest of majorities (20/20 split with the Lt Gov breaking the tie). If even one of them is squishy, the entire thing fails. Personally, I'd rather have a stronger majority before pushing for the whole enchilada.

    Consider SB1335. It started as a bill to only protect the personal information of CHP holders with restraining orders against someone. It passed the Senate 39 to 1. However, the House Substitute bill replaced that with something that protected the personal information of all CHP holders. While it still passed, support for the bill dropped to only 31 votes. A fairly innocuous bill that was changed to protect CHP holders lost 8 votes because of that change. Yes, they were all Democrats, but that doesn't bode well for other, more difficult changes.

    We're in the middle of a long and grueling war. There are going to be many battles to come. We've been winning more than we've lost in recent years, but that doesn't mean that we are in a position to strike a decisive blow yet.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    I agree with all of that, but I think you are making the mistake of assuming that a Republican majority means a pro-gun majority. As we've sadly seen, not all Republicans fully support our firearm rights. In the Senate, Republicans have the barest of majorities (20/20 split with the Lt Gov breaking the tie). If even one of them is squishy, the entire thing fails. Personally, I'd rather have a stronger majority before pushing for the whole enchilada.

    Consider SB1335. It started as a bill to only protect the personal information of CHP holders with restraining orders against someone. It passed the Senate 39 to 1. However, the House Substitute bill replaced that with something that protected the personal information of all CHP holders. While it still passed, support for the bill dropped to only 31 votes. A fairly innocuous bill that was changed to protect CHP holders lost 8 votes because of that change. Yes, they were all Democrats, but that doesn't bode well for other, more difficult changes.

    We're in the middle of a long and grueling war. There are going to be many battles to come. We've been winning more than we've lost in recent years, but that doesn't mean that we are in a position to strike a decisive blow yet.
    Constitutional carry is not a decisive blow.

    A decisive blow would be a Firearms Freedom Act, which includes: complete preemption (including all Commonwealth agencies and public colleges with only narrow exceptions for courtrooms and jails and prisons, the ability to manufacture Virginia Guns without a federal permission slip, constitutional carry, mandatory public school firearms training, felonies for supression of firearms rights (including federalagents), repeal of all state firearms sales requirements (only federal FFL rules) and anything else that would lower our Brady score and possibly give Bloomberg a coronary.

    Yes there is alot to do to restore rights. We can never get there if we think that P4P is where we should focus our attention. It often takes several sessions to get a legislation approved in Virginia. Start next year with constitutional carry.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Constitutional carry is not a decisive blow.

    A decisive blow would be a Firearms Freedom Act, which includes: complete preemption (including all Commonwealth agencies and public colleges with only narrow exceptions for courtrooms and jails and prisons, the ability to manufacture Virginia Guns without a federal permission slip, constitutional carry, mandatory public school firearms training, felonies for supression of firearms rights (including federalagents), repeal of all state firearms sales requirements (only federal FFL rules) and anything else that would lower our Brady score and possibly give Bloomberg a coronary.

    Yes there is alot to do to restore rights. We can never get there if we think that P4P is where we should focus our attention. It often takes several sessions to get a legislation approved in Virginia. Start next year with constitutional carry.
    Constitutional carry is a decisive blow, but it's not a final blow. We won't be able to get constitutional carry without a lot of the other things on your list first. Some of them are more achievable in the short term (such as the repeal of state firearm sales requirements or complete preemption).

    However, I have to say that I disagree with a few items on your list, because we simply cannot or should not reach for them on the state level. For example, because of the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, a state cannot charge a federal officer for enforcing federal law. That is well-established constitutional law. At the same time, a state cannot be forced to enforce federal law either. The net effect is that Virginia cannot make it illegal for federal officers to enforce something like the GFSZA, but they can tell the feds "if you want to enforce it, do it yourself". There's nothing we can do about it on the state level. That's simply how things are.

    Similarly, your "Virginia Guns" desire has significant problems due to federal law. While there are some indications that the pendulum is starting to swing the other way with regards to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, there is still a long way to go before such a law would be considered a valid defense against federal charges by the courts. That's simply not a battle that will win use anything useful in the short term.

    What I think you are missing is that I'm not saying that we need to add P4P in order to get to these goals. What I'm saying is that there are some things related to CHPs that aren't P4P. The simple fact is that we don't have constitutional carry at this time. We have a permit system right now. P4P (to my understanding) isn't a matter of the existence of CHPs. It's about tying things to CHPs beyond the actual purpose of them (allowing someone to legally conceal a firearm).

    So a law that repeals part of 18-2.308 to remove the restriction on CHP holders not being able to drink if carrying concealed wouldn't be P4P, because that is a restriction only on CHP holders (moving them towards greater parity with OCers). On the other hand, creating an exemption in state law for CHP holders to sidestep background checks would be P4P. (Note, I wouldn't consider it P4P if that were done on the federal level and the state merely repealed the additional background check requirements for everyone. My primary concern with P4P is on the state level. On the federal level it's pretty much hopeless at this time to try and avoid such things.)

    Going back to your original complaint that I took exception to, sealing the private information of CHP holders isn't a P4P. Instead, it is a mitigation of a harm caused by the existence of permits as a public record. That information should never have been public in the first place.

    Note: I do have a CHP, but I got it primarily for two reasons. First, I wanted the option of concealing at times, such as when visiting my aunt (who is vehemently anti-gun, but lived in a very bad part of town) and wanted to do so legally. Second, because I do try to follow the law, and because I lived within 1000 feet of a school at that time (and later bought a house also within 1000 feet of a school), I wanted to make sure that I couldn't face problems from the GFSZA no matter what my mode of carry. (While the GFSZA doesn't restrict carry on your own property, it would have restricted carry to/from my property.)
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  12. #12
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    ... The net effect is that Virginia cannot make it illegal for federal officers to enforce something like the GFSZA, but they can tell the feds "if you want to enforce it, do it yourself". There's nothing we can do about it on the state level. That's simply how things are.
    I wonder: Can a state specifically exclude federal law enforcement officers from the normal LEO exemptions provided in state laws against carrying a firearm on school grounds?

    TFred

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I wonder: Can a state specifically exclude federal law enforcement officers from the normal LEO exemptions provided in state laws against carrying a firearm on school grounds?

    TFred
    I think that they probably could, but I seriously doubt they ever would.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    Constitutional carry is a decisive blow, but it's not a final blow. We won't be able to get constitutional carry without a lot of the other things on your list first. Some of them are more achievable in the short term (such as the repeal of state firearm sales requirements or complete preemption).

    However, I have to say that I disagree with a few items on your list, because we simply cannot or should not reach for them on the state level. For example, because of the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, a state cannot charge a federal officer for enforcing federal law. That is well-established constitutional law. At the same time, a state cannot be forced to enforce federal law either. The net effect is that Virginia cannot make it illegal for federal officers to enforce something like the GFSZA, but they can tell the feds "if you want to enforce it, do it yourself". There's nothing we can do about it on the state level. That's simply how things are.

    Similarly, your "Virginia Guns" desire has significant problems due to federal law. While there are some indications that the pendulum is starting to swing the other way with regards to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, there is still a long way to go before such a law would be considered a valid defense against federal charges by the courts. That's simply not a battle that will win use anything useful in the short term.

    What I think you are missing is that I'm not saying that we need to add P4P in order to get to these goals. What I'm saying is that there are some things related to CHPs that aren't P4P. The simple fact is that we don't have constitutional carry at this time. We have a permit system right now. P4P (to my understanding) isn't a matter of the existence of CHPs. It's about tying things to CHPs beyond the actual purpose of them (allowing someone to legally conceal a firearm).

    So a law that repeals part of 18-2.308 to remove the restriction on CHP holders not being able to drink if carrying concealed wouldn't be P4P, because that is a restriction only on CHP holders (moving them towards greater parity with OCers). On the other hand, creating an exemption in state law for CHP holders to sidestep background checks would be P4P. (Note, I wouldn't consider it P4P if that were done on the federal level and the state merely repealed the additional background check requirements for everyone. My primary concern with P4P is on the state level. On the federal level it's pretty much hopeless at this time to try and avoid such things.)

    Going back to your original complaint that I took exception to, sealing the private information of CHP holders isn't a P4P. Instead, it is a mitigation of a harm caused by the existence of permits as a public record. That information should never have been public in the first place.

    Note: I do have a CHP, but I got it primarily for two reasons. First, I wanted the option of concealing at times, such as when visiting my aunt (who is vehemently anti-gun, but lived in a very bad part of town) and wanted to do so legally. Second, because I do try to follow the law, and because I lived within 1000 feet of a school at that time (and later bought a house also within 1000 feet of a school), I wanted to make sure that I couldn't face problems from the GFSZA no matter what my mode of carry. (While the GFSZA doesn't restrict carry on your own property, it would have restricted carry to/from my property.)
    Virginia could never charge someone for violating federal law, but could charge someone for violating Virginia law. That is why the FBI gets tickets in Fairfax county. Supression of civil rights can be criminalized in Virginia. Delivering Article 1 Section 13 granularity to such a law is not problematic. Btw it is even easier to prosecute when criminals conspire to violate Virginia law. (Fed Agents never act alone.)

    10th Ammendment law is very interesting. For guns especially. Remember there are three ways for federal law to preempt state law. Two of those are expressly conceded as not being applicable in the purpose section of the 1968 Gun Control Act (section 101). Manufacturing firearms for citizens would be an area of tension, but the manufacture of firearms for the Commonwealth of Virginia would be a very, very difficult legal hurdle for .gov to overcome.

    P4P is about carve outs for permit holders. I oppose these, not because of a dislike of permit holders, but because it is a convenient dodge for politicians that do not want to face the real liberty issues associated with bearing arms.
    Last edited by Thundar; 05-23-2013 at 06:05 PM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •