Reply from Senator Northam

imported post

I received this reply from Senator Northam regarding action item:

I urge you to pre-file two bills for gun owners this year. Both bills give trained concealed handgun permit holders the same carry rights as an untrained and off-duty state lawyer based on a bill (SB 776) that you voted for in the 2008 session:

1. A bill to strike 18.2-308 J3. This will allow a person with a concealed-handgun permit to carry concealed in a restaurant or club that serves alcohol.

2. A bill to allow a concealed handgun permit holder to carry on K-12 school grounds.
A recent Attorney General's Opinion confirmed that Commonwealth Attorneys and their deputies have the rights above based on SB 776 passing.

As a concealed handgun permit holder, I should have the same rights as an off-duty and untrained state lawyer.

Please let me know what you are going to do.

Thank you for your note. As an avid outdoorsman, I respect the rights of my fellow gun owners, and believe that additional legislation to restrict those rights is unnecessary. I also agree with you that the recent Attorney General's opinion regarding Commonwealth's Attorneys does not make sense, and I will put some more time into reviewing why the AG arrived at that conclusion. However, I do not believe that the two legislative changes you seek are in the best interest of the citizens of the Commonwealth. With regard to the first request, I feel strongly that guns and alcohol do not mix, and that restaurant owners have the right to know if someone is bringing a firearm into their establishments. I am sure that you and I are responsible individuals and know how to handle a gun, but for every one of us, there's a Plaxico Burress out there with the potential to cause unintentional harm to himself and to others. With regard to your request to allow concealed weapons to be carried on school grounds, I fail to see the benefit to the public. School districts across the Commonweath have added armed School Resource Officers to ensure the safety of our children, and I feel comfortable knowing that officer is the only person carrying a firearm at school. I know it is frustrating to many, but gun owner rights must be balanced against public safety concerns for the benefit of all people, and while that does not mean taking anyone's guns away, it does mean defining when and where it is appropriate to allow concealed carry.

Sincerely,

Ralph S. Northam
Senator, Virginia's 6th Distict

Click to expand...

My Reply:

Senator Northam

Click to expand...

Basically you are saying you do not trust your law abiding constituents to do the right thing. Personally I agree guns and alcohol don't mix. I have seen off duty police officers that are not required to open carry in a bar or restaurant drinking while armed numerous times.The reason for concealed carry is so the criminals don't know who may be armed and where they might be. As far as yourreference to Plaxico Burress it appearshe was in violation of the law to start with (No permit).Also anyone including a police officer can make a mistake for example the Ohio Police Chief that shot himselfhttp://news.aol.com/article/ohio-police-chief-accidentally-shoots/262799. If a restaurant owner doesn't want concealed carry in his/her establishment than post the property like all other property owners can.

With regard to the School Resource Officers they are not always in the school building, they may need to leaveduring the day for any number of reasons. Also under the law as written,an off duty game warden from New Jersey can carry aloaded gun in the schools but a permitted Virginia parent can't. The current law allows a parent to enter school property as long as they don't leave the car and the gun stays concealed. If the parent needs to enter the school they must leave the property, handle the gun to unload it, lock it up, then return to the school property. When leaving the property they again must handle the gun to reload an holster it. Using your Plaxico Burress example it appears from the reports he was handling the gun to give it to a security person at the club when the accidental discharge happened.Therefore the extra handling of the weapon presents more chance to have a problem with accidental discharge. If your problem is practice most CHP holders I know spend more time at the range than police and Sheriff's Deputies do. Some of the officers I know go to the range once a year when required to qualify.

Please reconsider yourposition on this issue.

Click to expand...

:banghead:

imported post

I fear that the Plaxico theory will be used over and over again. As a Giants fan and gun owner, I now look down upon him on those 2 fronts....

The good Senator's statements about armed resource officers is one thing, but other school districts allow teachers with CHP's to carry....why not law abiding citizens as well?...

imported post

That's a great response to his letter. He sounds pretty reasonable. Perhaps your letter will make him think deeper about it.

imported post

thanks, and I hope so.

imported post

Wolf_shadow wrote:

I received this reply from Senator Northam ...... School districts across the Commonweath have added armed School Resource Officers to ensure the safety of our children, and I feel comfortable knowing that officer is the only person carrying a firearm at school.

Click to expand...

I certainly hope he doesn't really believe that school resource officers are the only people carrying weapons in schools. If he does, he's been asleep for the last several decades.

Did he convince you?

Just curious to see if there was any change in your collective impressions of Ralph Northam. He is up for re-election this year with some changes to the district. Not that this topic will be his Waterloo, but it is still one I'll be considering going into my polling place.

~G0Z

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." -Thomas Jefferson

Since I never got a reply to the second letter, among other times I have tried to contact Senator Northam. I know who I am voting for and guess who it isn't.
:cuss:

Public safety???

If that's what he's worried about, then the single most important thing he can do is get the guns away from the "school resource officers", most of whom never practice, never clean their firearms, and aren't really good at using them.

The second thing is to allow law-abiding, socially responsible adults, including teachers, administrators, and visitors, to be capable of providing meaningful defense in the event of a nut-case.

Granted, the State and its police are only interested in apprehending and punishing badguys after the crime has been committed, but I'd like for responsible citizens to be able to stop a violent felony in progress, and as it stands right now, they are prohibited from doing so. The statutory scheme as established is exactly as if they intended to have kids shot up by crazy people. There is a legal principle that says that a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable results of his actions. Well, you take away the right to defend one's self and the vulnerable and otherwise defenseless children, you may as well be legislating the horrible, violent deaths of innocent children.

In my mind, those who enact regulations such as those in effect at Va. Tech. on the day that Cho was there are just as guilty as Cho was. They have blood on their hands and the blood of innocent victims is on their heads.

Question is whether Northam wants to be a member of that club. I don't want to hear any crap about the need to balance public safety - there is no consideration being given to public safety at all.

user said:

Question is whether Northam wants to be a member of that club. I don't want to hear any crap about the need to balance public safety - there is no consideration being given to public safety at all.

Click to expand...

I doubt I have to remind you that Surry is in his district.
He's also on the Agriculture committee that blocks all the anti dog hunter bills.
Nothing but Saslaw with a suntan as far as I can see.

Northam = 6th senate district

peter nap said:

I doubt I have to remind you that Surry is in his district.
He's also on the Agriculture committee that blocks all the anti dog hunter bills.
Nothing but Saslaw with a suntan as far as I can see.

Click to expand...

Was Surry previously in the district? Its not in there currently (redistricting included):

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...d=201640142296782744477.0004a626792308a1d3d2a

~G0Z

G0Z said:

Was Surry previously in the district? Its not in there currently (redistricting included):

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...d=201640142296782744477.0004a626792308a1d3d2a

~G0Z

Click to expand...

Apparently it Was. I haven't really looked at the new maps. I was just going from his profile I looked at earlier in the summer.

Pilot Article

All,

I know this is largely a local paper, but I'd just thought I'd pass along if any of you would like to weigh in on it. Here's just a for-instance of the comments that are showing up:

"Ralph Northam earned my vote
Submitted by Donkeyottie on Fri, 10/21/2011 at 10:23 pm.

I'm voting for Ralph Northam because he has demonstrated the ability to bring both sides together to accomplish things. What we don't need is a gun toting obstructionist in his place that wants to impose his narrow view of life on everyone else. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

~G0Z

G0Z said:

All,

I know this is largely a local paper, but I'd just thought I'd pass along if any of you would like to weigh in on it. Here's just a for-instance of the comments that are showing up:

"Ralph Northam earned my vote
Submitted by Donkeyottie on Fri, 10/21/2011 at 10:23 pm.

I'm voting for Ralph Northam because he has demonstrated the ability to bring both sides together to accomplish things. What we don't need is a gun toting obstructionist in his place that wants to impose his narrow view of life on everyone else. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

~G0Z

Click to expand...

Assume you are talking about this article?

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/10/loyola-aims-unseat-northam-6th-senate-district

TFred

Oops!

Thanks TFred. That is the one.

~G0Z

user said:

...
In my mind, those who enact regulations such as those in effect at Va. Tech. on the day that Cho was there are just as guilty as Cho was. They have blood on their hands and the blood of innocent victims is on their heads.

Question is whether Northam wants to be a member of that club. I don't want to hear any crap about the need to balance public safety - there is no consideration being given to public safety at all.

Click to expand...

While it doesn't speak to the issue of carrying in a school, any sort of "feel good" legislation" reminds me also of the Luby's Cafeteria incident in Killeen, TX. Make carrying a gun illegal and only the law-abiding are defenseless.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp said:

I made the most stupid decision of my life when I decided, several months before the Luby’s shooting, to stop carrying a revolver in my purse in the event that I would be caught and lose my chiropractor’s license. That decision left me unarmed at the time when I most needed a gun. I’m not mad at the guy that killed 23 people that day. How can I be mad at a rabid dog? I don’t blame guns. I blame politicians that legislated away my right to carry a gun to protect myself and my family. (link)

Click to expand...

user said:

..........snip..........

In my mind, those who enact regulations such as those in effect at Va. Tech. on the day that Cho was there are just as guilty as Cho was. They have blood on their hands and the blood of innocent victims is on their heads.

Question is whether Northam wants to be a member of that club. I don't want to hear any crap about the need to balance public safety - there is no consideration being given to public safety at all.

Click to expand...

That is my firm conviction also. I blame the GA and the schools administration for creating the conditions that allowed and even encouraged that such tragic events occur.

Many students have cars and do drive them. Would the GA and administrators ban automobiles because they cause serious injury and death to some? Actually, the vehicles cause no harm. It is the negligent/criminal individual that operate them improperly, at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Even with these, the authorities are reactive after the fact - they cannot prevent people from making bad choices before hand.

You do not protect the innocent by punishing them for what the criminal might do.

And adding to the mix, I have yet to see a SRO at any private school. As I understand it, same rules apply and nobody there to protect.