-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Phillip Van Cleave featured in Richmond Times Dispatch
- Thread starter T Dubya
- Start date
T Dubya
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Philip Van Cleave wants every Virginian who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun into a bar to be able to have a drink - or he wants no gun carrier to be able to drink.
That's the choice that Van Cleave, the leader of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, wants to offer state lawmakers next year when the General Assembly reconvenes.
He said he is going to find a legislator to submit two bills to the body representing both positions.
His aim is to force lawmakers to expand the rights of concealed-handgun owners in bars or rescind the current exception that allows law-enforcement officers and commonwealth's attorneys to carry concealed weapons and consume alcohol.
"We're not allowed to drink, but they can," Van Cleave said. "That's two classes of citizens."
The proposal comes just days after Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, signed into law a bill repealing the state's long-standing ban on holders of concealed-weapons permits carrying hidden guns into restaurants that serve alcohol. Permit holders will be allowed to enter with a firearm as long as they do not drink alcohol.
The law, which takes effect July 1, was a significant victory for the state's gun owners and the defense league, which had worked for 13 years on the issue.
"We've been fighting to get our rights back," Van Cleave told a gathering last Monday at the Second Amendment March in Washington.
"Rights that have been stripped away from us by politicians and corrupt courts that felt they can do what they please . . . without that pesky little Constitution getting in the way."
Van Cleave said one proposed bill would allow no one but an on-duty officer doing undercover work to drink alcohol while carrying a concealed weapon. The other bill will say that anyone can carry a concealed gun and drink if they wish, "as long as they are not drunk."
"Whatever the General Assembly assumes will apply to everyone," he said. "Police officers and permit holders are all in the same tent; so I say: General Assembly, you choose. But whatever it is, we're equal."
Administration officials were taking a wait-and-see approach.
"The governor is a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights," McDonnell press secretary Stacey Johnson said. "He will review any proposed legislation when it's introduced to the General Assembly."
Van Cleave's bold suggestion signals that the pro-gun lobby is reloading after its General Assembly success with the belief that it can gain more ground for gun owners.
The McDonnell administration has been decidedly more gun-friendly that the previous administration of Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.
As governor, Kaine vetoed nearly every expansion of gun rights that made it to his desk, including the restaurant bill.
Kaine also vetoed a bill that allows people without concealed-carry permits to stow firearms in locked containers or glove boxes in their vehicles.
Versions of both bills passed during the recently concluded assembly session, and McDonnell signed them. He even amended the glove-box bill to allow the weapons to be kept in unlocked containers, and the amendment was approved by the legislature Wednesday.
Any legislation submitted on the issue would have to clear the Democratic-controlled Senate Courts of Justice Committee to have a chance at becoming law.
Last month, committee chairman Sen. Henry L. Marsh III, D-Richmond, convened a special subcommittee of three Democrats and one Republican to hear a host of gun bills. Most of the bills were defeated and failed to advance to the full committee.
One member of the full committee, Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, said the new law allowing concealed guns in bars has enough problems without needing to be expanded.
"I fall into the category that no one should be drinking with a concealed weapon," he said.
"The real problem with [Van Cleave's] whole proposal is the same thing you run into with concealed guns in bars: How does anybody know if you're drinking? How do you enforce that? The problem is the enforceability piece."
The defense league and gun-rights advocates are not unhappy with their progress during the recently concluded General Assembly session. But they're showing no signs of slowing down.
On the list: repealing the state's one-gun-a-month purchase restriction. Concealing the names of concealed-carry permit holders. Removing the authority of state police to conduct background checks on gun purchasers who buy from federally licensed dealers.
"They certainly have gained ground," said McEachin, who said the legislative successes of such groups as the defense league signal the need for gun-control advocates in the legislature to be more proactive.
After two previous years of trying, Democrats this year did not pursue a bill that would require background checks of all purchases at gun shows.
"Those of us who are in favor of a more moderate, a more reasonable approach need to regroup," McEachin said. "Part of the problem is we haven't stayed on the offensive and offered ideas, and the table has been set by the Republican administration."
Philip Van Cleave wants every Virginian who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun into a bar to be able to have a drink - or he wants no gun carrier to be able to drink.
That's the choice that Van Cleave, the leader of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, wants to offer state lawmakers next year when the General Assembly reconvenes.
He said he is going to find a legislator to submit two bills to the body representing both positions.
His aim is to force lawmakers to expand the rights of concealed-handgun owners in bars or rescind the current exception that allows law-enforcement officers and commonwealth's attorneys to carry concealed weapons and consume alcohol.
"We're not allowed to drink, but they can," Van Cleave said. "That's two classes of citizens."
The proposal comes just days after Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, signed into law a bill repealing the state's long-standing ban on holders of concealed-weapons permits carrying hidden guns into restaurants that serve alcohol. Permit holders will be allowed to enter with a firearm as long as they do not drink alcohol.
The law, which takes effect July 1, was a significant victory for the state's gun owners and the defense league, which had worked for 13 years on the issue.
"We've been fighting to get our rights back," Van Cleave told a gathering last Monday at the Second Amendment March in Washington.
"Rights that have been stripped away from us by politicians and corrupt courts that felt they can do what they please . . . without that pesky little Constitution getting in the way."
Van Cleave said one proposed bill would allow no one but an on-duty officer doing undercover work to drink alcohol while carrying a concealed weapon. The other bill will say that anyone can carry a concealed gun and drink if they wish, "as long as they are not drunk."
"Whatever the General Assembly assumes will apply to everyone," he said. "Police officers and permit holders are all in the same tent; so I say: General Assembly, you choose. But whatever it is, we're equal."
Administration officials were taking a wait-and-see approach.
"The governor is a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights," McDonnell press secretary Stacey Johnson said. "He will review any proposed legislation when it's introduced to the General Assembly."
Van Cleave's bold suggestion signals that the pro-gun lobby is reloading after its General Assembly success with the belief that it can gain more ground for gun owners.
The McDonnell administration has been decidedly more gun-friendly that the previous administration of Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.
As governor, Kaine vetoed nearly every expansion of gun rights that made it to his desk, including the restaurant bill.
Kaine also vetoed a bill that allows people without concealed-carry permits to stow firearms in locked containers or glove boxes in their vehicles.
Versions of both bills passed during the recently concluded assembly session, and McDonnell signed them. He even amended the glove-box bill to allow the weapons to be kept in unlocked containers, and the amendment was approved by the legislature Wednesday.
Any legislation submitted on the issue would have to clear the Democratic-controlled Senate Courts of Justice Committee to have a chance at becoming law.
Last month, committee chairman Sen. Henry L. Marsh III, D-Richmond, convened a special subcommittee of three Democrats and one Republican to hear a host of gun bills. Most of the bills were defeated and failed to advance to the full committee.
One member of the full committee, Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, said the new law allowing concealed guns in bars has enough problems without needing to be expanded.
"I fall into the category that no one should be drinking with a concealed weapon," he said.
"The real problem with [Van Cleave's] whole proposal is the same thing you run into with concealed guns in bars: How does anybody know if you're drinking? How do you enforce that? The problem is the enforceability piece."
The defense league and gun-rights advocates are not unhappy with their progress during the recently concluded General Assembly session. But they're showing no signs of slowing down.
On the list: repealing the state's one-gun-a-month purchase restriction. Concealing the names of concealed-carry permit holders. Removing the authority of state police to conduct background checks on gun purchasers who buy from federally licensed dealers.
"They certainly have gained ground," said McEachin, who said the legislative successes of such groups as the defense league signal the need for gun-control advocates in the legislature to be more proactive.
After two previous years of trying, Democrats this year did not pursue a bill that would require background checks of all purchases at gun shows.
"Those of us who are in favor of a more moderate, a more reasonable approach need to regroup," McEachin said. "Part of the problem is we haven't stayed on the offensive and offered ideas, and the table has been set by the Republican administration."
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
T Dubya wrote:
T Dubya wrote:
Fixed it for him.
T Dubya
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I understand the paradox that PVC has presented to the reader, but my legislative priority is to prevent employers from preventing their employees from keeping a firearm locked in their private vehicle.
I understand the paradox that PVC has presented to the reader, but my legislative priority is to prevent employers from preventing their employees from keeping a firearm locked in their private vehicle.
DonTreadOnMe
Regular Member
imported post
T Dubya wrote:
I have to say, I think the lack of a law preventing employers from preventing their employees from keeping a firearm(s) locked in their private vehicles needs to be fixed and should be our first priority to put in place.
Sure, attack the disparity of rights that PVC has presented....noble and should be done.
But, lets keep in perspective that is disarming many of us everyday. As it is our rights are denied to and from work every single day each of us works. I am with T Dubya on this one.....the parking lot law should be the priority.
T Dubya wrote:
I have to say, I think the lack of a law preventing employers from preventing their employees from keeping a firearm(s) locked in their private vehicles needs to be fixed and should be our first priority to put in place.
Sure, attack the disparity of rights that PVC has presented....noble and should be done.
But, lets keep in perspective that is disarming many of us everyday. As it is our rights are denied to and from work every single day each of us works. I am with T Dubya on this one.....the parking lot law should be the priority.
Uber_Olafsun
Regular Member
imported post
I would agree about the parking lot being a priority as well but this should not be forgotten. Anything that is creating two classes of cans and can not should be eliminated as far as rights. Do I think drinking while carrying is a good idea no but you can do that now if you are openly carrying so just in the carrying a gun for personal protection we have two groups. Add undercover LEO and you get three. LEOs should be the last group even thinking about drinking IMO. They have a weapon and if something was to happen and they respond and give testimony there are two areas that could screw a trial up.
"So the defendant pulled a gun on you after you said stop police"
"Yes"
"And you shot said person and hit their leg"
"Yes"
"So the fact that you were drinking didn't cause a problem is your speech so he could understand what you were saying?!?! Good thing you had that drink or you might have made a kill shot"
Jury stunned look :shock:
Responsibility has to be put back on individuals and not expect nanny to take care of you. If I am carrying I want my wits about me. I still support what he is trying to do because rights keep getting tried to take away and this is showing hey we are pushing back and getting them back.
I would agree about the parking lot being a priority as well but this should not be forgotten. Anything that is creating two classes of cans and can not should be eliminated as far as rights. Do I think drinking while carrying is a good idea no but you can do that now if you are openly carrying so just in the carrying a gun for personal protection we have two groups. Add undercover LEO and you get three. LEOs should be the last group even thinking about drinking IMO. They have a weapon and if something was to happen and they respond and give testimony there are two areas that could screw a trial up.
"So the defendant pulled a gun on you after you said stop police"
"Yes"
"And you shot said person and hit their leg"
"Yes"
"So the fact that you were drinking didn't cause a problem is your speech so he could understand what you were saying?!?! Good thing you had that drink or you might have made a kill shot"
Jury stunned look :shock:
Responsibility has to be put back on individuals and not expect nanny to take care of you. If I am carrying I want my wits about me. I still support what he is trying to do because rights keep getting tried to take away and this is showing hey we are pushing back and getting them back.
kennys
Regular Member
imported post
IMOA, the parking lot rule should be dealt with as this deals with both OC and CC people.
Secondly I think the constitutional carry issue should be addressed.
IMOA, the parking lot rule should be dealt with as this deals with both OC and CC people.
Secondly I think the constitutional carry issue should be addressed.
T Dubya
Campaign Veteran
imported post
[suB]Well, we are just going to have to make sure we show upto meetings, open carry dinners, and VCDL functions to talk to PVC and our executive board members to express our thoughts on what the legislative priorities of the VCDL should be in 2011. I'm sure we're not the only ones that feel this way.[/suB]
[suB]Well, we are just going to have to make sure we show upto meetings, open carry dinners, and VCDL functions to talk to PVC and our executive board members to express our thoughts on what the legislative priorities of the VCDL should be in 2011. I'm sure we're not the only ones that feel this way.[/suB]
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
It didn't take Dan Casey very long to pile on. He even came up with a catchy little name. The bourbon and a Beretta bill. How clever.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/dancasey/2010/04/26/teed-up-for-2011-the-bourbon-and-a-baretta-bill/#comment-44199
It didn't take Dan Casey very long to pile on. He even came up with a catchy little name. The bourbon and a Beretta bill. How clever.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/dancasey/2010/04/26/teed-up-for-2011-the-bourbon-and-a-baretta-bill/#comment-44199
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
Another hit piece by the clown prince of internet douchebaggery.
I really wish some drunken, homosexual, california liberal with a propensity for firebombing abortion clinic protesters runs him over in a Prius.
An UNARMED, drunken, homosexual california liberal.
And I hope he survives to appreciate the irony of it.
Another hit piece by the clown prince of internet douchebaggery.
I really wish some drunken, homosexual, california liberal with a propensity for firebombing abortion clinic protesters runs him over in a Prius.
An UNARMED, drunken, homosexual california liberal.
And I hope he survives to appreciate the irony of it.
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
buster81 wrote:
buster81 wrote:
Wow... I left a comment on the blog:
Dan, absent a certain method to absolutely enforce a workplace ban on guns, publishing a list of workplace shootings just reinforces the need to allow law abiding citizens to have the option to defend themselves from their disgruntled current or former co-workers. That long list clearly illustrates that a hollow "ban" simply does not protect you against a lunatic who has decided to break the law.
Regarding your comment #14, "And besides, the gun lobby already has taken a baby step toward this: the bill the Virginia legislature enacted this year requiring employers to allow their employees to keep their guns locked in their cars." I suggest you try to keep up a little closer, HB171 was illegally killed in the "Special" sub-committee set up by Saslaw and Marsh solely for that purpose.
Comment by TFred — April 26, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
He replied:Regarding your comment #14, "And besides, the gun lobby already has taken a baby step toward this: the bill the Virginia legislature enacted this year requiring employers to allow their employees to keep their guns locked in their cars." I suggest you try to keep up a little closer, HB171 was illegally killed in the "Special" sub-committee set up by Saslaw and Marsh solely for that purpose.
Comment by TFred — April 26, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
TFred you are correct and I will update this post to reflect that
Comment by Dan Casey — April 26, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Comment by Dan Casey — April 26, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Loneviking
Regular Member
imported post
If you folks in Va. decide to pursue drinking in bars, you might help your case by looking at Nevada. We've been able to carry and drink since our CCW law went into effect in 1988, and it's never been illegal for OC. In fact, to be cited as drunk while carrying the limit is .10, while for DUI the limit is .08! And yet, no drunken bar fights; no bullet holes in the ceiling; just an occasional carrier enjoying a beer or two.
If you folks in Va. decide to pursue drinking in bars, you might help your case by looking at Nevada. We've been able to carry and drink since our CCW law went into effect in 1988, and it's never been illegal for OC. In fact, to be cited as drunk while carrying the limit is .10, while for DUI the limit is .08! And yet, no drunken bar fights; no bullet holes in the ceiling; just an occasional carrier enjoying a beer or two.
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
Loneviking wrote:
This will be one case where the paranoia of the anti-gunners and their pocket media will help VCDL accomplish one of their goals (again, assuming that is their actual goal here.)
I do not expect, nor desire for them to ever comment further on that publicly, but that's how I see it.
TFred
Loneviking wrote:
While I certainly can't speak for anyone other than myself, I strongly suspect that the ultimate motive here is to force the General Assembly to remove the ability for those special people to be able to drink while carrying concealed, not to open it up to everyone else.
This will be one case where the paranoia of the anti-gunners and their pocket media will help VCDL accomplish one of their goals (again, assuming that is their actual goal here.)
I do not expect, nor desire for them to ever comment further on that publicly, but that's how I see it.
TFred
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Am I missing something? After 1 July we still have the right to drink in a restaurant that serves alcohol in the Commonwealth of Virginia, yes?
The only difference is that after 01 July those that get a government permission slip to exercise a priveledge are upset that there are some that are more priveledged than others.
VCDL ought to be more agressive and work for Constitutional Carry and a Virginia Firearms Freedom Act. Give Atty General Ken some real big issues to work while we have a good, freedom loving man in the job.
Constitutional carry = less the duty to inform clause and concealed licenses that tighten somewhat the requirements enabling the license to be accepted in more states and used as a NICS alternative.
Virginia Firearms Freedom Act = exactly the legislation that was introduced this year + elimination of state background checks for firearms purchase, machine gun registry, sawed of shotgun and rifle laws as well as silencer laws.
Live Free or Die,
Thundar
Am I missing something? After 1 July we still have the right to drink in a restaurant that serves alcohol in the Commonwealth of Virginia, yes?
The only difference is that after 01 July those that get a government permission slip to exercise a priveledge are upset that there are some that are more priveledged than others.
VCDL ought to be more agressive and work for Constitutional Carry and a Virginia Firearms Freedom Act. Give Atty General Ken some real big issues to work while we have a good, freedom loving man in the job.
Constitutional carry = less the duty to inform clause and concealed licenses that tighten somewhat the requirements enabling the license to be accepted in more states and used as a NICS alternative.
Virginia Firearms Freedom Act = exactly the legislation that was introduced this year + elimination of state background checks for firearms purchase, machine gun registry, sawed of shotgun and rifle laws as well as silencer laws.
Live Free or Die,
Thundar
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Feel free to correct my poor memory, but didn't VCDL push a Virginia Firearms Freedom Act this past session?
IIRC, it was killed by Banjo Dick's Death Star committee.
Thundar wrote:
Feel free to correct my poor memory, but didn't VCDL push a Virginia Firearms Freedom Act this past session?
IIRC, it was killed by Banjo Dick's Death Star committee.
VCDL President
Centurion
imported post
Interesting watching something take on a life of its own as I read through this thread.
Where did I ever say that getting an equitable restaurant law was the number one priority for VCDL? Repealing the restaurant ban was a top priority, but now we are talking about a tweak.
The tweak is an issue that the reporter was fascinated with and he ran with it, giving us a chance to educate the public on the issue.
The restaurant issue is something that should be fixed one way or the other so that those who can carry concealed are all treated equally, but it won't be anywhere near our top priority.
VCDL is more than aware of the issue with employers banning guns in parking lots and we pushed hard on a bill to fix that this year. Why would you expect us to drop the issue next year? We never stopped going after the restaurant ban for the 15 years it was around. We also had bills for Castle Doctrine, improving K-12 carry (2 bills), protecting the private info of CHP holders from release by courts, and more.
I don't understand why so many still don't understand that VCDL has many issues it takes on each year. Just because one issue gets coverage in the press doesn't mean that it was our one and only issue.
You want to come to VCDL meetings and talk about your priorities? Excellent, that's one of the many things people do at those meetings. Usually you can address many from leadership and some of our Executive members at any of our meetings. And I can be reached by phone and email for that matter. I hear from members all the time and have a pretty good idea of what's important to most of you.
VCDL as a group keeps its finger on the pulse of gun owners and with over 50 Executive members, not much slips by us. And don't forget that the members of leadership are all gun owners and subject to the same good and bad gun laws as everyone else, reminding us regularly of the shortcomings of current Virginia law.
Interesting watching something take on a life of its own as I read through this thread.
Where did I ever say that getting an equitable restaurant law was the number one priority for VCDL? Repealing the restaurant ban was a top priority, but now we are talking about a tweak.
The tweak is an issue that the reporter was fascinated with and he ran with it, giving us a chance to educate the public on the issue.
The restaurant issue is something that should be fixed one way or the other so that those who can carry concealed are all treated equally, but it won't be anywhere near our top priority.
VCDL is more than aware of the issue with employers banning guns in parking lots and we pushed hard on a bill to fix that this year. Why would you expect us to drop the issue next year? We never stopped going after the restaurant ban for the 15 years it was around. We also had bills for Castle Doctrine, improving K-12 carry (2 bills), protecting the private info of CHP holders from release by courts, and more.
I don't understand why so many still don't understand that VCDL has many issues it takes on each year. Just because one issue gets coverage in the press doesn't mean that it was our one and only issue.
You want to come to VCDL meetings and talk about your priorities? Excellent, that's one of the many things people do at those meetings. Usually you can address many from leadership and some of our Executive members at any of our meetings. And I can be reached by phone and email for that matter. I hear from members all the time and have a pretty good idea of what's important to most of you.
VCDL as a group keeps its finger on the pulse of gun owners and with over 50 Executive members, not much slips by us. And don't forget that the members of leadership are all gun owners and subject to the same good and bad gun laws as everyone else, reminding us regularly of the shortcomings of current Virginia law.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
DrMark wrote:
DrMark wrote:
No Doc, VCDL didn't push the bill. It was not even a "strongly support" bill for VCDL. Libertarians carried the water for that one. Unfortunately the Illegal Senate Sub-Committee killed it.
VCDL President
Centurion
imported post
Thundar wrote:
If you call that nothing or VCDL not pushing it, then I simply don't know what further can be said.
VCDL had a huge agenda, we had to prioritize, and so we did. The Campaign for Liberty and other Tea Party groups were working hard on that bill, so the majority of VCDL's resources were better placed on the restaurant ban repeal, k-12 school carry, closure of the CHP list from dissemination, work parking lot storage, etc.
That strategy was working well for all the bills until the train wreck in the Senate.
Thundar wrote:
That's a mischaracterization (and I'm being generous here). VCDL did push the bill, but not as hard as the strongly support bills. A position of neutral would be no pushing at all. I spoke on the bill in subcommittee, we had VA-ALERT action items on it, and I spoke at the rally for it (VCDL supplied the audio system for that rally, too).
If you call that nothing or VCDL not pushing it, then I simply don't know what further can be said.
VCDL had a huge agenda, we had to prioritize, and so we did. The Campaign for Liberty and other Tea Party groups were working hard on that bill, so the majority of VCDL's resources were better placed on the restaurant ban repeal, k-12 school carry, closure of the CHP list from dissemination, work parking lot storage, etc.
That strategy was working well for all the bills until the train wreck in the Senate.
jmelvin
Founder's Club Member
imported post
For the bills that were pushed, I, at least, say thank you. I realize it's a team effort for all of us, but you and others are the ones who can make face to face contact with the GA on a regular basis.
Hopefully we can figure out a way around that death committee for next year.
For the bills that were pushed, I, at least, say thank you. I realize it's a team effort for all of us, but you and others are the ones who can make face to face contact with the GA on a regular basis.
Hopefully we can figure out a way around that death committee for next year.
VCDL President
Centurion
imported post
jmelvin wrote:
jmelvin wrote:
Yes - that is our biggest challenge right now. I am hoping Congressional elections this year will send a very strong message. And next year we have both the House of Delegates and the Senate up for grabs here in VA. If gun owners come out in droves, we can fix a lot of things, hopefully.