Response from Gov Kaine about bills SB476 and SB776 - won't admit he's wrong!

[Skeptic]

imported post

vt357 wrote:

Skeptic wrote:

I hope someone asks him about this on ASK THE GOVRNOR on WRVA this morning

Someone did (first call), he continues to say CA can't carry into restaurants b/c only "Sworn Officers" can do that. Of course they cut you off so you can't call him on it.

Too bad Jimmy didn't call him on it. I am pretty sure the afternoon guy , Doc (who has talked about a number of gun issues) would have.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Darnit. I would like to see someone call him on it on air by leading with the fact that he has denied it repeatedly and then quote the plain language of the bill and ask him to explain how that doesn't do what it clearly does and just leave out any other issue. Something like:

Governor, you have repeatedly denied in public that SB776, which you signed into law, gives CA and ACA's the authority to carry a concealed firearm into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. SB776 revised VA Code Section 18.2-308 wherein the prohibition against concealed carry of firearms into places serving alcohol is contained. Specifically, SB776 revises that section to, quote, that this section shall not apply to any attorney for the Commonwealth or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth, wherever such attorney may travel in the Commonwealth, close quotes.

So the clear language of the bill specifically excludes CAs and ACAs from the prohibitions against concealed carry of firearms in establishments serving alcohol as well as every other prohibition in that section, excepting when legally intoxicated, for which the only penalty in the section is revocation of the concealed carry license which, under the bill you signed, CAs and ACAs are not required to obtain in the first place. How do you reconcile the plain reading of the bill with your repeated denials?

 

[VCDL President]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Darnit. I would like to see someone call him on it on air by leading with the fact that he has denied it repeatedly and then quote the plain language of the bill and ask him to explain how that doesn't do what it clearly does and just leave out any other issue. Something like:

Governor, you have repeatedly denied in public that SB776, which you signed into law, gives CA and ACA's the authority to carry a concealed firearm into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. SB776 revised VA Code Section 18.2-308 wherein the prohibition against concealed carry of firearms into places serving alcohol is contained. Specifically, SB776 revises that section to, quote, that this section shall not apply to any attorney for the Commonwealth or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth, wherever such attorney may travel in the Commonwealth, close quotes.

So the clear language of the bill specifically excludes CAs and ACAs from the prohibitions against concealed carry of firearms in establishments serving alcohol as well as every other prohibition in that section, excepting when legally intoxicated, for which the only penalty in the section is revocation of the concealed carry license which, under the bill you signed, CAs and ACAs are not required to obtain in the first place. How do you reconcile the plain reading of the bill with your repeated denials?

Like I said in a recent VA-ALERT, if caught with your pants down - deny, deny, deny.

We are working on making those denials something that will be haunting him.

 

[vt357]

imported post

Skeptic wrote:

vt357 wrote:

Skeptic wrote:

I hope someone asks him about this on ASK THE GOVRNOR on WRVA this morning

Someone did (first call), he continues to say CA can't carry into restaurants b/c only "Sworn Officers" can do that. Of course they cut you off so you can't call him on it.

Too bad Jimmy didn't call him on it. I am pretty sure the afternoon guy , Doc (who has talked about a number of gun issues) would have.

I'll email Jimmy and see what he says.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

VCDL President wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

Darnit. I would like to see someone call him on it on air by leading with the fact that he has denied it repeatedly and then quote the plain language of the bill and ask him to explain how that doesn't do what it clearly does and just leave out any other issue. Something like:

Governor, you have repeatedly denied in public that SB776, which you signed into law, gives CA and ACA's the authority to carry a concealed firearm into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. SB776 revised VA Code Section 18.2-308 wherein the prohibition against concealed carry of firearms into places serving alcohol is contained. Specifically, SB776 revises that section to, quote, that this section shall not apply to any attorney for the Commonwealth or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth, wherever such attorney may travel in the Commonwealth, close quotes.

So the clear language of the bill specifically excludes CAs and ACAs from the prohibitions against concealed carry of firearms in establishments serving alcohol as well as every other prohibition in that section, excepting when legally intoxicated, for which the only penalty in the section is revocation of the concealed carry license which, under the bill you signed, CAs and ACAs are not required to obtain in the first place. How do you reconcile the plain reading of the bill with your repeated denials?

Like I said in a recent VA-ALERT, if caught with your pants down - deny, deny, deny.

We are working on making those denials something that will be haunting him.

I am very impressed with VCDL's efforts and would certainly be a member if I lived in VA. I have no doubt you guys are working on a media plan for a come-uppance on the issue.

What I was trying to add to the conversation above was the focus on the lies about SB776 in letters and radio call in questions. It seems that all the questions and letters get off into SB476 which is a essentially a dead issue for now until it can get back up in front of the legislature, and bring up his hypocrisy. While a valid argument, people leading with that are not getting the chance for a followup to bring out his misrepresentation of SB776. I think that radio listening constituents and media are going to be much more reactive to "the governor has lied to you" rather than "the governor has a double standard". Of course he has a double standard - he is a politician.

If he is asked why "this" but not "that" when "this" does ABC and "that" does ABC for a different group and it isn't fair, he just say, well "this" doesn't really do ABC. Next question.

Focusing in on his preverication instead by presenting the plain language in the bill leaves him with either denying the quote which is easily checked by the media, or trying to deny the meaning of the word "is". He can do it, but everyone is going to know at that point that he is lying through his teeth. Just my .02.

 

[VCDL President]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

VCDL President wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

Darnit. I would like to see someone call him on it on air by leading with the fact that he has denied it repeatedly and then quote the plain language of the bill and ask him to explain how that doesn't do what it clearly does and just leave out any other issue. Something like:

Governor, you have repeatedly denied in public that SB776, which you signed into law, gives CA and ACA's the authority to carry a concealed firearm into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. SB776 revised VA Code Section 18.2-308 wherein the prohibition against concealed carry of firearms into places serving alcohol is contained. Specifically, SB776 revises that section to, quote, that this section shall not apply to any attorney for the Commonwealth or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth, wherever such attorney may travel in the Commonwealth, close quotes.

So the clear language of the bill specifically excludes CAs and ACAs from the prohibitions against concealed carry of firearms in establishments serving alcohol as well as every other prohibition in that section, excepting when legally intoxicated, for which the only penalty in the section is revocation of the concealed carry license which, under the bill you signed, CAs and ACAs are not required to obtain in the first place. How do you reconcile the plain reading of the bill with your repeated denials?

Like I said in a recent VA-ALERT, if caught with your pants down - deny, deny, deny.

We are working on making those denials something that will be haunting him.

I am very impressed with VCDL's efforts and would certainly be a member if I lived in VA. I have no doubt you guys are working on a media plan for a come-uppance on the issue.

What I was trying to add to the conversation above was the focus on the lies about SB776 in letters and radio call in questions. It seems that all the questions and letters get off into SB476 which is a essentially a dead issue for now until it can get back up in front of the legislature, and bring up his hypocrisy. While a valid argument, people leading with that are not getting the chance for a followup to bring out his misrepresentation of SB776. I think that radio listening constituents and media are going to be much more reactive to "the governor has lied to you" rather than "the governor has a double standard". Of course he has a double standard - he is a politician.

If he is asked why "this" but not "that" when "this" does ABC and "that" does ABC for a different group and it isn't fair, he just say, well "this" doesn't really do ABC. Next question.

Focusing in on his preverication instead by presenting the plain language in the bill leaves him with either denying the quote which is easily checked by the media, or trying to deny the meaning of the word "is". He can do it, but everyone is going to know at that point that he is lying through his teeth. Just my .02.

Yes - he's got himself setup for the liar scenario quite nicely.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

VCDL President wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

VCDL President wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP

SNIP

I am very impressed with VCDL's efforts and would certainly be a member if I lived in VA. I have no doubt you guys are working on a media plan for a come-uppance on the issue.

SNIP

Yes - he's got himself setup for the liar scenario quite nicely.

I would like to add that I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes with my comments. I am not a resident of VA nor consequently a VCDL member and recognize that fact, however, I was taught at an early age, "As goes Virginia, so goes the union (nation)". That may be an outdated adage on many levels, but on some levels it still holds true. I in no way intend by my comments to insult the membership who are daily fighting for our rights in the Old Dominion. I am a Yankee by birth but a Kentuckian and Virginian by heritage and spirit. If anyone feels I have insinuated myself inappropriately into these conversations, I apologize.

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

VCDL President wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

VCDL President wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP

SNIP

I am very impressed with VCDL's efforts and would certainly be a member if I lived in VA. I have no doubt you guys are working on a media plan for a come-uppance on the issue.

SNIP

Yes - he's got himself setup for the liar scenario quite nicely.

I would like to add that I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes with my comments. I am not a resident of VA nor consequently a VCDL member and recognize that fact, however, I was taught at an early age, "As goes Virginia, so goes the union (nation)". That may be an outdated adage on many levels, but on some levels it still holds true. I in no way intend by my comments to insult the membership who are daily fighting for our rights in the Old Dominion. I am a Yankee by birth but a Kentuckian and Virginian by heritage and spirit. If anyone feels I have insinuated myself inappropriately into these conversations, I apologize.

Because of your good advice and dedication to our cause, let it be known that we Virginians recognize your efforts and grant you the title of "Honorary Virginian"! Please keep up the good work!

 

[ggd276]

imported post

when is gov. up we need to help kaine find a new job.

 

[ggd276]

imported post

maybe dogcatcher????

 

[BobCav]

imported post

ggd276 wrote:

maybe dogcatcher????

No way! He probably kicks puppies! Mucking out stables is more suitable.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

VCDL President wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

VCDL President wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP

SNIP

I am very impressed with VCDL's efforts and would certainly be a member if I lived in VA. I have no doubt you guys are working on a media plan for a come-uppance on the issue.

SNIP

Yes - he's got himself setup for the liar scenario quite nicely.

I would like to add that I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes with my comments. I am not a resident of VA nor consequently a VCDL member and recognize that fact, however, I was taught at an early age, "As goes Virginia, so goes the union (nation)". That may be an outdated adage on many levels, but on some levels it still holds true. I in no way intend by my comments to insult the membership who are daily fighting for our rights in the Old Dominion. I am a Yankee by birth but a Kentuckian and Virginian by heritage and spirit. If anyone feels I have insinuated myself inappropriately into these conversations, I apologize.

Because of your good advice and dedication to our cause, let it be known that we Virginians recognize your efforts and grant you the title of "Honorary Virginian"! Please keep up the good work!

Thank you.

 

[paramedic70002]

imported post

Did anybody ever say why we needed this law? Why can't CAs get their permits like the rest of us? Are they too poor? Couldn't we just have made their applications no charge? Are there CAs that can't get past the shall issue killers?

And why do postal workers get a pass when they are forbidden to carry by federal regs?

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

First off, Kaine is not wrong about this bill not permitting Commonwealth Attorneys and their assistants to carry a concealed handgun into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol. The term "this section" does not apply to all of 18.2-308, just 18.2-308A. A court will give full effect to all the provisions of a statute so long as the result isn't too wacky. Therefore, a court can enforce the "no person" requirement of 18.2-308(J3) and the new 18.2-308(B)(9) and it all still makes sense. If being included in paragraph B meant that J3 did not apply then they would not have included a special exemption for law enforcement officers in J3. See 18.2-308(M) for law enforcement officer definition. What should really make you mad is that a police officer from Illinois or New Jersey can carry here into a bar.

Why then does a CA or ACA need an exemption from concealed carry requirements? Most CAs (I suppose) don't have a permit or carry a gun. A particular case might suddenly require a CA to possess a firearm and the process to obtain a permit would take too long. For example, if a prosecutor becomes involved in a drug case or a gang related homicide, the threat might require the prosecutor to be armed immediately. Even the Department of Justice has started qualifying prosecutors on firearms because of the threats they face. Everyone who carries a firearm should require training, however. I would not think it would be too difficult for a prosecutor to receive training that is far superior to what is required for a concealed handgun permit on short notice.

In any event thisargument is somewhat moot. CAs and ACAs can already carry a concealed handung into a bar under LEOSA (18 USC 926B). The only difference now is that they can carry into state government buildings while not working, schools and state parks.

There was overwhelming support for SB776 in both Houses. Use that next year to improve the concealed carry law and make it fair and reasonable for everyone. Except postal carriers. What's that about?

That's my $.02 anyway.

 

[TheEggman]

imported post

thrasymachus wrote:

...
In any event thisargument is somewhat moot. CAs and ACAs can already carry a concealed handung into a bar under LEOSA (18 USC 926B). The only difference now is that they can carry into state government buildings while not working, schools and state parks...

Isn't one of the requirements under LEOSA, in addition to having a degree of power of arrest is that being armed is normally part of your job. This is not a normal job requirement for CAs and DCAs

I see NO PROBLEM with a streamlined process to get anyone in dire need of a permit trained and safe as soon as possible, NOT JUST STATE EMPLOYEES as a 'special class.'

I believe, as far as the current 'permit for a right' system goes, that if ANY NON-PROHIBITED PERSON can demonstrate an immediate need for protection and the police can't/won't provide it in a sufficient manner, that they should arrange immediate training for that person and hand-walk the permit through the system.

That person would then have to live by the same laws, rules and prohibitions that all CHP Holders endure.

If being allowed conceled carry in an otherwise 'prohibited' area makes THEM more safe, why would it not make ANY Law Abiding CHP holder just as safe.

Obviously if the Background Check later disqualifies the person then they also should be required to live by the same rules as the 'little' people. "How smart can those 'little' people be -- after all, they put ME in office!"

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

No, I don't believe that it is. If the individual is permitted by the agency, in this case the CA, to carry a firearm, then they can. There is no requirement that the agency regularly carry firearms as part of its duties. CAs have statutory arrest powers as conservators of the peace.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--
​

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
​

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
​

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
​

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
​

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
​

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.




​

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

One thing I forgot. CAs and their assistants are already background checked and fingerprinted. Remarkably, so are all attorneys in Virginia. It's called a character and fitness application. CAs do go through additional checks, however.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

So was the actual purpose of this law, in allowing CA and ACAs to carry concealed firearms at will essentially, to ensure they are under LEOSA (18 USC 926B)? Is that what isn't being said about this?

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

No, I don't think that's it. CAs and ACAs were covered under LEOSA almost from its adoption. Including prosecutors as conservators of the peace did that.Nothing further was required. That being said, state laws that are not in conflict with federal laws are free to ignore federal provisions. Sometimes state statutes are statments of state prioroties without regard for federal law.

I was not privy to the reasoning behind this bill. There as been a recent surge in violence against prosecutors and there is a similar law being considered for federal prosecutors so that they will not require cross certification as Deputy U.S. Marshals in order to carry a concealed permit. I first heard about this law while getting a haircut the day before the House of Delegates voted. So I guess I can't say for sure why the law was changed. It does have the effect of permitting prosecutors to carry in state buildings, state parks and schools when not working, so it is not entirely without effect. LEOSA does not permit those things.

My point about it would be that it should not be viewed as adefeat for the pro carry lobby. Instead of bellowing about the "little people" and the privileged, use the statute to convince the overwhelming number of legislators who voted forSB776 to support rights for CHP holders. Point to the fact that no training is required for prosecutors and argue that the danger associated with CHP holders carrying whereveris at least no greater, or perhaps even less, so why not include CHP holders and get SB476, or something similar, passed.

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

Sorry, that should have reade "carry a concealedhandgun without a permit."