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

[Goaltender66]

imported post

thrasymachus wrote:

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.

I remember some time ago with nationwide CCW carry was passed in the US Congress for former/current law enforcement officers. I remember an argument such as this being made, that it would give pro-carry folks a good talking point for selling full reciprocity for all concealed carry. I think I also remember something about LEOs helping us out in return for our support of their rights to carry in all 50 states.

That turned out pretty well.

Look, I admire the glass-half-full attitude, but the reality is there's no way to whitewash the class differences enshrined in SB476 and 776. There are lots of people in the Commonwealth who need to carry a gun right away in circumstances where they risk a lot while jumping through CHL-permit hoops. To my way of thinking, if a Commonwealth Attorney feels the need to carry right away but doesn't want to go through the permit process, he can open carry like the rest of us.

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

I guess I just don't view it as class differences. If SB776 extended the right to carry concealed without a permit to German-Americans only or Republicans only, then it would be about class. But the simple fact is that prosecutors have gone through a series of hoops to be prosecutors that is far more onerous than the requirements for a concealed handgun permit. Bachelors degree, three years of law school, a character and fitness application that costs hundreds of dollars, passing the bar, and obtaining a position with a prosecutor's office are all more daunting tasks than filing an application for CHP, paying the fee and waiting for 45 days (or less, hopefully).

Does this system classify people differently? Yes, of course. Distinctions are made all the timebased upon factors just like these. To phrase the question differently, should those people who have a CHP be able to carry concealed just because they have a clean record, paid a fee, took a hunter safety course, and filed an application? Are they better than someone who doesn't want to file the application or pay the fee? Are those people who don't want to file the application or pay the fee any less deserving of being able to defend themselves? What about convicted felons? They live in an arguably more dangerous world than non-felons and they can't have a gun at all. Are their lives worth less?

Society makes certain distinctions based upon circumstances. Only lawyers can practice law, only neurosurgeons can do brain surgery, and only pilots can fly planes. Those that can't do those things are not in a lower class than those that can. Just as the pilot had to be trained, so did the prosecutor. Just as a law enforcement officer can carry a concealed gun by virtue of his office, a CHP holder can also by virtue of his training, clean record and permit. And anyone can become a prosecutor and carry without a permit if they do all the things I listed above. It is far cheaper, however, to just obtain the permit to carry the gun.

Onefinal point in a very long post. Nationwide concealed carry is apipe dream. Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and California will never go for it and those states win presidential elections and help to determine control of Congress. SB 476 passed both houses. Just five more votes in each house and its veto proof. And we get a new chance at governor next year. See, the glass is half full.

 

[IanB]

imported post

thrasymachus wrote:

I guess I just don't view it as class differences. If SB776 extended the right to carry concealed without a permit to German-Americans only or Republicans only, then it would be about class. But the simple fact is that prosecutors have gone through a series of hoops to be prosecutors that is far more onerous than the requirements for a concealed handgun permit. Bachelors degree, three years of law school, a character and fitness application that costs hundreds of dollars, passing the bar, and obtaining a position with a prosecutor's office are all more daunting tasks than filing an application for CHP, paying the fee and waiting for 45 days (or less, hopefully).

So by your logic we should issue drivers licences to CA's just because they have "Bachelors degree, three years of law school, a character and fitness application that costs hundreds of dollars, passing the bar, and obtaining a position with a prosecutor's office" regardless of whether they can drive a car or know the rules of the road. That is basically what you and Kaine are promoting isn't it?Giving CA's a licence to conceal with no training or standards based upon nothing more than earning a college degree and a job with the state?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

Concealed handgun permits are issued on precious little more than nothing. A hunter safety course qualifies the holder to receive a CHP and that clearly has nothing to do with being able to handle a firearm under stressful conditions or the laws that pertain to deadly force. Certainly, some courses do cover those issues, but there is no requirement that the course does cover those issues. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, then no one should be able to carry a firearm openly without training that includes use of force and dealing with shooting under pressure.It would make sense because open carry is arguably more dangerous than concealed carry. Is that what you are arguing for? There are many that can carry a firearm concealed without any training, including law enforcement officers. Countless individuals are sworn in as part time deputies and police and have never received any training. Prosecutors are just one more in the group.

A sockpuppet? I have not held my self out to be anyone in particular. I'm just an individual who supports the rights of individuals to carry a concealed firearm, I support SB476, and I think the shrill diatribes over SB776 detract from the more important debate over the rights of all citizens. I am concerned about the inaccuracies and inaccurate information being posted on the internet and felt compelled to respond. Is anyone whodisagrees on here a sockpuppet? I'm just trying to inject another viewpoint into a one sided debate in this forum. If I made anyone angry, I did not mean to. But I believe that it's important to hear all sides to a debate to make an informed decision.

The drivers license argument is a non sequitur. I was addressing issues of class, not training. I believe that anyone who owns or carries a firearm should be trained. I have never suggested otherwise. Recognizing the reality of a bill that has become law is not agreeing with all of its provisions. Recognizing that the perception of a laws effect may be wrong does not mean that I agree with those provisions.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

+10000000 Naked.

Just because someone chose to spend the money on an expensive education does not give them nor does it actually MAKE them more intelligent. There are plenty of horrendously bad lawyers out there, who make horrendously bad decisions. That being the case why should those people be trusted to own and operate a firearm without any training at all?

What the hell does a fitness application or physical fitness test have to do with being able to carry a firearm anyway? Passing the bar? So you memorized a bunch of stuff, that's supposed to replace the actual actions of handling a fire arm in a safe manner? Just because a person has to memorize more facts that makes them better suited to handle a firearm without any previous experience? It's a load of crap and you know it thrasymachus.


"But the simple fact is that prosecutors have gone through a series of hoops to be prosecutors that is far more onerous than the requirements for a concealed handgun permit." - I think myself and many other veterans would disagree with you. As a Veteran I don't have to go through half the stuff most normal people would, but I sure as hell put up with alot more than any lawyer ever did (JAG types excluded) to earn my status as a Veteran. Your argument is flawed sir.

 

[Marco]

imported post

Their education doesn't make them more qualified to carry a firearm into places law abiding citizens can't. Moot point.

The same criminals that would attempt to victimize a "CA" would have already victimized the general public. Thus their in no more endanger than the average citizen. Another moot point.

Their are many on the forum that have undergone more stringent clearances, background and fitness test then any "CA" has undergone. Yet again another moot point.

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

A character and fitness application is a background investigation that goes beyond the background investigation that CHP applicants undergo. It includes credit checks, fingerprints, and criminal history and an investigation into all charges filed against the individual of whatever nature. Thank god it didn't include physical fitness.

As I said, recognizing something for what it is and for what it isn't does not imply agreement. I don't agree that someone should carry a firearm without training. I don't agree that someone should carry a firearm without training. I don't agree that someone should carry a firearm without training. I also don't agreewith making an argument based upon a misunderstanding of the law and the facts. When you start out with misunderstanding and bad facts, you lose the argument. Go in with the right facts and a clear understanding and you have a chance at winning the argument. That was my suggestion for next session anyway.

My argument about status and class had nothing to do with training. I was not arguing for arming untrained individuals, I was arguing that it was not a class argument since anyone who otherwise qualifiesfor itcould do it. I was merely pointing out that someone could carry a concealed handgun more easily by obtaining a CHP and not going to law school. See? Status, not class.

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

Their education doesn't make them more qualified to carry a firearm into places law abiding citizens can't. Moot point.

The same criminals that would attempt to victimize a "CA" would have already victimized the general public. Thus their in no more endanger than the average citizen. Another moot point.

Their are many on the forum that have undergone more stringent clearances, background and fitness test then any "CA" has undergone. Yet again another moot point.

1. Agreed. But then I never argued that it did.

2. Not true. Prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, face threats every day that many people do not. I read once that over 30% of prosecutor's offices have reported work related violence, and it's rising.

3. Not knowing those people I can't say. Federal top secret clearance is more involved than character and fitness, but it inlcudes interviews with friends, family, and acquaintances to confirm all information from SF-86. Other than that, they are pretty similar.

 

[hsmith]

imported post

thrasymachus wrote:

1. Agreed. But then I never argued that it did.

2. Not true. Prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, face threats every day that many people do not. I read once that over 30% of prosecutor's offices have reported work related violence, and it's rising.

3. Not knowing those people I can't say. Federal top secret clearance is more involved than character and fitness, but it inlcudes interviews with friends, family, and acquaintances to confirm all information from SF-86. Other than that, they are pretty similar.

Why does their need to protect their lives outweigh my need to protect mine?

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

hsmith wrote:

thrasymachus wrote:

1. Agreed. But then I never argued that it did.

2. Not true. Prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, face threats every day that many people do not. I read once that over 30% of prosecutor's offices have reported work related violence, and it's rising.

3. Not knowing those people I can't say. Federal top secret clearance is more involved than character and fitness, but it inlcudes interviews with friends, family, and acquaintances to confirm all information from SF-86. Other than that, they are pretty similar.

Why does their need to protect their lives outweigh my need to protect mine?

It doesn't. Never argued that it did. As I said, I support the rights of citizens to carry concealed. I think anyone who has a firearm should be trained in its safe use. I think you should be able to carry into a restaurant with it concealed. I don't think you should have to announce it. It doesn't make sense that you can open carry, which I think is more dangerous. In either case, a firearm is present near alcohol. We have the same law in Tennessee. You can't carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol

I was asked about the rationale behind the bill, and that's why I commented on the rising violence rate against prosecutors. I was just guessing at the rationale and gave it my best shot since I had nothing to do with SB776.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

thrasymachus, all of your responses lead me to believe that your well versed in this particular matter. Which leads me to believe you are one (or will become one, or know one) of the individuals that benefits from this particular bill, would that be a correct statement? Please don't just say it's in the reading....the reading doesn't make it a good bill, that's what alot of people here are arguing.

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

thrasymachus, all of your responses lead me to believe that your well versed in this particular matter. Which leads me to believe you are one (or will become one, or know one) of the individuals that benefits from this particular bill, would that be a correct statement? Please don't just say it's in the reading....the reading doesn't make it a good bill, that's what alot of people here are arguing.

I do know someone who is covered by the bill, my cousin. He does not have any desire to carry a concealed handgun but is somewhat disillusioned by the debate. He, like most prosecutors, are dedicated and capable public servants. They work for much less than they could earn in the private sector and do so without complaint. The attacks against prosecutors in this forum, and in others,are alarming. I have heard them called everything from the elite ruling class to drug crazed alcoholics bent on shooting children in elementary schools while polishing off another fifth of scotch. Frankly, I wonder if we would have heard a peep out of this forum, or any other, had SB476 not ben vetoed. He mentioned the debate to me and I went online and did some research.

I am admitted to the bar in Tennessee, but I do not engage in the practice of law. I have a CHP and carry daily.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Alright well I'm trying to post responses to you with less venom, lol. Here's why:

My brother is the assistant county DA in another state with more restrictive laws. The court house is in a small town/farming community/with an indian reservation and casino. To say there are people in the community he see's on a regular basis in his work environment would be putting it mildly. He and I have talked about guns on occasion, one in particular when I was home he told me about someone he sent to the grey bar hotel for a while. When this individual got out he approached my brother in the grocery store and asked him if he lived at such and such address, you know, so and so's old place. He replied he did. The guy then stated that "that must have been your little girl I saw playing in the yard then." My brother was asking about calibers and things of that nature at that point. I can understand why he did, I would have too. He still hasn't gotten one yet, at least not that he's told me about.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Alright well I'm trying to post responses to you with less venom, lol. Here's why:

My brother is the assistant county DA in another state with more restrictive laws. The court house is in a small town/farming community/with an indian reservation and casino. To say there are people in the community he see's on a regular basis in his work environment would be putting it mildly. He and I have talked about guns on occasion, one in particular when I was home he told me about someone he sent to the grey bar hotel for a while. When this individual got out he approached my brother in the grocery store and asked him if he lived at such and such address, you know, so and so's old place. He replied he did. The guy then stated that "that must have been your little girl I saw playing in the yard then." My brother was asking about calibers and things of that nature at that point. I can understand why he did, I would have too. He still hasn't gotten one yet, at least not that he's told me about.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Thanks for the polite inquiry.

To my knowledge, my cousin has never been directly threatened with violence. I suppose that's why he doesn't want to carry a weapon concealed. I can imagine that changing fairly quickly, however, if someone he prosecuted started talking about his children. I guess that's the problem with people who don't take the time to obtain a concealed handgun permit now. Later may be too late.

 

[Marco]

imported post

thrasymachus wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

The same criminals that would attempt to victimize a "CA" would have already victimized the general public. Thus their in no more endanger than the average citizen. Another moot point.

2. Not true. Prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, face threats every day that many people do not. I read once that over 30% of prosecutor's offices have reported work related violence, and it's rising.

Cite please.
Not true. Your kidding right???

Unless DA's, CA's and others in that job classification are plucking incident people off the street to prosecute.

The people that would be threatening them would have committed crimes against the general public first.
:question:This is why they are in the criminal justice system:exclaim:
If these same people are out on bond they still pose a threat to the general public.

Thus, the public and CA's face the same dangerous people.

I don'tbegrudge CA's, DA's etc..theyshould have the same rights to self defense as I do, no more.

My sister is a ADA, so I know they are treated like a special class of people.

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

thrasymachus wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

The same criminals that would attempt to victimize a "CA" would have already victimized the general public. Thus their in no more endanger than the average citizen. Another moot point.

2. Not true. Prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, face threats every day that many people do not. I read once that over 30% of prosecutor's offices have reported work related violence, and it's rising.

Cite please.
Not true. Your kidding right???

Unless DA's, CA's and others in that job classification are plucking incident people off the street to prosecute.

The people that would be threatening them would have committed crimes against the general public first.
:question:This is why they are in the criminal justice system:exclaim:
If these same people are out on bond they still pose a threat to the general public.

Thus, the public and CA's face the same dangerous people.

I don'tbegrudge CA's, DA's etc..theyshould have the same rights to self defense as I do, no more.

My sister is a ADA, so I know they are treated like a special class of people.

Utah is out near Nevada, right?

"In 2001, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted the first and only published study examining workplace aggression as it relates to prosecutors and office personnel. It reported that 81 percent of large state prosecutors' offices reported work-related threats or assaults in that year alone."

http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2006/08/violence_against_the_utah_lega.html

That was the first search result I came across. I'm still looking for the original article I read. Sounds worse than I thought.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

thrasymachus wrote:

Onefinal point in a very long post. Nationwide concealed carry is apipe dream. Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and California will never go for it and those states win presidential elections and help to determine control of Congress.

I think you're too pessimistic on the national CCW - just need to give it some time. The terrorists will take out NY, we buy the O'leary's another cow in IL and the southern 2/3 of the state will finally have the voting power to regain their 2A rights, CA will be seceded back to Mexico and that only leaves NJ against the remainder of the nation. I think it is doable in another 20 years with the way things are going.

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

While I don't agree 100% with what thrasymachushas said, his thoughts are well thought out and he presents some very compelling arguments and appears to be a voice of reason. Welcome to this board sir!

 

[flightmedic]

imported post

Thanks. Glad to be here.

 

[ed]

imported post

At Kaine's Town Meeting I asked him "the question" in front of a crowd and then again face to face after the town meeting.

Here is the audio.

http://www.flyboyed.com/gq/1.wav

and

http://www.flyboyed.com/gq/2.wav

Ed