During a recent "Ask the Governor" the weekly radio spot where Gov. Kaine takes call in questions for Virginians and a concealed weapon permit carrier called in and posed these very questions regarding whether he would veto the bills before the GA. I got the impression, though Kaine had stated he had at the time yet determined whether he would or would not veto, that this was coming. The caller made some really valid and impressive points that I must say challenged my thinking on the issue.  One point raised is are not background checks completed at the time of purchase and then at the time of permit (carry) approval by a judge and the courts that allow people and especially citizens who must for purposes of work carry a concealed weapon and how the two bills overlap because if you do not allow a certified permit carrying citizen to carry the weapon with them into a restaurant/convenience store then they must remove the weapon from its holster, place it under the seat of the car or in a lock box and leave it while they dine or go anywhere alcohol is served or sold. Now I know this has to do with those who went through the process of getting approved to carry concealed, but the law would apply to them as well I think in these instances as well as the oridinary citizen who simply own guns but have no carry permit but simply ownership. I think the question raised was how would one be abiding by the law if they purchased a gun through a reputable dealer and left the dealer with the gun by way of an automobile? They would not have a permit to conceal the weapon in the car in the first place and technically would be in violation of having a weapon in a auto "technically" if they were stopped by police...at least I think this was the point that was being raised on the radio program. I am not up to speed to most of the carry laws but the caller left me asking questions and that is a good start I guess.

I don't think the first bill is a big deal, but I'm quite glad to see the second one knocked down.  

Another veto I'm looking for is the asinine SB 776, which "[a]uthorizes an attorney for the Commonwealth or an assistant attorney for the Commonwealth to carry a concealed handgun without obtaining a permit wherever such attorney may travel in the Commonwealth."  If concealed carry permits are all about safety, it shouldn't matter who is applying - everyone should go through the same training and meet the same requirements.

I can't imagine how it is that a Commonwealth's Attorney magically knows how to safely handle a handgun. They should go through the same permit process as everyone else.

Police officers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons off duty without permits since by definition they have excellent firearms safety training when they go through the Police Academy. But I'm not aware of any law school that makes handgun safety a component of their requirements for a law degree.  

See 18.2-308.B.2 -- Concealed weapons law does not apply to law enforcement officers anywhere in the commonwealth.

I was just pointing out why the rule for cops is a good idea. I have heard people refer to Commonwealth's Attorneys as 'law enforcement officers' at times, and while they are a part of law enforcement I don't think they should have those same privileges as cops.

Brian Moran is wrong about 436 in particular. If people who legally possess handguns but do not have a CWP are required to leave their weapon is full view within their vehicle, then that is going to lead to a higher number of handguns being stolen than needs to be the case.

Say you are on your way to a shooting range or a competition and you're going to stop for lunch on the way home.  The responsible thing to do is to lock the handgun up and keep it out of view in the car. Otherwise a criminal might see it, break the window or otherwise force their way into the car, and then you've got one more handgun in the hands of a criminal. SB 436 would prevent that scenario from happening.

I am all in favor of our current system of requiring proper training and issuance of a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon. But when a firearm is unloaded, locked up and stowed in a separate storage container, it is not accessible as a weapon. The owner of the handgun in that case can not quickly draw the weapon and fire it in the event that he would care to do so.

As for SB476, I have mixed feelings. It is a bad idea to carry a handgun with you into a bar. When even a responsible person gets drunk, they should not be carrying a weapon. The problem is that in Virginia, there is technically no such thing as a bar. There is no separate ABC license for a bar. They are all nominally restaraunts. And I have to tell you that it's a huge pain in the ass trying to go and get lunch sometimes when I am (legally) carrying my weapon because aside from fast food, most restaraunts have an ABC license. I don't intend to drink any alcohol, and usually nobody else in the place is drinking at noon either. But I cannot walk in there to get a sandwich. What am I supposed to do? Leave the gun on the sidewalk or something?  I work in a pedestrian-friendly area and am nowhere near my car at lunch time.

In order for something along the lines of 476 to work, we would first have to revise our ABC licensing system towards something a little less puritanical. Have separate ABC licenses for bars versus restaraunts and then allowed concealed weapons in restaraunts but not bars. This would solve a number of problems at once and it would allow pepole like me to eat lunch without any hassle while also preventing drunken CWP holders from losing their cool after having a few too many drinks.

so you don't have to be "bothered" by all these inconveniences.  Funny, I never owned or shot a firearm and don't feel badly at all about the Governor's veto.  And I feel quite safe too.  I'll trust my safety to law enforcement officers.

The place where I have to park my car every day is in one of the few high crime areas of Charlottesville. In the colder months especially, I'm walking back to my car after dark and it's a bit sketchy. 363 days a year, it's fine. But a couple times each year I will encounter some kind of trouble that makes me very glad that I am armed.

Like last summer I arrived at my car to find 4 dudes (sporting the crack dealer look) hanging out on it. Like, actually sitting on my car and they weren't too interested in leaving.

Or just a few months ago there was a random gunshot from less than 50 yards away as I walked past.

That's the main reason why I often choose to carry a concealed weapon. I don't have it with me every single time I go out and as the days get longer I might start leaving it home.

The main reason why I decided to apply for the permit in the first place was because I hunt for food and I am a target shooter.  I didn't like having to keep my firearms out in plain view while I was transporting them and stopping some place en route. It's inviting theft and then the stolen guns would probably contribute to violent crime.

Of course you don't feel badly about the Governor's veto. It doesn't directly affect you if you don't know one end of a gun from another. Although maybe you'd be singing a different tune if you got shot by a criminal who got the illegal handgun by stealing it out of a car in a parking lot where it was in plain view because of Kaine's veto of SB 436. Part of gun safety is knowing when to secure your weapon. The fact that we have an effective ban on that safety measure is ridiculous.

A law enforcement officer's primary duty is to pursue criminals after they have committed crimes. Not to be standing on every street corner ready to stop a crime while it is in progress. Ask any cop. Your own safety is your own responsibility. If somebody stabs you, the police will find that guy and arrest him and conduct a full investigation. But you'll still be stabbed all the same.  If you live and work in areas where you don't have to worry about crime then that is great. I'm happy for you. But it would hardly be fair to suggest that everyone, including people with less money who are forced to live or work in unsavory areas, should have to make the same decisions that you do.

better now.  Notwithstanding, on the whole, I would rather see less guns than more.  When a child gets shot by another, there's always the "well, the parents should have locked it up" answer.  That doesn't help the poor children and other innocent victims, for example, teenagers with suicidal tendencies (I remember that phase myself) who would be alive today if guns were not so readily available.  But that's me.  I do understand your concern and appreciate your taking the time to respond.

I completely understand the scenario you draw about leaving a weapon out in the open. It makes no sense. I would think every reasonable person would agree with your argument under those circumstances.

But, Gov. Kaine notes that law enforcement objections were "compelling." Do you know why law enforcement would object to such a common-sense provision?

But I'd like to know.

The only arguments against 436 that I've heard essentially consist of 'guns are bad and we shouldn't have any new laws that let people do ANYTHING with guns.'  There certainly may be some logical argument that I haven't heard.

the ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) did object on behalf of the Kaine Administration.  The VA State Police said that they were NEUTRAL on this bill.

When asked by Senator Marsh in committee, the Virginia  
State Police said they took no position on the bill.  Not a single police agency spoke against SB 476.

The exception was the ABC, WHO SAID IN COMMITTEE THAT THEY WERE SPEAKING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION.

It appears that Kaine asked the ABC to speak out on this bill, and then used their comments to justify the veto.

Blast from the past but would it be great if a full service restaurant with ABC capabilties offered a "gun check" just like a coat check where you could provide them your weapon in a lock box and they hold it during your visit that way if upon your departure you are found to be impaired not only will you be prevented from driving but picking up your weapon as well. makes no sense that a ghun holder can drink to the brink of impairment and then go outside and simply have have access to the weapon required to be left in the car. I just do not get the arguement or rationale behind it at all if the idea is about access.

while carrying a firearm.  A Concealed Carry Permit is a very prized psooesion.  Not only would someone lose their priveledge to Conceal Carry, they just might lose their right to own a gun.

It is NOT illegal to carry a gun into a reataurant/bar right now.  But the gun must be open carried i.e. in plain sight.  And you still may not consume alcohol.  

I still don't know how one gets the gun from the dealer to home without breaking the law. Something doesn't make sense here. If someone can explain how it makes sense that carrying a gun from place to place in your cars trunk where you don't have a chance to reach it is carrying concealed then I may support the Gov. on this. I just don't see it though.

And yeah. no no no on carrying a gun in a bar. I don't care if you have a CWP or not. But Landers has a very good point on the nature of ABC licenses being for restaurants where one would not necessarily be drinking. Separating those licenses may fix the problem with the smoking ban as well and lessen some of the key opposition.

Open carry is totally legal in Virginia. Just put the unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun on the seat where it is totally visible and you are in good shape.

The problem is really when you have to stop somewhere for gas, groceries, lunch, whatever. It is something of a faux pas to walk into the mall or the Sheetz with a weapon in your hands. But if you lock the gun up in your car out of sight, then technically you are in violation of the law for concealing a weapon while you are doing that. Meaning that you have to leave the gun out in plain sight in the car and risk it being spotted and stolen in your absence.
 

There are exceptions in the concealed carry law for "unloaded and securely wrapped", if you're going to a range, a show or a place of purchase or repair.  Locking the weapon unloaded zipped in a bag in your trunk will suffice.

Note: I am not a lawyer.

MSP

Why is it the Creigh Deeds voted for Guns in Bars, for Guns in Cars and even for Assistant Proecutors to get concealed guns.

He wants to be the DEMOCRATIC nominee for Governor? I'm still not sold on Moran, but I'd rather have someone who was with Kaine than against him on Guns in Bars.

It's interesting that Creigh is an NRA guy and has a good record on guns. That isn't a bad thing. I support the second amendment.

But support Ammunition and Alchohol? Jen McClellan said it best on the floor of the House --- even in the wild west, you had to check your gun at the door of the saloon!

right now, right this minute, to carry a hand gun into a reataurant.  As long as it is open carried.  By vetoing this bill the Governor hasn't prevented someone from legaly carrying a hand gun into a reataurant, or anywhere alcohol is served, he's just prevented someone with a concealed permit from carrying concealed.

BTW - Virginia does not have bars.

The bill says that a permit holder can only carry a concealed weapon into a restaurant that has an ABC permit if they do not consume any alcohol.  And again, remember that the law treats restaurants and bars as one and the same.

Because of that, I see the bill as something on which intelligent minds can agree. Especially since the majority of ABC licensees are the sort of places that you would look at and call a 'restaurant' rather than a 'bar.'

Personally, I think we need to set up a legal distinction between bars and restaurants before we change the concealed carry laws in that regard. I think that if you get someone into a bar with a concealed weapon, in many cases his friends are going to talk him into having a drink and then maybe another drink, etc. So I would have voted against that one myself. But I can't say that Creigh's vote for that was exactly irrational given the way that the bill reads.  

By the way, with regard to some rumor about what rules saloons had in the old west, those were 'house rules.' Not law. There's nothing stopping any bar from posting a sign that says that patrons consuming alcohol must leave their weapons at home or in their vehicles, regardless of what the law allows.