Thought he ran as pro-gun?
12 Responses to “Thought he ran as pro-gun?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 28th, 2009 at 10:07 am
He did.
None of us believed it. Heck, as Mayor of Richmond, he tried to use taxpayer money to send a busload of “activists” to the misnamed “Million Mom March” in DC to lobby for gun control. After the citizens found out about it and raised Kaine (so to speak), he still sent the bus, but paid for it out of his own pocket.
The thing is, the Republicans ran a horrible campaign, crapped all over many traditionally Republican voting grassroots state level organizations, (including all three of the major pro-gun groups, VCDL, VSSA and VGOA) and basically alienated their entire base.
In the same election that the Democrat won the election for Governor, the strongly conservative Republican candidates won the Lt. Governor and Attorney General spots by a landslide. That by itself should tell you something about how poor a campaign the Republican contender ran…who also happened to have been a fairly popular Republican AG.
For some unknown reason, the stupid party in Virginia just hasn’t seemed to be able to run a decent Gubernatorial campaign in several election cycles.
Basically, Tim Kaine was elected with the attitude that “at best, he won’t want to alienate gun owners so he’ll have their support when he runs for national office (clearly wrong), and at worst, he can do us no harm considering the strongly pro-gun majorities in the General Assembly (clearly right).
The important thing is that we remember this betrayal when he inevitably runs for the Senate and/or President/Vice President. And we will.
All but one of the bills he Vetoed passed the General Assembly with veto-proof margins so, unless a large number of legislators have a change of heart, we can over-ride the vetoes on those. The restaurant ban bill is close, but we may be able to squeak out an over-ride.
At any rate, we’ve gotten the restaurant ban repeal bill through the G.A. for two years running now. If we can get a pro-gun Governor in office next year, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that we’ll get this done next year if we don’t get the veto over-ridden this year.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:34 am
He didn’t even read or understand the gun laws he vetoed. For instance he vetoed SB 1528 which would have allowed people to take online training to qualify for a concealed handgun permit. Governor Kaine vetoed the bill because:
“The state requires an applicant for a concealed weapons permit to take a written safety test to demonstrate that the individual understands how to use a weapon in a safe manner. Allowing the testing to be done online would weaken the ability of the Commonwealth to determine who is actually taking the test and open up opportunities for individuals to receive a permit under fraudulent circumstances with no guarantee that they can use a weapon safely.”
There is NO written safety test requirement in Virginia. Kaine doesn’t even know our laws.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
What? Someone campaigning with specific and targeted goals and promises and then going against every one of them as soon as you are elected.
No THAT never happens. π
March 28th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Is it not true that one can openly carry a pistol in a restaurant that serves alcohol in Virgina?
How does his veto accomplish anything?
Shootin’ Buddy
March 29th, 2009 at 10:58 am
“Is it not true that one can openly carry a pistol in a restaurant that serves alcohol in Virgina?”
It is true, however, there are many restaurant owners that will ask you to leave (as is their right as property owners). Also, there have been incidents of other customers panicking and calling the police for “am man with a gun,” leading to encounters with officers who don’t know the law.
Open carry has it’s place, and it is allowed under state law, but in today’s social climate concealed is often better.
“How does his veto accomplish anything?”
It doesn’t. Especially when you consider that last year he signed a law that allows Commonwealth Attorneys (and Assistant Commonwealth Attorneys) to carry concealed without a permit (and without even the minimal training required for a permit) and to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.
Yet he has the sheer gall to say “Allowing concealed weapons into restaurants and bars that serve alcohol puts the public, the employees, and our public safety officers at risk.”
(For anyone who wants to verify my interpretation, the statute is VA Code Section 18.2-308. Section B.9. exempts Commonwealth’s Attorneys from the statute “Except as provided in subsection J1[…].” Section J3 is the section that prohibits concealed carry in “any restaurant or club […] for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted[…].”)
March 29th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Aargh! I wish I could edit my posts. The last sentence of the second paragraph above should read “Also, there have been incidents of other customers panicking and calling the police for a man with a gun, leading to encounters with officers who dont know the law.”
March 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Jake, don’t forget that when Kaine signed the bill to allow Commonwealth Attorneys to carry w/o a permit it also allows them to DRINK alcoholic beverages in restaurant/bars while carrying concealed.
I guess when Kaine says that guns and alcohol don’t mix, that’s only for the little people!
March 29th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Patrick:
Actually, I noticed when I was writing that comment that it doesn’t. That’s where the “Except as provided in section J1” comes in. Section J1 reads:
Since J1 applies, they can’t (legally) drink. Of course, being “Only Ones,” they can do whatever they want.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Actually, the “under the influence” language is the same thing that determines a DUI. It does not preclude one from drinking, only from carrying while having a BAC over .08.
The problem is that no one knows what one’s BAC is until they are stopped and given the test and it is very easy to overindulge even if one has the intent to “only have one”.
The law that Kaine vetoed would expressly prohibit Concealed carriers from imbibing at all.
Interestingly, when openly carrying here, the “under the influence” standard applies so one may drink while carrying openly, as long as their BAC never gets above .08.
As far as restauranteers asking people to leave…I wouldn’t say that’s a common occurrence. I know it happens from time to time, but I’ve been openly carrying in Virginia restaurants for years and it’s never happened to me. The point about making other customers nervous is very valid however.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I’ve written my liberal senator and delegate urging them to vote to override, but I don’t have much hope. Del. Paul Nichols is a tort lawyer and opposed to the 2nd amendment and Sen. Barker is a quivering liberal. How in the hell did VA ever come to this? I have ancestors that arrived in 1607 and this isn’t what they struggled and fought for.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Sailorcurt:
You’re right, it doesn’t explicitly state that they can’t drink at all, like SB1035 does for the rest of us. I’ve updated the post on my blog to reflect that. Thanks for pointing that out!
On the other hand, section J1 does also reference 18.2-388 (public intoxication). I’m not certain, but I believe there may be a looser standard on that (i.e., if the officer says you were intoxicated, that’s how the courts apply it). The only place I can find “intoxicated” defined is Sec. 4.1-100 (under the ABC act), which says:
This seems to leave a lot to the officer’s judgment and honesty.
The drunk driving law (Sec. 18.2-266) says driving with a BAC of .08 or higher is “unlawful,” but doesn’t specifically call it “intoxicated.”
I’d say it’s more “vague” than “allowed.” Of course, in cases where the law is vague, “Only Ones” almost always get more leniency than we ordinary citizens do.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Granted.
My interpretation my be flawed. Neither am I a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
I’m sure there’s some case law regarding the subject, but I don’t have the time or resources to find out.