Repeal of Virginia's restaurant CHP ban passes

According to the VCDL Blog, SB334, repealing the ban on concealed carry in restaurants, passed the House today unchanged with a vote of 72 to 27! It should be in front of the Governor McDonnell in a week or so. He has indicated in the past that he would sign such a bill, so it's pretty much a done deal.

Election Day 2009!

Don't forget to Vote today!

I find my self distressingly underprepared for today's election. Part of it may have to do with how much I have going on at the moment. Not only do I work a full-time job as a paralegal, I'm also taking a legal research class at the local community college. I'm an active member of the local rescue squad, and in addition to 8 hours of duty a week, I'm putting together a training on fractures and crush injuries because the state's training budget is dead. The real distraction, though, is that I'm in the process of buying my first house. I don't want to jinx it (knock on wood), so I won't say anymore except that it's more time consuming and nerve wracking than I thought.

A little quick research, though, and I think I've figured out most of my votes:

Governor: One of my main issues this year is Virginia's stupid ban on concealed carry in restaurants. Both candidates have indicated their support for repealing the ban, but my impression is that Bob McDonnell is stronger on other gun rights issues, so he gets my vote.

Lt. Gov.: While I'm definitely in a "throw the bums out" mood when it comes to incumbents, Bob Bolling is the only candidate who bothered to respond to the VCDL candidate survey, so he gets my vote.

Attorney General: Just like the candidates for Lt. Gov., Ken Cuccenilli is the only candidate who bothered to respond to the VCDL candidate survey, so he gets my vote.

Delegate: My candidates for Delegate are Paul Cornett (Independent) and James Shuler (Democrat, incumbent). Like I said before, I'm definitely in a "throw the bums out" mood when it comes to incumbents, and I'm not that fond of Democrats either. Ordinarily, an incumbent Dem running against a new Independent would be the last person I'd vote for. Unfortunately, there's a few problems here. The first one being that I haven't been able to find any information on Cornett except for a few newspaper articles. He's a Virgina Tech student (a senior), and the impression I get from the articles is that he seems to be running because he can, not because he disagrees with any of Shuler's positions. While I don't really trust newspapers, I just can't find any other information about him. Neither candidate responded to the VCDL survey, but I do know that Shuler voted for the repeal of the restaurant CHP ban last year, and also voted to override the Governor's veto of it. That, plus the lack of information on his opponent, means he gets my vote.

Town Council: This is the one I'm the least prepared for. There are 9 candidates for 4 positions on the council, and this is where the "throw the bums out" strategy will come into play the most. Blacksburg has a long history of bad decisions when it comes to attracting businesses to the town. The debacle with the (possible) Wally World at the "First and Main" project was probably the worst. I expect that issue drove off several business that may have been considering moving into town, and the way they drove off Sonic just reinforced the perception. (I don't have links handy, but I'm sure if you Google "Blacksburg Wal-mart" and "Blacksburg Sonic" you'll get the whole story.) First and Main actually has a big banner by the main road saying "[Candidate X] voted against Sonic" - it's that kind of issue in this town. I know one candidate personally, and not only do I agree with a good number of his opinions, I know for a fact that he will change his position if he's shown evidence that he's wrong. That's very important, and yet another reason to vote for him. For the rest, incumbents will be out, but I really don't know enough about the rest. If I can find the Roanoke Times article where they gave their endorsements, that will guide me too - to vote against anyone they endorsed.

Well, that's my thought process (such as it was this year). Again, don't forget to vote!

On Self Defense

Rich at Shots Across the Bow has a good post up about one of the fundamentals of self-defense - avoiding the need to defend yourself. You should read the whole thing, but here are some

Today, my son texted me and asked me how much it cost to get a Handgun Carry Permit. I gave him the ball park figures for the class and the application. He thanked me and told me that his roommate had been robbed at gunpoint the night before.,

Yeah, I called him immediately.

That should prompt a call from any parent.

"Your roommate was robbed by two men with guns right at your front door, on a well lit street, and they got away clean. You live in a bad neighborhood."

This is really the only point I disagree with. While crime happens more frequently in "bad neighborhoods" (which is usually why they're considered bad neighborhoods), it's certainly not limited to bad neighborhoods. This could have happened in the most upscale, hoity-toity part of Beverly Hills or the most run down part of Detroit. This one incident, by itself, doesn't make it a bad neighborhood. Crime knows no boundaries.

"The first step in self defense is being aware of your surroundings." [emphasis mine]

That is the money quote, right there. I'll repeat it - The first step in self defense is being aware of your surroundings. The three steps of self-defense are avoid, evade, fight. You cannot avoid danger if you are not aware of your surroundings before you enter the area of danger. If you take nothing else from his post, take that truth with you.

His final paragraph sums things up nicely.

Anyway, I believe I got the point across to my son that carrying a gun is only one small part of self defense. The first piece is maintaining an awareness of your surroundings, and the people in them. The second is forethought. Have a plan. Know what you're going to do when things go south. The third piece is to have multiple layers of defense, but that's a post for another day.

The idea of awareness as the first part of self-defense is especially important in my town today. It seems there are still no leads in last weeks double homocide in Jefferson National Forest. There is no indication that there is a suspect, and no way to know if the killer is still around or if he's fled the area, if he lives here or was just passing through, if he targeted the victims or if they were randomly chosen, or if it was a one time event or if he'll do it again.

Maintain awareness, please.

(h/t to SayUncle)

A Question for My Reader

Or readers if I'm thinking positively. :P

For the .25 I was using as a BUG, I didn't bother with hollowpoints. The .25ACP is weak enough I knew I probably wouldn't get adequate penetration with hollowpoints, and I was confident that I wouldn't have to worry about overpenetration with FMJ rounds.

Assuming I can actually find any, what would you recommend for my new .380 - FMJ or hollowpoints?

(Belated) Buy a Gun Day

Well, I finally broke down and traded the old Colt Junior .25ACP that I'd been using as a BUG for a Kel-Tec P3AT. I know that a .25 will do the job, if it's used right, but .380 is more effective, and doesn't require precise shot placement like the .25 does in certain circumstances.

I'd been considering this for a while, but had hesitated because the Kel-Tec felt slightly "cheap", and because I had read about the "fluff and buff" so often. If I'm going to pay roughly $265 for something that's supposed to be ready out of the box, I don't want to have to finish it myself. The fact that the fluff and buff is mentioned almost every time I see the gun itself mentioned in a blog or forum made me wary.

The effectiveness differential finally got to me, plus the fact that my local ironmonger was going to offer me $250 trade-in for the Colt. The Colt is a nice little gun - very pleasant to shoot - but it's not a "plinker", and it was only barely up the the job I had it for. Trading that, plus $15 out of pocket (plus tax and $2 NICS fee), for a much more effective BUG was too much to resist.

I lucked out and got the last box of .380 ammo, too!

I'll have pictures later.

Our Governor's Hypocrisy (Updated)

As expected, Governor Kaine has vetoed SB1035, which would lift the ban on concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.

Remember, CHP holders are some of the most peaceable and law-abiding citizens there are. We voluntarily undergo training and an extensive background check to obtain a CHP. We voluntarily submit information on our homes to the state, and agree to keep that information up to date. Where such statistics are tracked, CHP holders have a much lower rate of committing crimes than the general population, and a crime rate that is even lower than that of the police. Yet the mere fact that we would carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol, even while being prohibited from actually consuming alcohol, somehow puts the public "at risk."

But open carry in restaurants that serve alcohol is allowed in Virginia. How is requiring me to expose my firearm when I go into these restaurants better? Keep in mind that, in Virginia, there are no "bars." There are only restaurants "for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board."

Many "bars" are open during the day in order to meet their required percentage of food sales, and function primarily as restaurants during that time. Many restaurants have an ABC license just so they can serve someone a beer or some wine with their dinner. Virginia law makes no distinction between the two. It is quite often difficult to know if a restaurant has an ABC license until you sit down and realize that there are drinks listed on the menu.

Just as an example, there is a little BBQ restaurant in downtown Blacksburg. You order your food at the counter, and wait until they call your name to pick it up, and you sit at a picnic table inside (that's right, they don't have real seating, just a couple of picnic tables). Would you expect a place like that to have a license to serve alcohol? (Of course you do, since I'm using it as an example. But would you if I wasn't?) Yet walk in while you're carrying concealed, and it's a class 1 misdemeanor. And remember, "ignorance is no excuse." Is this the second restaurant you've done this at? Now it's a felony, and you can never (legally) own a gun again.

But where's the hypocrisy? Well, in his veto, he makes this comment:

"Allowing concealed weapons into restaurants and bars that serve alcohol puts the public, the employees, and our public safety officers at risk."

He dares to say this, laying the danger on "concealed weapons" and not the people carrying them, yet last year he signed a bill allowing Commonwealth's Attorneys and Assistant Commonwealth's Attorneys to carry concealed, without needing a permit, without requiring any training and exempting them from the restaurant ban.

You see, in Governor Kaine's mind, Commonwealth's Attorneys are special. It's not really the weapons he has a problem with (regardless of what he says), it's weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens that he has a problem with.

Tyranny is as tyranny does.

Update:

There's a good discussion going on about this over at SayUncle's. Sailorcurt has pointed out to me that the law allowing Commonwealth's Attorneys to carry in restaurants allows them to drink while carrying concealed (as long as they aren't "intoxicated," which is only vaguely and subjectively defined in Virginia law - Sec. 4.1-100 contains the only definition I could find.) SB1035 would have explicitly prohibited CHP holders from consuming any alcohol. Yet another example of how Governor Kaine believes his "Only Ones" are better than the rest of us.

Published CHP Information

I have now gotten a look at the list in question from the Chatham Star-Tribune (with thanks to Phillip Van Cleave, VCDL President), and while it's still very bad, it's not - quite - as bad as I initially thought. The good thing? It's not a list of all CHP holders in the county. The bad thing? It is a list of people in Pittsylvania county who were issued CHPs in January. Which leads to my next question:

Is this a regular item in this paper?

I won't post the images I received, for obvious reasons. It does look like it's not a complete list, and no addresses are given. On the other hand, enough information is given that finding someone using the list would be very easy.

On the gripping hand, it's a good example of why the legislature needs to act to stop this garbage.

Another paper publishes CHP information

According to the VA Citizens Defense League another Virginia paper, the Chatham Star-Tribune, has published a list of CHP holders. I'm currently trying to get verification and more detail.

This one is personal, as my parents live in that area.

More (hopefully) after work.

UPDATE:

It should be noted that, while I have no reason to mistrust or disbelieve VCDL, I have not been able to confirm this personally. I have not been able to locate the list, or any reference to it, on the Star-Tribune's website. I posted a comment requesting more information on the VCDL blog entry I linked to above, but have not yet received a reply.

If anyone can corroborate this, please let me know. I'd like to know if my parents (or any other family members) are on the published list, so I can make them aware.

More PSH from the Roanoke Times

The Roanoke Times has an editorial up about the restaurant ban repeal. They spout their usual fear mongering and distrust again, and their contempt for CHP holders is blatantly obvious.

Their blog for the column has a good discussion going, mostly by pro-gun supporters. I encourage people to go read and comment.

Sadly, they are right about one thing. The governor will probably veto this bill again, just like last year.

Update on the Virginia Tech Murder

From the Roanoke Times:

When Virginia Tech authorities arrived Wednesday night at a cafe inside the Graduate Life Center, they found a decapitated female victim who had arrived on campus just two weeks ago and a young man they have now charged with killing her.

The decapitation makes this a death penalty case.

This case has rekindled the campus concealed carry debate in the comments sections of many of the sources I linked to in my previous post, including some PSH. I encourage any readers I might have to go and contribute.

I'm on my lunch break right now, so I can't really get into this now, but I'll have more after work.

UPDATE:
Rough afternoon at work, so I'm not really up to a good commentary right now. Additionally, a comment I heard at work leads me to believe I should hold off on further posts on this issue for a little while. (It has nothing to do with me, the blog itself, or my previous posts. That's all I can say at this point.)

Rights? What rights?

This is why we must not submit to licensing a Constitutionally protected right! Or any Right, for that matter.

On the whole Plaxico Burress mess.

Xavier has a post up with his take on Plaxico Burress. While I agree that Plaxico is a complete idiot, and a thug, I have to disagree with the overall thrust of the post, which seems to be that we should let him hang (figuratively) for what he did, and that he should not be allowed to use the Heller decision to challenge the law he's being charged under. I urge you to read his post, and my comment, which I'm also posting here because it sums up my position fairly well.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, Xavier. If you believe the law he broke is unconstitutional, then his motivation, knowledge, intent, recklessness, stupidity, and arrogance should all be irrelevant. He has the same right to challenge the law on Constitutional grounds as anyone else. His money simply gives him a better ability to do so, and his fame is what brought it to our attention. Right or not, that is the way it is.

Heller does apply, not because it applies to him, or to the situation, but because it applies to the law that he is being charged under. If New York's law equates to a de facto ban on handguns, it is unconstitutional under Heller, and a persons reasons and intent are irrelevant. Even if he was carrying it so that he could go kill someone later, he still should be able to challenge the law in question. An unconstitutional law should be challenged at every possible opportunity.

Is Plaxico Burress an ideal person to be doing this? No. Is he one of us? Heck no. Should he be charged with other crimes? Yes, he should be charged with criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, making false statements to police, and (if it's in New York's laws) carrying a firearm while intoxicated. He's an idiot, and it's only blind luck that no on else was injured or killed.

You said "If he decided to go, he did not need to carry a gun." Since when is need supposed to be a requirement to exercise one's Second Amendment rights? Since when is the lack of ability to hire bodyguards, or the lack of "other options" supposed to be a requirement to exercise one's Second Amendment rights?

It is not about "bend[ing] the law unjust when the man who caught the winning touchdown in the 2008 Super Bowl violates it" or for getting him "preferential treatment in a court of law." It's about striking down an unconstitutional law. To paraphrase your own conclusion, "The Constitution is simply the Constitution, and it applies to New York City."

*Please note that the "stupidity" label for this post is for Plaxico Burress's stupidity, not Xavier. I have nothing but respect for Xavier, and I don't think he's stupid, or even being stupid in his post.

The Good Guys Don't Always Win

Another one from Xavier. Go here and read the whole story.

Did you read it? Good. Here are a few things I hope you noticed.

"As they walked from the business toward their Chevrolet Tahoe vehicle, Katherine, who was carrying the night deposit from Catfish King, observed a male suspect running toward her from the wood line at the back corner of the property," an arrest affidavit stated. "She heard the suspect yell something, but she did not understand what he said."

Womack, brandishing a handgun, then shot Jeffreys in the ankle before exchanging gunfire with Labrozzi, who had a handgun on him, the report stated.

If the story here is correct, he never gave them a chance to comply, or even make sure his demands were understood. He just started shooting.

Criminal records show Womack has one prior arrest. Hudson police booked him into Angelina County Jail in March 2007 and charged him with deadly conduct for allegedly fighting at Hudson High School where he was a student.

Like most criminals who kill, this was not his first time breaking the law, and not his first violent crime either.

Sunday night's deadly attempted robbery is the second incident in eight months at Catfish King in which an armed robber approached a manager closing the business. [...] In the December robbery, the woman [ed. - Not the same woman.] told police she was walking to her car when she heard a rustling noise in the woods before two males with blue bandanas approached her. One pulled a handgun and told her, "This is a robbery." The other sprayed the woman with pepper spray and took her purse before both ran back into the woods.

Again, the victim was attacked without being given a chance to comply. She was lucky they only wanted the money, and not her. That robbery could easily have turned into a kidnapping and rape once she was incapacitated by the pepper spray.

A month later, the same assistant manager was robbed at gunpoint while making a deposit at Huntington State Bank[.]

That makes three robberies since December, two of which were on the premises. This business has obviously been targeted. The cockroaches have been watching to learn where the money goes, and when, and have been taking advantage of it. It makes me think that Labrozzi was escorting Jeffreys (his girlfriend) because of the previous incidents. I would be. The police simply cannot be there every single night for every business, or even for one business every night for eight months. I think he knew that.

Things to learn from this:

1) The cockroaches won't always threaten and make demands, often they simply attack and take. Don't trust them not to attack.

2) Be aware of your surroundings. Condition yellow is good. If you're carrying large amounts of money, at night, with few or no other people around, you should be even more alert. Something closer to condition orange, but with no specific threat source. In my mind I call this condition amber. You are both vulnerable and desirable as a target, but there is no specific threat to focus on.

3) The police cannot protect you if they are not there with you when the attack occurs. If that were the case, the cockroaches would either go somewhere else, or wait until the police are not there to protect you. Do not rely on the police to protect you.

4) The sad truth is that, even if you are aware, alert, armed, and prepared for an attack, you still might not survive. All that only gives you a greater chance of survival, not a guarantee. Unfortunately, one innocent in this case did not survive. However, his sacrifice allowed his girlfriend, another innocent, to survive, and allowed the police to catch this particular cockroach.

This is nothing but a tragedy, but Keith Edward Labrozzi II, 24, of Lufkin, Texas, died a hero.

Why should I always carry?

Xavier has a good post by Don Myers on why we should always take advantage of our carry permits. You should also check out this (which gives details on the story behind the post) and this (on recognizing threats), both related to the topic.

Bottom line, evil happens everywhere.

Road Rage + Concealed Carry Permit = NO Shots Fired!

Story here.

The summary is: Lost college student pulls over to check his map. Guy in a Porsche pulls in behind him, gets out of his car and approaches with a baseball bat, yelling about how slow the student was driving. Student takes his Glock out of the glove compartment, gets out of the car with the pistol visible. Man with bat puts his hands up, gets back in his car and drives away.

The student called law enforcement from his parents' home, no charges filed against him.

A perfect and legitimate defensive use of a firearm.

h/t to Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell.

Xavier Thoughts: An Encounter At Wal-Mart

This was posted back in March, but I just stumbled on it today.

Xavier Thoughts: An Encounter At Wal-Mart

It's a good example of why situational awareness is so important, and how to handle the aftermath of a defensive gun use when no shots are fired and the bad guys leave.

I've also added Xavier Thoughts to the list on the left, once I realized it wasn't there.

A Tragedy, and a Lesson

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A 4-year-old girl shot herself in the chest Monday after snatching her grandmother's handgun from the woman's purse while riding in a shopping cart at a Sam's Club store, authorities said.

Full story here.

Thankfully, the child survived. It could have been much worse. As much as I hate to speak ill of someone who has undergone such a horrible experience, this incident illustrates two important points that must be made for safety's sake.

The grandmother in this case was negligent, and her granddaughter was hurt because of it. I'm sorry if that comes off as insensitive, but it's the truth. She left a loaded gun in easy reach of a 4 year old child.

1) There are several flaws with off-body (i.e. in a purse, jacket, etc.) carry. One of which is that if the bag is out of your reach, then the gun is out of your control. If a thief snatches it from the shopping cart, he has your gun, and you're left defenseless. If you set it down and forget to take it with you when you leave, you're defenseless and your gun is probably lost forever. If your 4 year old looks through it while your back is turned, tragedy will follow.

2) Don't ever assume that just because a gun is hidden, a child won't find it. This is true at home as well as in your purse. Secure means locked up, or in your possession and under your immediate control. Ladies, if you leave your purse with a 4 year old, they will eventually decide to look through it. The purse is where mommy keeps all the neat stuff, and the money she uses to buy toys. If you carry your gun there, they will play with it, and they will get hurt.

Gunman Stopped by Armed Citizen!

Found this on Snowflakes in Hell, who found it at Dustin's Gun Blog. The basic story is that a man went into a Nevada bar and started shooting, killing two and wounding two. When he stopped to reload and then started shooting again a bar patron with a concealed carry permit shot and killed him. The police and District Attorney have determined that it was a justifiable homicide under Nevada law.

First things first: THANK YOU, UNNAMED CITIZEN! You have shown your true colors as a good, caring, person. I hope you have friends and family who will support you. Killing is not easy (and I never want to meet someone for whom it is easy), but remember, you did the right thing! Never let anyone tell you differently.

Now, several points come to mind:

a) There were only two reasons for this guy to reload. Either he didn't get the people he was there for, or he was just going to keep shooting until someone stopped him. Either way, he wasn't done killing. Most likely this was a mass murder in the making. He brought extra magazines. With most targeted killings or confrontations that escalate, the shooter fires a few times and then runs, trying to avoid police. This guy stayed and reloaded, indicating that he was going to keep shooting. This could have been a very bad incident. According to the story, there were about 300 people "in and around" the bar.

b) With an armed, law abiding citizen on scene, the whole incident was over by the time the police arrived. Even with an extremely fast reaction and response time by the police, there would have been a much higher body count if this good man had not been allowed to carry his weapon. Remember, the killer was reloading when he was stopped. Even if he was after a specific person, he obviously didn't care about hurting innocent bystanders. Out of an entire "high capacity" magazine, only four people were hit. How many shots missed? How many of those four was he actually aiming at? This is a perfect example of how armed citizens prevent such mass shootings. [Correction: He had already reloaded, and had started shooting again, when he was stopped.]

c) "High capacity" handgun. "At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again." They do not clarify what they mean by "high capacity." Chances are, it was just a regular gun, i.e. 10-14 round capacity. This appears, on it's surface, to be intentionally inflammatory language, and smacks of biased (and therefore bad) journalism. Leave the bias to the editorials, and report the facts - all the facts - and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

All in all, an excellent example of how armed citizens can save lives. I shudder to think of what might have happened if this had happened here in Virginia, where concealed carry is illegal in any establishment that is licensed to serve alcohol. Unless there was an off duty cop present (they're exempted), it would have been a massacre. (Surprisingly, open carry is allowed in such places, but even many who carry regularly are uncomfortable with doing so openly in a bar.) [Note: I'm not against open carry anywhere, even in bars. I'm just surprised. I would have assumed that if anything was allowed, it would be the other way around. But that's another post for another time.]