Here is a brief note I sent to Gov. Kaine through his website.... Wonder if I will get any response...

Dear Govenor Kaine,
Not long ago you signed SB 776, which allows OFF-DUTY Commonwealth Attorneys and their deputies, none of whom have any required firearms training, to carry a concealed handgun in restaurants that serve alcohol AND DRINK. But you VETOED SB 476, which would have allowed LAW ABIDING, concealed handgun permit holders, all of whom HAVE firearms training, to be able to carry a concealed handgun in a restaurant, NOT DRINK, and NOTIFY the restaurant of their presence. You claimed that "alcohol and guns don't mix" as justification for your veto of SB 476. Please explain your support for SB 776, which unlike SB 476, actually DOES allow alcohol and guns to mix? Your reasoning seems to contradict itself and would also imply that trained, law abiding, concealed handgun permit holders don't know how to conduct themselves as responsible enough to carry in a restaurant.

You must be the official VHTF optimist!  

I sent a letter, too, but I'm not expecting any useful response.

heh, i actually got a mailed letter in response to my tirade email I sent him last year about the Roanoke times debacle. I'm not expecting as much regarding my emails about SB 776 and SB 476

I predict crickets...then a weak form letter.
Your message was very well put by the way.

I emailed him and called him a nitwit........I'm not expecting a response.

I sent him one email after he veto 476 and then another after he signed 776. I haven't heard anything and I don't expect to. He has never once replied because he flat out doesn't care what the citizens of this state think

I got a response email from him today and I responded back. Below is the email I sent back to him with my responses added into the body of the email in brackets[ ].

Dear Governor Kaine,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my email to you concerning the below mentioned Senate Bills. My responses to your email are in BLUE. I would appreciate a reply to my responses so that I may have a full understanding of your reasoning. Again, thank you for your time and attention in this matter.



Paul

Citizen and voter in the Commonwealth of Virginia




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:12 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Email from the Office of the Governor



Dear Mr. P2:



Thank you for contacting the Office of the Governor. I greatly appreciate your input regarding Senate Bill 776, which allows assistant Commonwealth's attorneys to carry concealed weapons without a permit, and Senate Bill 476, which would allow concealed weapons to be carried into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.


I vetoed SB 476 because I believe that mixing alcohol and firearms is dangerous. [I agree that guns and alcohol don’t mix. Let me quote SB476 so I may make my point.]

SB 476 Concealed handguns; prohibits person from carrying into a restaurant.

Summary as passed Senate: (all summaries)
Concealed handguns; restaurants; penalty.  Prohibits a person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of a restaurant or club from consuming an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of a restaurant or club shall inform a designated employee of the restaurant or club of that fact. A person who consumes alcohol in violation of the provisions of the bill is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor and a person who becomes intoxicated in violation of the provisions of the bill is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

[If you read this carefully, you will see that no where in SB476 does it allow for guns and alcohol to mix. In fact, it specifically outlines that the concealed carry permit holder MUST NOTIFY an employee of the establishment that he/she is carrying a concealed handgun and is prohibited from consuming alcohol while carrying a concealed handgun. It also outlines the penalty if drinking alcohol and carrying a concealed handgun is done. So, I don’t see where your reasoning, “Guns and Alcohol don’t mix” properly describes your veto. When SB476 clearly states that a concealed carry permit holder cannot drink alcohol and carry a concealed handgun.]  


I support the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms; however, allowing concealed weapons into restaurants and bars that serve alcohol puts the public, restaurant employees, and our public safety officers at risk. [I disagree, especially when conceal carry permit holders have to go through training, being fingerprinted and must pass an extensive background investigation. So for you to imply that ”law abiding citizens” have your support to own and carry firearms and then in the same breath say that those same law abiding citizens will put the public, restaurant employees and public safety officers at risk makes no sense. You are contradicting yourself through out all of your explanation.] Contrary to some inaccurate information that has recently been circulating, SB 776 does not allow assistant Commonwealth's attorneys to carry their concealed weapons in bars. [This is not entirely accurate. Here is the quoted bill from the Virginia Assembly/Legislative Information Website…]

SB 776 Concealed weapons; attorney for Commonwealth may carry without a permit.
Summary as introduced:
Concealed weapons; attorney for the Commonwealth may carry without a permit. Authorizes 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. .

[As I read this…, “The Commonwealth Attorney or Asst. Commonwealth Attorney may carry a concealed handgun without a permit WHEREVER such attorney may travel in the Commonwealth.”

No where in this verbiage does it mention that if the Commonwealth Attorney should decide to go to a restaurant/bar that he may not carry a concealed handgun with him. I see nothing prohibiting the Commonwealth Attorney or his Assistant from such action. I also see nothing in this bill requiring that they, the Commonwealth Attorney or his Assistant, have completed some sort of firearms safety course to show that they know how to handle a handgun safely in a situation that would require them to do so.]

In light of this difference, I saw no reason to oppose this bill.

[It has become very clear by the passing of SB776 and the vetoing of SB476 that you have set a precedence of a double standard. In order to carry a concealed handgun, everyone should be held to the same standard. It would appear that the Commonwealth Attorney’s don’t have to meet the same requirements to carry a concealed handgun as the rest of the public.]

Once again I thank you for you time and I await your response.

It is important to me that every Virginian's voice is heard, and it is very valuable to know the concerns across the Commonwealth. Again, thank you for your input and feel free to contact my office in the future.

Sincerely,

Timothy M. Kaine

Governor

i just heard him on wtop's "ask the governor" program. he still seems to be unaware that your allowed to OPEN CARRY in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. he keeps repeating the mantra "guns and alcohol don't mix!" "my police, police chiefs, abc officials all tell me this is a bad idea!".

he did address the attorney carry rule and insists it DOES NOT apply to commonwealth attornies, only sworn law enforcement officers.

Quoted: i just heard him on wtop's "ask the governor" program. he still seems to be unaware that your allowed to OPEN CARRY in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. he keeps repeating the mantra "guns and alcohol don't mix!" "my police, police chiefs, abc officials all tell me this is a bad idea!". he did address the attorney carry rule and insists it DOES NOT apply to commonwealth attornies, only sworn law enforcement officers.

1) As Governor, he should be keenly aware of the difference between what the law IS, and what he THINKS the law is.

2) Guns and alcohol don't mix..... except for when the person has a badge?  Even if we exclude Commonwealth Attorneys, how does THAT make sense?

_MaH

I too e-mailed him.  Mine included douchebag.  I do not expect more than the robo response.

I for one, am just glad we taught Jerry Kilgore a lesson.

Sounds like they just made a Virginia adoption of the federal code. I dont know if it would be a bad idea for CAs to be covered under the law because I have seen them royally piss off some bad people that dont do a lot of time. That being said the general public of CHP holders should have been passed. It should be reversed... dont know if it is a good thing to have a bunch of drunk people in a restraunt with a gun (even on a sober person) to gaze at while getting plastered. Drunk people usually like to shoot guns and dont have as good of control over their urges.

Quoted: dont know if it is a good thing to have a bunch of drunk people in a restraunt with a gun (even on a sober person) to gaze at while getting plastered. Drunk people usually like to shoot guns and dont have as good of control over their urges.

I don't think I'm comfortable with this line of thought....

That post didnt even make any sense to me....

He really is incompetent.  

Quoted: Sounds like they just made a Virginia adoption of the federal code. I dont know if it would be a bad idea for CAs to be covered under the law because I have seen them royally piss off some bad people that dont do a lot of time. That being said the general public of CHP holders should have been passed. It should be reversed... dont know if it is a good thing to have a bunch of drunk people in a restraunt with a gun (even on a sober person) to gaze at while getting plastered. Drunk people usually like to shoot guns and dont have as good of control over their urges.

Hate to tell ya, but if an off duty police officer or other public official want to carry, they should have to get a CHP, and pass the same standards.

Remember, you're significantly more likely to be shot by a cop than a CHP holder, no matter how you spin the stats.

CHP's have the lowest felony commission rate of any identifiable segment of the population. Police are lower than the general populace, but still higher than CHP holders.

And in all honesty, you don't have bar room shootings in Washington state or in Utah, which allow CHP holders to carry AND drink. If you're over the limit to operate a motor vehicle, you're over the limit to carry a firearm. Easy. Sensible. But gun control is more about control than about guns anyways, so who are we fooling?

Oh, and drunk people shooting guns - where did you see that? Really? Washington DC? didn't think so. I'll go so far as to call you ignorant. Presentation of a firearm (i.e. pointing it in a non-safe direction) is a felony without reasonable cause. Discharge of a firearm in most instances involving crowds is a typically a felony too.

Quoted: Hate to tell ya, but if an off duty police officer or other public official want to carry, they should have to get a CHP, and pass the same standards.

A police officer has much higher standards than than a CHP holder. The regional academy I went through had us for a week at the range. That was split between classroom and range time. We went through two days of  classroom, two days of intensive drills and then qualification. We shot one yard from the target back to the 50 yard line. We shot no matter what the weather was (I was in a group which our qualifications were in a heavy rain.) We also had shooting drills at night. We had to go to the range twice a year to re-qualify. That included both classroom refresher and a refresher course of fire, then qualifications. Periodically record checks were done on police officers to make sure they didn't "pick up" a conviction somewhere.

I currently have a CHP and have done nothing on my part, since I retired in order to retain it, except pay another $50 every five years.

Quoted: Remember, you're significantly more likely to be shot by a cop than a CHP holder, no matter how you spin the stats.

Police usually have , to varying degrees, a duty to act if they see something which appears to be criminal in nature occurring in front of them. A CHP has no duty to respond to a crime occurring in front of them and are actively discouraged unless it is a serious threat to life. How many times does a CHP holder encounter something serious as compared to a police officer? I faced all my situations where use of force was justified as a police officer as compared none, so far, as a CHP holder. I won't give up the CHP or believe anyone else should because you don't know when it will be needed.