Kaine vetoes bills on guns in restaurants, glove boxes

Ira Asks "We also have a law stating that you are specifically FORBIDDEN from driving a car after drinking. How's that one working?"

There is no law that forbids driving a car after drinking or consuming an alcoholic beverage. What is forbidden is an alcohol content is 0.08 or more.
§ 18.2-266. Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc.

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely,

I believe we need stricter gun control. There is not a person on here who will change my mind, nor do I think I will change there's.

To Chester....I don't know about other areas, but in Virginia Beach, you do not get fingerprinted. I know that back in my old home state up north, you (a) could not get a carry permit, and (b) were fingerprinted just to get a card to allow you to buy ammunition. I don't miss the north at all.

In a life or death situation, what good is it to have an unloaded weapon locked in your car's glove compartment?

It wouldn't be so bad to have a carry permit if they didn't require fingerprinting the innocent in order to get one.There is no legitimate reason to fingerprint the innocent just so they can do what has always been the right of the individual,to preserve their own life.As far as requiring permits,even for open carry,which is legal already?No,that's way too far.Kaine says that anyone who would put a gun in a glove box without a permit 'isn't trained'.Of course,that's not possible for him to know,and is pretty much irrelevant.Kaine simply shows his ignorance of natural law,and his complete mistrust of the average citizen.Since well over 90% of average citizens are never charged with any 'crime' worse than a traffic offense in their whole lives,his odd projection of some criminal carrying a gun in a car to the whole population of the state is very unusual,outside of a dictatorship.He simply doesn't value your lives very much.

Funny thing,even when you check for spelling errors before sending,somehow 'lives' can still show up as 'lies'.Is that an erroneous spell-check filter?

I'm all for honest citizens being allowed to carry guns, concealed, open carry, in cars...whatever. Having said that, I think that anyone who wants to carry a pistol, whether concealed or not, should be required to get a Virginia pistol carry permit. That would insure that the person is old enough, does not have a record, is not a nut job, and has taken prescribed courses and live firing exercises that guarantee at least a basic competency with the weapon. If a cop sees someone carrying in the open, he could ask for the carry permit, and if it's current, then he'd have to walk away, with no further harassment of the gun carrier. If there is no permit, the gun carrier would be subject to fines, or even imprisonment, depending on his previous record. I recently renewed my concealed handgun permit. Very simple, very efficient; I was in and out in five minutes. The application form is online, and the $50 fee for a five year renewal is reasonable. In return, a new rule: "a person with a valid permit can carry anywhere and everywhere in Virginia." How's that?

Regarding the right to carry in bars and restaurants,of course some free thinker in lockstep pulls out the dusty old cliche about this not being the 'wild west'.The 'right to carry' reform movement came about due to a mass killing,in a liquor-serving restaurant,where no one could defend themselves.Of course,the point is to ignore the facts and go with a hollywood fantasy of a scenario that never existed.The 'wild west' with no restrictions on guns had fewer murders than gun-restricting utopias like Washington D.C. do now.Another says 'assault weapons'(which gun control nuts can't even identify correctly)should be 'disabled' as a condition of ownership,like the killing ground of D.C. requires of all long guns,again,fallacious logic that has no basis in reality.'All gun sales should require a background check' or 'government license'?Since the BATF puts dealers out of business if someone writes 'y' instead of 'yes' on their forms,claiming that to be a willful violation of the law,is there any reason to give these baby immolators any more authority?The point is,Tim Kaine has no respect for Virginia's citizens or their right to defend themselves,or the lies of their 'chillldrunn'.Just

"Easy answer: Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes."
You have to know how dumb that really sounds, but sadly you probably don't. - Georges61555.

If they abide by the law........how would a crime be commited????
Doesn't sound too dumb to me.

"What would stop them from going home and getting their firearm?"

But they won't have it under their shirt to act out of drunken passion.

"Easy answer: Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes."
You have to know how dumb that really sounds, but sadly you probably don't.

So drunk people don't kill people without guns now? Drunk people kill people with their cars, not their guns. What would stop them from going home and getting their firearm? What we NEED is fewer people getting drunk.

You asked, "how will the Police know the difference between a law abiding citizen and a thug?"

Easy answer: Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes.

that gun advocates want, how will the Police know the difference between a law abiding citizen and a thug? Such a law would stress out the Police and they already have enought to do. If they city has it's way they will be sitting in bars and restaurants waiting for someone to light up a cigarette.

"The law specifically stated that if one chose to enter a restaurant carrying concealed then they were FORBIDDEN to consume alcoholic beverages."

We also have a law stating that you are specifically FORBIDDEN from driving a car after drinking. How's that one working?

Mr. Wells,

While I believe your heart is iin the right place, there is a difference between owning a fire arm and driving a car. The difference is that one is a right, the other a privlege. One must already prove efficiency and be "licensed" to carry concealed, and often when properly purchased there is a record (registration) of the firearm.

The vast majority of gun laws have no effect on the lawless, just the law abiding.

The law specifically stated that if one chose to enter a restaurant carrying concealed then they were FORBIDDEN to consume alcoholic beverages.
Perhaps we should require a license to sell your car or truck to a private citizen. After all a "motor vehicle" is a 4000 pound missile.

Firearms should be licensed, registered and insured in a manner similar to motor vehicles. Those who own firearms should be required to demonstrate at least a minimal level of proficiency in the use and care of the weapon in a manner similar to that required of us who are licensed to drive a motor vehicle. Such would promote public safety without infringement upon Second Amendment rights.

I'll not label as "gun nut" anyone who may not share this view. Doing so would be equivalent to hurling an insult at a family member or relative.

Charter Wells, Jr.
Spotsylvania, VA

Just what we need in Virginia - someone with a loaded gun and a little too much to drink. Good grief, this is not the Wild West.

Hey, I'm in favor of responsible citizens owning guns; but, when people have had too much to drink, they are no longer acting as responsible citizens.

There are, however, a few places where I'd like to see more control. A background check should be required for ANY gun purchase, whether it's sold by a private citizen or not. I also believe that if people want to own assault weapons for private collections, the law should require that the guns be disabled; after all, the guns would look just as impressive in the display cabinet with their firing pins removed.

George asks "I wonder if you feel that same right of choice should be up to the business owner to allow or not to have smokers in their restaurants/bars?

ABSOLUTELY!