Concealed carry modification law headed to Gov. Kaine
Virginia Senate Bill 1035 (SB1035) has passed in the General Assembly and is headed to the Governor’s desk for his signature. SB1035′s brief reads:
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.
The bill was amended in the House to remove the requirement to notify the restaurant’s manager or employee upon entry to the restaurant. I can’t find the official reasoning for the amendment in the House but I would imagine it was twofold. First, it’s difficult to identify a particular restaurant official in many of these places and you’d wind up having to explain the need to several other employees, pretty much removing the whole point of “concealed” carry. Secondly, I’d imagine the restaurant employees wouldn’t be to eager to pile “keep an eye on the guy with the gun you can’t see” to their list of duties. Would that make them liable in the unlikely event that a CCW holder ordered a beer? Possibly. CCW holders are already among the most law-abiding members of society and none that I know personally would break this law, watched over by a waiter or not. Besides, as the law is today if one of them chose to have a drink while carrying, they’d just remove their jacket and expose the firearm. Then it’s perfectly legal.
Governor Kaine is widely expected in these circles of CCW holders to veto the bill. It’s a ludicrious thing to veto this bill that clearly has the support of the representatives of the citizens of Virginia and of many of those citizens individually. I certainly hope he’ll not take that route.
Comments
Comment from amcit
Time February 26, 2009 at 10:28
Apparently, Mr. James, you are unaware it is already legal to carry a firearm into a restaurant that serves alcohol. This just permits concealed handgun permit holders to continue to conceal instead of walking in with the firearm in plain sight.
The veto is expected because Gov. Kaine vetoed it last year, despite its popularity, when he was hoping to be VP. Now that he’s “just” DNC chair, that could change, but it’s unlikely. Ten days after he vetoed that bill, however, he signed one that allows deputy Commonwealth Attorneys to carry concealed in restaurants, WHETHER OR NOT they have concealed handgun permits (and the requisite training).
For the record – 2/3 is usually considered a “clear” majority.
Comment from The Bulletproof Monk
Time February 26, 2009 at 10:39
“And neither is the state of their judgment about when and how to deploy a weapon.” Speak for yourself, there, James-boy.
As a former executive protection detail leader, having had more training on deadly force issues than you can shake a stick at, I’ll assure you that I know exactly when and how to assign the levels of the escalation of force , and exactly how and when to use it under widely recognized guidelines for that deadly force. Your assumption that only “billy-bobs” will have these permits is laughable.
Comment from The Bulletproof Monk
Time February 26, 2009 at 10:44
Amcit- One would hope that the measure to arm these deputy Commonwealth Attorneys, while understandably necessary for their profession – given their job description – had included a provision for them to complete some type of deadly force training, and at a very least, weapon proficiency.
Comment from Ric James
Time February 26, 2009 at 10:53
I would have to ask how many people you know with permits to carry firearms if your perception is such that they would ever engage in the kind of “snickering” behavior you describe. I would wager the number is close to zero. The number who have actually done what you describe is closer than that.
As amcit mentioned, the current law allows a person to carry a weapon openly into the same restaurants we’re talking about and drink to their heart’s content, a fact I apparently didn’t allude to strongly enough at the end of my 3rd paragraph. The law being sent permits concealed carry so long as the CCW holder does not drink alcohol. If they break that restriction and anything – anything – untoward happens that shows they were drinking while carrying concealed their CCW permit will be instantly and permanently revoked. It wouldn’t matter if they were even guilty of any other wrongdoing or simply sitting there having a beer when someone else started a problem they didn’t involve themselves in. The fact they were drinking while carrying concealed alone would be all it would take and there’d be absolutely no fighting it when the judge revoked the permit. No CCW holder, a person who’s gone through several hoops to get that permit including police background checks, is going to risk losing it over a drink when they can simply expose the firearm and quaff their brew without issue. The matter of the interaction between alcohol and their judgment isn’t germane to this law since it’s explicitly prohibited by the law and the penalty for breaking it accrues regardless of the effect of the alcohol.
I’m aware of the ratio of passage, by the way, but I’m curious that you’d consider a 2/3rds majority “qualified” and with “obviously significant reservations.” (I presume your implication is that those reservations are well-founded or justified.) You consider the Obama Presidency in the same light, given that the ratio of election there was significantly less than 2/3rds?
Comment from amcit
Time February 27, 2009 at 06:54
Bulletproof Monk – would that were true. While it’s likely many of them HAVE training, there is no provision to require it.
Comment from Ric James
Time February 27, 2009 at 08:51
This is good discussion point, amcit & BPM: In order to qualify for a CCW in Virginia, you must provide proof of having taken a training course dealing with CCW matters. That course includes basic gun operation and safety, matters of law about where CCW is and isn’t permitted, and practical matters of the “concealed” part of CCW. Should there be and would you support a more intensive training requirement? If so, to what extent?
Comment from Amcit
Time February 27, 2009 at 13:44
Now you’re hitting me at my philosophical core. Yes, there should be more intensive training. No, there should not be a more intensive training requirement.
You see, I’m the one who would vote for the guy who would vow to repeal all but a handful of laws on the books, so a “requirement” goes against almost all I believe.
Still, I think it’s part of responsible gun ownership to know how and when to use it.
Comment from Steve
Time February 27, 2009 at 14:43
Today, Virginia’s Governor Tim Kaine sent anti gun groups scrambling by vetoing SB1035. This bill would have made it clear to gun owners that in Virginia, you should keep your firearm covered up when in a restaurant and you better not consume alcohol while doing so. Instead, Governor Kaine made his opinion clear that he preferrers that Virginians openly carry their firearms and that the consumtion of alcohol is OK while doing so. He stated that this is a public safety issue. I can only infer that he believes that having a firearm strapped to your side and clearly visible will deter any attempted robbery of a restaurant. The governor must have been giving some thought to the recent rash of restaurant robberies in Oakland California, where almost no one outside of law enforcement is allowed to carry a firearm in public. It took the Oakland police months and dozens of restaurant robberies later to finally put an end to them. Governor Kaine is being proactive in letting would be robbers know that in Virginia’s restaurants, they don’t stand a chance. I applaud governor Kaine for finally stepping up for gun rights. Even though this might hinder his political ambitions once he is out of office. It’s good to have a governor that puts the public’s safety first at the expense of his own political career.
Comment from Ric James
Time February 27, 2009 at 17:54
Ooookay. Steve, are you employing literary license or do you actually have a story somewhere reporting Kaine has vetoed SB1035?
Comment from Steve
Time February 27, 2009 at 20:25
Timmy has already said that he will veto SB1035, because it is “exactly” the same as last year. I do not know if he actually did veto the bill today. He hasn’t replied to my emails and I really don’t expect that he ever will. So, yes, I took literary license at poking him in the nose.
Comment from The Bulletproof Monk
Time February 28, 2009 at 16:13
“Should there be and would you support a more intensive training requirement? If so, to what extent?”
See,Amcit put it very well. While I also would like more intensive training available, I don’t know if I’d make it a requirement. Of course, I suppose that there’s a small fraction of those who are unfamiliar with handguns, and that have recently made the introduction to their first purchase.
Part of me that wants every owner to be responsible and have a full education on deadly force issues is arguing with the part of me that has a rampant distaste for “nanny” states.
Comment from Steve
Time March 1, 2009 at 17:21
By not signing SB1035, the governor is continuing to put the safety of our police officers and public at risk.
Police officers have enough to do without having to respond to what amounts to nuisance calls from individuals not familiar with Virginia’s gun laws. By allowing concealed carry in restaurants, this would certainly eliminate a considerable amount of these types of calls. Further, there are already laws to keep weapons out of restaurants. It only requires the owner to post a simple “No Weapons” sign on the entrance.
Every time police officers respond to one of these “individual with a gun” calls, their safety and that of the public becomes at risk.
A police officer’s self defense training instructs them to draw their weapons prior to contact when confronting an individual with a weapon.
This is a dangerous time The individual that chooses to openly carry a handgun could be killed if they inadvertently make an error in their movements. Innocent by standers could be shoot and killed by officers responding to the initial shots fired. All of this will certainly put an abrupt end to the lives of innocent people, but also to the careers of the police officers involved in the shooting.
By signing SB1035, the governor can increase public safety and that of our police officers.
Comment from Bob James
Time February 26, 2009 at 09:52
So that law, as written, would allow concealed carry into a restaurant, have a meal, pay the bill, and on the way out the door say, “Oh, by the way… I was packing heat.” And then walk out, no doubt snickering at the look on the employee’s face. I’d veto it, too, just on that point.
The expectation of a veto by concealed carry advocates isn’t surprising. They always expect people to react negatively to the idea that someone is carrying a lethal weapon they won’t see until and unless the individual carrying it makes a snap decision that lethal force (or a display of such capability) is called for. And while your comment about such weapon holders being “among the most law-abiding” may be true, it is not assured. And neither is the state of their judgment about when and how to deploy a weapon. Add alcohol to the equation, and that judgment becomes more questionable.
For the record, this bill passed the Senate on a vote of 24-16, and the House on a vote of 66-33. In both cases, that’s a 3/2 margin, which makes the People’s representatives’ “clear” support somewhat qualified. It still passed, to be sure, but there are obviously significant reservations.