Blacksburg mayor asks governor to veto handgun bill
A discussion is underway on our weekend open thread about gun rights, especially in light of the mostly-Republican effort to repeal Virginia’s one-handgun-per-month law.
Blacksburg Mayor Ron Rordam has weighed in on the issue, urging the governor to veto HB 940. Here’s the letter he sent to Gov. Bob McDonnell:
February 26, 20122 (sic)
The Honorable Bob McDonnell
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond, Virginia 23218
Dear Governor McDonnell:
As Mayor of Blacksburg for the last six years, I am painfully aware of the power of handguns.
Having seen the devastation caused by gun violence, I echo the concerns expressed by the families of the April 16th victims. I join those families in their request. I too ask that you veto HB 940.
If you veto HB 940, which would remove the nineteen year old law restricting handgun purchases to one per month, you are not putting the Second Amendment in jeopardy. Your veto would simply confirm your support of the 1993 legislation that limited handgun purchases. You did the right thing in 1993 and I hope that you will do so again in 2012.
Thank you for your consideration of a veto of HB 940.
Respectfully,
Ron Rordam,
Mayor
Rordam points out in his post that he does not get involved with legislation unless it has a direct affect on Blacksburg, but in this case it “has so many ramifications for Blacksburg, the Commonwealth, and the Country, that I felt a response was required.”
February 27, 2012 - 10:37 AM
Perhaps a “one term a lifetime” limitation on Mayors of Blacksburg would be appropriate? After all, who needs to be mayor more than once and it wouldn’t really affect someone’s right to run…
Mayor Rordam speaks for the VAST majority of VA citizens who must to the dismay of the Plillip Van Cleaves and the gun makers and NRA have clearly stated that the want this law to stand..by a 2 to 1 margin
Go ahead Mr. Van Cleave..challenge it in court..the victory for gun control will spread one gun a month laws nationwide
No law abding person needs to buy more than one gun a month
There is no clearer message that the gun advocates have no intention of working with anyone on keeping guns out of hands that should not have them than fighting this law. It is proven that Virginia purchased guns end up in crimes in other states and it is proven that people are selling guns to people on the street and over the internet and yet 12 handguns per year is not enough for gun advocates? I do not know if this law saves lives, but you do not know it does not and why is it too high a price even for the possibility.
3 – Why not six handguns per year, or three or one? Why do we need them at all? Where is the line?
#3 – “There is no clearer message that the gun advocates have no intention of working with anyone on keeping guns out of hands that should not have them than fighting this law.”
Simply untrue.
Every gun advocate that I know complies with the law and does whatever is necessary to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not.
When is the government going to do the same? When is the government going to put a stop to Bloomberg’s illegal straw purchases?
Well, a lot of the guns used in crimes are stolen. I wish the judicial system could give us a paper trail for every gun used in a crime.
I can not totally agree with Michael’s
Every gun advocate that I know complies with the law and does whatever is necessary to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not.
Michael, you call my opinion “untrue” and base that on your assertion that “Every gun advocate that I know complies with the law and does whatever is necessary to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not.
Do you know every gun advocate? Really?
What exactly do any of them do to meet the criteria of “whatever is necessary to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not“?
Sure, and a one-gun-a-month infringement on 2nd Amendment rights…er, limit…will stop the criminals from buying more than one at a time. Because it’s a well-established fact that criminals carefully abide gun ownership laws, including those limiting how many can be purchased and accurate registration of same.
#8 “Because it’s a well-established fact that criminals carefully abide gun ownership laws,…”
What an excellent reason to get rid of those laws, right, Hoo?
If this law is too “infringing” on gun rights, what exactly ARE gun advocates willing to do? If you say they are willing to do “whatever is necessary to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not” have them, name what that “whatever” is, please? This seems like such a no-brainer for, at minimum slowing, but certainly making the Virginia pipeline more of a hassle and yet 12 handguns per year is an “infringment”? So what will reduce guns in the hands of those who should not have them, that gun advocates are so willing to do? You tell us for a change. What will work and what have gun advocates done to work for those changes?
Criminals abide by no laws, that is the point 89Hoo. They are getting their guns somehow aren’t they? How do you suggest we stop that?
#7 – No, I don’t know evey gun advocate, Sandi, nor did I say so. I said every gun advocate that I knew.
YOUR comment tries to paint a picture of ALL gun advocates “have no intention of working with anyone on keeping guns out of hands that should not have them” and that is untrue. It is a fallacy and a lie spread by the anti-gunners.
As far as “What exactly do any of them do to meet the criteria of “whatever is necessary to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not“, we obey and follow the laws regarding firearm purchases and sales (something the gov’t does NOT do), and take measures to secure our weapons (such as safes and locking gun cabinets).
As far as the one gun a month rule, are you aware that it doesn’t apply to people who hold a concealed carry permit?
#12. Sandi, if you are admitting that criminals abide by no laws, then why are you advocating more laws?
11 – well, Sandi, let’s start by admitting that a law that only punishes the law-abiding has no effect on criminals and is therefore ineffective at its stated purpose. First rule of holes: when you’re in one, quit digging.
I’m not sure how much more basic I can make that.
As for a more proactive approach, stiffer jail sentences keep criminals off the streets longer. Life sentences keep murderers off the street for, well, life. The War on Drugs has been a colossal, and colossally expensive, failure. Since so much violent crime is tied to the drug wars, perhaps we should reconsider our drug policies. How about more positive approach to rehabilitation for non-violent offenders, such as the program Roanoke recently enacted.
How about instead of bright, cheerful “Click It or Ticket!” campaigns targeting only people who potentially hurt only themselves, we ask our cops to reinstate community policing, have each cop walk a beat, get to know the people on his beat. I realize there is a lot of revenue in nabbing a housewife for forgetting to buckle up, but come on…maybe the cop could run down a real criminal somewhere.
That’s just off the top of my head. I’m absolutely certain there are many more ways of curbing crime than enacting a law that will have no impact. That’s not a very standard.
9 – gdad, your post was incoherent. What are you saying?
#13, so according to your logic we should not have any laws. How interesting. Perhaps you should read Camus and/or Kierkegaard.
16 – how about laws that actually work?
#16….Wrong. We need for people to be held accountable. We have laws on the books to cover crimes that are committed by handgun, knife, bazooka, hands or any other weapon a criminal would choose. Why would you create a handgun law that only the law abiding would follow? You knew exactly what I meant and chose to be cute. Didn’t work.
#2….”No law abding person needs to buy more than one gun a month”
It is not the law abiding person you need to worry about.
Good luck Jim. I’m still trying to get an answer as to precisely HOW MANY guns a law-abiding person should be permitted to buy. In the interest of finding common cause, you know.
#18 – “We need for people to be held accountable.”
Whoops…there ya go making sense.
“Accountability” and “responsibility” are totally foreign concepts to the Left.
We have enough gun laws. Wait, scratch that…we’ve got too many! Instead of creating more, enforce the ones we have.
JimW, I am not sure what “new law” you think I am supporting?
Michael, your opinion, does not shoot down my opinion. You not agreeing with my opinion does not make it “untrue”. If abiding by this law for what, 19 years or something, has not been such a burden, why is it now? If knowing that the Virginia pipeline is not as extensive is not keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, what would?
The accidents, “stolen” and stolen guns decries the idea that all gun owners take the “measures to secure our weapons (such as safes and locking gun cabinets) and the number of guns available on the internet for sale and in the parking lots at guns shows, are not gun owners who “obey and follow the laws regarding firearm purchases and sales”.
Yes, I was aware that it did not apply to the saintly CCP holders. Wonder if their guns ever get “stolen”, or sold on the internet?
89Hoo, I disagree that this law has no impact on criminals and unstable people getting guns. For the reasons I cited, the people who sell guns on the internet, in parking lots and from their homes had to get them from somewhere and that is DIRECTLY tied to guns purchased legally by someone. I am sorry that 1 handgun a month or 12 in a year hampers any gun owner, but I think they have been managing for 19 years just fine.
Do you have links to ANY gun advocacy groups who are lobbying for any of those changes you think should be made?
22 – Sandi, please answer the question I asked. Why not six guns a year? Or three, or one? Why any? Come on, it’s an easy question. And this is the third time I’ve asked.
As far as the question you asked me, “Do you have links to ANY gun advocacy groups who are lobbying for any of those changes you think should be made?”
I don’t belong to any gun advocacy groups (not a gun-owner) so I don’t know if they push for the restoration of lost liberties as vigorously as I do. I know the NRA teaches firearms safety courses, more than anyone else, and advocates the use of safes, safety locks, etc. I doubt you’re really interested in a link to the NRA anyway.
#18, I didn’t choose to “be cute” I posed a valid logical construct for you, which apparently you couldn’t respond logically to. But hey, whatever spins the propeller on your beanie, big guy. (is that cute enough for you?) Peace.
Perhaps a new law, say, limiting those with nothing better to do than linger over their keyboard, bashing inanimate objects, to one posting a month? It would certainly cut down the clutter, and there is no infringement on freedom of speech or press, right?
I suppose the legislature could agree on 1 per month 89Hoo, I suppose they were trying to be restrictive but not overly so. Why is 12 handguns per year not enough? I know plenty of gun owners, hunters and people who support 2A, I do not know any who chafe at waiting for that second gun any month of the year.
Once again, I am not advocating a new law, this law has been on the books for 19 years. Again, I am not advocating a new law. I believe this law helps and I believe it hurts no one. We DO need for people to be accountable and to be held accountable and that means not selling your guns to people who you do not know, to people who could not pass a background check or to someone who cannot buy one legally on their own. Do you REALLY think criminals have a different mechanism for getting guns? Some “law abiding” gun owner is selling guns, there are no two ways about it. More than one or two also. Seriously? This “law abiding” crap line is getting old. If all gun owners DID follow the rules, the problem would not be as bad as it is and guns would not be so easy for these people to get.
Go for it Robert Sadler. What is stopping you?
26 – But it’s an arbitrary number, Sandi, right? I mean, it’s a nice, round number…but with no basis in the Constitution or otherwise. I guess what I’m saying is that since “…criminals abide by no laws…” (Sandi Saunders, 2012) any number is as good as another if we’re going to pass an ineffectual law, right?
And since “…criminals abide by no laws…” (Sandi Saunders, 2012) then the objective cannot be to lessen the amount of handguns floating around out there because “…criminals abide by no laws…” (Sandi Saunders, 2012) so it makes no difference whether we limit to one per month, one per year, whatever.
So decreasing the amount of handguns floating around out there doesn’t work (“…criminals abide by no laws…” (Sandi Saunders, 2012)) there must be some other objective. I mean, we wouldn’t pass a law that is agreed to be ineffective, wasting all that money, right?
So what’s the objective? And how do we accomplish it?
PS Robert, if you do not think “free speech” is “infringed” on here, think again. We are not allowed to post anything we like, use any language we like, or even any tone we like. We have restrictions, a moderator, and other bloggers to make sure of it too.
30 – ah but Sandi, those restrictions are placed by a private entity – the Roanoke Times – and NOT Uncle Sam. The national government cannot do that, but a private entity can.
As I said, I do not know where the number came from and I cannot argue that it is not just an arbitrary number. Is it onerous? Is it too little? Is there a better number? I do not know who is fighting this because of need.
As to the objective, I think it was clear then and it is clear now, to make it harder for the legal purchases to turn into crime guns. If you have a source that says it is ineffective as in more guns are now traced to Virginia than ever before, I will certainly look at it.
http://www.lcav.org/content/multiple_purchases_sales.pdf
Take that up with Robert Stadler 89Hoo, is the issue restrictions or that they are from the government? Interesting.
32 – but that’s so important Sandi.
If we accept an arbitrary limitation placed on one freedom by Uncle Sam, what’s to stop others? What’s to stop the next arbitrary limitation – wrapped in the cloak of “reasonableness” (an ambiguous measurement, to say the least) – to six guns per year? Three? None?
What’s to stop arbitrary limitations – wrapped in the cloak of “reasonableness” – on free speech? Freedom of association? Quartering of troops? Limitations on the burden of proof?
See, we are already seeing limitations on these things, thanks to atrocious legislation passed under the cloak of “reasonableness” and “security” – the PATRIOT Act (thanks President Bush!), the National Defense Authorization Act (thanks President Obama!). They’ll not be rolled back, we all know that. It’s the incremental approach to totalitarianism.
Besides, even if the purchase limitations were effective – and it is not, as the crime rate shows – they would still be unconstitutional. If the matter is that important – important enough to pass laws that don’t work – why not propose a Constitutional amendment modifying the 2nd Amendment?
33 – well, isn’t that the justification for not allowing the Ten Commandments in Giles County schools? It takes federal money, so they are not permitted, but the private schools can post them without limitation.
The 1st Ten Amendments to the Constitution – the Bill of Rights – explicitly limit what the national government can do, and by extension illuminate the rights we enjoy. That’s why it is so critical that they remain intact and un-watered down. Even in the vague notion of “reasonableness”.
WTOP reports at 4:55 p.m. that Governor McDonnell has SIGNED the repeal of one-a-month. God, I love my job.
“We are not allowed to post anything we like, use any language we like, or even any tone we like.”
Someone should tell Casey.
It’s done. Signed into law.
God help us all…bloodshed in the streets is sure to follow. Just like allowing concealed carry in bars.
Oh, wait…
You win. I cannot feel good about more guns on the streets courtesy of Virginia.
Yes, “reasonableness” is so overrated. They will get guns somewhere, why should it bother me if it is Virginia?
40 – not overrated just incredibly subjective. I think one a week is imminently reasonable. And since the law didn’t work to begin with as the crime rate shows, irrelevant anyway.
Oh yes, and unconstitutional. Minor detail.