2009.07.01
Van Cleave: Cool the fear-mongering on guns
Cool the smoldering fear-mongering on guns
In Dan Casey's opinion column "Get ready for guns in bars" (June 21), there were some key points I would like to set straight: Unlike what Casey wrote, under Virginia law gun owners currently may openly carry into a restaurant and drink if they wish. But they are not allowed to get drunk. Truth is, that while it is legal, gun owners are simply not interested in drinking and carrying a gun. The bill that passed the General Assembly this year would have allowed for concealed handgun permit holders to be able to carry concealed as long as they didn't drink. Gun owners were fine with that. They simply want to be able to carry discreetly in restaurants and enjoy a meal.
Read more.
RSS feed 
FTA: "Truth is, that while it is legal, gun owners are simply not interested in drinking and carrying a gun."
I can say for myself that this is true.
Comment by Jack — July 1, 2009 @ 8:48 am
FTA: "Finally, I wonder where Casey was when another bill passed the General Assembly last year and was signed into law by Gov. Tim Kaine that allows off-duty commonwealth's attorneys to carry concealed and drink in restaurants?"
What an excellent question! I asked the same thing three times in Casey's blog and never got a firm answer.
How about you, Dan Radmacher? Where do you stand on it?
Comment by Patrick — July 1, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Patrick,
We were critical of that bill, and of the governor for signing it. I had a lengthy and heated conversation with the governor's spokesman about it.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 1, 2009 @ 9:24 am
It is great that Mr. Van Cleave is so certain that he is willing to "vouch" for hundreds of thousands of people with no fear, never mind he discounts fear, silly me. My fear of more guns is irrational and unfair, his fear of being without his gun for the duration of a meal or a shopping trip is not irrational?
"They are all good people who have a proven track record of being law-abiding citizens" There are (as the links I sent Dan Casey and he posted on his blog show) instances of concealed carry permit holders being less than the model citizens he proclaims and while those anomalies remain a small percentage, it needs to be recognized and acknowledged in an honest debate, not swept out the door along with any concerns that we might have. You do not trust people enough to go about your daily business unarmed, you feel you must remain "prepared" (like us having a fire extinguisher in our house) and yet we are supposed to trust your judgment on concealed carry permit holders? If the world is that unsafe, then we should all go "prepared" into the day's activities.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 9:50 am
Sandi, if it's the same links you provided here, there were 3 examples. That's hardly enough to indict the whole bunch of concealed carry holders. There are bad apples in EVERY bunch, no matter what "group" of people you are looking at. There are also example of cops who use their weapons while commiting a crime...does that mean all cops should not be allowed to carry a firearm?
Comment by Danny — July 1, 2009 @ 10:17 am
Sandi: "If the world is that unsafe, *then we should all go "prepared" into the day's activities*." [Emphasis ** added]
This is a correct statement. I'm not talking about guns/knives/whatever tool here. How many instances of crime, violence, or other incidents could have been avoided with even just a modest amount of situational awareness? I think of that every time I see someone with iPod buds stuck in their ears and their head down on the Metro (DC-area train system) or jogging alone with iPod at night.
The criminal is only one part of the equation. The opportunity you present to them plays more than a trivial role.
Comment by Ed S. — July 1, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Danny, actually I gave Dan another 11 links I found with a few minutes of research, but that is not my point. My point was that if Mr. Van Cleave wants us to "Cool the fear-mongering on guns", I want him and other pro concealed carry to stop saying that there is no threat, there is no problem, these are ALL wonderful, calm, rational, law abiding citizens incapable of making a mistake much less committing a crime. When the argument is honest and they are honest enough to admit what you just did in the context of asking us to get over our fear, I will be more than happy to let the issue go entirely AND work on getting over my fear.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Sandi, is your concern with the mathematical absolute "all" (as in, *every single* person will never commit a crime), or do you generally dispute that the majority of those people are law abiding?
I have heard/read previous statements from Van Cleave and others where the adjective "most" or "vast majority" was used to describe the law-abiding group. If the term "all" is your concern, then hopefully that would satisfy the issue (and yes, I too sometimes point out the importance of precise terminology in discussion).
However, as I also have noted before, sometimes it is difficult to be ultra-precise in discussion, and small terms will slip. We all do it. Find any discussion that involves the terms "Republicans", "Democrats", "conservatives", or "liberals". Being precise with those terms is like finding two cats that would agree on anything.
So in summary...is your issue *really* with the term "all"...or are you disputing the assertion that most of the people in question are law abiding?
And do you really have fear? An irrational fear? Or is it just concern. Having concern is one thing. Maybe you are concerned about a permitted person causing a problem. And my philosophy would have to say, a healthy concern is good for your self-awareness. I always tell people to be prepared, be aware. Nothing wrong with that. Fear would be avoiding the outdoors because the state (oops...commonwealth...don't want someone dinging me) issues concealed handgun permits. That's different. And I give you more credit than that.
You may have some wrong opinions (in my view
), but you're not insane. Well, not yet. 
Comment by Ed S. — July 1, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Denny,
I just read an article the other day about a cop who pulled his gun on a fast-food worker because his food was taking too long.
Maybe we should take guns away from ALL cops.
Comment by Jack — July 1, 2009 @ 11:19 am
It's sort of ironic that the same state that's pulling cigarettes out of the restaurants is letting guns into them.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Ed S. thanks for the question. Yes "concern" is a better word. I am not living in fear or behaving out of fear so that is more imprecise of me than is warranted. Mr. Van Cleave is (I assume) elected to his position in the Virginia Citizens Defense League. As a spokesperson who, more than a poster on a blog or any old citizen letter writer, is more than aware of the concern and fear that is in the community. It is incumbent upon him to at least acknowledge that by using precise language that does not make him sound like an arrogant jerk dismissing all concern and fear when a rational, sane, gun loving, patriotic, law abiding citizen already knows that such things have and will continue to happen in his group as in any other, he can better serve his cause. I guess, for me anyway, that simple acknowledgment would go a long way towards wanting to listen to his argument. I don't think telling someone their fear or concern is silly is a successful tactic in general. Tell me how you acknowledge that some idiots and paranoid people might squeeze through the oh so rigorous testing and permitting process but that statistically that is about as likely as lightning or a criminal striking you on Tuesday. Tell me you know the system is not perfect but that if the criminals know more people are armed (although how they could with concealed carry is still a mystery) that will decrease crime and make public places safer. In other words, you (collective) hopeless bunch, USE THE FEAR and CONCERN to your advantage. It can be done.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 11:41 am
@Kristen: "It's sort of ironic that the same state that's pulling cigarettes out of the restaurants is letting guns into them."
Not really. People use the cigarettes in the restaurants all the time and that causes harm to other patrons.
Carrying guns into restaurants doesn't cause the same harm.
You need to think of it as apples to apples... carrying cigarettes into restaurants isn't illegal. Using them is.
Same thing with guns. Carrying it into a restaurant isn't illegal. Shooting it is... without justification.
Of course I'm sure that if someone came into a restaurant and started killing people you would be justified in lighting your cigarette and burning his eyeballs out to get him to stop.
Comment by Jack — July 1, 2009 @ 11:55 am
Ok...so 11 links. My point is that not everyone of a certain group is a nutjob just because a few are. I am sure out of the number of people who are allowed to CC, the percentage is small. But, that is every group...just as Jack noted above, a police officer (!) pulled his firearm because the food was too slow... Do we now need to pull all weapons from the police because of the few idiots?
Comment by Danny — July 1, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
As a concealed carry permit holder, I'm not scared to go into a restaurant without my gun, I do it all the time (have to actually, since that is currently the law and I abide by the law). Even though I guess I could choose to carry openly in these establishments, there is a good chance I would be asked by management to leave, or at least leave the gun in the car...and again, if so asked, I would abide by the restaurant management's wishes. The reason permit holders want to see the restaurant ban on concealed carry lifted is because we don't want to have to leave our guns unattended in our vehicles (which is by far more risky than just carrying them inside), or have to leave them at home (kinda defeats the purpose of the permit if you can't take the gun anywhere), or have to deal with the harrassment of being asked to leave a restaurant when we aren't causing any trouble, we just want to enjoy some food like everyone else.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 1, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Good point Jack and pretty funny, except that I don't smoke and am thrilled that my currently sort of narrow choice of places to eat/drink smoke-fre will soon be expanded.
You're entirely correct...carrying them in isn't illegal.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
A restaurant is a private place of business, so regardless of the law allowing concealed carry in a restaurant, the owners/management of any restaurant could still refuse to permit guns in their establishment. And yes, a sign at the door would stop people from carrying their guns inside. It's true that short of a metal detector, this would be almost impossible to enforce without patting everyone down as they come in, but the current law is not very enforceable either, it just lays down legal consequences if you get caught carrying concealed. But you have to get caught first, and that's not very likely. If I obey a law stating that I can't carry concealed in a restaurant, then I am also going to obey a sign that says I can't carry there as well, because in a practical sense there isn't much difference.
A person intent on committing a crime, however, is going to obey neither a law nor a sign...their intentions are well ahead of worrying about whether they get charged with CARRYING the gun.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 1, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
As always, ignore my point and accuse me of ignoring your point. Again, I cave. There simply is no use.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
"[...] stop saying that there is no threat, there is no problem, these are ALL wonderful, calm, rational, law abiding citizens incapable of making a mistake much less committing a crime."
I'll have to agree with Sandi on this point. My first thought when I read this was that the statement was too absolute. We cannot deny that there are CHP holders who make mistakes, or even commit crimes, though the numbers are so minuscule they are practically irrelevant.
Perhaps it should have read "They are all good people who have a proven track record of being law-abiding citizens, with only extremely rare exceptions."
Dan Casey's column, however, really was nothing more than a fear-mongering hit piece on concealed carry. His misrepresentation about the scope of the proposed change in the law has been addressed so many times by so many people that it's continued use can only be explained as a deliberate lie, and his conclusions about the result of the proposed change have been show not to occur in any of the numerous states that have allowed concealed carry in "bars" over the last 20 years.
I might quibble with that one detail in Mr. Van Cleave's column, but the overall point was absolutely correct.
Comment by Jake — July 1, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Ah Sandi...a strategic retreat that allows you to return and fight another day is never "caving"!
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
For the record, I'm not really on board with the ban on smoking in restaurants either. I'm not a smoker, never have been, and I always sit in the non-smoking section, but I don't see why this decision was taken out of the business owner's hands. That's really the crux of the matter to me. If a restaurant owner doesn't want me to carry my gun inside his or her restaurant, fine. This is America and that is their right. I don't like the government getting involved and banning stuff right and left, when the free market would take care of most things in due time. You don't wanna go to a restaurant that allows smoking? Don't. You don't wanna go to one that doesn't allow smoking? Don't. You don't wanna go to a restaurant that allows customers to bring in their guns? Don't go then. You refuse on point of principle to go to a restaurant that won't allow guns inside? That's your right as well. We don't need more laws telling us how to live our lives and restricting our freedom, all in the name of "safety". It's not a good path to go down, if we truly want to remain a "free" country.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 1, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
VT Hokie, I think a lot of the smoking ban is to provide protection for the people who work in those atmospheres and therefore spend a lot more time in them than the average customer would.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
@VT Hokie: "This is America and that is their right. I don't like the government getting involved and banning stuff right and left, when the free market would take care of most things in due time."
All the more reason why they shouldn't ban the concealed carry of firearms.
Comment by Jack — July 1, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
The facts are quite clear: as a subgroup of the population CHP holders are more responsible and less likely to be involved in ANY crime than even police officers or other demographic clusters. This is not a guns in bars debate. That has been settled, it's only about the manner in which it is carried.
Sandi. We, as gun owners, are not fear mongers as you would have us be. We have no need to "USE THE FEAR and CONCERN to your advantage". If anything we are freedom mongers, noting that the government need not restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens because of what they "might" do.
Moreover, your "logic" regarding how the criminals would know is flawed. They wouldn't know who is carrying! Currently they know that a) only those with guns on their hips are carrying and b) all others are not. If they didn't know who was, wouldn't that be more effective?
Besides all of this, we all know your position on guns and those of us who use actual logic recognize it as misguided and futile. Mr. Van Cleave represents thousands of gun owners in VA and has legitimacy in his claims. While "all" is inaccurate, could you not recognize that the RT engages in hyperbole beyond anything in this editorial? For God's sake, the last editorial board said "guns and alcohol don't mix" totally evading the reality of guns and alcohol already being able to be mixed as long as the gun was openly carried.
One more point. The RT makes the bylines / headlines. As an author of more than one op/ed piece, the headlines are never mine, even when I included one in the submission. Mr. Van Cleave should not be liable for the RT's decision.
I will add that the reality of carrying a gun should dictate that right regardless of location. I do not suddenly become criminal when I go into a restaurant, or into a courthouse or the post office. When will you realize this?
Comment by Bradford Wiles — July 1, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Kristen, I think you are right about that. But the restaurant owner could also choose to ban smoking in the establishment if he/she felt the smoke was harmful to the employees. Likewise, where you work is also a matter of choice...although I also acknowledge that not everyone can give up a paying job just because of cigarette smoke. I don't know what the right answer is, but new laws banning this and that just rubs me the wrong way, even if those laws ban things that I myself don't care for (I detest the smell of cigarette smoke).
Comment by VT Hokie — July 1, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Jack, my point exactly
Comment by VT Hokie — July 1, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Sandi,
I agree the use of terms could have been better. I would offer to overlook it this time in the sense that it happens all the time in almost all of our debates/discussions. Sometimes it is the "spirit" rather than the exact words, though when it comes down to actually writing a law, the wording must be very precise.
I know I've seen other writings/releases where "vast majority" was used over "all". It's not a big deal to me because I know the gist of what he is saying. But you are correct, the terminology could be changed to avoid giving the wrong impression.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I can say it's pretty much a practical fact that you can't pre-determine who is going to be a criminal. Of course people with no prior record will go through the process. Some may later commit a crime. I see this occurring at a very low rate. It happens everywhere: security clearances, adoptions, marriages, blood donors. Nobody can say that won't happen.
So hopefully my word is once again good for you.
I can't speak for anyone else, but i would guess that most others who share similar beliefs to me would agree with that. But as Levar said, "you don't ahve to take my word for it"
Comment by Ed S. — July 1, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
@ VT Hokie: Exactly. There is a bar I frequent with my friends whenever in Richmond called Gus'. They do not allow smoking indoors. If you want to smoke, you go outside. When I moved here, I gave up smoking. When I visit in Richmond, I will occasionally smoke. The funny thing is, my friends love that bar. Even though they have to go outside to smoke, they still like it. Nearly all of my friends have a "smoke outside" rule where, even though the smoke, they go outside to smoke. It keeps their house from reeking. It also keeps their walls from staining. As i noticed when I helped a friend of mine move that does smoke indoors, there were white patches where the pictures used to be, and the rest was a yellowish-beige.
I encourage people not to smoke, as it is a bad nasty habit. However, it is a legal product. If smoking is so horrendous as many cite, then why is it not outlawed? Furthermore, why are so many people that do not smoke nor hang around or work in smokey environments getting lung cancer? Perhaps it is because there is much more at play than just cigarette smoke, such as rampant air pollution (which also gives us acid rain that taints our drinking water). However, I don't think we'll hear much about that. After all, it's better to play feel-good and find a scapegoat than to actually address the massive elephant in room.
Comment by George — July 1, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Bradford, I have no idea where you go out to eat where so many patrons are apparently scoping the place to figure out who's armed and who's not. I think I'd just fire up the grill and stay home.
I don't consider "CHP holders are more responsible and less likely to be involved in ANY crime than even police officers" very reassuring. And where exactly was that fact made remotely, far less "quite clear"?
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
George I can tell you that if you buy a life insurance policy as a smoker, you'll pay 2-3 times that what a non-smoker with identical health otherwise will pay. Those numbers aren't moved by feel-goodism, political correctness, or scapegoating. They're based on millions upon millions of statistics that make up mortality tables, all of which indicate that a smoker is more likely to drop dead prematurely than a non-smoker.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
I think George's question is, based on the "millions upon millions" of statistics that demonstrate the health hazards of smoking, why just a ban in restaurants and not an outright ban of cigarettes altogether? Not that I'm advocating such a ban, but it does beg the question.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 1, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Kristen,
The point is that IF a criminal wants to scope he can and will get reliable information. If concealed carry were allowed this would be impossible. If you don't believe that CHP holders are a more responsible group than police officers then you've clearly not been paying attention to this debate. Regardless, permit holders are not a group of people likely to commit ANY crime, much less a violent one. Please check gunfacts.org for confirmation with citations.
Can someone, anyone, tell me why I can carry concealed in a movie theater, on the street, in a park, near a school, etc., but once I actually cross onto that school's grounds I am a criminal? Once I step onto the post office's property I am breaking the law. Do they even read the Constitution?
Again, people who want to be armed and have not demonstrated that they are incapable of handling that responsibility should be allowed to be armed regardless of location. The method of carry should be at the sole discretion of the individual, as it's really nobody's business whether I am carrying a gun or not. Would you behave differently if you knew I were armed? If so, the problem lies with you.
Comment by Bradford Wiles — July 1, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
VT Hokie,
The FDA is pushing for that very ability: to ban smoking. They are asking congress to grant them oversight on tobacco products with the aim to reduce and then end tobacco use.
Comment by Bradford Wiles — July 1, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Bradford,
Congress just granted FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. A ban is not in the works.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 1, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Dear Dan,
Thanks for the link. Surely you don't think that just because the law prohibits a ban that the end result won't be the same?
I don't smoke, but I also think that people should be allowed the freedom to smoke WHATEVER they want. The nanny state of "public health" is just one more avenue for control.
The real push for the FDA is to encourage development of tobacco products that have lower nicotine levels, lower levels of carcinogenic materials and increase the cost to make the use of tobacco less accessible. Maybe a ban was too strong, but can you at least acknowledge that the FDA aims to reduce tobacco use through regulation? Why are we not free to make our own health choices?
Comment by Bradford Wiles — July 2, 2009 @ 11:08 am
Bradford, personally I don't care if smokers set their hair on fire and use it to light their cigarettes. As of now cigarettes are a legal product - and likely to remain that way.
There's a big difference between regulating where such "legal products" can be used, and outlawing them all together. I can think of a lot of legal products that can't be used in public. If we all use our imaginations, I'm sure we can come up with a sizeable list.
If they can reduce tobacco use through regulation, god bless the FDA. The health effects of smoking cost this country millions, if not billions, every year, from a health care system that is otherwise overtaxed.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 11:19 am
@Kristen: "I can think of a lot of legal products that can't be used in public."
Condoms!
Comment by Jack — July 2, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Jack! I was trying to be discrete but...yeah, condoms were on the list!
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Bradford Wiles,
"The facts are quite clear: as a subgroup of the population CHP holders are more responsible and less likely to be involved in ANY crime than even police officers or other demographic clusters."
Just how long do you expect that to remain true, if the concealed-carry idea catches on?
Comment by Ed H — July 7, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Uh Ed
It has already caught on. I had one so long that it expired.
Comment by Henry — July 7, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
And you, of course, are the only person in your world?
Comment by Ed H — July 7, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
I'm nearing the end of my second permit.
Comment by Jack — July 7, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
As unfortunate as the incident of TRT posting the entire statewide database of CHP holders was, one thing it did demonstrate if you actually looked at it was just how many people DO already carry concealed. Just here in Roanoke. And Salem, and Vinton. You probably pass at least a couple of people on a daily basis that are carrying, and that number is growing. The perceived danger is just not there.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 7, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
"The perceived danger is just not there."
But it doesn't stop the RTEB from running a cartoon to scare the populace, does it?
Comment by Patrick — July 7, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
"The facts are quite clear: as a subgroup of the population CHP holders are more responsible and less likely to be involved in ANY crime than even police officers or other demographic clusters."
Where were these facts?
Comment by Kristen — July 7, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
There is no excuse for that ridiculous cartoon today. But one thing Dan Casey is right about is that the current restaurant ban on concealed carry is pretty much destined to be repealed. Once that happens, we get to sit back and watch all these fears and warnings come to nothing.
Comment by VT Hokie — July 7, 2009 @ 4:36 pm