Virginia governor closes gun loophole

This is a discussion on Virginia governor closes gun loophole within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Well, actually, no, he wasn't a citizen. He was a foreign national with permanent resident status. This grants him many of the rights of citizenship, ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: Virginia governor closes gun loophole

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Well, actually, no, he wasn't a citizen. He was a foreign national with permanent resident status. This grants him many of the rights of citizenship, but does not make him a citizen.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    So we are clear, A resident Visa is not the same as a work visa and not the same as a Student Visa.

    And I still fail to see what the legal status has to do with the VT massacre.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  4. #18
    Senior Member Array briansmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    688
    http://www.vdare.com/misc/walsh_interview.htm


    Immigrant Crime: Who Wants To Know?
    By David Walsh

    Recently, while exploring the incidence of immigrant crime and its impact on the US, I was stymied. Not by the dearth of information: it’s there if you really want it. What was troubling was the lengths to which people who rely on such statistics (here, gang investigators and the INS) will go to avoid discussing them. Some officials were fearful, some indifferent, others seemed to question my motives. It all seemed to mirror the big media’s tendency to skirt the issue.

    Richard H. Ward, Dean and Director of the Center of Criminal Justice at Texas’s Sam Houston State University (and an ex-NYPD detective), recently published an interesting study in Criminal Justice 2000 called “The Internationalization of Criminal Justice” about the importation of crime: narco-terrorism, street crime and gangs, home invasions, credit-card and staged-accident scams, identity theft, and white slavery.

    “Globalization,” Ward observed in his introduction, “is producing ... new challenges for criminal justice practitioners and researchers.... To the law enforcement community, particularly at the local level, global crime is frequently linked to illegal aliens” (now officially recorded as entering the US at a rate of some 25,000 each month, and probably far higher in actuality). At the same time, “criminal activity by ... legal immigrants ... has grown considerably.”

    Despite this, though, the watchword in the States is… accommodation. Police, intelligence agencies, the courts, parole officers, social workers, and health professionals—as well as Americans at large—all must accustom themselves, it seems, to immigrant crime.

    The dimensions of the problem loom so large, Ward suggested, that even basic American freedoms may be abridged in the name of the greater good. What most caught my attention in his article, though, was a passage having to do with disincentives to investigation and enforcement.

    Some of these already hobble the police and the INS. “In areas with large immigrant communities,” Ward found, “political pressure is frequently applied to discourage immigration authorities and law enforcement from ‘searching out’ illegals.”

    In an interview with Prof. Ward, I asked about this statement—a confirmation of something long suspected though rarely discussed in the media. He began by suggesting that several factors are at work here.

    “Over the past decade, in many cases from a criminal justice standpoint [officials] have stepped back and said, ‘Hey, we’re just not going to look at this.’" (Immigrant crime, that is.) “It’s a sign of the times; the feeling, you know, that everybody makes mistakes [like crossing the border illegally?], and there’s an unwillingness to apply more law enforcement.” In a further reflection of current thinking, Ward added, “‘Let’s not cause any problems for our neighbors (and trading partners)--particularly Mexico.’" He declined to be specific, but suggested that officialdom exercises - quite properly - an overweening caution in discussing the matter.

    Yes, but although it’s clear that only a minority of newcomers is involved in crime (“less than one-in-ten,” Ward guesses), aren’t We The People entitled to know the extent of it?

    Well, no—that’s not politically feasible. “There is no way to sort out the numbers of foreign criminals,” Ward says. “That would take raiding sweat shops and the like, and that gets into how far you should go.” (To liberals, of course, the very term “raid” is ominous.)

    Then, of course, there’s the ultimate question:

    Why bother to study immigrant crime, anyway? Even with upwards of fifteen million illegals in the US today, “very few people care - as long as there are jobs.”

    When I suggested to Prof. Ward that this laissez faire attitude towards foreign crime was shared by our government, he agreed with me. “That’s probably a good word. Unemployment is so low in the United States that very few people are paying attention.... An example is the large numbers of Asians, especially Chinese illegals, who no one [in the criminal justice system] seems to be paying much attention to.” How come? Oh—“They’re not much involved in crime, or it’s Chinese-on-Chinese crime.”

    In any event, Ward said, the crooks melt into the immigrant community where they’re sometimes sheltered, but in any case untracked by police, INS, or other authorities. Unnoticed or not, Ward estimates that over 100,000 Chinese alone are smuggled into the country every year. Invariably, they end up as “slave laborers” for the Triads, or Chinese mafia.

    As for Latinos, by far the largest contributor to the U.S.’s newcomer population, Ward quipped, “There’s this juxtaposition: people who want to bring [immigrants] in for farming, and others, like some ranchers who want to get rid of them.” (While trespassing across ranch land, immigrants sometimes steal equipment and damage private property.)

    But Professor Ward turned somber when the discussion turned to shifts in public sentiment during an economic downturn. The Border Patrol, entrusted with guarding America’s frontiers, is “poorly funded” in spite of the booming economy. Ward endorses beefing up the BP with funds, plenty more personnel, better pay and equipment—improvements he thinks are unlikely, however. Washington gives “a wink and nod” to the porous border, since “the government relies on foreign workers and their cheap labor.” And so the U.S. Border Patrol, the professor commented with notable understatement, “finds itself in the unenviable position of trying to curtail what some view as a monumental problem.”

    So what about foreign terrorists, presumably a major concern of this nation? Can’t they take advantage of the same lax border controls as the average Mexican peasant? Ward agreed they might, but that “that’s a different situation.” (He couldn’t tell me just how different.)

    A further problem in controlling immigrant crime is the “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” phenomenon: To most Americans, the foreign population barely registers, let alone the criminals among them. An important reason for this, Ward notes, is that immigrants usually victimize their own people. Hispanic crooks, for instance, “see their people as walking ATM machines” owing to their avoidance of banks and police (this means they’re likely to carry large sums of cash on their persons).

    And then, of course, there’s the fear factor: In today’s political climate, Ward acknowledged, truth-telling is easily confused with insensitivity or “hate.” Other difficulties include record-keeping on foreign criminals—or the lack of it. “Each state keeps different kind of statistics, and it’s really a killer to get an accurate picture.”

    So how does the United States protect its sovereignty against foreign dangers? Besides the Border Patrol upgrades, Professor Ward suggests, “We should create better economic conditions in the other countries. On the criminal side, we’re never going to be able to close the borders with Mexico very effectively unless we make a very strong commitment to doing that.” (Experts, you need to understand, are in the habit of thinking big.) “Once again, quite frankly, we don’t know who’s coming across the border.” (You said a mouthful, professor!)

    Finally, this criminal justice expert suggested how the problem of alien crime could lead to possible encroachments by the federal government. (“Indeed,” he had written in his article, “a paradox of more internationalization may well be a lessening of individual rights and the autonomy of local governments.”)

    Now, he told me, “We are going to see more emphasis by the federal government stepping in on this [crime problem]. You’ve already got the drug czar .... Perhaps mass fingerprinting is next.” (Not fingerprinting for immigrants only, but for the American public as a whole.) As for the states and their police forces, we may expect to see them “federalized” in years to come. (So much to look forward to.)

    So there you have it: the safety of the commonweal - and even basic national security - all but trumped by the government’s fears of identity politics and the escalating power of social activists.

    Not to mention the timidity of the “experts” who advise and direct our elected public officials, in Congress and elsewhere.

  5. #19
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by jet3534 View Post
    Anyone that has not yet been involved in a divorce listen up to what was just said by PaulG. During my divorce from ***** wife #1, she filed a compliant accusing me of threatening to shoot her friends -- not true at all, but in today's climate I probably would have had my firearms confiscated. After all, anyone that owns AR-15s, AKs, and thousands of rounds of ammunition must be crazy -- at least to a female judge. Another increasingly common divorce tactic for women is an accusation of sexual assult on a daughter. This one didn't happen to me, but I have seen it happen to a lot of other men.
    Amen to what Jet and PaulG have posted. It only took me 23 years of living with my wife before we finally got married, so knock on wood, I don't see divorce in our future... but you never know. I do know my wifes integrity and feel she would never resort to such a dirty trick.

    Everyone, however should beware and mindful of the ramifications of changing a law or creating a new law without having a proper amount of time as to allow detatched reflection of the issue that has spawned the outcry for such changes to begin with.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  6. #20
    Ex Member Array Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,570
    I too owned guns when I was still only here on a Green Card, having that status means you are fully legal, have been vetted extensively by the FBI and native country equivalent and have had psychological and physical evaluations.
    They don't just give them away, they cost lots of time, lots of effort and lots of money.
    Then when you're here legally and can start the process to become a citizen. More time, effort and cash.
    The end result is worth it, which is why we all do it, but in the interim we are paying taxes and have dossiers on us that would shock most natural born folk, mine was 3 inches thick and I've never so much as had a speeding ticket.
    Anyway, when you become a citizen you can vote, and you don't get extradited if you commit a felony. Other than that not a lot changes.

    You certainly don't suddenly become trustworthy with a gun, that is either already there - or it wasn't, and in that case you wouldn't have got a Green Card anyway.

    I think the Governor has done this to instigate creeping incrementalism, all he has to do now is declare everyone in VA 'a danger to themselves' and he will have banned all guns.

  7. #21
    Member Array kf4uel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    99

    Database

    So imagine that they make a mentally ill database, just like the sex offenders... People that need help go WAYYY off the deep end as their neighbors become afraid of them, employers illegally (?) discriminate them and so on.....BUT ill leave this up for grabs They could be approached by people who care and recieve the help they were afriad to ask for...even if its just friendships and hugs...

    SO yeah!!! theres 2 sides to everything in the universe....

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array PapaScout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    569
    Quote Originally Posted by rstickle View Post
    And again.........

    While the loss of any life taken "early" is deplorable, if he hacks up 20 people with a machete the Brady group doesn't get any more ammunition to use against me!
    I completely agree. Let the antis picket Walmart for selling machetes or Louisville Slugger for making baseball bats for a change.

    What it comes down to is not the tool but the intent. The machete holds no fault. The gun holds no fault. The intent behind it's use reveals the character within.
    "If you so much as bunny hop I'll cut your heart out!" Billy Bob Thornton in The Last Real Cowboys

    "I carry a gun for the same reason that I carry health insurance and a cell phone - be prepared."

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,255
    Well, here's ONE of my concerns (from a message I sent to VCDL prez last night):
    Yeah...Too late for #2 it appears:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/...QGBZMKWscDW7oF

    Although, the really disturbing one is this statement(from the same link):
    "But it would not prevent Cho from acquiring guns by several other means that require no background check in Virginia, including buy-and-trade publications, individual transactions among gun collectors or hobbyists , and gun shows ó vast firearms bazaars where scores of people sell or swap firearms.
    Legislation that would also subject firearms sales at gun shows to instant background checks is introduced annually in Virginia, and just as often it dies without reaching a floor vote in the General Assembly.

    Kaine, a Democrat, has said that he expects new support for the legislation this year and that he would support it, as he has in the past."

    Looks to me like he's going to try to get private sale effectively killed. Him openly stating it is only going to give the nutjobs more momentum to try to get it up for a vote.
    And this is the VA-Alert from VCDL I recieved this morning(I copied the article in it's entirity. If any VCDL execs find this inappropriate let me know and I'll edit it out myself - or just ask the mods ):
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    VCDL's Gun Dealer Legal Defense Fund -- help fight Mayor Bloomberg's
    scheme to cripple Virginia firearms dealers. See: www.vcdl.org/index.html#DefenseFund
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe or change your email address, please follow the
    directions at the end of this message.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earlier today, Governor Kaine signed an Executive Order (EO)
    prohibiting another category of people from owning firearms. Kaine's
    EO would take away gun rights for life of any person adjudicated
    dangerous, but only ordered to be treated as an OUTPATIENT. (Anyone
    who is committed as an inpatient currently loses their gun rights
    already.)

    So, what's the problem?

    1. Kaine's action is probably unconstitutional! If Kaine can just
    issue an Imperial Decree changing existing law without any debate
    from our elected representatives, why not just disband the General
    Assembly, if they aren't needed any more? :-(

    The proper way to handle a situation like this is for the Governor to
    call a special session of the General Assembly to address this issue
    and ask the the General Assembly to modify the law.

    2. His EO may appear to be a reasonable restriction because no one
    wants a violent, insane person to have a gun or any other weapon for
    that matter.

    However, what judge in HIS right mind would allow a person who the
    judge KNOWS to be a danger to himself or to others to be sent home
    and allowed to do outpatient treatment?!? The judge should commit
    himself to inpatient treatment for doing such a thing! That's like
    sending serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer back home but requiring him to
    attend weekly counseling sessions!

    If a person is adjudicated dangerous to himself or others, he should
    be confined, NOT sent home!

    So you might ask, why would there be ANY patients who were both
    dangerous AND ordered to do outpatient treatments?

    Because the judge might believe that the person isn't really
    'dangerous,' but the judge feels that the person does desperately
    need mental help and that the person wouldn't seek such help on his
    own. So the judge declares the person to be 'dangerous' so that the
    person can be forced to take the outpatient treatment.

    Should a person who is not believed to be dangerous by a judge be
    banned from having guns for the rest of his life?

    3. The Governor's edict is retroactive! Thus, if you were treated as
    an outpatient under a court order thirty years ago and have been fine
    ever since, you can now no longer BUY, OWN, or POSSESS any firearms.
    If you do you can be charged with a federal FELONY!

    4. The Governor has falsely promised that gun rights could be
    restored. NOT true. There is no way to get your name off the
    federal list once Virginia has added you to it, even if you are now
    perfectly normal. You will be prohibited by federal law from buying
    or possessing a firearm for the rest of your life. And you may not
    even realize you are a 'prohibited' person, so when you attempt to
    purchase a firearm, you may be shocked when you are arrested for
    lying on the 4473, which is a FELONY.

    5. Once you are on the federal mental defect list, you could lose
    more than your gun rights. Your security clearance could be at risk.
    Your job too.

    6. According to the Washington Post, Attorney General McDonnell said,
    "We are still in a state of mourning, but now is the time for
    action." What he's really saying is that he's got to do something,
    anything, to make it look like the government is doing something.
    Just another "feel good" measure - and one embraced by Governor Kaine!

    And talk about rushing to do something - Kaine JUST APPOINTED a
    commission to look at the mental health problem and make suggestions,
    but Kaine didn't even wait for the commission to meet! He just
    charged forward on his political hobbyhorse!

    So how did we get into this situation?

    Simple - the Court system failed us by not committing the VT murderer
    to involuntary treatment. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Governor
    comes along with a knee-jerk solution and compounds the problem by
    throwing out a huge net to catch such a very rare person. That huge
    net brings in all kinds of unintended consequences. And it still
    won't guarantee more government failures that could lead to more
    murders and mayhem down the road.

    Lest you think I am exaggerating the negative impact that the
    Governor's actions will have on those who need help, want help, and
    are willing to seek help, I will share with you an email I just
    received from one of our brave Armed Forces members.

    I have left off the person's name for obvious reasons:

    "I came back [from my tour of duty] last fall. I'm very worried that
    getting advice, counseling, or treatment could have ramifications on
    my ability to carry, own, and use firearms. I've been diagnosed with
    "mild PTSD" [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] and am very anxious that
    treatment it is going to put me on some list. I believe I can handle
    the PTSD, if necessary, but it'd be a whole lot easier if there
    weren't that Sword of Damocles hanging over my head.

    As it is, I'm treating myself based on information from public sources."

    I'll be honest - that email tore me up. Just watching the news and
    seeing what those men and women go through in protecting this county
    is enough to give ME mild PTSD! I can't even imagine being at war
    and living through all that our fighting men and women live through.
    Yet we put them in a position of being afraid to seek a helping hand
    in adjusting back to normal, peacetime life!

    Is this what those who are suffering from emotional stress and
    trauma, or have common things like depression, get to look forward
    to? The additional worry of becoming a second-class citizen,
    disarmed by their own government for seeking help?

    And what about employment? Those in a position to lose their guns
    unfairly will now also be in a position to lose their security
    clearances unfairly, too.

    For now, VCDL needs to investigate the whole situation and its
    implications in more detail. I have been talking to the Attorney
    General's Office, as well as to the aides of House Majority Leader
    Morgan Griffith and Delegate John Welch.

    Things like a temporary injunction come to mind, so that the law can
    be changed carefully and not in a knee jerk reaction. Letting the
    General Assembly change the law, if it needs changing at all, in a
    constitutional way is a necessity, too. ;-)

    This alert for now is just a 'heads up.' The implications of what is
    happening could have grave consequences for a lot of innocent people
    and we are going to be monitoring the situation carefully.

    ************************************************** *************************
    VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL).
    VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to
    defending the human rights of all Virginians. The membership considers the
    Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be an essential human right.

    VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org
    ************************************************** *************************
    IMPORTANT: It is our intention to honor all "remove" requests promptly.
    To unsubscribe from this list, or change the email address where you
    receive
    messages, please go to:
    http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member...ecret=58e44e87
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,546
    By executive order, hm? One person, without debate and ratification by the elected representatives of the people?
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    There is no doubt in my mind he does not have the authority to issue an executive order to cover this. And it smacks of an ill thought out knee jerk reaction... is he up for re-election or something?

    This loophole will need to be very carefully closed and methods put in place to assure that the person denied his/her rights is protected. As far as I know there is no way to restore those rights as there is no method to remove things from NCIS data base.

    I certainly do not want "REAL" crazy people to be able to purchase firearms but I want to make double dam sure they ARE crazy first.

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,255
    Oh and another question...What about all those folks at places like VT where they have school hired counselors and/or shrinks that are encouraging the students to seek help in the aftermath of that disaster...What happens to those folks or can we say standards creep...?
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    Well the key here is "Adjudicated". Which is what line F asks. A judge has to order it. But... what gets me about this Cao case is that a Judge did order evaluation and did, to some extent "adjudicate" that. He ordered it. But he made the determination it was because he was a danger to himself and others but yet he ordered it to be "outpatient" from what I understand. Now... how can someone that is ordered to be evaluated because he is a danger to himself and others NOT BE confined?

  14. #28
    Member Array HighwaymanRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    28
    I'm bothered by the reliance on the state to keep an accurate database which can not be altered. If you share a name with someone else (which is pretty common in VA among older southern familes) or someone in a cubicle somewhere enters a typo you have no legal recourse. It reminds me of the no-fly list.

  15. #29
    Ex Member Array Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,570
    Typos and mistaken identities?
    Interesting, I smell an impending lawsuit based on 'shall not be infringed'.

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    Well the key here is "Adjudicated". Which is what line F asks. A judge has to order it. But... what gets me about this Cao case is that a Judge did order evaluation and did, to some extent "adjudicate" that. He ordered it. But he made the determination it was because he was a danger to himself and others but yet he ordered it to be "outpatient" from what I understand. Now... how can someone that is ordered to be evaluated because he is a danger to himself and others NOT BE confined?
    The judge only deemed him to be a danger to himself, not to others. He ordered him to be evaluated, and based on that evaluation outpatient treatment was recommended. In hindsight, it's quite obvious that he was a danger to others, but, apparently no one that evaluated him at the time came to this conclusion.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Governor Kaine vetoed Virginia guns bills
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 1st, 2009, 03:49 PM
  2. Virginia Senator Anti-Gun...Gun Show Loophole
    By concealed in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: February 4th, 2009, 04:16 PM
  3. Virginia's Governor vetoed two pro gun bills: MERGED
    By tuttleje in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: March 7th, 2008, 11:12 AM
  4. Ouch- Oil closes at $100.01
    By MnemonicMonkey in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 20th, 2008, 10:23 AM
  5. city closes loophole?
    By raevan in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 13th, 2006, 04:30 PM

Search tags for this page

cencealed carry loophole virginia
,

governor virginia brain loophole

,
how to restore va gun rights easily if involuntary committed
,

utah gun loophole

,

virginia loop hole on meth

Click on a term to search for related topics.