Agencies | Governor
Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of General Services
 
Board
Department of General Services
 
chapter
Regulations Banning Concealed Firearms in Offices Occupied by Executive Branch Agencies [1 VAC 30 ‑ 105]
Action Promulgation of new regulation banning concealed firearms in executive branch agency offices
Stage Emergency/NOIRA
Comment Period Ends 1/27/2016
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
12/17/15  8:13 pm
Commenter: Michael Greenstreet Sr.

We oppose Governor McAuliffe's executive order banning guns in or on state agency facilities
 

            Governor McAuliffe’s “emergency” executive action banning guns in Virginia’s state agencies (and that “appears” to include highway rest stops), effectively establishes yet another “soft” target “gun-free” zone, and past history repeatedly shows that signs announcing that a particular building or piece of land has been designated as “gun-free” hasn’t reduced violence because who is going to obey those laws? Well, of course, only the law-abiding concealed carry citizens – not criminals.

            In America, our Second Amendment recognizes the right of We the People to defend themselves. See the next-to-last paragraph of Federalist Paper 46 making this point. [See http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=234]

            For the Governor to be targeting Virginia’s state agency buildings as “gun-free” zones must mean, among other places, that our public roadway rest stops are crime free. Well, actually, “No,” that isn’t true. [See  http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/28/us/threat-of-crime-rises-on-the-main-highways.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 particularly the eighth paragraph]

            Oh, well then, Governor McAuliffe’s executive order to make Virginia state agency facilities “gun-free” is in reaction to concealed carry owners being involved in a lot of violent actions using their firearms. Well, actually, “No!” [See http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry]

            Well, then, the governor’s decision for this executive order must be that violent criminals and terrorists must be staying clear of areas that have been designated as “gun-free” zones! Well, actually, “No!” [See any number of Internet sites that indicate “gun-free” zones attract people wanting to inflict harm to others. For one riveting example, see http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater.html along with  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don%27t-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do

            Well, then, the Governor’s decision to impose this executive order is due to the police’s ability to protect We the People. Well, actually, “No!” Police are “first responders,” and “first rersponders” typically arrive at the scene minutes, and often---many minutes---after shots are fired. When they do finally arrive, their most effective, cost saving duty is to accurately tell the 911 dispatcher how many ambulances are exactly needed. It is only concealed carry permit owners---instant responders---that can have a positive, immediate impact in the opening moments of a violent situation. Again, see http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry as well as https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings. There are many more examples if one wishes to continue to search the Internet – many more.

            Is it possible that Governor McAuliffe is rewarding Michael Bloomberg’s one-million dollar campaign donation by enacting this executive order? Hmmmm! [See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/22/bloombergs-anti-gun-group-drop-11M-mcauliffe/?page=all]

            My wife and I oppose Governor McAuliffe’s  “emergency” state-agency gun ban 

because the overwhelming evidence shows that it is simply an autocratic, ideological maneuver to impose the will of a few upon the vast majority of We the People by political maneuvering that will simply increase danger to public safety. We the People must insist that any such changes take effect “only” through the legislative process.

           We fully expect our legislative and/or judicial branches of government to blunt this executive branch effort.

            My wife and I believe the window of opportunity for public comment is too restrictive and should be extended for another thirty days beyond its current deadline of 27 January 2016.

 

CommentID: 45661