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  10:53 pm
Commenter: JOHN WHITAKER

Executive Order 50 (McAuliffe 2015) meant to Harm Citizens, Not Protect Them.
 

To Whom this may concern,

After reading all 4 pages of Executive Order 50 (McAuliffe 2015) it comes across as if whoever wrote it didn't do their homework. Let's go over each section:

I. Establish Joint Task Force to Prosecute Gun Crimes - Well there is already a task force to prosecute gun crimes. Last I recall they are the BATF, FBI, State & Local Law Authority, Homeland Security, etc. Why waste more of Virginian Tax Dollars on redundant 'Task Force(s)'?  This is not a fiscally responsible proposal.

II. Authorize Attorney General to Coordinate and Bring Criminal Cases Against Firearms Law Offenders - Um...this is already done. If the AG currently isn't doing this, then they are not doing their job.  What statement does concern me however is: "I also reserve the right to initiate any other legal proceedings that may be necessary to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth from illegal firearms sales."  Ok, who died and made you God? To allow the Govenor to initiate any 'legal poceeding' at their sole discretion that doesn't follow due process of law is clearly tyrannical in nature. This course of action is blatantly designed to keep law abidding citizens in the gridlocks of the legal court system with their guns consficated and kept financially exhausted to the point where they cannot keep defending themselves.

III. Establish Tip Line for Illegal Gun Activity - Again, we already have something in place where citizens can act upon if they suspect illegal activity. It's called the "See Something, Say Something." initiative. How is this any different? Again, this is not a fiscally responsible proposal.

IV. Trace Guns Used in Crime - This is already being done during the investigative nature where a firearm is used in a crime by law enforcement. Again, a waste of resources because of redundancy and NOT a fiscally responsible proposal.

V. Encourage Judges and Prosecutors to Seek Gun Forfeiture in Felony and Other Cases - Just HOW do you propose to ENCOURAGE judges and prosecutors?  This is parallel to threatening judges or prosectors.  How about you let them do their job without 'influencing' them.  Furthermore, the comment "Cases of domestic violence in which there is access to firearms often end in needless tragedy." is entirely superflourous with no credible research backing this statement. That comment is designed to state an opinion as a fact. 

VI. Banning Firearms in State Government Buildings - Again, in many instances this is already done for certain agencies. What the EO plans on doing is applying the restrictions to all state agencies & property. Its whole intention is to make it extremely difficult and inconvenient for law abiding citizens to external or conceal carry, period. This is infringement and unconstitutional.

This proposed regulation will have the opposite of the intended effect by playing into the hands of terrorists, violent criminals, and the criminally insane. We have had no shootings in state agencies and this prohibition on those with a concealed handgun permit, some of whom have active and ongoing threats to their lives, is entirely without any justification and needlessly and recklessly endangers innocent lives.

Disarming good citizens (who are the only ones likely to obey the prohibition) does not make them safer.

Importantly the Governor has no authority for this regulation. If the General Assembly wanted the Governor to have such power, they would have granted it to him explicitly, as is required constitutionally.

This proposed regulation is a solution for which there is no problem. It endangers state employees, law abiding citizens, and the innocent by making state buildings a safe zone for terrorists, criminals, and the criminally insane to conduct their evil and savage actions.

This regulations should not be approved and the emergency regulation withdrawn.

And on a final note: Please extended the comment period for another 30 days. 

Citizen of the United States of America and Resident of Virginia,

John L. Whitaker 

 

CommentID: 45733