WOODBRIDGE, Va. –
A big country star opened a huge, new restaurant last week in Woodbridge, Va. But a house rule for the new establishment is roiling some Virginians: no guns are allowed inside.Toby Keith is not only a hugely successful country star (and actor), he also has personally opened a couple of restaurants, and through other companies, has now expanded those establishments into about a dozen cities.
The latest Toby Keith restaurant opened in Woodbridge. Prominently displayed on the front door is a sign saying: “NO GUNS PERMITTED.”
Virginia happens to be a gun-friendly state, where it’s quite permissible for citizens to strap on a weapon and go into a bar or restaurant, as long as the weapon is clearly visible. State law is silent on the issue of drinking while openly carrying a gun. (State law does prohibit most citizens who are legally carrying a concealed weapon from consuming alcohol, but they, too, are allowed to go into a bar or restaurant.)
The owners have the right to say “no” to firearms, and that’s the rule at Keith’s Woodbridge restaurant.
The no guns policy has caused quite a stir on Facebook where potential patrons are duking it out. What seems odd to me is that in Virginia, the owner of the establishment decides if he or she allows guns or not. In this case, No Guns is the choice of Toby Keith. What’s left to be said?
I’m glad Cato’s form of New Year’s Greeting has not become the generally accepted mode. That would bespeak a culture/civilization almost as disturbing as one in which citizens generally carry deadly weapons hidden on their persons “everywhere.” The two together would put us pretty far down into the realm of total barbarity.
At any rate, Cato, I view my idea of constitutional open carry without permit (the permit system is a joke for concealed carry, although I concede that there are people – for example, Steve Thomas, who are well-trained in firearms use) as an eminently conservative approach to Second Amendment issues. I doubt the Founders ever had a thought about concealed carry. Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized that state and local governments can impose reasonable regulations on bearing firearms. I assume that a conservative General Assembly will take a shine to it.
At risk of changing the subject, Cato (up the thread a ways) makes reference to an acquaintance of his who views voter ID as a non-problem. My recommendation for your dealings with that fellow, Cato, is to ask him why voter identification can ever be a problem as long as changes that promote better means of identification do not have the effect of disenfranchising current lawful voters. My personal view is that if we have better means of ensuring only those lawfully eligible to vote, we should use them. The unfortunate problem that we have encountered recently, however, is that a number of people get all fired up about voter ID, but are not willing to take the steps necessary to make sure that everyone gets the necessary ID at no inconvenience to themselves. There also have been a number of people of my Party (Republican, for those who don’t follow these things) who have rather clearly disclosed that their hope for new ID programs is that they will deter voter groups whose demographics tend toward the other Party. If a state wants to go to a universal requirement for (to use an example) a biometric voter ID card, I say go for it IF (and only IF) the legislature provides ways and means to reach out to every current eligible voter to ensure that they don’t have to troop down to some inconvenient or costly location to get the new IDs. The goal should be to protect every current legal voter and to expand the voter base by actively recruiting new voters. The problem is that the most vociferous advocates of new voter ID requirements have not been aggressive about reaching out to all citizens to ensure that the new form of ID is in their hands with no inconvenience to the voter.
By the way, this guy you refer to, how does he manifest sanctimoniousness on such a prosaic issue as voter ID? It seems like a really wonky administrative issue unless some voter suppression motive is involved. In the latter case, then it is a dagger at the heart of a democratic Republic and I can understand citizens everywhere being extremely concerned.
How about a thread on anger management resources. Or great you tube guided meditation recordings?
“I’ll carry right out in the open and not be shy about it (assuming I haven’t moved to more pacific climes).”
Scout,
That is your choice, and under the laws of Virginia, perfectly legal. However, several self-defense experts underwhich I have trained would disagree. The advise not calling undue attention to yourself. You don’t where the Glock T-shirt, or the NRA hat. You don’t wear the multi-pocket vest that screams “if you don’t see a camera or a fishing pole I must be covering up a firearm”. The reason is, you don’t advertise that you are carrying a firearm. Someone may try to snatch it from you, in a moment of distraction, or you may be targeted by a criminal for the sole purpose of obtaining your firearm, because they don’t want the hassle of a background check.
Scout, if you like, I can send you some youtube vids where instructors like these explain the rational for carrying, concealed carry, and not calling attention to yourself. Just let me know where to send the links.
Steve, I think you make a good point about “dressing down.” It’s sort of how I tell the difference in serious gun owners and people who just need to bolster their self esteem with toys.
“At any rate, Cato, I view my idea of constitutional open carry without permit (the permit system is a joke for concealed carry, although I concede that there are people – for example, Steve Thomas, who are well-trained in firearms use) as an eminently conservative approach to Second Amendment issues.”
Scout, I can agree to some degree, in this; but from a different perspective. I I agree in the principle of “constitutional carry”, in that an non-prohibited person shouldn’t have to go ask the government for permission to exercise an expressed right, under the Constitution, as is practiced in places like Vermont and Alaska. But, I do see some value in the “Shall Issue” permitting system, as it stands today in VA, because in order to qualify, applicants must demonstrate that they have training prior to permit issue.
As I previously mentioned, by virtue of my DD-214 DoD discharge, I was not required to show any additional training. I took the required training anyways. I did this because the class went beyond the normal safety and skills topics. It also was heavy on the law, conflict avoidance, awareness, and several other important topics, that I hadn’t previously been exposed to. I saw value in this, so I paid my money and took the course.
Also, I think the current system has some additional safety in the form of vetting. It is an additional background check, and is updated every time the permit is renewed. I am also believe that states should have some control over reciprocity. Some states recognize my rights constitutionally, such as VT and AK. Some states don’t, but recognize that I have met the requirements in Virginia, and these satisfy their requirements. Some states allow Concealed weapons other than firearms, and some don’t. While I do believe every state, territory, or DC should allow “citizens subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meeting a certain (while not necessarily uniform) standard to carry, I do think the state has some interest in defining a standard that is acceptable to their citizens. I do think, though, that there should be national reciprocity. The example being if permit holders from other states want to carry in VA, than they must comply with the VA law. Since VA only permits concealed handguns, other weapons cannot be concealed. Kind of like driving and cellphones. Virginia doesn’t ban it, but DC does. I shouldn’t be able to apply VA law in DC, and likewise, DC residents should be free to use their phones while driving in VA.
It goes beyond that…I see the cars with all the “Keep Honking, I’m reloading” bumper stickers. If a thug was trying to decide which unoccupied car to break into, this one, or the one with the “My child is an honor student” or “I love my cats” bumper sticker, might he not pick the gun related one in the off-chance that perhaps there might be a firearm in the car? (Perhaps this might occur at the Toby Keith’s parking lot). Then there are the “protected by Smith and Wesson” signs, or “We don’t dial 911”. Tempting as it may be to put display these statements of support for the 2nd Amendment, might they be advertising to someone casing the neighborhood to watch your home a bit more closely?
Uniformed police officers want to be visible, as this visibility (thankfully) is a deterrant to crime, and reassures the law-abiding public. Plain clothed officers want to be less-conspicous, and undercover officers want to be invisible. Dressing down, concealing the firearm to be used only in lawful self-defense only makes sense to someone who wants to peaceably go about his or her business, not make a scene, and not draw unnecessary attention to themselves. They want to protect themselves…not make a political statement or show how “tacticool” they are. I once knew a guy who’s license plate read “Glockem”. After the third time someone broke into his car, he got a clue.
To I have a bunch of “gun swag”? Sure do. I like “promotional items” as much as the next guy. Gun rights organizations and firearms manufacturers love to give the stuff out; hats, t-shirts, keychains, bumper stickers. I’ll wear it to the range, or other shooting event…kinda like wearing a team jersey to the stadium, but nowhere else.
Steve: I have no doubt that you are in the upper 1 per cent in terms of training and experience. However, I am singularly unimpressed at the low end with requirements to get a Concealed Carry Permit, at least in this state. There are on-line sites that advertise that they can give you the necessary course material with minimal investment of time. (I seem to recall one claiming it could be done in an hour – but I’m too uninspired to go back and look it up now).
While I have my own ideas about an optimal system for protecting Second amendment rights within the boundaries of the practice being “well-regulated”, I don’t agree with you that states should have to honor other states’ requirements when one is in transit. That strikes me as a recipe for a lowest common denominator national system. If Mr. Montana or Mr. Alaska go to NYC or Washington, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be required to comply with local law.
In any event, why would anyone want to carry deadly weapons around the country? I assume the desire to carry firearms in daily life comes from an assessment that one’s neighborhood is rife with life-threatening exigencies that might require killing someone. How would one ever make that assessment about a distant location when passing through on a road trip (for example). You’d have to have a great deal of day-to-day familiarity over a period of time to make that assessment, I would think.
“How would one ever make that assessment about a distant location when passing through on a road trip (for example).”
Tell that to Michael Jordan’s father, who was killed at a rest-stop whilst “in-transit”.
And there is a uniformed standard for transporting firearms interstate, set by the Fed, which is a proper roll of the Fed: “Peaceable Journey”…firearm must be unloaded and cased, and not accessible from the passenger compartment. If design of the vehicle is such that no seperation exists between passenger and case, then the case must be locked.
Of course in states that have reciprocity, drivers can have a concealed firearm as they cross a joint border. But my point was if all states make provision for concealed carry, than this should apply to all people within their state, in much the same way as states honor eachothers driver’s licenses, so, if Mr. Montana travels to NY, and NY allows concealed carry with permit, Mr. Montana should be able to do so, in NY, provided he abides by the same laws Mr. NY would have to in NY. That’s all I am saying.
He would have to go through the same screening and controls that New York imposes on its citizens. Since I suspect that there is a gap between what Montana requires and what New York requires, that would be administratively difficult, I would think.
“He would have to go through the same screening and controls that New York imposes on its citizens.”
I would imagine that the screening and controls states impose on their citizens in order to obtain a driver’s license don’t impose a big problem in reciprocity. I’ve never heard of one state saying they refuse to recognize the driver’s license from another state. And yet, states have differing restrictions or controls on what those driving in their states can and cannot do, regardless of what state issued their license. Are firearms more dangerous than cars? If you look at injuries, fatalities, and crimes committed with automobiles (DWI, DUI, Speeding, reckless driving, distracted driving) we have a much greater chance of being injured or killed by a driver from another state, than we are to be shot by a resident of another state, lawfully carrying a firearm. Were that not the case, states wouldn’t be willing to enter into reciprocal agreements with other states.
All 50 states should have open carry. Just as all 50 states must abide by the 1st Amendment.
Either one has a right or one has a privilege.
That’s exactly how I feel about reproductive rights. I hate the patchwork of laws.
Glad to see these strong federalist sentiments.
@ Steve: I suspect that the disparity between qualifications necessary to get a driver’s license in New York and a driver’s license in Montana or Alaska are not nearly as galactical as the disparities between what is required to get a CCP in those respective jurisdictions.
I think I will undertake an experiment. Although a gun-owner, I have never had a Virginia concealed carry permit. I am going to go to one of these on-line “we’ll get you your concealed carry permit for 20 bucks just take our 1 hour on-line course and we’ll send you a certificate to take the courthouse to get your permit” courses and see if I can do it with a minimum of effort. It’s my way of testing my hypothesis that it’s not particularly demanding to get a CCP in Virginia. If I can sit here at my computer, given that I have a clean police record, no outstanding warrants or protective orders, and no record of mental illness, and get a permit, we will know that, despite the fact that I might be a very angry, suicidal, homicidal, belligerent, individual, I can get a permit to carry a concealed deadly weapon about as easily as I can order a book from Amazon. Let’s see how this turns out.
Let us know the outcome.
PS: if I can do this, it might also be that I am extraordinarily incompetent handling a firearm.
“It’s my way of testing my hypothesis that it’s not particularly demanding to get a CCP in Virginia.”
I suspect you will be surprised. From the VA State Police:
The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun and the applicant may demonstrate such competence by one of the following, but no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence:
1.Completing any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or a similar agency of another state;
2.Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;
3.Completing any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law-enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Criminal Justice Services;
4.Completing any law-enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;
5.Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or current military service or proof of an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services;
6.Obtaining or previously having held a license to carry a firearm in this Commonwealth or a locality thereof, unless such license has been revoked for cause;
7.Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;
8.Completing any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualifying to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties; or
9.Completing any other firearms training which the court deems adequate.
A photocopy of a certificate of completion of any of the courses or classes; an affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization, or group that conducted or taught such course or class attesting to the completion of the course or class by the applicant; or a copy of any document which shows completion of the course or class or evidences participation in firearms competition shall constitute evidence of qualification under this subsection.
Allow me to suggest a somewhat more productive experiment. If the notion of citizens carrying concealed firearms causes you so much emotional distress, move across the border to the District or Maryland. That way, you will be able to rest assured that anyone carrying concealed in a supermarket is either a.) sworn law enforcement or b.) a criminal. Neither jurisdictions are very far from Northern Virginia and would cause minimal disruption to an otherwise successful career dispensing worthless advice and blog pontification.
Plus, you’d probably save yourself a ton of money on Depends.
Do let us know the outcome.
It’s not emotional, Cato, it’s intellectual. I’ve been a Virginian for most of my life. I think I’ll stick around.
Steve: those sound like a string of loopholes to me. You may be right. Lurking behind these nine requirements, stated in the alternative, may be a fierce enforcement mentality screening out those who would wriggle through the verbiage. However, I see a lot of room for angry, conflicted, inexperienced persons to penetrate these requirements.
A friend of mine took a hunter education course as a boy (your para. 1.) , dredged up his certificate, and used that to obtain a CCP. I sort of have my eye on paragraph 7., which indicates to me that these seemingly fly-by-night on-line courses may be just the ticket. I’m curious as to whether I can get a CCP without ever having fired a weapon under competent supervision or evaluation.
Again, you may be correct that these requirements are a real bulwark against incompetents gaining concealed carry permits. If that turns out to be the case (and I will make myself appear as incompetent as I honestly can consistent with the information requested on the application), I’ll report that.
I also hasten to acknowledge that I have no doubt about your sense of responsibility in voluntairly obtaining qualified instruction, despite your military service, before obtaining your civilian permit. Hats off to you on that. My point is that there are a lot of people who lack your diligence.
“I also hasten to acknowledge that I have no doubt about your sense of responsibility in voluntairly obtaining qualified instruction, despite your military service, before obtaining your civilian permit. Hats off to you on that.”
Scout, if you are successful in proving your theory, and obtain your CHP without having to demonstrate safe and competent handling of a firearm, please allow me to rectify any defficiencies that you might have, and provide you with some proper instruction at the range. I have a membership at a local, and can bring guests, so your only expense will be your time. I figure if you may at some point need to use a firearm, you might as well be able to do it safely.
Very accommodating of you, Steve, particularly given the increased costs in recent times of range time and, more dramatically, ammunition.
I probably am not as proficient as you, judging from previous comments. On the other hand, I was trained by the same sort of excellent taskmasters as you were, and was familiar enough with every individually served weapon in the US inventory in the period 1967-84. I don’t go to the range as much as I used to (that’s primarily a function of other demands, not lack of desire to maintain proficiency), but I still go about once a quarter. The only place I have ever had to use a firearm since 1970 has been at the range. If I can obtain a CCP as ridiculously easily as I think I can, I have no intention of carrying – the object of what I fear may be nothing more than a table top exercise is something entirely extraneous to my personal protection. You needn’t fear that my inferior proficiency will cause a safety problem.
But it is nice of you to offer.