RICHMOND — Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s order last month restoringthe voting rights of 206,000 felons had an unintended consequence: It’s now easier for those ex-offenders to regain the right to own guns.
Before the order, felons who wanted to legally possess firearms first had to go through the process of having their civil rights reinstated, including the right to vote, to sit on a jury and to run for office.
That process — which involved submitting forms that were scrutinized by the secretary of the commonwealth’s staff, using the governor’s authority — is no longer in place.
Instead, felons who have completed their sentences can go straight to the step of petitioning the circuit court for firearm rights. Prosecutors review those petitions and can intervene if they believe a felon should continue to be barred from owning a weapon.
Days after McAuliffe (D) signed the April 22 voting-rights order, which was strongly opposed by leading Republicans in the GOP-controlled legislature, Secretary of the Commonwealth Kelly Thomasson warned commonwealth’s attorneys of a potential increase in gun rights requests.
“The decision to restore firearms rights is solely up to the discretion of local court judges, based in large part on your decision on whether or not to oppose such petitions,” Thomasson wrote.
The situation flips the usual political script, with McAuliffe (D), a staunch gun-control advocate, potentially opening the door to more felons possessing guns, and pro-gun-rights Republicans who oppose his order decrying the possibility that those felons could now have an easier time arming themselves.
“I would urge caution to circuit court judges to ensure that you’re not restoring rights to someone who has demonstrated willingness to use a firearm in a violent act,” said Del. L. Scott Lingemfelter (R-Prince William), who has sponsored bills expanding gun rights.
McAuliffe said he hadn’t given much thought to how his order would affect felons seeking firearms. “My actions were about giving you the right to vote, to serve on a jury and run for political office,” he said last week. “My action, I didn’t think it had anything to do with gun rights. I stayed away from that.”
Civil court clerks say it’s too early to tell whether the number of petitions filed will spike in response to the order. But legislators and lawyers who focus on this work reported a marked increase in inquiries from felons interested in firearms ownership.
So this certainly flips the idea around, doesn’t it? Gun control McAuliffe just made it easier to vote and have gun rights restored. NRA types who oppose easier voting laws may or may not approve of restoration of gun rights. It’s difficult to wrap your mind around this conflict of ideas.
Let’s look at a couple of facts. Someone getting out of prison can go get a gun that afternoon if that is his or her intent. That’s easy. It’s up to the probation officer to monitor that sort of thing and let’s face it, that job is understaffed at best. Those with criminal mentality will probably remain criminals.
One of the biggest rallying cry of the NRA is about criminals having guns. It’s easy to do. Any thug can get a gun.
Let’s now look at the former offenders who want to stay on the right side of the law. They have beeb forever banned from a constitutionally numerated right. They do not have the right to defend themselves, more importantly. Governor McDonnell opened up the door to restoring some of those rights, especially for those who had been convicted of non-violent crimes.
I would much rather put my efforts into keeping psychos from owning weapons than former offenders. I continue to feel that once time has been served, it has been served. Once you have “paid your debt to society” (I hate that expression), then you are getting your second chance. Don’t screw up.
We shall see what happens. Do I think everyone should be able to get a gun? No. I really don’t but it isn’t because someone has a felony conviction.
Perhaps there is no easy answer.
The problem is easily understood with a racial prism. That majority of those benefiting from rights restoration are people of color expected to vote for a Democrat for office and white Republicans don’t trust giving any rights (including the 2nd) to anyone other than people who look and vote like they do.
The 2nd amendment read with an expansive view describes the general right to have weapons for self defense and not specifically limited to gun possession. Does the current law prohibit defensive devices such as stun guns and mace for felons? If so then there may be a reasonable restriction on the possession of handguns if the person is a felon because of prior use of a gun in the commission of a crime.
If you are a ex-felon you can have a stun gun but you may not carry it on your person (I think) or carry it off your property. Mace? Not sure.
Mace and stun guns require close proximity. That puts someone defending themselves at a disadvantage.
@MoonHowler
Pepper-Spray and Tasers (What we can legally carry), are effective against certain threats. Look at a Law Enforcement Officer’s belt. What does he carry? He, or She, carries a Taser ( VERY different from a stun-gun), a can of OC-Spray, a knife (usually in excess of the 3.5 inches civilians can carry, legally), and some sort of “blunt-force” weapon (which are 100% illegal for a civilian to carry) PLUS a firearm, and multiple magazines, loaded with “deadly” hollow-point ammo.
What the officer has on his belt is a veritable “force continuum”. I carry a “force continuum” myself, in full compliance with the law, carrying only those things approved for civilian carry. I am prepared for the “hot head” who won’t let it go, if I apologize for taking a parking space he was waiting for. I don’t carry a taser, because it is defined by law as a “compliance device”. I figure, if I’ve “juice you” with OC Spray, and you are still bent and have the capabilty on doing me harm, and I cannot exit the area safely, I have more than satisfied the laws requirements.
I have about 40 hours of training in this regard, which didn’t involve drawing my pistol ansending a single round down-range. ( have over 30 hours in “Unarmed Comatives” . As far as actual shooting, I have about 160 hours of professional training. This is more than police get, in 5 years on the force. I don’t do this because I am paranoid. I do this to be prepared for the worst day of anyone’s life, and I plan to come out on top.
So, to my friend Ed…if you were to encounter me in the supermarket, I can say that I am the last person you should fear. If you want that pound of soy-bacon, it’s yours.
Just to prove I am a “good guy” I make this offer: Ed…If you would be willing, and can muster the intestinal fortitude to do so, I am willing to pay the full tuition for your attendance at my “home” training school (in Culpepper) for a “Street Encounters” class. $175.00. That’s what the course costs, Ed, and I am willing to pay it for you. I will also provide the handgun and ammo ($50.00), OC, ($15) and a “striking weapon” required to take the class, but you have to complete the class. Whatdayasay? I am willing to put up some money to open your eyes,
Moon, the same offer is open to you…
Shoot, you know I would probably take you up on it.
I was agreeing with you. My only problem with stun guns and mace is that it is only part of one’s defense. If the neighbor across the street decides to try to pick you off, you have no option other than hiding.
@MoonHowler
I know you were agreeing. I offered the course to you, so you’d be better prepared.
Yes sir!
@Ed Myers
I have that expansive view, with sensible limitations. I have stated before, I have no issue with the full restoration of all constitutional rights to the non-recidivist, non-violent felon. Someone who was an accountant at a business and embezzled money is not a danger to society, provided they conduct themselves as productive citizens BEFORE the restoration of rights.
Maybe it’s that through my marital relationships, I have a better understanding of how lenient our justice system, how “I mean it THIS TIME” our sentencing is, that has made me jaded to the whole punishment schema.
Where I have a problem with the governors actions (which were purely political in nature), and clearly he didn’t think this through. Were I advising him (Ha!) I would propose the following policy, and push for it to be codified in legislation:
-Anyone convicted of a non-violent felony (defined), who has served their full sentence, including any post-incarceration supervision, has “Shall Issue” full-restoration of their constitutional rights, and all things there unto pertaining.
-Anyone convicted of a violent felony, who has served their full sentence, including any post-incarceration supervision,, and who has not had any further interaction with law enforcement resulting in arrest, is subject to ‘May Issue” restoration of their Full-constitutional rights, upon application and review.
-Anyone who has had their rights restored for previous felony, who commits a second felony, forfeits their rights forever.
Look, I am all for someone who has been genuinely rehabilitated and turned their life around, having full access to the rights, privileges, and more importantly the RESPONSIBILITY that comes along with citizenship.. But we need to go about this in a thoughtful manner. Clearly, our governor in is rush to bolster the democrat voting roles, didn’t think this through. Fortunately, groups like the NRA and VCDL aren’t hell-bent on pushing for the restoration of 2A rights for felons.
Something to think about though: Federal law (you know, those people sitting in those Romanesque buildings a few mile north of us) prohibits felons from owning a firearm. They also prohibit the production and consumption of Marijuana, but that hasn’t stopped certain states from legalizing both. There is a states rights argument here. Does Virginia defy federal law, and restore the right of a felon to purchase and possess a firearm? I am torn here, being a states rights advocate.
What we’ve learned here is the Governor’s hasty actions have placed our state in a precarious place. That’s not leadership IMHO. I’m thinking of Ed Myers here, who can’t shop for food without a loss of bladder-control, because someone might be lawfully armed, and take issue with his grabbing the last stack of sprouted-grain tortillas, whip out their max-blaster 2000, and settle the issue in the vegan foods isle. Now Ed has to contend with people who have actually demonstrated a proclivity for antisocial behavior. Maybe we should restore the felon’s 2A right, but make them carry openly, and wear a black tee-shirt with the word “Armed Felon” across the front and back?
Let’s consider Ed, and his bladder, as we debate this issue.
Steve, oddly enough, I am going to agree with you on your 3 caveats. That seems very fair. I particularly support the may issue for those convicted of a violent crime. This caveat looks at the individual holistically. That’s very fair.
I don’t agree that the sole motivation was to deliver votes to the Democrats. In fact, and again, oddly enough, despite race, most people in prison are fairly conservative and the newspapers that land in prisons and jails often are conservative periodicals.
So far, just under 4000 or about 2% of ex-felons have applied to vote. I don’t think voting has a thing to do with crime. I fully support restoration of voting rights once post-prison supervision is over or the person is off paper. As for return of firearms rights, I support Steve’s suggestion.
Let us not forget that the toadies of the world, those who are lifetime criminals, will have guns the day they get out of prison.
I believe that if I have the right to defend myself, then an ex-felon has the right to defend him or her self.
@MoonHowler
Moon,
If we take a deliberate, thoughtful approach, involving both the legislature and the executive, I am fine with the outcome. What I have a problem with is “executive action”. This is why I say the governor’s actions are partisan. He didn’t bother to find a democrat or republican legislature to carry a bill for him. He just went ahead and did it.
If he would have put in a bill, with the caveats I layed out, it would have likely garnered enough support to pass. Warner or Kaine would have done this, and would have likely had the VCDL supporting the bill. But he didn’t.
I believe McDonnel also issued an executive order. I don’t have a problem with that. Governors get to make some decisions.
I would treat guns differently than voting mainly because voting has nothing to do with the crime, 99.9 times out of 100. Often people end up in prison for violent behavior. That’s why I like your plan in regard to guns.
One problem.
The ex-felons are still prohibited by federal law.
That law needs to be repealed.
I thought that meant if they had committed federal crimes.
@MoonHowler
“I thought that meant if they had committed federal crimes.”
This is a bit complicated. A plain reading of USC section would indicate that this is at the discretion of the state:
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
Under the “Brady Bill”:
Section 922(g) of the Brady Bill prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
But where this gets sticky is the Fed’s “according to the law” can only regulate those firearms subject to “interstate commerce”. Now, this hasn’t stopped the ATF from claiming jurisdiction over all firearms, and the courts have backed this interpretation for the most part, but the law clearly states its applicability is limited to only those firearms manufactured or transported across state lines.
A plain-reading of the laws would indicate that the governor’s executive actions would make it easier for felons to once again legally possess a firearm, although current VA law prohibits felons from voting, serving on juries, holding certain licenses, AND purchasing/possessing a firearm. This is why I think the Governor failed to think this through, and would have better served the people if he would have instead used the legislative process to achieve “blanket restoration”. I also believe that our AG should have advised the Governor of the potential pitfalls and risks of acting unilaterally.
I am still confused. Thanks for trying though, Steve.
I’ve learned through time share marketing that nothing is ever free and even rejecting a marketing come-ons (to get the free vacation) gives hucksters the ability to hone the message for the next dupe. So no thanks @Steve. I don’t want to help you in your business.
You are a hypochondriac about safety. Like the medical version, you waste precious resources on yourself defending against black swan events and in so doing take resources (or rights) away from others. If the 2nd Amendment is a right to self defense, as we agree, then by demanding that you be allowed to conceal your weapon you prevent me from exercising my right to avoid you to protect myself from gun accidents. Your 2A right can’t be more important than my 2A right unless you think your life is more important than mine. (Well we know you do, but we can’t build policy on that as a universal premise.)
Also, if you goad people with insults in real life like you do on the interwebs, then I can see why you think you need to be prepared for violent response when parking your car or shopping at the grocery store. Spending the same effort in cultivating a more civil demeanor rather than honing your self defense skills could allow you more friends. More friends equals more security as there is protection in numbers through collaboration that is far more valuable than possessing a stealthy gun.
My approach to self defense has kept me alive and without injury and gives me time to live life as I wish. Why should I switch to your violent approach to living life?
@Ed Myers
Ed,
Please explain how my decision to exercise my right, and in the lawful manner I choose to do so, restricts your rights? And since you have no idea as to who is carrying, and cannot discern which people to avoid, who is the real hypochondriac?
I don’t goad people, Ed. I made an offer, a challenge. You fear what you do not understand. A huckster? I make a very generous offer, with real value tied to it. Not sure how you think I’ll somehow benefit financially. All beef. No soy. Ah, just as well.
If Steve carrying a gun doesn’t appreciably increase Steve’s security while simultaneously decreasing everyone else’s security by increasing the risk of accidental death because of negligence or accident, then Steve’s right to hide his gun to incrementally improve his self defense is at odds with everyone else’s right to take note that Steve looks scary and has a gun and for their own self defense put distance between themselves and Steve.
The net safety and security of the community is positive if there are handguns in the hands of only the few few people who are trained and have good safety equipment. When we allow or encourage everyone to carry guns around in hidden places, we have carnage.
If you double the number of handguns sloshing around in public you’ll increase from 50 to 100 per year the number of kids under 2 who kill themselves with a handgun.
.
@ed myers
Ed, While I think most of what you argue is illogical clap-trap, you did manage to touch on a point where we can agree. Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility (as is driving an automobile), and therefore those who choose to exercise their right, also have a responsibility to get training. I’m not talking about the class you take to get a CHP. I am not talking about going to the range a couple times a month, and engaging in practice. I am talking about attending a formal school with professional trainers, teaching skills and techniques (not to mention use of force instruction) suited to the types of encounters an armed citizen may encounter. I offered to pay your way to one of these classes.
I attend these classes regularly, both at my “home school” in Culpepper, and when I can, schools out of the area. I also attend classes were all firearms remain in the holster. These are usually taught by experts in use of force, prosecuting and defense attorneys.
Safety. Yes Ed, I advocate for safety. 32 years I’ve been handling weapons, and I’ve never had a negligent discharge.
Yet, people drive every day, and through their negligence they injure and kill others. For every kid who gets ahold of an unsecured firearm, and tragically shoots someone else, how many kids get killed when an adult backs over them in the driveway?
Ed, if things were as you argue, with 11.1 million CHP’s issued, not to mention those states where no permit for concealed carry is required, you’d think there’d be negligent discharges and collateral damage happening all over the place. But then there’s reality, and in reality this, while tragic, rarely happens. And yet, the most comprehensive studies put lawful Defensive Gun Uses at between 1 and 2.5 million per year.
Ed, you have a greater likelihood of dying in a plane or car crash, than you do being accidentally shot by someone with a lawfully concealed firearm.
@ed myers
Ed, you want to know why I carry, and do so concealed? Here’s why. I’m pasting the relevant parts because I suspect that your “reality” will not permit you to accept challenge, but if I am underestimating your fortitude, here is the link as well: http://www.guns.com/2016/05/12/robber-fatally-shot-after-targeting-father-with-4-year-old-in-mcdonalds-drive-thru-video/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5735a0f304d301432f93160a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
A father of a young boy shot and killed a would-be robber who pulled a gun on him and his child in the drive-thru lane of a McDonald’s in League City, Texas, Saturday afternoon.
“Never would have dreamed in a million years that a McDonald’s drive thru, like blocks from the police station in broad daylight, 2 or 3 o’clock in the afternoon, something like this would happen,” said the man’s attorney, Robert Pelton.
The victim was simply sitting in his truck at the drive-thru around 2 p.m. when the suspect approached him, pointed a gun and announced a robbery. Soon thereafter, a struggle broke out between the two men. The victim, who has not been publicly identified, had only one thing on his mind: Protecting himself and his 4-year-old son who was sitting in the back seat.
The victim shot the suspect three times. He was rushed to a local hospital, where he later died.
Pelton said the man had a valid license to carry a handgun. He said the man remains surrounded by his family, who are offering support, adding that the man is extremely distraught over the incident.
http://www.guns.com/2016/05/12/robber-fatally-shot-after-targeting-father-with-4-year-old-in-mcdonalds-drive-thru-video/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5735a0f304d301432f93160a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
I am sure, had you been in that drive through, you would have struggled with “Does the car in front of me have a concealed weapon? Do I get the #2 with a coke? Is there a vegan-burger option? Oh dear…there’s a guy behind me in a truck. Does he have a concealed weapon? Ummm the apple pie sounds good. Look at that nice man walking up to my window. I wonder what he wants? I hope he’s not a concealed carry permit holder. Those guys are a menace…”
“a lawfully concealed”
All your stats are suspect because you simply scrub your datasets of any occurrence of the use of a handgun that doesn’t support your argument.
The robber was a lawful concealed handgun owner until he used it in the commission of a robbery, and suddenly he wasn’t so you ignore the dead man and claim this was a good gun situation. I see it as a unnecessary death since absent a gun the driver would have driven off unharmed because the robber’s gun was a replica pellet gun. This is the sort of violence that occurs with too many armed people that would be eliminated with fewer guns in the hands of the “good” guys.
Anyone in need of money would pawn a real gun before they resort to robbery. Even if I had a gun I would have given a robber the 50 bucks in my wallet instead of opening fire because even a criminal’s life is worth $50, or, at least the hassle of justifying a shooting. The gun made the driver more aggressive and take riskier actions (shooting in a public place) and a dead man was the result instead of a simple attempted armed robbery.
Note that car doors automatically lock so the supposed thief could not jump in or carjack. A technological solution enhanced safety of the child far more than the gun.
I don’t get your association with one not eating meat as a measure of a lack of character. Do you feel inferior to vegans that you are constantly making snide and sexist remarks about them.
Automobiles are as dangerous as handguns overall but they also provide a tremendous benefit to society. I think automobiles have a higher safety rating than handguns if you compare he hours of operation of each (including criminal use since you don’t just count safe drivers when counting car accidents.) Handguns provide so little benefit and so much death that we would all be safer if they all magically disappeared.
@Ed
Ed,
Just to demonstrate how absolutely ludicrous your reasoning is, I am going to point to a real world example: Last weekend’s NRA convention in Louisville KY. The attendance was over 88,000 people, the vast majority either openly carrying, or carrying concealed. How many accidental or intentional shootings? ZERO. Two weeks before that, the United States Concealed Carry Expo was held in Atlanta. 6,000 members attended that one, most carrying concealed. How many negligent or intentional discharges? ZERO.
Using your reasoning, there should have been lead flying everywhere, and bodies stacked up like cordwood. I mean, all of those people, jostling in lines for food, or seats at a break-out session, or looking for that parking space at the venue. I mean, so many armed citizens…so much potential for tragedy.
But it didn’t happen. It doesn’t happen. Your flawed rationale and weak arguments are proven wrong by what happens in the REAL world, Ed. The world I live in.
A just, wise, and appropriate use of lethal force:
http://katu.com/news/local/man-catches-teens-breaking-into-house-makes-them-call-9-1-1-to-report-themselves
@Steve Thomas
Isn’t brandishing a crime?
@ed
That isn’t illegal brandishing. A threat was imminent (they were in his house, while he was present), there was intent (the broke and entered) there was a disparity of force (3 against 1). He could have shot them, but didn’t. Legally, this would be considered justifiable lethal force, even if he did not fire. He still needed to satisfy the legal requirements, even without shooting.
Let me put it to you this way: all those cops you claim keep sticking guns in your face, were brandishing illegally if you presented no threat to them.
Our police blotter has a negligent gun discharge several times a month and two weeks ago it sent someone to the hospital. I’m not concerned about people who are gun enthusiasts. They generally know that being careless harms their passion and they are reasonably careful. It is the idiots who do the damage. The mother who lets the 2 year old pull the handgun from the purse and shoot her. The kid in the back seat that shoots the driver after finding a gun nearby. Those cases you excommunicate from the gun club church by calling them criminals and then claim all “lawful” gun owners are pure as the driven snow. Rose-tinted glasses indeed.
@Ed
Ed… please post a link to this blotter. If folks in your area are that careless, I want to avoid that area. I know Negligent discharges do happen, but are extremely rare. Negligence is negligence, I do not excuse it. If the negligence rises to a level of criminality, then they should face justice.
But I also think you are…how can I put this…at the very least exaggerating, or perhaps manufacturing out of wholecloth, all of these so-called negative experiences. In other words, I don’t believe you, and your claims fail when facts are applied.
I don’t believe you are real, Ed. I don’t even think you are a man. Not challenging your “masculinity”. I mean I don’t believe that you are an adult male. I think you are a caricature, a farce.
People on this blog know me, personally. Have had coffee or shared a meal with me, They know I am real. You? Not so much. Mongoose beats snake, every time.
Gun stolen and shots fired in this random pick of a recent report.
https://sheriff.loudoun.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1175
You can go through all of them to pick out more examples.
Gun crimes are rarely reported in MSM unless someone is killed because they are not news..they happen so often. Because they aren’t news and gun politics keeps the federal government from collecting the statistics, gun owners keep exaggerating their supposed safety record mostly by classifying negative uses of guns as crimes that ….wait for it….we need more guns to protect against.. The shot spotter and police blotters tell a different story. (The good news is all the gun sales are going in the dwindling number of gun stockpilers instead of increasing the number of households with guns.)
I’ve had multiple bad experience with gun owners and safety. Maybe I’m jaded… Nonetheless I see a net negative in community security when guns are apparel or home security devices.
As for whether I am real: No I am not. I am just a figment of your imagination. I prefer it that way.
@Steve Thomas
@Ed
Thanks for supplying the link. As I read through this, I had expected it to be replete with gun-related crime, Negligent discharges, and innocent bystanders catching stray rounds. Instead, police respond to a report of gunfire, 2 casings collected, no damage, no victim, no indication that the discharge was related to another crime, or if the discharge itself was intentional or negligent. Could it have been a CHP holder? Sure. Could it have been a gang-banger? Sure.
Oh, I do believe that there is a real person typing away, using the name “Ed Myers”. You are certainly not a bot. But as far as being genuine, I believe you are a caricature.
I am not sure Steve is suggesting that all gun owners are innocent.
Ed, do you live locally?