Virginia AG candidate Steve Shannon sticks to his gun control

For the past eight years in Virginia, pro-gun Attorneys General Bob McDonnell and Jerry Kilgore issued a number of formal and informal opinions supporting gun rights. The formal opinions include declarations that gun owners have the “universal” right to carry handguns concealed and openly in the Old Dominion except where specifically forbidden by the General Assembly, that high school students may store unloaded guns in vehicles on school grounds, and that adults may carry guns to school board meetings except when the meetings are held on school grounds.

Both past Attorneys General, along with the current Republican nominee for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, have all opposed banning private sales of guns at gun shows while supporting repeal of the Virginia ban on concealed carry in restaurants serving alcohol. But not Democratic AG nominee Steve Shannon – this Northern Virginia lawyer is sticking to his gun control.

As a Delegate to the General Assembly earlier this year, Shannon voted against a bill to repeal the ban on concealed carry in alcohol serving restaurants, Shannon assured the Examiner.com that he remains committed to opposing efforts to reform Virginia’s onerous ban on concealed carry in restaurants even though only 9 other states have such laws.

When Shannon’s campaign was asked to explain his support for maintaining existing Virginia law which requires concealed handgun permit holders open carry their guns into restaurants serving alcohol, Shannon’s spokesperson Miranda Blue provided the following written statement by Shannon:

"I support our concealed carry laws except in bars or other places where alcohol is served.”

Blue also said that Shannon “supports closing the gun show loophole.” But when asked to explain why Mr. Shannon supports limiting private sales of guns inside gun shows where police monitor the premises when such sales would remain legal elsewhere in public parking lots, through newspaper ads, or at garage sales, etc., Blue to deferred to Shannon who supplied the following written statement:

"I believe that everybody who purchases a gun at a gun show should go through an instant background check.”

Shannon’s vote to maintain the open carry requirement in restaurants serving alcohol was out of step with his fellow legislators by a 2-1 margin in the House of Delegates, and bills to ban private gun sales at gun shows never passed either house. Gun rights organizers note that Virginia is like 35 other states which do not interfere in private non-dealer sales of guns, and that only two states, Colorado and Oregon, have singled out gun shows as inappropriate locales for private sales. A 2008 study by the Universities of Maryland and Michigan concluded that "[t]he absence of gun show regulations does not increase the number of gun-related deaths as proponents of these regulations suggest."

But what irks gun rights organizers the most is Shannon’s lack of any articulable policy rationale for his positions.

“Insisting that we need to fix something that doesn’t exist does not stir gun owners to support candidates” said Philip Van Cleave, President of the Virginia citizens Defense League, speaking about the alleged gun show loophole.
“Freedom is the loophole that Shannon really wants to close, and come on,” added Van Cleave, “why would anyone choose to force open carry in a public restaurant?”

By: Mike Stollerwerk, DC Gun Rights Examiner

Burnett: Campus gun legislation merely clarifies gun rights

There's been quite a stir recently over a bill in the Michigan Legislature that would prevent colleges from making up their own rules about guns on campus. As with any contentious legislation, there's information and misinformation flying back and forth until it's hard to know what's right and wrong.

Here's what it boils down to.

Concealed carry on college campuses is legal, except in dormitories, stadiums and classrooms. In fact, Michigan State University modified its rules of conduct about weapons back in the summer of 2009 because they recognized a conflict between their rules and state law.

Police told citizens (whether students or just people driving by) that they were breaking the law and couldn't have weapons on campus. However, officials refused to prosecute because no laws had been broken. MSU voted almost unanimously to eliminate this conflict and comply with the law. (Like other schools in the nation that allow lawful possession of firearms, MSU has not seen a spike in violence.)

The same conflict still exists with other colleges who want citizens arrested for breaking their rules. In fact, the Michigan State Police support the current bill because it removes confusion about what's legal on campus. (Perhaps law enforcement is tired of having colleges telling state officers to enforce nonexistent laws?)

Critics like the Brady Campaign falsely claim the law would allow loaded weapons into classrooms and dormitories, creating greater problems for colleges who should focus on banning guns. But the current bill doesn't change who can carry, or when, or where. It only tells colleges that the Legislature, not college boards, creates laws you can be arrested for breaking. Concealed carry in dorms and classrooms would still be illegal under a separate law.

Colleges argue that they have the right to regulate their own campus. But is it really "their" campus, and do they really have that right?

If public colleges suddenly outlawed certain kinds of speech, would they have the right to arrest people who speak their minds? How much autonomous authority can a public institution presume to have, issuing rules that supersede present laws and suspend a right as fundamental as self-defense - and then insisting that police arrest those who don't comply? Private colleges may have this luxury. Public institutions supported by taxpayer dollars don't.

Other arguments against the bill are based on fear about what an individual would do if allowed to carry a gun on campus.

These fears assume Michigan residents in compliance with current firearms laws are actually latent criminals, restrained only by the knowledge that if they commit a crime on campus, the college will suspend them. Or that citizens who have safely carried their guns everywhere else the law allows will suddenly go ballistic upon reaching campus.

Ultimately, it's about who you trust. Would you rather trust a criminal to abide by a written code and not carry a gun, or trust a peaceful and state-authorized citizen to carry a gun?

By: Lansing State Journal