VA Banning CCW on school grounds

M

Mike in VA

New member
Ladies & gentlemen, citizens of VA - here's the text of a letter I sent ot state senator Janet Howell regarding the proposed changes in the law that would totally ban CCW on school property (it's currently legal to be armed if you're dropping kids off at school or just passing by) - Please feel free to plaigerize at will and reuse the parts that may be useful to you:

Dear Senator Howell:
I have been recieving your campaign literature and appreciate your efforts in many areas to improve the quality of life here in northern VA, particularly traffic and transportation. However, I must take issue with your position on banning guns carried by CCW (concealed weapons permit) holders on school property. This makes no sense.

While I understand the basic premise that [unsupervised] kids and guns don't mix, banning those who are otherwise legally qualified to carry a firearm in open society doesn't solve the problem. Besides, it's already illegal for anyone under 18 to have a firearm. Furthermore, it makes a law-abiding citizen into a criminal for doing nothing more than dropping his/her child at school while they are armed. That's bad law.

Perhaps I don't understand the problem. Do you think that CCW holders are a threat? I would point out that I am a former Boy Scout, decorated veteran, taxpayer, voter, and CCW holder ( and a fairly typical one at that). How threatening is that? As a group, we are among the most responsible and law-abiding citizens, and I know of no CCW holder who has ever been a prbloem around a school. To obtain my permit, I had to take a gun safety course (actually, I had my first one around age 10 in the scouts) which included a breifing on gun laws, demostrate proficiency (i.e. prove I can hit what I aim at), and be subjected to a thorough background check by the VA State Police.

CCW holders are not a problem. If anything, I would like to think that if trouble broke out at a school, having a CCW-trained person around would be a asset, much like having someone trained in first aid/CPR present in the event of an accident. Consider the Iraeli experience - terrorists used to target schools for their vile acts (much like the cowards here have), but once teachers, staff and parents armed themselves, the terrorists moved on to easier targets. That SOB that shot up the JCC in CA choose his target because the security was lax, having rejected two other JCCs where security was more apparent. Crimanls are basically cowards and opportunists, why make it easy for them by disarming (and puiblicizing the fact) those who would otherwise protect their kids? We routinely place other things we value in secure repositories to safeguard them, often with armed guards, why do we fail to protect our kids? Would you put a sign in front of your home announcing that it is a "gun-free zone"?

Please reconsider your position on this subject. Another meaningless law that criminalizes otherwise law-abiding citizens does not solve the problem, and it may hinder our ability to protect our children. I know there are no easy answers to this problem, but banning properly licensed permit holders from carrying legal firearms as they transport their children to/from school is just plain dumb.

Sincerely,
Michael J. Muth
Falls Church, VA

Let 'em hear from ya! M2
 
stupid, stupid, stupid! It's NOT the law-abiding people, stupid. Arrrrrghhh. (pulling hair now).

Mike, Outstanding, balanced letter!
 
Mike,

As a fellow Northern Virginian (Fairfax County), I particularly appreciate your letter. Have you considered providing a copy to the Virginia Citizens Defense League (www.vcdl.org)?

What I find continuously frustrating in the "standard antis position" is their absolute inability to understand that "bad guys" (by definition) are not law abiding and are already armed. Honest, responsible, mature citizens - who really are proficient with firearms - are needed to complement law enforcement (with great respect for LEOs - my Dad was a career FBI agent - they simple can't be omnipresent).

We all agree that violence is reprehensible. Recent events, however, force me to ask if an armed, proficient teacher had been at Columbine, stock trader had been in Atlanta, or church member had been in Fort Worth, might those tragedies have been averted or mitigated?

Again, thanks for your letter.
 
Well, here's the good Senator's response:

Dear Mr. Muth,

Thank you for your thoughtful email on guns on school property. I am
thinking over your comments in light of recent tragedies in schools. I agree
that people with concealed carry permits are rarely the problem. However,
sometimes the message that is sent out needs to be clear and unambiguous. No
guns on school property period.

I suspect we will continue to disagree on this subject but I appreciate your
support on other issues I am working on.

Janet Howell

Hmmmmmmmm - so who is the message for senator? It's already illegal for kids (& unlicensed adults)to have guns at school, as is all the [non-self-defensive] stuff one might do with a gun while there. The Senator is obviously a gun-grabber mouthing the usual crap about 'reasonable' gun laws, the whole while following a more draconian agenda.

This basically means a CCW holder must remove all firearms from self & vehicle prior to dropping off/picking up young Grundoon from school, then go home, re-arm and go about one's business. What's the benefit? She's inconveniencing/penalizing a group who she admits isn't a problem. The only thing this does is criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens while further reducing the ability to actually 'protect the children' and further increasing their vulnerability to real threats. Sen. Howell says her opponent is inexperienced, but I guess I'll have to research her position on this issue, as I find it a lot easier to deal with learning curve vs. stupidity and hidden agendas, all other things being equal. I barf on your shoes Janet Howell. M2
 
Mike,

Do you get the feeling she called you, "widdle Mikey"?

Whew! What a pompous (bleep!)! ;)

(Still running the blue light special!)
 
Do you ever get the feeling that all the letter writing that we do just falls on deaf ears and they are going to do what they want to anyway?
No matter how much common sense we hit them with, they seam intent on plowing ahead with their agenda to become like the rest of the world and have "common sense gun control(safety)" the rule of this once free land.
 
Hey, Dennis -
Yeah, I found her response arrogant and condescending, just might have to keep an eye out for a local appearance by her and see if I can ask some embarassing questions. Several come to mind, like 'In light of recent tragedies, where everything the little terdballs did was already illegal, what makes you think another law will help?', 'what makes you think criminalizing legally armed citizens will make the children safer', ' I don't think you're stupid (well, actually, I do, but), why do you think I am?', 'Are you really the first generation of your family to walk upright?', 'why wasn't your father arrested for dating outside his species', etc.

Seriously, I'd love an opportunity to expose her for the idiot/hypocrite that she is, but her opponent is just as anti-self-defense and perhaps a bigger (and less experienced) idiot/hypocrite. No. VA is a strange place, overly affluent with a dearth of common sense and little coincidence with reality. There's some truth in that we get the 'leadership' (sic) we deserve.
Best regards, M2
 
Mike,
"I am thinking over your comments in light of recent tragedies in schools." Looks like she thought them over for all of one sentence. I'm not positive, but I'll bet she already had an opinion formed. (Yes, I'm being facetious.) Is she up for reelection on Nov. 2? We have a gun grabber trying to get the reins in our district (41st). She is running entirely on the gun issue and absolutely nothing else.
 
Is there something in the water these people drink that makes them so convinced of their own importance? We're talking serious arrogance here, like, "Yeah, well, now *I* am going to pass a law, and therefore things will change!" I mean, picture the kids at Columbine, showing up with mass murder and suicide on their teensy sick minds, having a hard time just carrying all those guns and ammo, and they get to the door then "OOoops! I forgot! No guns on school property, period. Durn, I guess we can't kill everybody today, huh."

I mean, why would anybody pay any attention to such a law? And why would she think anybody was going to pay any attention to it?
 
I needed a day or two to calm down enough to respond in a civil manner, so here goes:
Senator -
I hope your response was not intended to be as arrogant and condescending as it sounded. I could almost see you waving a finger in my face, "No guns on school property period". I would remind you that you are an ELECTED official, you don't tell the citizens, we tell you -

So I have a few questions -
Who is this 'message' for? If it's for the criminals, I would point out that in every case of school violence, everything the perpetrators did was already illegal. We have in excess of 20,000 gun laws on the books at various local, state, and federal levels, what makes you think another law
will make a difference? We call them "criminals" because they don't obey
the law. Exactly what benefit do you expect to gain and why?

If it's for me and other CCW holders, save your breath. We already went to the trouble and expense to get licensed. We are not the problem, and could likely be part of the solution. Please recall the incident in GA where a young punk shot four of his school mates. The assistant principal ran to
his car and got his pistol and captured the shooter. If he had had access to his weapon on premise, I suspect things might have turned out quite differently, maybe some of those kids wouldn't have died. If the punk had known there was someone there who could shoot back, maybe he wouldn't have even tried. Why are you harassing a group you admit are not a problem?

Recent studies and research by Prof. John Lott (Un. of Chicago) and Gary Kleck (Florida State Un) indicate that armed citizens deter crimme and save lives. consider this in contrast to recent experience in the UK and Austrailia, where guns have been banned - crime is up across the board, particularly violent crimes. Apparently the criminals don't have much
problem getting guns and unarmed citizens are easy pickin's (nothing new here).

Psychologist Barry Asmus observed that when values are sufficient, laws are unnecessary, but when values are insufficient, laws are irrelevant. While laws sometimes reflect values, but they aren't a subsititue for same, and values cannot be legislated. Changing a law so that it criminalizes
otherwise law abiding citizens certainly doesn't change my values any, but it sure makes me question government. The 2nd amendment was put in place to provide 'The People' with a means of defending themselves from oppressive government. Thomas Jefferson observed that the 2nd Amendment won't have much meaning until they come to take it away. Some say it can't happen here, that it's old, and anachonistic, and
unnecessary. I'm not so sure anymore.

Sincerely,
Michael J. Muth
Falls Church

I don't know if I'll get a reply. I did look into her opponent - she's also very anti-gun and even more of a lightweight than the incumbent. not exactly an alternative. Damn.
M2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top