Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Colgan And Barker Break Another Promise

By Greg L | 8 April 2009 | 39th VA Senate, 29th VA Senate | 25 Comments

Two Democratic Senators switched their votes on HB 1851 (introduced by Scott Lingamfelter R-31st) today and made the difference in upholding the Governor/DNC Chairman’s veto of a bill that would allow active duty and reserve military personnel to be excepted from Virginia’s “one gun a month” rule.  George Barker and Chuck Colgan, who had previously understood that there are cases where military personnel might need to ensure their families had the means for adequate self-defense after they were deployed threw away their convictions in order to sustain another anti-self defense veto by Tim Kaine.  Unfortunately, this isn’t all that much of a surprise.

Virginia’s law limiting firearms purchases to one per month makes no sense at all, but it particularly doesn’t make sense when applied to military personnel stationed in Virginia.  These people who are regularly entrusted with ordinance that ordinary civilians generally can’t even get close to are the last folks we should be concerned with in regards to legally obtaining civillian firearms.  If they need to obtain a second firearm in a month due to a deployment, a change of station, or some other circumstance why would anyone think that doing so would negatively impact public safety?  Chuck?  George?  Can you possibly explain why soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors pose a public safety threat to us if they obtain a second firearm in a one month period?

I notice both of these Senators said on the campaign trail that they fully supported our armed forces and our rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.   So did Governor “Gridlock” Timmy.  Once again, we’ve seen how well some elected officials follow through on what they promised they would do.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

25 Comments

  1. Not Spiro T. Agnew said on 8 Apr 2009 at 10:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    The fact that these two senators who represent large swaths of switched their votes to the detriment of Virginia’s military families is appalling. I recall both of Colgan and Barker campaigned as friends of military families and “moderates” on supporting gun ownership and the Second Amendment.

    It is time for We, the People to let the voters in Prince William know that Colgan and Barker are liberals in the model of Obama, Pelosi, and Barney Frank and not the centrists they claim to be. While our servicemen and women stand guard to defend us, a liberal coalition of state Senators has decided to instead join DNC Chairman Kaine in supporting Obama-style anti-gun policies.

    Shame on Barker and Colgan, and shame on us if we allow this to go unanswered!

  2. Max Power said on 8 Apr 2009 at 11:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’d switch Paul Nichols for Barker in the Senate in a heartbeat

  3. Anonymous said on 8 Apr 2009 at 11:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Off subject but……has anyone heard anything about the investigation of the Manassas Park police officer who allegedly beat up a Salvadoran woman after a traffic stop a month or two ago? Papers and radio were full of the story and a group of latino’s marched in support of the woman. The Virginia State Police were supposed to be investigating the “incident.” The woman according to the paper never filed a formal complaint against the officer. There has been nothing but an errie (sp) silence since the story broke. Is the woman still in the country or has she been deported? I guess they cannot charge someone with filing a false complaint if one was never filed and if the charge (actually happenedaccording to the papers and radio reports) was false, the good name and reputation of a Police Officer has been ruined. It’s funny how stories like this just disappear and are never heard of again. Very similar to the charges brought by the illegal parents of a teenager against a Virginia Trooper a couple of years ago who stopped their son on Rt1 for reckless driving and DUI. The son was handcuffed and placed in the police vehicle, managed to get out of the car and jumped off of a bridge to his death. The parents claimed the police officer threw him off of the bridge. No further information after the initial story as to what a subsequent investigation learned. These stories have a life of their own and the media chooses not to follow-up on them.

  4. NoVA Scout said on 9 Apr 2009 at 6:18 am:
    Flag comment

    I had not been aware of this legislation. What problems were Virginia military families having with regard to obtaining firearms? I assume this was something fairly dramatic or we would not have needed legislation. Fully agree that if military families are out there dying or having their homes invaded during a family member’s deployment because they only have one weapon at hand, we need to do something about it pronto. It’s disgraceful. I just had missed all this mayhem.

  5. Emma said on 9 Apr 2009 at 7:01 am:
    Flag comment

    I fully support the second amendment, but maybe someone can explain to me why military famillies should have the benefit of more protection at home than my own family. Why create special classes of people with more rights than others? And please don’t start bashing me because you think I’m somehow anti-military–anyone who knows me would know that is very far from the truth.

    And how many firearms can one person handle at one time? Sorry, but if I thought my house was being invaded while my husband was absent, I doubt I’d have time to have 2 or three firearms ready to greet the intruder.

  6. citizenofmanassas said on 9 Apr 2009 at 7:21 am:
    Flag comment

    What do you expect from Colgan?

  7. NoVA Scout said on 9 Apr 2009 at 8:12 am:
    Flag comment

    Emma, apparently there have been instances (if I read Greg’s post correctly) of under-armed military families being attacked in their Virginia homes while a spouse is deployed overseas and the number of weapons on hand at the time of the assault being inadequate to resist the attacks. I assume these were siege-like conditions, since most home defense scenarios with firearms usually involve one weapon and often do not even involve an exchange of gunfire. But, if, like these other Virginians, you found yourself with your children under siege for hours or days, by firearm wielding miscreants who figured out that your husband was off in Iraq, you might find that the two or three weapons that you acquired over the previous couple of months before his deployement would become useless (like if the barrels melt or warp or something), and that there would not be enough extra weapons to hand out to the kids. It could get really dicey. That’s no doubt why Mr. Lingamfelter thought this would be a necessary thing to put an end to these situations. I still am kicking myself, a rather avid reader of newspapers and consumer of other news media, for missing all this right here in the Old Dominion. It must be that the Mainstream Media are covering up these situations. Since they are targetted at military families whose spouses are on deployment, that’s why the bill is drafted the way it is.

    Did I get that right?

  8. Anonymous said on 9 Apr 2009 at 8:49 am:
    Flag comment

    I’m one of those military families. While I certainly appreciate folks who stick up for “us and ours”, I think the premise is a bit far fetched. I haven’t heard of a single instance where a Military Family was put in danger because they weren’t “armed enough” (and that would have been “news” on base or off).

    I would prefer those who support us to lobby for Veterans benefits rather than focus on “fringe issues”… but thanks for any support in any case.

  9. Big Dog said on 9 Apr 2009 at 9:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous,
    I posted the same question on this blog
    several days ago — what happened with the charges
    made by Aqueda Dominquez that she was roughed
    up by a Manassas Park police officer at a traffic stop?
    It got huge media play with the WaPo and DC TV
    foaming with their Pavlovian “rednecks go nuts
    near Manassas” stories — and then zip - nothing.
    What is happening? Did she file charges? Is there
    a court date? Or, as I think, was this all made up BS
    to get attention for her and “the cause”?
    Part of this was the march, gotta march,
    from MP, through Manassas (with streets blocked
    and MCPD providing security) to the Courthouse
    for a candlelight vigil (for more drama, some of
    of the marchers were barefoot “to share the pain
    of Dominquez”). Did this all turn out to be a
    publicity stunt?

  10. citizenofmanassas said on 9 Apr 2009 at 10:02 am:
    Flag comment

    There should never be a limit on how many guns a person can own, as long as they are legally allowed to of course.

    Sorry, but you have provided your opinion too many times this month, so you are not allowed to voice your opinion again until next month.

    Do we put a limit of how many times we are allowed to use the 1st Amendment? So, why have a limit on the 2nd?

  11. I Bleed Obama Blue said on 9 Apr 2009 at 10:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Citi,

    There is no limit to the number of legal guns one may own.

    As I understand the one-handgun-per-month law, it is designed to thwart handgun trafficing, where a person buys, say, 10 handguns in Roanoke today, drives to NYC, and sells them illegally tomorrow for 100 - 500% more than they paid for the guns. Handgun trafficing has been a serious problem in NYC and other cities, and VA has been a primary supplier to the handgun trafficing industry.

    I don’t see any particular need to exempt active duty military from such a ban.

  12. Emma said on 9 Apr 2009 at 10:54 am:
    Flag comment

    Impose the 1-per-month ban on EVERYONE, lift it for EVERYONE. Don’t we have enough special classes of people who are exempt from the rules everyone else has to follow? Aren’t my kids’ lives just as valuable as the lives of a soldier’s children?

  13. NoVA Scout said on 9 Apr 2009 at 11:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Emma: what about military families who are targetted and besieged in their homes? Consider this: what if you were in a constant firefight over the course of a month or more with banditos entrenched outside your house? After thousands of rounds are exchanged, one by one your weapons begin to jam or malfunction. The rifling is worn and gummed up, the action has become sticky and halting. You don’t have time to clean the weapons properly, because you have to keep a blanket of defensive fire going to prevent the besiegers from moving their earthworks closer and closer to your walls. You have no more weapons to give to the children, because when you were constructing your armory, you were limited to one gun a month. Your husband won’t be home from his submarine deployment for weeks. Wouldn’t you want to be able to buy more guns? Your legislators (except for Colgan and Barker) are looking out for you. It’s not like they’re going to allow themselves to be distracted by the Commonwealth’s finances, roadbuilding, education (what good is education for your kids if those guys finally break through) or that sort of silly s .

  14. Anonymous said on 9 Apr 2009 at 11:37 am:
    Flag comment

    There was an interesting subject on WMAL this morning concerning the “impending amnesty” for ALL illegal aliens in the country. Rep. Guiteriez from (where else) Chicago has been going around the country and holding sessions with latinos re the amnesty. The latinos have been telling him that Obama owes them for their votes in the last election. A caller made a statement that he had “inside” knowledge on the latino reaction and said they are calling their relatives overseas. Get ready for the next massive influx of illegals in the next few months.

  15. citizenofmanassas said on 9 Apr 2009 at 11:44 am:
    Flag comment

    I bleed,

    Thanks for pointing that out, I meant to say there should not be a limit to how often someone should be able to buy a gun, which matches up to what I said about the 1st Amendment.

    Sounds like NY has a lot of bad people. Maybe NY should take care of their criminals instead of trying to impose their anti American attitude on Virginia.
    Just because NY is full of criminals should not impact our laws here.

    Hillary is trying to push the same BS with regard to the drug gangs in Mexico. Yes there is a drug issue here, but why would that force someone in Mexico to want to not only break the laws of that Nation, but also this Nation?

    If you see a car parked on the side of the road with the keys in the ignition, are you going to steal it?

  16. Max Power said on 9 Apr 2009 at 12:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Pennsylvania doesn’t have one gun a month, seems like it would be much quicker and easier to buy a trunk load there and bring them back to New York instead of Virginia

  17. mnd said on 9 Apr 2009 at 1:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    You guys are missing that this was a bill designed to chip away at the One Handgun a Month law. The intent was not to provide military servicemen with extra privileges but to continue to push back the number of people impacted by this law.

  18. citizenofmanassas said on 9 Apr 2009 at 2:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mnd,
    There is no need to have such a restriction military or otherwise. I guess those that supported the law wanted military members to have the same acess as CHP holders, who are exampt from the law.

  19. PWC_Gal said on 9 Apr 2009 at 4:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    NOVAScout:
    Nice snark. FWIW, some military families are at greater risk. My husband testified in open court in Iraq against some very bad guys, knowing that our family would be targeted. He himself was targeted for assassination while in the AO, and they came pretty damn close to being successful. Prior to this, I did not own a gun nor had any desire to. Now, we have several and everyone in the household knows how to use them, including our 11 yo daughter, along with other security measures that I never thought I would have to be aware of. Sorry, I don’t plan on waiting for the police to perhaps show up and then hang around the outside of my house for an hour or so until they decide it’s safe for them to enter. Binghamton NY is the latest example that affirms that many in the policing field are more interested in protecting property (due to the large amt of $$ that the insurance industry throws at them) than actual security of individuals.

    Somehow, I don’t think this is an issue you have to contend with, and I am happy for you. Of course, if your family is the victim of a home invasion, I am sure you will be completely understanding of your “visitors” and give them a warm welcome. Cause home invasions never, ever happen in the burbs, and if they do, it’s because the invaders were “misunderstood” and somehow justified. Right?

    I realize that we have been out of the state on orders for awhile, but this development surprises me. When I last personally purchased firearms I was told the limit was “3 per day”, and even that restriction had created much hue and cry. When did that get downgraded to “1 per month”? And the non-blue part of VA just let that go down without a peep? WTH is happening in VA?

    If a prospective gun owner has completed certified training on how to use and secure firearms properly, then what difference does it make whether that individual buys 1 or 100? That’s like saying a properly trained and licensed driver can only have “x” number of vehicles. And, no, I don’t think that “military” need an exemption that is not available to any citizen who can demonstrate that they have been properly trained how to use firearms. I feel everyone who wants to own firearms should have to have training, much like getting behind the wheel of a car, and a reasonable person could sign off on an exemption for military for that. But aside from the proof of certification/training side, I don’t see why “military” need any special exemptions.

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea that gun purchases have been so severely restricted and everyone seems okay with that.

    I’m getting pretty darn weary of all this interventionist crap and the continual erosion of liberty. The progs need to focus their attention on making individuals accountable for their choices (ie, “responsibility”) rather than expanding their nanny state.

    Must go and finish putting the final touches on our Tea Party placards and wardrobe.

  20. Pat.Herve said on 9 Apr 2009 at 7:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Can you point to any instance where a military family needed more than two (one per adults) handguns per month?

    This is just trying to make a story where there is no story.

  21. citizenofmanassas said on 9 Apr 2009 at 7:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Pat Herve,

    The story is we have anti-American and anti- Constitutional elected officials who want to take our rights away.

    Would you be willing to support a limit of how many times one can voice their opinion?

  22. NoVA Scout said on 9 Apr 2009 at 8:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ms PWC Gal:

    Unauthorized nighttime visitors at the Scout estate who don’t knock before entering will be warmly welcomed by a 110 pound guard dog whose mission in life, besides loving me and my daughters truly, madly, deeply, is to create enough ruckus to enable me to grab my good friend Mr. SIG. He completes the Welcome Wagon duties. My “snark” was about legislation that seemed to be based on the idea that military families needed relief from the 1 gun/month rule. If you thought I was endorsing some sort of ban on military families having weapons, you misread the comment. I agree with others that if there is a problem with 1 gun a month, it extends beyond military families. However, in my case, no matter how many guns I buy a month, one will be all I can handle if I get one of those nighttime visits.

  23. Anonymous said on 12 Apr 2009 at 8:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout said on 9 Apr 2009 at 8:23 pm: Flag comment

    Ms PWC Gal:

    Unauthorized nighttime visitors at the Scout estate who don’t knock before entering will be warmly welcomed by a 110 pound guard dog whose mission in life, besides loving me and my daughters truly, madly, deeply, is to create enough ruckus to enable me to grab my good friend Mr. SIG.

    MUY, MUY MACHO!

  24. manassascityresident said on 13 Apr 2009 at 9:54 am:
    Flag comment

    Click on the link below and give Obama a grade.

    I bet MSNBC is shocked that so far, he’s ranking a strong “F”……
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/

  25. Red, White and Blue said on 14 Apr 2009 at 9:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Duck Colgan - Called his office 3 straight days - sent a Fax, sent an email and asked for a reply. Never heard from him or his so-called assistant. Nothing, zero, zip, nada. He is worthless except for deals for his airport.

    Duck, you are worthless. Just quit. Go away. I don’t need anymore royalty running my life. Even if you disagreed, I deserve a call. You and your assistant failed to ever followup on a simple request.

    Oh great prince, forgive me for contacting you, your grace.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1320