Quote of the Day: VA Governor McAuliffe: Domestic Abuse Victims Are Better Off Disarmed

“Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has vetoed legislation that would allow people protected under a court order to carry a hidden handgun without getting a permit. McAuliffe, a Democrat, said Friday that the bill ‘perpetuates the dangerous fiction’ that domestic violence victims would be safer if they were armed. Democrats have generally opposed the bill, saying it would encourage victims of abuse to introduce guns into already dangerous situations.” – McAuliffe Vetoes Concealed Guns for Victims Bill [via usnews.com]

comments

  1. avatar Donjinn says:

    No words describe the embarassment we Virginians have for this idiot, or for the way VA dems ran a false Libertarian candidate to steal the election from Ken Cuccinelli.

    Thankfully, McAwful’s term in office is almost up.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      We are victims of DC liberal spillover in NoVA. I am a New Yorker by birth and they have the same problem. NYC, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties are all liberal, the rest of the state not so much. But liberals seem to procreate like rabbits. So 10% of the land mass has 55% of the population.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        Educated, middle-class folks have been hovering around self-replacement for decades. OTOH, the government dependent, marginally literate illegals they are so fond of, do in fact, breed like rabbits.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        It’s not procreation. Birth rates in NYC and most liberal enclaves are low, comparatively. But urbanization continues and the divide between cities and rural communities is starker and starker.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Hannibal,

          If birthrates are relatively low in most Progressive enclaves, how are their populations and urbanization expanding?

          Answers:
          (1) I don’t agree that birth rates are low. While middle-upper and upper class Progressives may have relatively low birthrates, lower class birth rates are quite high.
          (2) Progressive adherents begin procreating at a much younger age. Over time, their population increases faster than non-Progressives because Progressives are producing more generations before dying off.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Hannibal,

          How often do you see Conservative and Libertarian families with three children before the mother is 23 years old? Basically never. How often do you see lower-class Progressive families with three children before the mother is 23 years old? Quite often.

          It starts with a lower class Progressive woman having her first child when she is 17 years old and drops out of high school. She has her second child when she is 19 years old, and her third when she is 21 years old. Compare that to a Conservative family where the wife has her first child when she is 25 years old (and often times not until she is in her late 20s or even early 30s).

          When you plot this out over time, a demographic who starts having children at age 17 will out-populate a demographic who doesn’t start having children until their late 20s.

          And here is another problem with Conservatives and Libertarians waiting so long to have children: the children tend to have more health problems which further weakens Conservatives and Libertarians who have to exert a fair amount of time, money, and energy to deal with those health problems.

          Make no mistake: whoever has more children and starts having them at a younger age will be stronger than demographics who have fewer children and start having them at an older age.

        3. avatar Huntmaster says:

          We are also letting them have our children. I many parents are lamenting the fact that they send their children away to college and they come back as liberal zombies. For many the process starts much younger.

        4. avatar Gman says:

          Don’t you mean darker and darker?

        5. avatar neiowa says:

          uncommon – You confuse the progtards with their slaves. The progs run the dem operation. Population growth is foreign born.

          Average for conservative leaning couples in my area would be 3 kids. Dems avg would be 2.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Gman,

        But liberals seem to procreate like rabbits. So 10% of the land mass has 55% of the population.

        If a society is largely devoid of traditional Christian values, “might makes right”. And the four primary elements of “might” (as in strength/power) are:
        (1) offensive capability (including arms)
        (2) technology
        (3) money
        (4) population

        I should not have to say it: population is a key element of strength all by itself and it is a crucial factor in the other three elements.

        The single biggest failing of people who oppose Progressive society: small families. Seriously.

        1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

          Not wasting much of your resources on something you don’t want is a “failing”? It sounds like you can’t control yourself and are trying to paint that as a virtue.

        2. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

          uncommon_sense:

          Looking at it, my reply comes off a lot more adversarial than I intended. I wrote to too quickly after just waking up. It was meant to be just a little snarky, but went off the rails. I apologize for the wholly unsupported accusation.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          ActionPhysicalMan,

          I appreciate your early morning fogginess. It happens to all of us. (It happens to me well past morning.)

          I fully understand that some people do not want large families. They are entitled to that choice … along with its consequences. And a consequence of small families is that a demographic who has larger families will rule over the demographic with small families.

          It is no different than deciding to use heroin. If you want to shoot up and get high on heroin, that is your choice. A consequence of that choice: you might die if the heroin that you shoot up is more concentrated than normal or laced with a poison. And so it is with a society’s strength. A society that chooses to be weak is choosing for a stronger society to rule over them.

      4. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “So 10% of the land mass has 55% of the population.”

        Yeah, just think about the possibilities when a particularly virulent and lethal contagion inevitably pops up and says… “Hi there!”.

        *sniff* *sneeze* *cough* 🙂

        1. avatar Gman says:

          You are correct. Our congregated population centers are nothing but fodder in such a scenario. They are consumers, not producers. Without all of the modern conveniences and food delivery systems they will eat their own to survive. I remember back in the 80’s some moron put 5 aircraft carriers in order CVN65, CV66, CV67, CVN68 & CVN69 at the piers in Norfolk and took a picture. Finally, someone with a brain saw that picture and had what seems to me to be quite a logical thought, gee one bomb and half our fleet is gone. Hence strategic home porting to spread the fleet out. 65% of our population lives in cities and that demographic is extremely vulnerable to any upset in normal daily life.

      5. avatar KBonLI says:

        Actually Suffolk County was a BLUE county during the last election.

    2. avatar Ollie says:

      McAuliffe wants to protect those 250,000 criminals he released from getting shot so that they can help to re-elect him.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        He is ineligible for re-election.

        1. avatar Bob Jones says:

          He’ll be back in 2021.
          Virginia law only bars consecutive terms.
          Unless he is elected president in 2020.

    3. avatar Missouri Mule says:

      Consider this: is Governor McAuliffe right for all the wrong reasons? Or at least wrong for a different reason? Doesn’t special speedy ccw permits create yet another group of people who are MORE EQUAL than others?

      Why should ANY group get special treatment for a constitutional right?

  2. avatar Gman says:

    ‘perpetuates the dangerous fiction’ that domestic violence victims would be safer if they were armed.

    Tell that to Carol Bowne. I wonder where liberals come up with this stuff.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      Think McAuliffe wants to give up his ARMED security? All these jackasses like McAuliffe, Bloomberg, Pelosi, Obama, etc. want to disarm and keep others defenseless while they are protected by armed security.

      Scumbags.

  3. avatar Ollie says:

    McAuliffe is a Criminal Maggot Leech.
    On the other hand, people generally have the government they deserve.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      So, we deserved barry?

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        The majority of the country voted for Barry, so, yes. Our Constitution provides limited protection from the tyranny of the majority. When that fails, the only solution is separation, such as when southern states attempted to secede circa 1860, or the California rumblings of today.

  4. This man is incredibly sad.

  5. avatar Aven says:

    We have our Idiot in Chief in Richmond because the democrats used the same strategy that failed for Hillary. They concentrated on 4 blue spots in the state where the population centers are and they funded a fake Libertarian to steal votes from the republican candidate. Those outside of Northern Virginia, Tidewater, Richmond and Albemarle County are ignored and carpetbaggers, northern invaders and Immigrants vote reliably for the democrat and the real Virginians lose. The state I have lived in for 69 years has abandoned us.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      No… , It was colonized, again. Just like Europe, unlike Virginia who couldn’t really do much about it, is being colonized and the idiots don’t have a clue.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      If Trump succeeds in “Draining the Swamp” in firing these progtard carpetbaggers, brought in by Obumer, leave/go home?

  6. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I was talking to a lady who had a relative that stabbed her spouse because he was beating her since she wouldn’t give up her pay check so he could get high; SHE NEEDED A GUN. If this moron thinks that people who are doing this stuff will stop because of a piece of paper he is an idiot. Death is about the only thing a lot of them fear, and even then that can be sketchy.

  7. avatar Chris Morton says:

    The message is clear: Domestic violence should be dangerous ONLY for the VICTIM.

    I imagine McAuliffe found some justification in Sharia law…

    1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

      Yep. The bottom line is that these leftist anti-liberty types just prefer that people be dead rather than self-reliant.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Democrats have generally opposed [legislation that would allow people protected under a court order to carry a hidden handgun without getting a permit], saying it would encourage victims of abuse to introduce guns into already dangerous situations.” — usnews.com

    First of all, I laugh at the notion of “people protected under a court order”: I have yet to find anyone who can explain how a piece of paper (a court order) truly protects anyone from anything.

    More importantly, Democrats are implicitly stating that domestic violence victims will be in even more danger if they are armed. Not only is that untrue, it is irrelevant either way since neither the presence nor absence of a firearm prevents an attacker from instigating deadly sneak-attacks. Remember, a domestic violence perpetrator is an assassin. And an assassin is almost guaranteed to succeed if they have even the tiniest bit of patience and ability to plan.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Reality Injection:

      Suppose that an ex-husband decides that he wants to severely injure/kill his ex-wife and is determined to do so. There are any number of ways that he can ambush the ex-wife and succeed. In many of those scenarios, the wife has no chance even if she is armed. More importantly, her armed status does not increase her ex-husband’s chance of successfully killing his ex-wife. Most important of all, her armed status significantly increases her chance of surviving in at least some scenarios.

      So, if the wife is armed, it does not increase the probability that her ex-husband kills her. And in many scenarios it does not increase the probability that the wife will survive. In still other scenarios, it does increase the probability that the wife will survive. Therefore, whether or not the ex-wife arms herself should be her decision and her decision alone. The state (Virginia in this case) has no righteous authority to dictate that decision to the ex-wife.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        There is nothing preventing a Virginia resident from obtaining and carrying a firearm at any time, assuming that person is not one of the standard prohibited types. The only law involved here is concealed carrying, and the punishment for actually getting caught during the 30 or so days it takes to get a permit is a misdemeanor. So, given the circumstances, getting and carrying, if that is so desired, is not prohibited by law.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Judged by 12 or carried by 6?

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Neither cities nor police departments are responsible for failing to enforce restraining orders or protect citizens. Castle Rock v. Gonzales

  9. avatar Gman says:

    Sure seems like a war on woman to me. I sure hope the woman of our state remember this when they next vote. Democrats care nothing about abused woman when doing so would cross their base donors (Bloomberg).

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Plural of “woman” is “women.”

      1. avatar Gman says:

        Information assimilated. Have a happy, happy, joy, joy day.

      2. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Thank you for the contribution on this topic.

  10. avatar Gman says:

    Several years ago my wife and I applied for our carry permits here in VA at the same time. 3 days after submitting, my wife got a call from a city detective. He needed her to come and get served. She asked him served for what? His response was that she can’t get a CHP because she is the subject of a protective order. She asked him the name of the person on the order. It was the young man who was stalking our 16 year old daughter and HE was the subject, not us. The detective replied, OH SHIT and said I’ll call you right back. A couple of hours later he called and apologized for the error and we had our permits in the mail two days later. So if my wife had been pulled over, with an openly carried firearm in her possession, she would have been carted of to jail had this not been corrected. So much for protective orders…

    1. avatar dwb says:

      That is pure govt incompetence, nothing to do with protective orders.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Protective orders and government incompetence frequently intersect with disastrous results.

  11. avatar matt says:

    this makes me sick as a virginian

    fucking northerners ruining our great state

    1. avatar Gman says:

      This make me angry; as a Virginian. Just not very surprised.

  12. avatar Shire-man says:

    Feminism and women’s lib have been co-opted thoroughly and completely.
    Who would have thought a feminist would march in support of a culture of child brides, female slavery and genital mutilation? Who would have thought that a feminist would not only voluntarily disarm but demand with frantic outrage that her fellow women do the same?

    It’s like some bizarro world insanity where all the new wave “feminists” are digging up the first wavers, wrapping their bones in burkas, pissing on them and reburying them.

    Every thing done today in the name of “feminism” is straight up support of institutional slavery and holding women to third class status.

  13. avatar dwb says:

    Virginia is a constitutional open carry state anyway, so I don’t know what McCauliflower thinks he actually stopping.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      See now, there you go with the same mistake so often repeated. You assumed he can think.

      1. avatar Ah Clem says:

        golf clap.

  14. avatar Rick Taylor says:

    Anytime I feel that I may be in danger I will be armed. It is just foolish to do otherwise. I’ll take my chances with the law but I think no one should ever be placed in that position.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Anytime I feel that I might be in danger I will keep a fire extinguisher in my home. If I feel safe, I’ll throw them all out. As RF has so eloquently posited so often here, home, where we feel most safe, is where we are most likely to be assaulted. One cannot predict when violence will visit. All you are doing is conning yourself into a false sense of security.

  15. avatar BTP says:

    MacAwful cares about victims of domestic abuse plenty. It’s just that he cares about disarming the American people more. You gotta have priorities.

  16. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “You can’t kill me Abusive Partner, I have a piece of paper from the State that says so!”

    Is this the reality these people are trying to live in? And we let them out on the streets without adult supervision?

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Pardon me but don’t I usually see lots of “no special carveout” comments? This isn’t New Jersey or NYC . She can get a gun like everyone else and carry pepper and edged weapons until she can. And certainty have a shotgun in her home…or am I wrong about Virginia? Yeah the governor sounds lije an idiot.

    1. avatar CueBaller says:

      So a liberal hippy housewife who has no use for guns and believes that the world is full of puppy dogs, rainbows and sunshine should be shit out of luck when her world comes crashing down to reality at the hands of an abusive husband, simply because she never bothered to get her carry permit before?

      I see this as similar to the cities/states who’ve passed laws which allow anyone not otherwise prohibited to carry concealed during a state of emergency (aftermath of hurricane, earthquake, tornado, etc) to protect themselves from the spike in crime that always follows.

      It’s not a carve-out… it’s a temporary pass.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Scroll down a bit…this is a NON-issue .

  18. avatar K Maiden says:

    Yet again, a political elite knows whats best for his unwashed serfs. Listen up little ones, only government knows what best for you. We will protect you with our laws, and paper work. All you have to do is earn money to feed us and obey. Oh yes, you will OBEY.

  19. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    I don’t know anything about VA CCW law, but is it so hard for anyone to get a permit to carry? in other words, is it really necessary to carve out yet more exceptions?

    1. avatar Gman says:

      No, all it takes is getting a class and paying about $75. All of which usually takes 45-60 days. A lot can happen in that time. In VA, one can purchase a firearm is 30 minutes or less. Open carry is not prohibited. All this legislation provided for was to allow someone who was under a protective order to carry concealed for the time it took to get a permit.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Good to know. Another meaningless TTAG post…

    2. avatar Aven says:

      I received my CC permit renewal last week. It’s not hard to get a permit in Virginia. I took an online course that cost me $19.95 and it took me well under an hour to get my certificate. I took it to the Clerk of the Court in my home county. I filled out the application, they notirized my signature and took my $50. I got y permit back in the mail in exactly 2 weeks. The renewal worked the same way except I didn’t have to do anything momre than sign the renewal application in front of a notary, give them another $50 and wait 2 weeks. I’m sure it is slower in cities but if you haven’t received your permit within 45 days, you can carry as if you have it.

  20. avatar Michael Ejercito says:

    This begs the question.

    Why stop at prohibiting persons convicted of domestic violence from carrying firearms?

    Why not prohibit them from marrying?

    Or having any sort of intimate relationship?

    Or practicing law or medicine?

    Why not require them to wear a distinctive emblem on their left sleeve?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email