Virginia Gov. McAuliffe Introduces One Gun A Month, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, Revocation of Handgun Permits for Delinquent Child Support, Gun Show Monitoring and Advertising Restrictions

Virginia Givernor Mcauliffe introducews a raft of disarmament bills (courtesy

Virginia may be for lovers, but not lovers of firearms freedom. Governor McAuliffe has introduced a raft of firearms bills which would curtail gun rights in Old Dominion. The official press release (after the jump) provides all the disarmament deets, wrapped-up in the usual public safety blather. While the GOP controlled legislature ain’t going there, McAuliffe had to; former New York City Mayor and current Everytown for Gun Safety anti-ballistic bully boy Michael Bloomberg was a major donor to McAuliffe’s 2013 gubernatorial campaign . . .

Prohibit the possession of firearms for persons subject to protective orders
According to the American Journal of Public Health, when a gun is present in domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increases by 500%. This proposal will aim to prevent domestic violence tragedies from occurring in Virginia by prohibiting the possession of firearms for persons subject to protective orders, which covers acts of violence against family members, inter-partner violence, and other dangerous behaviors.

Prohibit the possession of firearms for misdemeanor domestic violence offenders
Past violence is one of the biggest predictors of future violence, as handgun purchasers with violent misdemeanor convictions are 8 times more likely than those without prior convictions to be convicted of a new violent offense. This proposal will aim to stop that disturbing trend by prohibiting possession of firearms for certain misdemeanor offenses, including stalking, sexual battery, assault and battery against a family or household member, brandishing a firearm, and having two more convictions of assault and battery.

Curtail handgun trafficking by reinstating the one handgun a month law
As a gun owner and a supporter of the Second Amendment, Governor McAuliffe believes in the right to bear arms, but in a responsible way that prevents dangerous people from stockpiling and trafficking dangerous weapons. This common-sense measure, which was Virginia law for 19 years, limits handgun purchases to one a month and aims to reduce the chances of handguns causing violent tragedies in Virginia and across the nation.

Revoke concealed handgun permits for parents delinquent on child support payments
In order to build a new Virginia economy, it is essential that parents are receiving support payments and are able to provide for their children and families. Currently, there are 8889 parents with concealed handgun permits delinquent on child support payments, collectively owing over $15,675,000.

Keep handguns out of the wrong hands by closing the gun show loophole
Under current Virginia Law, only Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers are required to conduct criminal background checks prior to selling or transferring firearms.  At gun shows, private vendors are not required to conduct criminal background checks, creating an easy avenue for criminals to illegally gain access to guns. Governor McAuliffe’s legislative proposal changes that, requiring universal background checks for all purchases at gun shows.

Give Virginia State Police authority to process voluntary background check requests
Today, the Virginia State Police does not have the authority to process background check requests even when they have been submitted to them by private vendors. This proposal will give Virginia State Police the statutory authority to do so. Governor McAuliffe also is including an additional $100,000 in his budget to ensure that the Virginia State Police will be at every gun show in Virginia and available to perform these voluntary background checks.

Make unlawful purchases more difficult by clarifying what information can be displayed by gun show vendors
Today, gun shows can advertize that they are not required to conduct background checks, creating an easy environment to solicit business from individuals legally prohibited from buying firearms. This common-sense proposal will reduce the chance of dangerous people from illegally obtaining firearms at gun shows by preventing gun shows from advertising that they are not required to conduct background checks.


  1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    WTF! Virginia the gauntlet has been thrown!

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Hmmm…….more like in Virginia, the pants have been dropped. And Virginia gunowners are going to take, long and hard, and they’re going to like it.

      You see, conservatives, in Virginia, or even in so-called liberal strongholds like CT or MD, actually do have the votes to win. Fact is, this jack wagon won with 1.07 million votes in 2013, and a mere 56,000 vote margin. Just the year before, Romney had lost Virginia, but he did receive 1.822 million votes. And Mitt is not at all some wild-eyed conservative firebrand. If he can get that many votes, then the votes are there for any Republican to get and for every Republican to cast.

      The problem is that conservatives believe that their rights are their rights and should accrue naturally to them, without having to fight for them every…..single…,.damn……election. In a perfect world, they’d be right. In THIS world, they’re dead wrong, and that’s why Virginians are about to get breach loaded by that no talent, statist hack of a governor of theirs.

      Democrat turn out fades in off year elections, too, but not as much as Republican turn out does. Stil, the votes are there to win, but you have to be in it to win it. Conservatives aren’t in it, so they lose.

      That’s not my fault, the NRA’s fault or anyone’s but lazy butt conservatives.

      So suck it, Virginia, and remember, elections have consequences. Maybe next time you’ll get off your butt and vote. You’re helping to forfeit this country, and you should be deeply ashamed.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Clearly another person who doesn’t know how Republican government works. Here is how you pass a bill in the Virginia legislature: The House of Delegates passes the bill, the State Senate passes the bill and the Governor has to sign the bill to make become law. The Republicans control the House of Delegates with a veto proof majority. They have a 1 vote majority in the state senate, but wait, there are many downstate Democrats who won’t vote for gun control unless it can pass so none of these proposals will pass the House of Delegates, and none of them will pass the State Senate so they can’t become law.

        So no, we Virginians don’t have to suck it up. These bills are going nowhere.

        1. avatar Frank says:

          Amen. This is bluster and noise. Doesn’t stand a snowballs chance of getting to his desk. Sic Semper Tyrannis, Terry.

        2. avatar Bob says:

          A call or an email to your state Delegate and Senator wouldn’t hurt. You know the anti’s will be making those calls and sending their emails. Just a friendly reminder that you, a voter in their district, would like them to vote in a certain way.

        3. avatar over-educated economist says:

          Good analysis of the situation. I don’t know what Terry is smoking, but none of this is going anywhere.

        4. avatar Joe says:

          The number of ” You dumb communist morons in Virginia voted for McAuliffe, so what ever he says is law, and you might as well move to China.” comments is entirely too high. This chest puffery poses no threat to Virginians right to keep and bear arms, the sky is not in fact falling. Also remember, we stand together or hang separately.

      2. avatar Charles5 says:

        McAuliffe won with 48% of the vote. The republican, Cuccinelli, got 45.5%, and the Libertarian Sarvis got 6.5% after the Democrats poured several million into his campaign in the weeks leading up to the election. The conservative votes were there to win. If Virginia was a runoff state, a Republican would be governor. The state is fairly conservative and as tdiinva said, these proposals don’t have a chance of passing. Cut off Fairfax County, and the state would be red every election.

        1. avatar Rokurota says:

          Sarvis siphoned off Democrats as well as Republicans — how much of each who can say, but there are some who think he drank from each pool equally. Cuccinelli was supposed to lose by a landslide, especially since he was pilloried by the press here as an ayatollah-like fundamentalist. and he shocked everyone by coming so close. I think TTAG quoted a story that attributes his near-loss to signing on with Bloomberg when his lead looked secure.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          McAulffe is another Ted Cruz victory.

        3. avatar Rick says:

          Annd they pulled the same shit again (with the same guy!) in the most recent senatorial race…

        4. avatar tdiinva says:


          The government shutdown sucked the air out of Cuccinelli’s campaign. Without the shutdown and the crash and burn of O-care on takeoff Cuccinelli probably would have won.

        5. avatar Rokurota says:

          The shutdown did hurt him and Obamacare was almost his saving grace, true. I wonder how Bolling would have fared.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      A well known founding father is spinning in his grave at Mt. Vernon.

  2. avatar Anonymous says:

    That’s right. Who is he representing again? The people? Alas no – Bloomberg. America’s laws available for purchase by billionaires.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      He’s representing the people who voted for him in the gubernatorial election. Are you saying that Bloomberg has filled out the ballots for them?

      1. avatar Charles5 says:

        Which was a non-majority 48% of the vote.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          True…..because Republicans didn’t go vote. Can’t discount his win, when the opposition didn’t even bother to show up on game day.

          One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics, is that you end up being ruled by your inferiors.

        2. avatar Rokurota says:

          Jonathan, do you know that to be true? Maybe it is, but unfortunately the reality is that Virginia has shifted blue. NoVa is lousy with government employees, and the squishy middle — many of whom might vote Republican — can’t take being ridiculed relentlessly by the press and loud people on Facebook. They don’t have guns or abortions, so maybe they just go vote for McAuliffe so the expert class will stop bullying them.

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        He’s a Democrat, right? Somebody had to fill out those ballots for the dead people, infants, family pets, and cartoon characters.

  3. avatar Slick says:

    Mcaullife went full California. Never go full California.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Sounds about right.

      Only in California would something like this fly, “… when a gun is present in domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increases by 500%. This proposal will aim to prevent domestic violence tragedies from occurring …”

      Never mind the fact that an attacker can just as easily bludgeon, poison, or stab their domestic partner since they live with them!

      1. avatar Slick says:

        Pretty much every proposal in the article is law in California. It really sucks to be a gun owner here. Hopefully, I can get out sometime in the near future.

        1. avatar Jay-El says:


  4. avatar PPGMD says:

    Ok, I think most of his list of BS.

    But this one I agree with:
    “Give Virginia State Police authority to process voluntary background check requests”

    I’ve been saying for years that I would love to have the ability to run background checks on my private sales, without involving a FFL.

    1. avatar Slick says:

      I agree. As long as it is not mandatory, it should be an option for sellers. And those who don’t want to submit can buy from someone else (free market, baby!).

      The only problem is I sincerely doubt that it would remain voluntary.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Yep. They could destroy all opposition to background checks by making a simple background check utility available online to ALL private sellers.

        The buyer enters the necessary identification (name, birthdate, soc sec #, valid driver’s license/state ID card) and gets a simple yes/no answer with a unique transaction number that the seller can then verify.

        No need to waste time on filling out complex forms, no government record of what was sold or even if anything was sold at all — just confirmation that the person you’re selling to or buying from isn’t a known criminal or crazy.

        That’s what background checks are really for, right? (Riiiight…)

        1. avatar B says:

          Coburn suggested an app for running a background check back in 2013. Replacing the ATF with a free app with no spot for serial numbers would get rid of any of my concerns about the government keeping 4473’s as a registry. Assuming the computer system in place now was chopped to bits with an axe then lit on fire.

    2. avatar C. Z. says:

      Being friends with a young lady who had a restraining order, whose “friend” was eventually convicted of violating that restraining order when he was caught outside of her girlfriends home in a rental car with rope and duct tape in the car, and is currently out on appeal. Given that background I would support the protective order provision if it was written fairly. Someone getting into a shouting match in the fog of a breakup isn’t the same as someone riding around with duct tape and rope in their rental car or sending a spouse to the emergency room.

      Yes, of course she has exercised her second amendment right, but she ended up moving twice in the process. Since he is exercising his right to appeal the conviction she lives in a state beyond vigilance and in an almost crippling sense of fear even with a gun.

      I believe in GUNS and it shouldn’t be a big deal to get one. It shouldn’t be generally rationed or restricted, and people shouldn’t act like a gun is nerve gas or airborne ebola. But I am willing to admit there are some people that shouldn’t have them.

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        A. If the boyfriend is delusional and so dangerous, why is he out on appeal/parole? B. If he is so delusional and dangerous, what stops him from obtaining a weapon or firearm, legal or otherwise? C. If he could magically be stopped from obtaining a firearm (or weapons) with said law, does that make him less dangerous and delusional, to the point the former girlfriend is actually safer?

        1. avatar C.Z. says:

          A. If the boyfriend is delusional and so dangerous, why is he out on appeal/parole?
          His sentence was 90 days for violating the restraining order. He was allowed to appeal before serving his sentence.

          B. If he is so delusional and dangerous, what stops him from obtaining a weapon or firearm, legal or otherwise?
          In truth I don’t know how resourceful he is he may already be an gun owner.

          C. If he could magically be stopped from obtaining a firearm (or weapons) with said law, does that make him less dangerous and delusional, to the point the former girlfriend is actually safer?
          Well she owns a gun now so, probably.

          I did mention that the law would have to be written well. I don’t know if this proposal is written well or not. I don’t think its crazy to contemplate the wisdom of making guns available to unstable people. I don’t know if its possible to make a difference without hurting law abiding people, but the people who make it hard on gun owners are these unstable people.