Of course some lawyers (it's always the lawyers) blee-ee-eet blee-ee-ee-eet that "oh no, now criminals will keep a weapon in their car!"
Be careful out their my fellow Virginians. Once this is signed into law, the criminals are going to finally come out of the woodwork and keep their guns in their car - but legally this time!
By an 8-7 split lawmakers said okay to that measure despite concerns from staff attorneys, who said the bill would be welcome news for criminals.
"If they found out that they could carry their guns in a locked glove compartment, I promise you they will do that," said Senate Staff Attorney Steve Benjamin.
It's important to know that criminals strive to follow the law.
So if a criminal is not breaking the law, then there's no impact whatsoever. There is no reason for them to get pulled over, and having the gun locked in a glovebox is a better alternative then having it in their waistband. Not that they care about abiding by the law anyways. And if they're committing some sort of crime, and they get stopped by the police, well, then it doesn't really matter if the gun is legally locked up, they are still gonna get charged for it.
So does it really matter in regards to the criminal element? The better question is whether we should restrict the rights of millions of Virginians because of the thousand criminals who care less about the law or who they hurt? My answer is a big negative.
This also reinforces my strong opinion that at the genesis of every bad thing in America is a brigade of clueless lawyers. No offense to my lawyer readers, if I have any, but beavers build dams, and lawyers build laws. Rarely do either beavers or lawyers take the time to look down the creek and see the carnage that they are about to be responsible for.
Update: Great minds think alike. SailorCurt has up a similar post on the same subject over at The Sentinel. SailorCurt is on a roll these days!
Update: Here's more Virginia gun law stuff from The Sentinel, with VCDL president Philip Van Cleave fisking a silly anti-gun article. What I wanted to point out is this:
"In case anyone is worried about the volatile mix of alcohol and firearms, naysayers should know that the Senate bill requires guntoters to abstain and threatens them with - shudder! - misdemeanors if they don't."Casting aside the ridiculous notion that misdemeanors are small potatoes, this seems to be the main thrust of the anti-gun hate for this bill nation wide.
"Guns and alcohol don't mix."
Then why is it that lawmakers insist on putting a footnote in these bills that allow cops to drink and carry? Anyone? Maybe it's because we're talking about cops, and not us mere mortal citizens. It's totally cool for a cop to throw back a few while armed, because hey, they might have to run out of Applebees in a hurry and arrest some Virginian in Olive Garden for having a glass of wine while open carrying. Oh, wait, that's actually legal.
Why this constant effort to create two classes of citizens? Cops get their powers from, From the citizenry. We are not subordinate to police officers. They cannot possess powers that we do not possess. So, they cannot have a free pass from the law because they cannot have something we cannot have. Common law, people.