Republicans Respond to Virginia Governor’s Gun Control Push

It didn’t take long for pro-gun lawmakers in Virginia to respond to the governor’s new gun control push, which calls for universal background checks and a return of the one-handgun-a-month purchase limit, among other restrictions.

“The governor is a pure political animal and always has been,” said Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), in an interview with The Washington Post.

“This is purely a political play on his part. I don’t think he has any expectation that any of this is viable or defensible,” continued Gilbert. “He’s playing to his base on an election-year issue that he wrongly believes resonates.”

Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced his agenda on Monday, coming on the heels of the two year anniversary of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) criticized the governor’s plan via his spokesperson Matt Moran, who said, “It is very clear where the House of Delegates stands on the Second Amendment. It is disappointing that the governor, who claims to be a consensus-builder focused on jobs, is making a divisive social issue like gun control the centerpiece of his legislative agenda.”

Meanwhile, the governor’s administration defended his policy suggestions, claiming they weren’t political but simply solutions to prevent gun violence.

“Keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and others prone to violence shouldn’t be a political issue, and it won’t become one as long as Virginia leaders put the safety of their constituents ahead of extreme, special-interest politics,” Rachel Thomas, a spokeswoman for Gov. McAuliffe, the WashPo.

Since the General Assembly is controlled by the GOP the fight for tougher gun laws will be an uphill battle. Moreover, those Democrats who hail from pro-gun districts could face serious backlash if they opt to back the governor, noted one gun-rights organization.

“Gun control is an issue that’s hurt Democrats year after year,” Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America told USA Today. “And if he wants to put a hurt on some of his colleagues, well go ahead and push it.”

Time will ultimately tell whether this was merely a political ploy or an earnest attempt at rolling back the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

{ 15 comments… add one }
  • Arch Stanton March 24, 2017, 8:46 am

    The DEMOCRAT party is the party of treason so what do you expect

  • Johnny McDonald December 16, 2016, 10:41 am

    Obama has been pushing gun control to try to prevent retirees and ex military to own firearms.. First, the people that are retired are more likely to be targeted for robbery or
    worse. They need their protection !! Who better then someone in the military or honorably discharged is better suited to have firearms. I am of the opinion that every one
    old enough to serve their country has the right to own and bear arms, just as the Constitution States …Without having a “carry” permit.

  • Patriot September 12, 2016, 10:21 pm

    The Virginia Governors Office must be a shameless idiot organization controlled by a corrupt Democrat idiot such as Terry McAuliffe to try to destroy the protection and other aspects of the Second Amendment and practically make the lives of good American people defenseless to aggression by people armed with any type of weapon.

    Gov. Terry McAuliffe should completely abandon the idiot nonsense he has proposed and let Americans defend themselves from robberies, rapes, killings, dope heads needing money, and terrorists.

    This shows how corrupt and biased the Democrat network news media usually is on liberal political matters, such as the idiot nonsense proclamation by Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe ( financed by Michael Bloomberg ) that is intended for more gun control. There was no objection from the Democrat network news media and that is because the media supports Hillary and idiot Democrats. The Democrat network news media and Hillary, Billy, Chelsea supporters, such as Obama, Tim Kaine, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Gov. Brown of California, Gov. Brown of Oregon, Michael Bloomberg, Soros who owns Progressive insurance, Schumer, Katie Couric, Healey, Harry Reid, Dan Gross who leads the “Brady Bunch” have something in common and it is the fact that all are ROTTEN TO THE CORE !!!!

    • steve fornarotto November 4, 2016, 11:32 pm

      i was going to move to virginia, but mabe i will go to texas in stead!

  • Alan July 8, 2016, 3:06 pm

    While the majority vote in the liberal politicians the problem will remain and even get worse.

    Politicians have personal agendas that most liberals fail to notice.

    It’s the person that kills, not the car, not the alcohol, not the guns and until the lame brains in office address that matter we will have untimely deaths of innocents.

    By the way, has anyone observed a criminal obeying any of these so called “gun control” laws????

  • Rick July 8, 2016, 7:20 am

    VOTE HIM OUT

  • jimonthebeach December 29, 2014, 3:51 pm

    Virginia voters are learning bitter lesson: When you elect a liberal politician t office, the first thing he or she will try to do is raise taxes. The second thing they’ll try to do is limit your access to firearms. These proposed gun control laws will only harm law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t buy their guns in guns stores or at gun shows; they buy them on the street from other criminals. Most of the people selling guns at gun shows are Federally licensed gun dealers who would not jeopardize their license or their freedom by selling a gun without a background check on the buyer. Gun shows are tightly regulated and closely monitored by state and federal law enforcement officers. The proposed on gun purchase a month is nothing more than feel-good legislation designed to placate gun control advocates. Hardly anyone buys more than one gun a year much less on gun a month. Anyone buying a several guns a month would immediately bring about close scrutiny by federal, state and local law enforcement agents. So if McAuliffe convinces a Republican legislature to enact these laws, he and they will only be hurting their own constituents while not even slowing down the criminals they are trying to control. If you value your freedoms, be careful to whom you choose to give you vote.

  • petrusov December 22, 2014, 7:17 pm

    How about the law recently passed in Pennsylvania that is a “Pre-emption law” In other words local cities cannot pass their own gun ban laws, they must abide by state law. But not so fast, the lady Attorney General says she is not going to prosecute cities who violate the law and the new incoming Governor said he will ignore the new law letting cities do as they please. Is it not amazing that people in power do not have to obey any laws they disagree with but the common citizen ends up going to jail if he does not obey the law. You people call America a democracy, if you do you are living in a fantasy world, “BUT THAT IS JUST MY OPINION.

    • Kivaari December 22, 2014, 9:17 pm

      The incoming governor and AG, wont prosecute cites tt ass unlawful gun laws – OK. If a person is arrested for violating a city ordinance, at trial the presiding judge would likely dismiss the charge. If the city attorney pushes the action in violation of state law, that certainly would be viewed as malicious prosecution. The state appeals court would reverse the conviction. This case would make a good civil suit.

  • Russ December 22, 2014, 6:58 pm

    Knowing American History, why would any true American want to be affiliated with the Democratic Party?
    This is a question I’ve been asking friends and family who are Dems.(try this at home)
    Many of them have changed to being republican or at least, Independent.
    Once they find out about our history, they start to rethink, or actually start to think.
    What could the agenda be of a party that lies, cheats, steals, and kills?
    All the while trying to tear down the fabric of our Constitution.
    It seams they don’t like this country and the way it was founded.

    Democrats, please take a like minded foreigner with you, and get the hell out of this country.
    You try so hard, and spend so much money to change the American way of life.
    If you hate it so much, just go away.
    There are plenty of shitholes all around the world, with like minded people just waiting for you.
    It’s what you would call a “no brainer” right?
    Just do it now without thinking about it. You don’t think anyway, why start now?

  • Danilushka December 22, 2014, 1:51 pm

    So how does limiting purchases to one a month implement the policy of “Keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and others prone to violence”? How many “criminals and other prone to violence” would refrain from violence because they are waiting on a second or third gun purchase when they already have one? Most gun crimes are committed with one gun. However, if the real agenda is eventually banning guns by making them harder and slower to purchase, then that would fit the agenda. Why can’t gun grabbers be honest instead of lying about they motives and goals?

  • DanF. December 22, 2014, 9:47 am

    Nice goal. While we’re at it let’s have world peace, an end to hunger and disease, and that pony I never got for Christmas when I was a kid.
    The goals of the gun-grabbers are always admirable. But it is already illegal for a felon to have a firearm of any type. It is also illegal for someone who has been found to be nuts to possess a firearm of any type. The sole and only way to prevent these sorts of atrocities is to somehow predict that a specific person will be dangerous and engage in this conduct in the future. Nothing, not psych testing, not long-term observation, nothing, can predict an individual’s future dangerousness. Well, perhaps the local seer and her crystal ball, but somehow I can’t see anyone agreeing to give up legal and Constitutional right on that basis–not even the Governor of Virginia.
    In a sense, these shootings are a price we must regretfully pay for our freedom. Just as the thousands who die annually in, and as a result of, cars are the price we pay for freedom to travel. Many more die in cars, but there are no calls from the politicians for background checks before issuing a driver’s license. There is no hue and cry even after a driver plows into and kills a group of pedestrians or a business–not even when those pedestrians include children.
    Logic and consistency have never been high on any politician’s agenda. We have no reason to believe such will start here.

    • MagnumOpUS December 22, 2014, 7:24 pm

      It’s dang about time to get serious about car-control. Cars kill people!!

    • matt Haraway December 22, 2014, 11:41 pm

      What about alcohol.They are so worried about guns but look at the number of deaths related to alcohol.So many car accidents,fights,injuries due to drinking,etc.Of course,the government makes money on the sale of alcohol so why prohibit it.As a former police officer and then anesthetist,and member of the rescue squad,I cannot tell you of the number of alcohol related incidents where people were injured or killed.I guarantee there are so many more than firearms related deaths or injuries although one is one too many.I believe you should be able to own firearms responsibly and for your protection.I guarantee this governor owns agin and has body guards which I guess makes him special and privileged.I do think that some attempts to manage the sale of weapons is a good thing if you can keep them out of the hands of criminals.

    • Chuck Otto December 26, 2014, 5:22 pm

      It’s a firm policy in government today – let no crisis (or tragedy) be wasted. This is another case of that policy negatively affecting the the rights of the law abiding public. The main supporters of the Governor’s proposed laws are either victims themselves or members of their families have been victims of armed violence. While I sympathize with their EMOTIONAL pain, I do NOT sympathize with their POLITICAL efforts to use their pain to punish and restrict the rest of the citizens of their state. When bad people do bad things, good people should not be punished!

      Incidentally, the proposal to restrict persons convicted of domestic violence from owning guns is not needed at state level. We’ve already had the totally unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment (named for one of our more infamous federal legislators) that makes it a FEDERAL crime for such a person to have a gun. This has had a huge impact on the military since it was passed, but no-one has had the courage to even try to get it repealed. Lautenberg even applies to persons who, in the course of a divorce action, have a restraining order barring contact with the opposing spouse – a clause that’s automatically inserted into divorce paperwork in most states without either of the parties to the divorce being aware of it, even when there is no evidence of any physical threat existing. There have been a couple of notorious court cases where Lautenberg became an issue with the judge hearing the court case and was pointedly ignored. In point of fact, there are probably many divorced persons who are technically bereft of their 2nd Amendment rights and don’t even know it!

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend