Voters in SWVA Strongly Oppose Loosening Virginia Gun Laws

Also of note, Phil Puckett's approval ratings. (0.00 / 0)

Puckett
Very favorable: 29%
Somewhat favorable: 18%
Somewhat unfavorable: 6%
Very unfavorable: 6%
No opinion: 29%
Never heard of: 12%

FAVORABLE: 47%
UNFAVORABLE: 12%

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:41:18 PM UTC

Sen. John Edwards approval ratings (0.00 / 0)

John Edwards
Very favorable: 25%
Somewhat favorable: 29%
Somewhat unfavorable: 13%
Very unfavorable: 11%
No opinion: 21%
Never heard of: 0%

FAVORABLE: 54%
UNFAVORABLE: 24%

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:42:23 PM UTC

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

That Puckett outran his favorable ratings by more than Edwards.

---

by: FreeDem @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 00:55:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Roanoke City is rural? (4.00 / 1)

The only rural parts of John Edwards district are the connecting precincts between Roanoke and Blacksburg.

In fact, I think Barbara Favola has more "rural" areas in Great Falls than John Edwards has.

Edwards is still voting on guns like he has his old conservative half rural/ half urban district from the 1990's and not the current district he represents.

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:56:52 PM UTC

Obviously, the city itself isn't rural. (0.00 / 0)

The district as a whole, though? That's another question. For instance, this Roanoke Times article refers to John Edwards as a "rural Democrat." Here's a map of Edwards' entire district:

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 13:07:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also worth noting, the poll results (0.00 / 0)

weren't much different between Edwards' and Puckett's districts - a bit more support for loosening gun laws in the 38th than the 21st, but not huge at all.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 13:11:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Many Rural Areas (4.00 / 1)

If you discount the City of Roanoke and Blacksburg, John's district still has a rural/suburban flavor. Giles County certainly isn't suburban or urban, and many parts of Montgomery County are rural. Roanoke County is primarily suburban, but there are areas that are quite rural.

Lowell's point about Puckett's district holding similar views is quite a valid one. Nobody can call Phil Puckett's district anything else besides rural.    

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 13:26:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Census Data by Precinct (4.00 / 1)

Edwards:  
59% Urban
24% Suburban/Small Town
17% Rural

Puckett:
0% Urban
21% Suburban/Small Town
79% Rural

And yes, Elaine, if you "discount" Roanoke City, the largest city in SW Virginia which Edwards has 100% of, then the district would look different.

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 13:30:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If You Discount Chicago (0.00 / 0)

Illinois is a deep Republican state.

"Area" doesn't vote. People vote. And most of the people in Edwards's district are in metropolitan areas. Maybe not downtown Roanoke, but certainly suburban areas of Roanoke County.

I had a big backyard growing up in Roanoke County, but I knew I lived in the suburbs.

---

by: FreeDem @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 00:57:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ummmm (4.00 / 1)

I LOVE this blog and NotLarrySabato BUT you guys should make the trek out of the NOVA area sometime!

---

by: gg2landy @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 14:20:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey- yell at Lowell, not me (0.00 / 0)

I spent four years growing up in Roanoke, and go down there 4-6 times a year to see my grandmother!

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 14:37:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

First of all, I've made the "trek" out of NOVA (4.00 / 1)

many times, including to Roanoke and SWVA. Second, see Elaine in Roanoke's comment above. Third, note the Roanoke Times piece which refers to Edwards as a "rural Democrat." Fourth, I changed the diary a couple hours ago, per Ben's suggestions, just so we could focus on the subject at hand - Virginians opposition to loosening gun laws - than on how John Edwards' district should be characterized, exactly. Next silly topic: is Loudoun County rural, suburban, exurban, or urban. Answer: who cares?!?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 14:47:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not yelling at all (0.00 / 0)

I grew up in Roanoke. I lived there until I got married.Part of the area Sen. Edwards represents is NOT suburban...a great deal of it is rural. That was all I was saying.Narrows,Pembroke and Pearisburg are far from "suburban".
Both of you keep up the good work!  ;-)  

---

by: gg2landy @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 19:33:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Part of the confusion, I think is "small town/suburban" vs. "rural" (0.00 / 0)

Whereas suburban in NOVA is crowded areas like Fairfax, suburban Roanoke can be considered the entire County, plus most of Botetourt, Franklin, parts of Montgomery, and Craig.

I'd consider all of those areas more rural than urban, and so would most people living there.

Head in NOVA, Heart in SW

---

by: Paba @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 19:59:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

You are right!

---

by: gg2landy @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 20:26:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Botetourt (0.00 / 0)

Since I live in Botetourt County very near Roanoke, I can vouch for the fact that much of it is as rural as things get. Heck, I live in a "subdivision," and we have over an acre of land...not the usual suburban lot.

That said, John Edwards doesn't represent Botetourt. No, we have Steve Newman, acolyte to Jerry Falwell, as senator. Doesn't get much worse than that. Oh, I forgot...we used to have Ralph Smith as senator.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 23:00:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh come on, you've been to North County and Giles, haven't you? (0.00 / 0)

As someone whose family is from the far Western end of that district, and who lived on the opposite end of this territory til last year, I'd venture to guess that some might be scared of voting with your stricter gun control types because of how far down the gun control road many of these people, especially in NOVA, are willing to go. I'd be interested in seeing what percent of the people favoring the least controversial of the measures would be willing to along with the full list of your preferences on the issue in NOVA (or as far as DC used to go).

Disclosure: I'm much more pro-gun that most of you, I'm guessing, but in no way do I feel that makes me any less of a Democrat.

Head in NOVA, Heart in SW

---

by: Paba @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 16:48:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What do you think about the poll results themselves? (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 16:50:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With respect to the poll (0.00 / 0)

1. In no way does it suggest that shooting sports and hunting are not still a compatible tradition with the results.

2. As with any poll, you have to take into consideration the wording of the questions. I can see how the question that bolds the REQUIRED portion could be read by the layperson as MANDATING the inclusion of armed persons on campus. Not to mention, simply saying that gun laws should be "stronger" in know way clarifies what type of laws you're talking about. Regardless, I've long believed that groups like the NRA are not synonymous with most gun owners.

I'm still unclear on what sort of policy prescriptions a group like this has in mind, especially considering attitudes towards guns shown by control proponents such as Michael Bloomberg.  Ultimately, laws aren't based simply on popular support, especially when it comes to one's rights. Rights are inalienable, including the right to self-defense. This is what I believe, and in no way is this in conflict with the idea of general welfare.

The presence of guns no way implies that violence is likely (ultimately, that depends on the individuals present), and those deranged enough to want to commit violence are not going to follow the law, anyway.

Regardless, no one with the profile of a Seung Hui Cho should be in any position to pose a threat. They should have been removed from VT long before.

Head in NOVA, Heart in SW

---

by: Paba @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 19:00:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nobody's talking about hunting. (0.00 / 0)

One issues here involve lifting the "one handgun per month" limit that's been in place in Virginia since Gov. Wilder's time in office.  That has nothing to do with sports or hunting. Same thing with background checks or concealed carry, again those have zero to do with sports and hunting. As for what sort of policy prescriptions gun safety groups have in mind, they're VERY clear on those on their websites, etc. What are you "unclear" about? Just go look on their websites. Finally, if the 2nd Amendment were completely unrestricted, then anyone would have a right to any type of weapon, at any time, in any place. I doubt that more than a tiny minority (under 10%) of Americans would support that, and I'm sure the Founding Fathers did NOT have that in mind when they were writing the Bill of Rights. The issue today, as it's always been, has been striking a balance on this issue. Thus, background checks, trigger locks, restrictions on purchasing arsenals of assault weapons, and other commonsense gun safety measures.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 20:14:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

First off, your assumption about the Founding Fathers is just as flimsy as any other assumption about them (0.00 / 0)

Let's leave that to the courts, who have been fair on the issue IMO.

Secondly, do you really think any of your "commonsense" (according to who?) measures matter to criminals who are willing to kill? Why should law abiding gun owners have to jump through your hoops to appease your assumptions about what would prevent gun violence? Why would mentally deranged criminals care about them either? In the end, the only person who's behavior has to change is the non-deranged gun owner.

Have you spent much time with gun owners? I've spent a lot of time on this site (mostly reading) in the past year, and it seems like most folks here haven't ventured out of the DC metro area much and gotten to know more culturally conservative Virginians (or they just use these opportunities to tell us we have a chip on our shoulder and chide us about Creigh Deeds being a bad candidate).

IRREGARDLESS...

I still hold that this is a cultural issue where we have to agree to disagree and defer to law abiding gun owners. This isn't to say that licensing requirements aren't fair.

And I still hold that this is all still very much compatible with building a new Democratic Majority in Virginia. We need all types from all places.

Rant over.

Head in NOVA, Heart in SW

---

by: Paba @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 21:10:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"This isn't to say that licensing requirements aren't fair." (0.00 / 0)

That should have said "can be fair," sorry.

As for what I am arguing against, refer to the DC vs. Heller SCOTUS decision and what DC had enacted. This is also where we draw our current definition of what the 2nd Amendment extends to (whether you agree with the decision or not, that's the law, that's checks and balances, we enforce and obey law, not opinions).

Head in NOVA, Heart in SW

---

by: Paba @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 21:20:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please don't confuse the issues (4.00 / 1)

The DC requirements were unique to DC, where the murder rate and overall gun crime rate was massively high in the late 80s.  The Virginia restrictions were put in place because Virginia was nexus of gunrunning in the 80s.  You could go into a store and buy a dozen handguns, drive them a few hours north, sell them at 2-4 times what you just paid for them, and be back home in time for dinner.  That was what the law was put in place to prevent.  

As a gun owner myself, I would love to know who out there needs to buy multiple pistols in a given month.  If both the NRA crowd - who want a bazooka in every household just because - and the way liberal gun control crowd who want to ban all firearms - would let reality and common sense into the argument, they would see what most people do.  That common sense bans on certain weapons like assault weapons, machine guns, heavy caliber guns and the like make sense.  And that unless you're a convicted felon, buying a shotgun or hunting rifle should not be infringed.  Nor should most handguns, in reasonable quantities - one a month is more than anyone I know buys - and with some restrictions on clip sizes and the like.

Basically, what the current law is.  Oh, and gun shows - they should be tightened up as to where instant background checks should be performed on any handgun transaction.  They could have a central area where every sale is checked, or perhaps rovers who could cover a set number of booths and do the checks there.  However, if you're selling a pistol in the parking lot, you're committing a crime.  

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 22:58:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This doesn't address anything I said (0.00 / 0)

or really anything that gun safety groups say. We're just talking past each other here, as so often happens with this issue. Sigh.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 21:33:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sen. McEachin statement on guns and alcohol bill (0.00 / 0)

Senator McEachin Blasts Republicans for Hypocrisy
And Lack of Concern about Drugs and Alcohol

Richmond - Today, Senator A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) expressed his outrage that a bill that outlawed open carry of firearms while imbibing alcohol, a bill that garnered unanimous Floor support last year failed in committee this year.  Senator McEachin said, "I am outraged at the hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues. Last year, this bill passed the Senate with a 40 to nothing vote. Last year, we could come to the common sense agreement that guns and alcohol don't mix. Last year, we put the safety of Virginians ahead of a powerful gun lobby and political ambitions.

"This year, apparently all that has changed. Virginians still recognize that guns and alcohol don't mix. It is still illegal to imbibe alcohol while carrying a gun with a concealed carry permit . It is still ridiculous that, somehow, it makes more sense to drink while carrying a gun openly. The only thing that has changed is Republican control and Republican partisan politics overcoming common sense and prioritizing the safety of Virginians.

"This is not about the Second Amendment. This is not about trying to reduce or eliminate or in any way harm gun ownership. This is very simple. This is about keeping guns and intoxicated individuals apart. This is about reducing potentially fatal accidents or alcohol fueled crimes.
"The NRA agrees that guns and alcohol don't mix. Their own safety rule number five says to never drink alcohol while carrying a gun. All that this bill was trying to do was codify an NRA directive.

"Something is very wrong here when a bill that had unanimous support, a bill that reflects NRA thinking is suddenly opposed by the very same people who supported it last year. It is terribly disappointing that my colleagues would not put Virginians and their safety first, even as they have done in the past."

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 21:46:16 PM UTC

Good question (0.00 / 0)

"Which raises the question: why are members of the Virginia General Assembly voting against the wishes of a strong, even overwhelming, majority of their constituents? Think about that one for a minute."

Because it is a way to throw some "red meat" to reward their base without incurring any direct costs?  Because it is an easy way to seem to be taking immediate, bold action, without really doing anything?  Because gun stores and the NRA spend a lot of money on political campaigns and lobbying?

These poll results makes sense to me, because after all, folks in rural districts would be quite knowledgeable about gun safety.

---

by: Quizzical @ Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 23:10:01 PM UTC