Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Senator Boysko on Home Defense

—

by

sherlockj
in , ,

by James C. Sherlock

I have a loaded 9 mm semiautomatic handgun in my house for defense against home invasion. Never take it out of the house except to the range.

It is locked up but readily accessible, even in the dark by a 77-year-old.

If my kids were still at home I would still have that loaded gun here, locked up. I would also not be 77.

Virginia Code § 18.2-56.2.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any child under the age of fourteen. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The Virginian-Pilot

reports Sen.-elect Jennifer Boysko, D-Herndon, will introduce a new bill:

Boysko said her bill would require unattended firearms to be stored unloaded in a locked device or cabinet in homes with residents under the age of 18, or in homes where there was a reasonable expectation that a minor would be present.

It would also require ammunition to be kept in a separate locked device.

Raising the age from 14 to 18?

It will be controversial, especially in rural areas and among a lot of other gun owners. Camel’s nose under the tent. That sort of thing. And they will be right about the nose part.

But if she wants that provision, I recommend not packaging it with the rest of the changes she proposes.

Ms. Boysko’s new “unloaded” and “separate safes” provisions are a mystery to me. I understand that she is a gun control politician. That is the easy part.

I just wonder how, exactly, I am to respond to a home invasion.

At 77, I cannot be awakened from a sound sleep, unlock two safes, load a magazine into the gun and rack a round into the chamber in the dark at 4 in the morning. Before a home invader has at least inconvenienced us.

Hard to admit, but there it is in print.

That is a 28-year-old SEAL in a movie, not me. I could perhaps complete those tasks in 30 minutes. While making a lot of noise. With the lights on.

But Sen-elect Boysko is certainly younger than I, and perhaps more skilled.

The SEALs are recruiting.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

104 responses to “Senator Boysko on Home Defense”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Admittingly, one study, small sample…but I do wonder how prevalent home invasions repelled by owner with firearm are. I know, I know…it does happen!

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2835a44e1e51ffcf31abb990e63730155ae675b8c2319dccfc005245cd228045.jpg

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0446168b73aa43ab55d7102f5d0adea0869ea1543480d610093b8eed42a50d16.jpg

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7769769/

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      I see you chose not to include this part.

      “Methods: Between June 1 and August 31, 1994; Atlanta Police Department reports were screened to identify every case of unwanted entry into an occupied, single-family dwelling. Cases of sexual assault and incidents that involved cohabitants were excluded.”

      The study included just three months worth of data, from one city, in 1994. Additionally, it did not include cases of sexual assault.

      What was the agenda of the researchers? How was that city and time period selected?

      But in spite of all those limitations, it still resulted in 198 cases.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        What’s wrong with using a twenty-nine year old study with a super-small sample population and extremely limited scope? If they help make an antigun ‘statement’, any statistics are valid no matter how separated from reality they may be.

        😉

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Depends, were they Bing, Rainier or Washington cherries?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        go to the link for more info including more links to similar studies. It appears to be a credible study
        not an agenda-driven one like we often see from the right these days.

        Also think of your own local situation like I have. How many local home invasions from strangers that were not drug-related? Pure home-invasions from strangers?

        1. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          The CDC did a study, but when the results didn’t turn out the way the current administration wanted, they killed it.

          “The Centers For Disease Control (CDC) deleted a reference to a study it commissioned after a group of gun-control advocates complained it made passing new restrictions more difficult.”

          “The lobbying campaign spanned months and culminated with a private meeting between CDC officials and three advocates last summer, a collection of emails obtained by The Reload show. Introductions from the White House and Senator Dick Durbin’s (D., Ill.) office helped the advocates reach top officials at the agency after their initial attempt to reach out went unanswered. The advocates focused their complaints on the CDC’s description of its review of studies that estimated defensive gun uses (DGU) happen between 60,000 and 2.5 million times per year in the United States–attacking criminologist Gary Kleck’s work establishing the top end of the range.”

          https://thereload.com/emails-cdc-removed-defensive-gun-use-stats-after-gun-control-advocates-pressured-officials-in-private-meeting/

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            is that a credible link? Are there other sources to confirm what this site is saying?

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Of course they killed the study. That’s what progressives do. When facts contradict their agenda they squash the facts.

        2. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Democrats censor any information that doesn’t support their agenda.

          Republican Senators letter to the director of the CDC.

          “Dear Director Walensky,

          We write with growing concern and disappointment at the revelation the Centers for
          Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) succumbed to pressure from gun control organizations to
          delete references to a commissioned study from the CDC’s website that detailed defensive gun
          use (DGU) estimates. ”

          https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senators_demand_answers_about_cdc_censorship_of_defensive_gun_use_statistics.pdf

        3. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          LarrytheG:
          “Also think of your own local situation like I have. How many local home invasions from strangers that were not drug-related? Pure home-invasions from strangers?”

          What difference does it make if the person is a stranger or on drugs?

          I will defend my family from anyone who seeks to do them harm. All the more if it’s some drug addicted person who is so high he barely knows what he’s doing.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no I mean home invasions over drug trafficking…

  2. kls Avatar
    kls

    When seconds matter, police are only minutes away

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      probably need to “harden” , right?

  3. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Gosh, Sherlock! Sleep with the pistola under your pillow. The bill language reported (unusual to miss a wording issue) applies to unattended firearms. Separately stash an AR-15 under the mattress. When you are awake ambling and rambling around the ranch house, carry the firearms with you. That’s attended. No fuss, no muss, no physical strain, no time lost in plugging an intruder. In fact, if you are awakened (woke) from a dead sleep by suspicious noises, commence firing a few rounds into the ceiling to scare away the intruder.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Curious how you hang on my every word, McCarthy.

      1. VaNavVet Avatar
        VaNavVet

        We should be hanging on Kerry’s reckless speculation that the 6 year old shooter in Newport News came from a single parent home. The police chief did recently comment that the “parents” volunteered to come in for an interview. Of course, parents would not have fit Kerry’s narrative.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          nor “you know who”….

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Don’t publish if that troubles you. OTOH, you are not averse to word hanging and parsing. It’s the consistent ideological blundering that attracts my eye.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      An AR-15 is a horrible firearm for home defense, high velocity rounds don’t care about walls. However, if you choose to use one in that manner, I’d suggest hollow points.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Unless, of course, it’s a 12 gauge shotgun on an AR chassis…

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          But, but, but … that would be a scary looking assault weapon. Scary looking weapons must be made illegal.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The Saiga 12 is far more “assault” like.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Very true, very true. However, it’s best not to confuse individuals that the AR-15 is just a long stroke gas piston platform.

        3. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Very true, very true. However, it’s best not to confuse individuals that the AR-15 is just a long stroke gas piston platform.

    3. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      James McCarthy:
      “In fact, if you are awakened (woke) from a dead sleep by suspicious noises, commence firing a few rounds into the ceiling to scare away the intruder.”

      You sound like Joe Biden.

      “I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden said.

      “Joe Biden’s Shotgun Advice Could Land Jill Biden in Jail”

      “Felony aggravated menacing, reckless endangering charges could result from shooting gun in air.”

      https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/20/joe-biden-shotgun-advice-could-land-jill-biden-in-jail

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        You can expect a Politician to know the laws, wait a minute, shouldn’t they?

        1. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Joe Biden has never been very intelligent and always exhibited poor judgement – and that was before he showed signs of dementia.

          But in a way, he does represent the gun control lobby. As a group, their ignorance about firearms and laws related to them is astounding.

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Mr. Biden also once said the following during an interview with Field and Stream magazine:

        “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Effective perhaps if using a slug and you’ve already done the physics equations to determine where the round will deflect.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            …and you have x-ray vision so you know who/what is on the other side of the door.

            Here is one of the NRA’s primary rules for handling guns safely:

            Know your target and what is beyond.

            Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            So very, very true. I don’t point a firearm at anything unless I intended to destroy it, just call me old fashioned that way.

          3. kls Avatar
            kls

            Except for VB police engaging a criminal inside a government building.

        2. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Yes, here’s the reference if anyone is interested.

          Biden Advises Shooting Shotgun Through Door

          “Virginia Beach man charged for doing exactly that.”

          https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door

      3. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        They’re gonna charge you for shooting a gun in response to a break in? Really?

        1. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          LarrytheG:
          “They’re gonna charge you for shooting a gun in response to a break in? Really?”

          Absolutely!

          Here’s an example.

          “Vice President Joe Biden’s gun advice is being used as a defense by Jeffery Barton, a 52-year-old Vancouver, Wash., man charged with illegal aiming or discharging a firearm.”

          “Barton was arrested Monday for allegedly shooting a shotgun in the air to chase people he considered potential car thieves off his property.”

          “I did what Joe Biden told me to do,” Barton told KOIN-TV outside court Wednesday, where he pleaded not guilty. “I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air.”

          https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/19/bidens-shotgun-advice-invoked-as-defense-by-man-arrested-for-shooting-gun-in-air

          BTW – He was convicted in 2015.

        2. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          LarrytheG:
          “They’re gonna charge you for shooting a gun in response to a break in? Really?”

          Any reckless use of a firearm can result in charges. Absolutely!

          Here’s an example.

          “Vice President Joe Biden’s gun advice is being used as a defense by Jeffery Barton, a 52-year-old Vancouver, Wash., man charged with illegal aiming or discharging a firearm.”

          “Barton was arrested Monday for allegedly shooting a shotgun in the air to chase people he considered potential car thieves off his property.”

          “I did what Joe Biden told me to do,” Barton told KOIN-TV outside court Wednesday, where he pleaded not guilty. “I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air.”

          https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/19/bidens-shotgun-advice-invoked-as-defense-by-man-arrested-for-shooting-gun-in-air

          BTW – He was convicted in 2015.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            is that the same as a house invasion?

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Always obey your President whether the advice is unhelpful or illegal.

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Just following orders…

            😉

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            That defense has always worked out so well.

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Excellent.

    4. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      In fact, if you are awakened (woke) from a dead sleep by suspicious noises, commence firing a few rounds into the ceiling to scare away the intruder.

      Tell it to Joe Biden.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Under VA Law it is already against the law to leave a firearm unattended.”

    Pssstt… someone tell Matt that Sherlock already said this…

  5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Get a dog, Sherlock…

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Vicious Cocker Spaniel? I recommend a Jack Russell. They have no fear mechanisms, and like a shark, continue to bite long after death.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Bassett Hounds. They are long enough to stretch across the entire width of a hallway while they sleep. The burglar trips over the dog and then you get the drop on the guy while the dog stands on his chest and licks his face.

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Bassett Hounds. They are long enough to stretch across the entire width of a hallway while they sleep. The burglar trips over the dog and then you get the drop on the guy while the dog stands on his chest and licks his face.

      3. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Bassett Hounds. They are long enough to stretch across the entire width of a hallway while they sleep. The burglar trips over the dog and you get the drop on the guy while the dog is standing on his chest licking his face.

  6. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    This bill, if passed and signed into law, would most certainly by unconstitutional as direct interference with the right to have a firearm to defend oneself.

    One might ask the good senator why regulations on something in the Constitution are OK, while regulations on something not in the Constitution (abortion) are not. If we really want to make sensible laws, we’d try to apply the same standards to regulations on abortion and the right to own and bear firearms. If we had to do that, we’d have very light regulation of both.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I thought it said “arms”. No? Does that mean ANY arms?

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        As you know Larry, a person who applies for and receives government approval can own a machine gun, a cannon, hand granades, a bazooka or a flamethrower. So, I guess it does mean ANY arms.

        Check out 27 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 447, 478, 479 and 555. Just search of ECFR and work your way down.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Indeed he can. Is access restricted, more so than for other weapons? Are there other “arms” where access is even more restricted?

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      The Bill of Rights was written specifically to limit the power of the federal government. Thus progressives hate every word of it.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Attention literalists:

        I upvoted the Bill of Rights was written specifically to limit the power of the federal government part of Mr. Sherlock’s comment.

        I do not think that all progressives hate every word of the constitution.

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        The entire Constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government. Or, to be perfectly accurate, it was structured and written to give the People the power to limit the power of the federal government.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          The Constitution as written conferred little authority upon the People: women could not vote; POTUS and VPOTUS continue to be selected by electors; some residents were counted as 3/5ths; US Senators were chosen by state legislatures. It’s taken hundreds of years for the People to have influence.

      3. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Interesting hearing the folks who yammer about law and order left and right also yammer about the “power of the govt”to imprison.

        weird.

      4. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Some of us think the B of R had more than one rationale but that view is, of course, progressive heresy like freedom from religion.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Just the words between “We the People” and “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

          No withstanding the Amendments, I kid, I kid. .

        2. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Just to satisfy my curiosity, will you please list and explain each of the additional rationales for the Bill of Rights?

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Such an exercise would require rendering a judgment about the motivations of historical individuals. As many woke conservatives complain, it’s impossible to evaluate the actions of folks in the past based upon contemporary criteria and values.

    3. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Yes, yes!! Eliminate all government regulations to restore society to its most pristine condition. No USPS, no national military, no income tax, no women’s vote. Heck, no voting at all — the enlightened few will run things.

  7. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    There have been many comments from those who do not believe in guns for self defense, including the suggestion to get a dog. This lady had a dog.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_bhp-_e_D8

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I believe in guns for self defense. I do not believe in the unfettered and irresponsible use of said guns that endanger others. I think people should held just as responsible for guns as they are cars. There should be laws. There should be required insurance. There should be licenses and there should be restrictions on buying and selling guns especially to those who should not have access to them the same way they are denied access to a driver’s license if they are found to be irresponsible.

      It’s not an either – or thing.

      I have no problems what-so-ever blowing away an intruder with a 5 shot 12 gauge shotgun, dog or not.

      But what the gun advocates are peddling is not exactly kosher stuff IMO, a ton of false narratives heavily infested with “either-or” juice.

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        “I do not believe in the unfettered and irresponsible use of said guns that endanger others.”

        Neither do conservatives.

        “I think people should held just as responsible for guns as they are cars.”

        They are. I even gave you a specific example of someone who followed Joe Biden’s foolish and irresponsible advice and was convicted. The biggest impediment of holding people accountable is leftist prosecutors.

        “there should be restrictions on buying and selling guns especially to those who should not have access to them”

        There are! Selling a firearm without going through an FFL (with background check) is a felony in Virginia.

        If this tragedy shows anything, it’s that existing law, if followed, would accomplish a great deal of good.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Neither do conservatives

          What about the imaginary conservatives that certain individual(s) here invent when they have no idea what they are talking about but still want to make a comment that bashes conservatives?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Matt Gaetz exists. Amanda Chase, Marjorie Green, Jim Jordan, etc., exist too.

            So not quite imaginary.

            And sadly, the House is very busy continuing to placate them. My bash on the conservatives is when will they stop these showboats and govern.

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Yes, and not a single one of them “believe[s] in the unfettered and irresponsible use of said guns that endanger others.” My comment was aimed only at insinuations contained within a previous comment.

            As far as your “bash on conservatives”, you’ll get no argument from me.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          And firearm liability insurance would mitigate some of the public costs resulting from shootings. Insurers could require owners to acquire safety kits.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yes same as what they do for auto, fire and homeowner.

          2. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            There are numerous ways of securing firearms. The firearm locks are given away because they provide people of limited means a free option.

            Potentially unsafe conditions abound within the home. How do we ensure that young children aren’t exposed to matches? Gasoline? Power tools? The list would be endless.

            We don’t prescriptively dictate by law every possible do and don’t, and we don’t randomly search households to make sure people comply.

            We hold people accountable.

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Also, all new firearms include a lock in the packaging/box.

            I use gun safes, so I’m planning on using all of the firearm locks I have been given over the years to create some kind of sculpture for my front yard.

            Right now I’m trying to choose between an abstract representation of a Gatling gun and a minimalist figure of Don Quixote tilting at a windmill.

          4. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “Also, all new firearms include a lock in the packaging/box.”

            That’s a federal requirement, and I’ve mentioned it multiple times in comments.

            I don’t use the free locks myself either, with one exception. My Ruger SR556 came with a really nice heavy duty locking system.

            I recommend keeping any locks you aren’t using to give away. I just did that a couple weeks ago to someone who I knew didn’t have one, but had young children at home. I’m sure he will eventually get a safe, but the lock will work in the meantime.

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I was joking about making a sculpture from my locks. I have given away several myself.

          6. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            And journalism libel liability insurance would mitigate some of the public cost of defamation lawsuits. So what?

            Please describe your idea of a “safety kit” for a firearm.

          7. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            I would leave such design to experts. Any safety kit employed voluntarily remains opportunity for misuse. Further, I am unaware of public costs associated with defamation law suits.

        3. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Biden’s “advice” was in the context of a home invasion. Do you really think it’s considered breaking the law if you did that when your home was being invaded by an intruder?

          this is the kind of cherry-picking goofball stuff that is getting substituted for discussion on the merits.

          What is an effective way for the govt to “control” the illegal sale of weapons without a background check?

          I think there are numerous, dozens of ways , reasonable ways we could do better on guns and should.

          The idea that we cannot regulate them because it’s 2A is just plain false. We regulate “arms” out the wazoo right now. The regulations on things like machine guns is far tougher and more restrictive than non-automatic weapons. What distinguishes the two if both are permitted by 2A? What about other “arms” that the
          military possesses? Are they also “arms” that are “guaranteed” by 2A?

          1. CJBova Avatar
            CJBova

            “Biden’s “advice” was in the context of a home invasion. Do you really
            think it’s considered breaking the law if you did that when your home
            was being invaded by an intruder?”

            Yes. That’s the law.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            So you think if someone WAS being threatened by an intruder and they did this, they’d be charged
            and convicted?

          3. CJBova Avatar
            CJBova

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLOzvUgkLXg

            When you fire a gun into the air, the bullet has to come down and could hit someone else. And you can’t fire at an intruder legally if they are not inside your house.

          4. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            You don’t make a distinction between a segment from Fox news and a segment from a local Fox affiliate?

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            There are circumstances under which you may shoot at someone (in self defense) who is not inside your house. Virginia’s self defense laws are somewhat complicated, but this website does a pretty good job of explaining them, in my opinion.

            https://www.tmwilsonlaw.com/criminal-law/self-defense

            We’re sort of a “Modified Castle Doctrine” state. One thing is definitely true, though, it is always best if the entry wounds on the intruder are in the front.

            😉

          6. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Larry won’t be convinced no matter how many references you provide.

            My original post about the incident had a link with more information, including this.

            “Delaware law would likely make his suggestion illegal—unless the shots were fired in self-defense in a truly life-threatening situation.”

            “A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.”

            The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. “On your property you can’t just shoot someone,” he said. “You have to really feel that your life is being threatened.”

            “Defense attorney John Garey—a former Delaware deputy attorney general—agreed, and added that several criminal charges might result if Jill Biden took her husband’s advice.”

            “In Delaware you have to be in fear of your life to use deadly force,” Garey said. “There’s nothing based on his scenario alone” indicating a reason to fear imminent death, he noted.

            https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/20/joe-biden-shotgun-advice-could-land-jill-biden-in-jail

          7. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            LarrytheG:
            “Biden’s “advice” was in the context of a home invasion. Do you really think it’s considered breaking the law if you did that when your home was being invaded by an intruder?”

            What Biden suggested was irresponsible and reckless. You said earlier that you don’t approve of irresponsible use of firearms. So what gives?

            The 911 recording I posted is just the opposite, and you could learn from it. She did everything right. Notice when she uses the firearm – it’s when the attacker entered the house and she was in immediate danger.

            “Sheriff Chuck Mangion said 57-year-old Donna Jackson called 911 around 12:30 a.m. to report that she was home alone and a man was trying to break in her patio door.”

            “Jackson told the 911 dispatcher that the man was screaming and threatening to hurt her.”

            “They need to hurry. He’s going to break this thing open. When he does, I’ll have to kill him and I don’t want to kill him,” Jackson said during the 911 call.

            “For nearly 10 minutes the man continued banging at the door and yelling profanities, threatening the woman.”

            “I can hear him banging the doors and yelling at her. I was scared for her,” said Brenda Hart, a Lincoln County 911 dispatch who was on the phone with Jackson during the incident.

            “The man picked up a patio table and threw it through the glass door and entered the home. The woman then shot him in the chest, Mangion said.”

            The 911 dispatcher heard the glass breaking and the gun fire on the other end of the line.

            “I shot him. I’m going out front. I hit him. God help me,” Jackson said during the 911 call. “Please dear God. I think I killed him. Please Father in heaven, oh my god.”

            https://www.news9.com/story/5e35b5ac83eff40362bf064f/woman-shoots-kills-intruder-in-lincoln-county

  8. Matt Adams Avatar
    Matt Adams

    Under VA Law it is already against the law to leave a firearm unattended.

    The bill is poppycock. Furthermore, use a red light it won’t ruin your night vision.

    Further, illustrating that our legislators and those who vote them into office are unware of the laws currently on the books and want to pass additional ones not to be enforced.

  9. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Why not appropriate money for local law enforcement agencies to investigate and seize guns from felons? They aren’t allowed to have them. And have a Senate committee hold public hearings on why no one in Charlottesville or UVA used the Red Flag laws last year.

  10. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    I somehow believe the change from 14 to 18 will be less controversial than the change in verbiage dealing with “recklessly…unsecured” (an ambiguous term to say the least) to an “Al Gore lockbox”.

    The age change is logical with certain mass shootings — “People, your 17-year old IS STILL your child.”

    People like laws. People also like “reasonable man” applications as opposed to zero-tolerance.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      You make a good point about ambiguity, and although I don’t necessarily want to see the age limit raised, I don’t disagree with your point there.

      But, requiring gun and ammo to be locked up separately is insane, in my opinion.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        In fact, requiring the locked up gun to also be unloaded is beyond redundancy. Your bank has less online security than that.

  11. Walter Hadlock Avatar
    Walter Hadlock

    A quick note. It is not senator elect Boysko. She is a state senator, and is running for reelection this year. The Virginian-Pilot made a basic error about her status. While she is my state senator, we don’t have all that much in common.
    Update: I just read the newspaper article. The confusion over Sen. Boysko as Senator-elect came from a photo of her delivering a farewell speech in the House of Delegates as she readied to move to the state senate.

  12. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    Senator Jennifer Boysko has chosen to capitalize on a tragedy to make headlines by offering up legislation that:

    A – Won’t be passed by the legislature
    B – Would be vetoed by the Governor if it did

    If she really wanted to help prevent these type of incidents, she would educate gun owners as to where they might find the recourses to educate themselves about gun safety in homes with children.

    Project ChildSafe not only provides information, they also work with law enforcement to provide free gun locks to gun owners who need them.

    “Project ChildSafe is a program of the National Shooting Sports Foundation to promote firearms safety and education. We are committed to promoting genuine firearms safety through the distribution of safety education messages and free firearm safety kits to communities across the U.S.”

    https://projectchildsafe.org/

    So why didn’t she do that? I assume because she isn’t aware of it and wouldn’t want to steer anyone to resources sponsored by the National Shooting Sports Foundation anyway.

    How many incidents might be averted if every gun owner in Virginia was aware of existing laws regarding firearm safety around children, as well as where they might find free resources to secure them?

    I guess we’ll never know.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Because the potential for death or serious injury arises from firearms consistently and regularly occur, voluntary adoption of safety measures is not sufficient. This lesson was evident with automobiles leading not only to advanced safety mechanisms but liability insurance. How many deaths will it take until too many have died?

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        James McCarthy:
        “voluntary adoption of safety measures is not sufficient.”

        What’s voluntary?

        The manufacturer and FFL have been required to provide locks since 2005.

        https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what-does-child-safety-lock-act-2005-csla-require-licensee

        Gun owners are also required by law to secure firearms from children. James Sherlock cited the law already, but here’s the link.

        § 18.2-56.2. Allowing access to firearms by children; penalty.

        https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-56.2/

        While that law specifies age 14, failure to secure a firearm from any minor could still be consider reckless endangerment of a minor.

        James McCarthy:
        “How many deaths will it take until too many have died?”

        What exactly are you proposing?

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Mandatory safety measures for weapon storage in homes. Compulsory liability insurance to mitigate taxpayer expenses for medical, use of police resources, victim compensation for lost wages and permanent injury. No “could be considered” loopholes.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            This case shows that legislation didn’t get the job done. There’s no loophole for allowing access to firearms by children, yet the mother didn’t do what was required.

            As mentioned previously, I think raising awareness of existing laws would do more good than always proposing new laws.

            Compulsory liability insurance would place the greatest burden on those who can least afford it, and many of those live in areas where the need for self defense is highest.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      How about we do both?

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        I’ve been doing what I can toward that end. I linked to the relevant law under the previous article by Kerry Dougherty, and my comment above provides information for gun owners to secure their firearms.

        The free gun locks are even available in Newport News.

        “Project Child Safe aims to prevent instances like the one at Richneck Elementary by partnering with local law enforcement agencies to distribute free gun locks to families.”

        “Newport News is one of several Virginia cities that partner with the organization to distribute free gun safety kits.”

        https://www.wtkr.com/news/experts-gun-lock-could-have-prevented-richneck-elementary-school-shooting

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          The one thing that needs to be said in this situation is that thousands upon thousands of kids go to school everyday and this kind of incident is really quite rare. Neither the left nor the right are doing any good
          trying to make it about their agenda.

          Agree?

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Did you look at the list of weapons violations in Newport News schools to which I provided a link in my last article? It is not rare. Here is the link again. https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2023/01/Offense-Frequency-Report-3.xlsx

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          How is the public assured the kits are utilized? Would the presence of a kit in a home where a weapon is illegally or accidentally employed causing injury increase liability for any responsibility for outcomes?

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            James McCarthy:
            “How is the public assured the kits are utilized?”

            I honestly don’t understand this line of questions but will do my best to answer. You may need to clarify.

            When someone contacts law enforcement and gets a firearm safety kit, there is no assurance whatsoever that it will be used. That shouldn’t be alarming because without random house to house searches, how would there be?

            The same would apply to any child safety device such as a gate to keep a child from falling down stairs, electrical outlet covers, etc.

            And getting back to the 6 year old with the gun, safety locks are required for all new handguns. That law was passed in 2005. If the child’s mother purchased the handgun new, she already had a lock.

            https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what-does-child-safety-lock-act-2005-csla-require-licensee

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            You’ve answered the voluntary issue. The weapon owner contacts LE and there’s no assurance the safety kit is used. Fact remains to be seen about the use of the required lock by the 6 year old’s mother. The “same” simply does not apply to stair safety gates or electrical outlet covers. Neither are inherently dangerous as are firearms.

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            How is the public assured that people are safely storing the gas for their lawn mowers?

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Irrelevant as stored gasoline is not a substance or product designed to maim or injure. In most instances, homeowner insurance will cover accidents involving gasoline.

Leave a Reply

Read More