It's time to demand serious gun control and elect representatives who represent our values. The GOP General Assembly's irresponsible votes to allow the sale of unlimited guns and allow guns in bars and cars has led to countless deaths. Now is the time to press for change!

Hooray for our delegate voting against disclosure. Stop being so knee jerk about news when statistics show a) compared to other means of injury and demise, gun danger is extremely low for any person who does not partake in a criminal lifestyle, and b) that if guns were banned then they would still be out on the street. Sensible gun regulations already exist. That said - I am truly sorry about your brother. That is horrible.

There is no reason for the names and addresses of concealed weapons permit holders to be public. Those who hold such permits shouldn't have to live in fear of some newspaper publishing their names and addresses. Is Kathleen Murphy in favor of harassing law abiding citizens? If you don't like the concealed weapons permit law, then get it repealed Kathleen. Don't treat those who have such permits as pariahs who should have their names and addresses put on the front page of the local newspapers.

I'm with you, Kathleen. The NRA thinks the answer to gun violence is more guns, but most of us don't want to live in a society where everyone has to be armed to be safe, and it's a nut's fantasy that somehow we would BE safe if everyone walked around with a gun. It's long past time for sensible restrictions. Every buyer should go through a background check and take a gun safety course; every gun should be registered with the police; and no one should have access to an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic that can fire more than a few shots without reloading.

GOP Del. Comstock has voted for the sale of unlimited handguns and supported concealed weapons in bars and cars. Virginia's voters want a change -- and Kathleen Murphy is the responsible choice to replace her as the 34th Dist. Delegate to the Virginia House. Let's support Murphy. Comstock is bankrolled by the extreme Cuccinelli conservatives threatening our state.

What's wrong with a concealed weapon in a car? Should people who have concealed weapons permits be forced to walk everywhere?

Look - I am generally very liberal, and think our current AG is an idiot. And if I thought that banning / regulating guns would make a statistical difference in our safety I would be in favor of it.

But the fact is that you all pay no attention to statistics, and you pay no attention to the history of civilization and the reason we have a 2nd amendment in the first place. So for those reasons - I really have to disagree with your knee jerk, emotional reactions that will a) not make any one person safer (statistically speaking), and b) will be regretted at some point in the (probably/hopefully very far) future of the USA's history to come.

To Dave Webster's comment - that is the exact reason for this new law in VA. This information WAS public and no one had a problem with that. But then - possibly for circulation reasons? - a paper hung these law abiding citizens out to dry en masse in front of their neighbors. Two people on my friend's street in Yorktown Heights, NY had concealed carry permits with a map right to their front door! I am guessing that suddenly they are pariahs in some of their previously friendly neighbors' eyes. If there was a way to create a law that said "newspapers can't publish this information en masse" - I am guessing the VA legislature may have happily gone that route instead of making the information completely unavailable.

If the right to bear arms, even at the cost of millions of innocents, is considered an inalienable right with no restrictions or due diligence required of potential buyers, what do we do when nuclear weapons and drones go on sale? I'm afraid the world going to learn a deadly lesson unless counties, states and countries talk seriously about disarmament. As usual, the devil is in the details and as far as I am concerned, Kathleen Murphy's stance on gun control is a shot into a reasonable and sane direction.

Liv, "Millions of Innocents"??? Where do you get your statistics? More people die from accidental overdose of prescription medicines. Are you going to ban medicine?

Ah! How I await the joy to be comprehended!

If the right to bear arms, even at the cost of millions of innocents, is considered an inalienable right with no restrictions or due diligence required of potential buyers, what do we do when nuclear weapons and drones go on sale? I'm afraid the world is going to learn a deadly lesson unless counties, states and countries talk seriously about disarmament. As usual, the devil is in the details and as far as I am concerned, Kathleen Murphy's stance on gun control is a shot into a reasonable and sane direction.

The number of shooting deaths is expected to rise to 32,929 in 2015, according to a 10-year average based on Centers for Disease Control Data. By contrast, the number of traffic deaths is expected to continue its FALL and decline to 32,036 thanks to advances in safety technology.
http://autos.aol.com/article/gun-deaths-will-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015-study-says/

"Shooting deaths" includes suicides does it not Mary?

Suicides are very painful. I know from personal experience when my nephew shot himself with a gun made readily available by his grandfather. The reason why my nephew is dead is because there was a loaded weapon readily available. Without a gun there wouldn't have been a death and they all count, whether murders, accidents or suicides.

They surely do all count. I just think the phrase "shooting death" is misleading if, in fact, it includes suicides. When one thinks of "shooting deaths" one thinks of murder usually.

Since we lead the world in the number of firearms per capita, one would think, according to the logic of some, that we would be the safest country in the world. Yet we lead with way more murders and accidental deaths due to firearms than any of the other industrially advanced countries and quite a few not so advanced countries.

For the most part, US states and localities with tougher gun laws – such as New York state and New York City – have both lower homicide rates and lower suicide rates than other places in the US.

As for the method of choice of suicides – firearms! About 52 percent of American suicides occur using a firearm – 57 percent for men.

It seems to me that our current approach to the problem of gun-related deaths and injuries is flawed. We need to rethink and reassess.

The measures Kathleen Murphy is proposing are really quite moderate and make a lot of sense to me. Ben T.

Bob

You seem like a very thoughtful man so I feel inspired to more clearly
state my case to you.

If we are in agreement that countries should be restricted from
acquiring dangerous weapons that could eventually harm us,why would
we turn around and allow a man down the street to own a gun strong enough to kill
everyone in our neighborhood?

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

Oh and for those of you in this comment thread who feel strongly that the second amendment is protecting them from tyranny, think again. The US government already has you out gunned (they have helicopters that can shower bullets one per every square inch covering your entire house) and out smarted, the Patriot Act has already stripped many of your liberties.

The only thing that we can truly do to protect ourselves is to stay as informed as we can and be aware of hired guns paid to harass and mislead us on the internet. My vote goes to Kathleen Murphy! Go Kathleen!

"be aware of hired guns paid to harass and mislead us on the internet." -- lame. Anyone that makes a strong argument must be paid. Surely gun owners could not be intelligent, they must be paid to make their arguments.

Anyone that disagrees with anyone on the left must be demonized. That is called fascism..

Go ahead, put your life in the Dear Leader's hands, you will not last long in a crisis situation.

Getting back to el. DComstock, her vote this week against the disclosure of handgun permit holders was MAINSTREAM and sailed through the House (76-23) (and the Senate (32-8), on a broad bipartisan basis. The bill was supported by many Democrats in both houses, including Senators B. Favola, A. Ebban, D. Mardsen, and Chap Peterson. As for Comstock's "A" NRA rating, Sen. Mark Warner and Sen Jim Webb have had long-standing NRA "A" ratings. On this issue, it is Kathleen Murphy who is clearly out of the mainstream in Virginia, not Del. Comstock. The public disclosure of those with concealed carry permits is a horrible idea, even rejected by most Democrats. Ask the person in New York, whose house was broken into after his address was disclosed and his two handguns (in a safe) were stolen his two permits taken, his house ransacked. Ask policemen and judges who routinely anger dangerous criminals and fear for their safety. Moreover, such information is readily available if needed by law enforcement officers. If we're concerned about deaths of innocents, why don't we address the mental health issues and the grotesque culture of violence promulgated by Hollywood and glorified by the media. Comstock's vote this week was mainstream, like it or not.

Getting back to Del. Comstock, her vote this week against the disclosure of handgun permit holders was MAINSTREAM and sailed through the House (76-23) and the Senate (32-8), on a broad bipartisan basis. The bill was supported by many Democrats in both houses, including Senators B. Favola, A. Ebban, D. Mardsen, and Chap Peterson. As for Comstock's "A" NRA rating, Sen. Mark Warner and Sen Jim Webb have had long-standing NRA "A" ratings. On this issue, it is Kathleen Murphy who is clearly out of the mainstream in Virginia, not Del. Comstock. The public disclosure of those with concealed carry permits is a horrible idea, even rejected by most Democrats. Ask the person in New York, whose house was broken into after his address was disclosed and his two handguns (in a safe) were stolen his two permits taken, his house ransacked. Ask policemen and judges who routinely anger dangerous criminals and fear for their safety. Moreover, such information is readily available if needed by law enforcement officers. If we're concerned about deaths of innocents, why don't we address the mental health issues and the grotesque culture of violence promulgated by Hollywood and glorified by the media? Comstock's vote this week was mainstream, like it or not.

House Vote: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+vot+HV0813+SB1335

Senate Vote: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+vot+SV0527SB1335+SB1335

I feel Comstock's votes on gun issues in lockstep with the NRA are not reflective of the 34th district. I gathered signatures on a gun reform petition last weekend in Great Falls. Some people signed; others did not. But everyone felt something needed to be done! They love Great Falls and they want to feel safe in the this community without having to arm themselves. The fear and paranoia that the head of the NRA, LaPierre (and by extension Comstock) promote is not wanted in Great Falls! Kathleen Murphy shows sensitivity and moderation to both sides of this issue and she is the right choice for delegate.

Kathleen Murphy is a dangerous candidate. She wants to disclose information about gun owners because she doesn't like guns. Yet, I cannot imagine she would support making information about men getting vasectomies or women getting abortions public. Why the difference? How about leaving people alone to make their decisions in private, be they about reproduction or gun ownership? The law should have a preference for privacy.

And how about some of our good Democratic representatives who have A ratings from the NRA? I cannot imagine Ms. Murphy didn't vote for Mark Warner because he is a gun rights supporter. We need one set of rules folks. Not "heads, I win; tails you lose." There is something deep and dishonest here.

"There is something deep and dishonest here." -- The left never wants to talk about the facts and by proxy they are not being honest. As P. Scott stated, they want to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING because they think it will make them "feel" safer. Reality be dammed. If we are going to do something let's do something that will make a difference. Up to this point I have not heard any policy statements that would accomplish a nickel's worth of safety.

Sadly, Ms Murphy has begun to define herself as one who will rely on divisive, inflammatory and, most importantly, misleading comments about her opponent to make a point. Barbara Comstock has a record of sensible solutions to many issues, of which gun control is just one.

Ms. Murphy, however, seems to think “gun control” is a good excuse for invading the privacy of law-abiding Commonwealth citizens. Should this “disclosure” include the names of women who carry a firearm as protection against an abusive ex-husband? Is Murphy next going to demand that the Commonwealth release every citizen's tax returns? How about the personal details of everyone who applies for welfare benefits or visits a state health clinic? What is the legitimate purpose of releasing the names of Commonwealth citizens who are obeying the law and applying for a concealed carry permit? Perhaps Ms Murphy’s will explain at some point.

RE: "What is the legitimate purpose of releasing the names of Commonwealth citizens who are obeying the law "
-Surely you know this is a tactic to try and "shame" law abiding citizens to succumb to their will.

I too wonder why Mrs. Murphy posts such a statement then goes into hiding. Is she too good to engage the public directly.

Barbara Comstock's Republican friends on the House Militia, Police & Public Safety Comm. on a partisan vote (15 Reps voted Yea; 6 Dems voted Nay) held on Feb. 8, completely re-wrote Sen Mark Obenshain's (R) SB 1335.

On Jan 29, Obenshain's original SB 1335 passed on a near-unanimous vote HOWEVER, his bill was to provide that "Upon receipt of a written request for confidentiality by a person protected by a protective order the [concealed weapon] permit shall withhold from public disclosure any information indicating the permit was issued to the protected person, including all personal identifying information contained in the protected person’s permit application."

As an example, a woman who has a court-ordered protective order against her abusive ex-husband and possesses a concealed weapon permit because the details of the permit would not be publicly disclosed. Absolutely, we should do as much as we can to protect battered and abuse women.

So, what happened when this "sensible gun safety regulations" reached the House? It was re-written so that anyone who has a concealed weapon permit does not have personal information revealed to the public. As currently enacted, § 18.2-308 requires that only the permit holder's SSN is withheld.

In response to this partisan House amendment, SB 1335 went from "sensible" to controversial. This is a diversion from reaching consensus on reasonable gun violence prevention measures. Well played, House Republicans.

Well, it took courage to admit this but I am paid $500k/year to seek out obscure blog posts that practically no one reads just so I can speak out against honest people trying to make the world a better place. Whew - glad I got that off my chest! Lol

Yea, sure, a local party committee member a paid position. Laughable.

There is a big difference between *personal identifying information shall not be withheld from public disclosure* and publicizing the names of concealed weapons permit holders. Why are you jumping to conclusions about this issue?

Frankly, the marketing departments of the NRA and GOA should welcome the publicly available knowledge of gun ownership.

Rob, Rob, Rob. Kathleen Murphy is hardly evil. Nor is she a dangerous radical. In fact, I happen to know that before Newtown, she wanted to reach out to NRA leadership to find common ground. This is true! I suggested to her that the NRA might not be open to common ground finding. Their post-Newtown behavior supports my opinion.

Kathleen Murphy has the full support of members of the local Democratic Committee. They are your neighbors and they believe Kathleen is an excellent candidate to unseat Barbara Comstock. We are not evil or radical, Rob. We're just Democrats.

RE: "Yea, sure, a local party committee member a paid position. Laughable."
Very condescending but I would not expect anything more from a Democratic.

I note that you directed the bulk of your response to Rob by name, so you concede on my arguments?

RE: "FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a Vice Chair on the Dranesville District Democratic Committee."

Oh I get it now. Murphy will not engage the public directly, even after posting here, so she sends our her henchmen. She must see us as the unwashed masses of which she could never speak to as we are but mere proletarians yet she wants to rule over us.

She can't even defend her own blog post; pathetic!

Greg, Kathleen Murphy is dangerous and seemingly dishonest. Murphy states "she [Comstock] has an A rating and takes her lead from the NRA." Well, Senator Mark Warner also has an A rating from the NRA. Source: WaPo. How does Candidate Murphy feel about our senior senator? Either an A rating is a fair campaign issue or it's not. Would Murphy support a primary challenge to Warner since he's a Second Amendment supporter? Of course not. It's only wrong for a GOP candidate to have an A rating.

"There is a big difference between *personal identifying information shall not be withheld from public disclosure* and publicizing the names of concealed weapons permit holders. Why are you jumping to conclusions about this issue?" GIve me a break. If personal identifying information is available about gun owners, concealed permit holders, vasectomy patients, abortion patients, what stops someone from publicizing it? Absolutely nothing.

This is playing games. Privacy is important in all aspects of life. If you can get information about someone owning guns, you can publish it in the paper, on the Internet, on the radio. You can picket their homes. You can harass them at work. You can break into their homes. It's clear Candidate Murphy doesn't like guns, doesn't like gun owners and wants to make personal information about them public.

It's important to protect the privacy rights of even those we disagree with, IMO.

I am truly sorry for your loss. However, while I sympathize with the loss of your brother, I ask that you please explain how any of the current proposals would have prevented a *criminal* from obtaining and using a handgun in the commission of a violent crime.

None of the proposals I've seen in the past few months address the fact that criminals don't submit to background checks, and they don't obtain concealed-handgun permits. In fact, they sometimes STEAL firearms from those law-abiding citizens whose names and addresses are published by some do-gooder who thinks s/he has a "right" to know what personal property I own.

I caution you -- northern Virginians who have put on their blinders and run primarily on platforms calling for more control of law-abiding citizens have not done well. I hope you have more to contribute than attempting to turn positives into negatives..

I'd like to support Kathleen Murphy's sensible position on gun violence prevention. Here are statistics from the Virginia State Police based on the 100,000 guns recovered by 200 police departments in the Commonwealth between 1993 to August 2010. More than 14,000 of these 100,000 guns recovered by various Commonwealth police departments during a wide range of investigations had high-capacity magazines.

In 1998 a noticeable drop in the number of guns recovered by police departments began in the Commonwealth, and it continued with 2004 being the year with the lowest number of guns recovered (9%) during that period. Then it started increasing again reaching the highest number (20%) in 2010.

In 1997, 944 handguns were seized with large capacity magazines. In 2004, 452 handguns were seized with large capacity magazines. In 2009, the last full year for which the Virginia state police had data, 986 handguns with large capacity magazines were seized. My source is the Washington Post article on January 13, 2013, titled "High-capacity magazines saw drop during ban, data indicate".

By definition the police investigate people who break the law, not law-abiding citizens who hunt, target shoot, or are responsible gun owners. Remember, we lost 2 excellent police officers here in Fairfax County at the Sully police sub-station because their murderer had an assault weapon and even the fastest police sharpshooter in the world can't respond as quickly.

GOP Del. Barbara Comstock supports unlimited sales of handguns and supports allowing concealed weapons in bars and cars. We deserve better representation.

So the Constitution be dammed, as long as it is dammed to your likening. That is called fascism.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Take note of "SHALL not be infringed". Your comments most definitely infringe upon my right to protect myself and my family regardless of where I am or how many firearms can be purchased by any law abiding citizen.

To the Editor:

I have been following the blog and most recently the letter to the editor regarding Kathleen Murphy’s blog advocating sensible gun safety regulations, including universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines and penalties for gun trafficking. This was a measured and responsible call for action on serious issues. Her comment on the recent disclosure legislation I believe was in line with concerns we all share over gun safety, no matter how hard others try to skew her words. I would like to point out that our current Delegate, Barbara Comstock votes the NRA line and has their A rating, which is great for the NRA but bad for the safety of our families.

I strongly believe that Kathleen Murphy will be a great advocate for our community and am eager to support her campaign for Virginia House of Delegates.

You Murphy folks seem to be working from the same talking points. I especially note the 'projection' tactic: "sensible gun safety regulations". By using phrases like that you try to box the reader into a position of not being 'sensible' if they do not agree with you.

Seems like a coordinated propaganda campaign by the Democrats.