The Four Most Powerful Men in Virginia You Never Heard of

 

These bills were introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates in the current session:

HB 61: would prohibit the sale of rifles, shotguns or assault weapons to out-of-state residents.

HB 535: would require background checks for firearms transfers at gun shows.

HB 809: would prohibit the sale of large capacity magazines (with stated exceptions).

HB 812: would require background checks for all firearms transfers.

HB 823: would permit background checks for firearms transfers at gun shows if one of the parties to the transfer requested one.

None of these bills will become law this session. In fact, none of these bills will ever be voted on by the House of Delegates. Why?

Have you ever gone to the General Assembly website and looked at that tutorial that tells “How a bill becomes a law?” There is a step in there entitled “Committee studies bill.” It says “The committee studies the bill to see if it would make a good law.” The next step is entitled “Bill is reported.” It reads “If the committee agrees the bill would make good law, the committee reports the results to the House or the Senate.”

Well, trusted reader, I need to inform you that the General Assembly has not been entirely truthful in educating the public on how a bill becomes a law, or more to the point, how a bill does NOT become a law. It’s not that the tutorial doesn’t tell the truth. It’s that it doesn’t tell the whole truth. It doesn’t mention that under House rules the majority party in the House of Delegates decides the makeup of the various House standing committees. It doesn’t mention that the standing committees may set up subcommittees to more efficiently deal with their load of bills. It doesn’t mention that one of the House committees—the Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety (MPPS)—contains fifteen Republican members and seven Democratic members. It doesn’t mention that the MPPS is divided into three subcommittees. It also doesn’t mention that Subcommittee #1 contains four Republicans and only one Democrat. And it also doesn’t mention that all firearms bills are routinely referred to Subcommittee #1. And finally, it doesn’t mention that under House and parliamentary rules, the 4 Republican members of MPPS Subcommittee #1 can prevent any legislation from ever reaching the floor of the House of Delegates, and they can do so without ever having a recorded vote. And that, dear reader, is what happened to all of the bills I described above.

But, Maven, what do you mean by without a vote. Surely, the subcommittee must vote. 

Subcommittee #1 took action by voice vote. How does that work? Motion to table, seconded, all in favor say “aye”, all opposed say “nay,” the ayes have it. And what is reported in the official record? “Subcommittee recommends laying on the table by voice vote.” It is not reported how individual members of the subcommittee voted. So, in theory, we can never hold any of those delegates accountable for their vote. Or can we?

We do know who the members of the subcommittee are. And we can infer how they voted (assuming of course that the chair actually counted the ayes and nays). So let me introduce you to the members of MPPS Subcommittee #1. First the Democrat—Del. Roslyn C. Taylor of the 75^th District. And the Republicans—Del. Thomas C. Wright, Jr., of the 61^st District (chair of the subcommittee); Del. C. Matthew Fariss of the 59^th District; Del. C. Todd Gilbert of the 15^th District; Del. Michael J. Webert of the 18^th District. Although I certainly cannot prove it, I am quite certain that Del. Taylor voted “nay” on the voice votes to put these bills to sleep. Likewise, I am quite certain that Del. Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert all voted to kill these bills.

In the state-wide election this past November the three candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general who favored reasonable gun control legislation were elected. Those who opposed such legislation were defeated. However, that is irrelevant because Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert said NO. Polls show that most Virginians favor reasonable firearms control legislation (like the bills described above). Too bad! Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert said NO. Hundreds of Virginians, including family members of people who were murdered by firearm at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, demonstrate at the Virginia Capitol in favor of responsible gun legislation (like the bills above). Pity! Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert said NO. The Virginia Senate may pass legislation similar to the bills above. But, when they come to the House on crossover day, Wright, Fariss, Gilbert and Webert will again say NO.

But, Maven, isn’t it unfair that four men on one subcommittee can block the will of a majority of the people in Virginia? 

Yes, reader, it is unfair. It is also undemocratic (not to be confused with unDemocratic). And it is “unrepublican.” In a republican form of government, which the Commonwealth is supposed to be, I would expect that more times than not the majority would decide what is the proper policy to be followed. Yet, because of the actions of Wright, Farris, Gilbert and Webert, we will never even know what the majority is because those four gentlemen will not allow a vote in the House on any restrictive firearms legislation. 

So, what can we do? We need to put the spotlight and the heat on Wright, Farris, Gilbert and Webert. We need to publicize their actions every time they effectively kill reasonable firearms bills. We need to lobby them heavily. We need to make sure that everybody in the Commonwealth knows how these four men continuously block the will of the people. We need to work against the political gerrymandering that allowed three of these “no” men to run unopposed in the last election. Let us not forget the names of these four unknowns: Thomas Wright of Victoria; Matt Fariss of Rustburg; Todd Gilbert of Woodstock; and Michael Webert of Marshall

 

 

Will the Real Manoli Loupassi Please Stand

 First, a few disclaimers: 1- I do not live in the 68^th House of Delegates district, so Manoli Loupassi is not my delegate; 2- Mr. Loupassi is a Republican so it would have to be a strange combination of circumstances that would lead me to support him in a political race; and 3- I opposed Mr. Loupassi’s election campaign in 2007 1 (although my opposition then was based mainly on the hateful campaign he was running.

On the other hand, Manoli seems a nice enough guy. I have met him several times and we have always been civil to each other. I used to enjoy watching him preside over the Richmond City Council back when he was its president. And, Mr. Loupassi always presents himself as one of those reasonable Republicans, not a Tea Party, NRA, Family Foundation of Virginia right-wing Republican. This presentment, you may argue, is negated by the facts that Manoli has been endorsed for reelection by the NRA and scored 88 on the Family Foundation’s rating of legislators in the last section. But, as I long ago learned, words are cheap (perhaps that is why I use so many of them). For a legislator running for reelection, it makes more sense to look at his or her voting records.

So let’s look at Manoli’s voting record while in the House of Delegates:

Issues relating to women:

In 2011, Manoli voted for HB2434, which expressed the intent of the General Assembly that the state establish its own health benefits exchange (under the Affordable Care Act) that would exclude abortion coverage from all insurance offered in the state (with stated exceptions).

In 2012, Manoli voted for HB462 and SB484, both of which require a woman to undergo ultrasound imaging before undergoing an abortion.

In 2012, Manoli voted for HB62, which would have repealed the provision of law that allows state Medicaid funds to pay for an abortion when a doctor certifies “that the fetus would be born with a gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.”

In 2013, Manoli voted for HB1, which provided that “The life of each human being begins at conception.” and that “Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.”

 Issues relating to firearms: (Most legislation attempting to place limits on gun purchases, ownership or use are never voted on by the full House of Delegates because they are killed by the NRA-controlled Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety)

In 2010, Manoli voted for HB885, which permits a person to carry a handgun in a motor vehicle or vessel, if the weapon is secured in a compartment or container.

In 2010, Manoli voted for HB505, which allows a concealed weapon to be carried into a restaurant or club in which alcoholic beverages are served, so long as the gun carrier does not drink.

In 2012, Manoli voted for HB48, which allows a resident to use deadly force against an intruder, if the intruder commits an “overt act” and the resident believes he is in imminent danger of physical injury.

In 2012, Manoli voted for HB940 and SB323, which repealed the limit on purchasing one hand-gun in a 30 day period.

In 2013, Manoli voted for SB1335, which prohibited the disclosure of information about persons authorized to carry concealed weapons.

Other Issues:

(Photo-ID) In 2013, Manoli voted for SB1256, which provides that a photo-ID is the only form of identification that will permit a person to vote in Virginia.

(Adoption) In 2012, Manoli voted for SB349, which allows a private adoption agency to refuse to participate in an adoption that violates its written religious or moral convictions.

(Legal Presence) In 2012, Manoli voted for HB1060, which requires Virginia law enforcement personal to ascertain whether each person they arrest is in the country legally.

(Employee Retirement) In 2012, Manoli voted for HB1129, which reduced retirement benefits for Virginia state employees.

(Congressional Districting) In 2012, Manoli voted for HB251, which established districts for Virginia’s 11 representatives that strongly favor Republican incumbents.

(General Assembly Districting) In 2011, Manoli vote for HB5005, which established districts for the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates that strongly favored incumbents, including himself.

So, trusted reader, I have shown you some of Manoli Loupassi’s votes. And I ask you, is Manoli the reasonable Republican that he would like you to believe he is. Or has he voted consistently to justify his endorsement by the NRA and his high score by the Family Foundation? To me, he seems the wrong man to represent Democrats and Independents in the 68^th District. He is also the wrong man to represent Republicans who want to reclaim their party from the Tea Party wing that is pushing their party “to the right, ever to the right…”

Why Do We Give The NRA Such Power?

The largest headline on the print Richmond Times-Dispatch this morning, covering more than half of the entire width of the front page, reads “NRA calls for armed guards in schools.” The number two story in the Washington Post this morning (top of the left column) reads “NRA, Put armed police in schools.” Last night on the NBC evening news the lead story involved footage of a press conference held by NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre rejecting any additional gun laws and advocating the placement of armed (that is with guns) guards in all of the nation’s schools. The press conference by the National Rifle Association took place one week after the slaughter of 26 people, including 20 young children, at a Connecticut elementary school.

If I were a visitor from another planet and read these newspapers and watched television last night, I would naturally assume that the NRA was our national legislature and that Wayne LaPierre was a high-ranking elected official—perhaps the president. Why else would we pay so much attention to the views of an organization or of one man? The alien maven would be shocked to learn that the NRA was a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and that Wayne LaPierre had been elected by only a few people.

The National Rifle Association has been powerful in our national politics for a long time. As I made clear nearly five years ago (OnGuns—An Ode in Prose) over the years the NRA has morphed from an organization of sportsmen and gun collectors to a lobby for the gun industry. It has taken a “no-compromise” position with respect to gun legislation and has convinced hundreds of members of the Congress and state legislatures that any support for even the most modest control on the purchase of firearms will result in their being defeated for reelection. It has also convinced its members that the Federal Government is devoted to taking away all their guns.

But, dear reader, is it not possible that all of us have given the NRA all this power? Even the proponents of controls on the purchase of firearms have spent most of the last week attacking the NRA in paper and electronic print. They have even gone so far as to hold the NRA culpable for the murders in Connecticut last week. Apparently, it is much easier to create and attack a bogey man than to deal directly with the complex issues raised by gun control.

What if, loyal reader, we treated the NRA differently? What if, for example, we chose to ignore it? Can you imagine what would have happened yesterday if the NRA held its press conference and Wayne LaPierre came to the podium and the room was empty? Think of it—no reporters, no cameras, no protesters. What if, regardless what it said, the media chose to not report anything about the NRA? What if I had watched the evening news last night and saw stories that gave no attention to Mr. LaPierre’s statement? What if the newspapers this morning ran no stories about the NRA’s proposal to put more guns into our schools? (Oh, I know what you are saying, what about the First Amendment? Reader, the First Amendment guarantees the NRA and Mr. LaPierre the right to say anything they want; it does not require us to listen to them.) Is it not possible that if we treated the NRA this way it would shrink from the tiger it wants us to believe it is to a snarling but powerless kitten?

 

The Shooting Victims

Just over a week ago, Jared Loughner used a 9mm pistol with a large capacity magazine to murder 6 people, including a 9 year-old girl and a federal judge, and wound 13 others, including a member of the House of Representatives, in Tucson, Arizona. Because of the political overtones of this shooting, it has received extensive national and international coverage. As time passes we will surely forget those of the victims who were “only” wounded, except for Representative Gabrielle Giffords. We will soon forget the dead, with 9-year old Christian Taylor Green and federal judge John Roll remaining in our minds a bit longer. It’s the way we deal with this kind of news—we start out being overwhelmed but in time it just fades away.

However, I did not take up keyboard and paper to talk of these shooting victims. There are more than enough people out there dealing with them. I want to talk of the victims that we forget about almost as soon as we hear or read about their deaths. Today, along with its story “Region’s homicide rate up 19%,” the Richmond Times-Dispatch published the names of those who were murdered in the Richmond area in 2010. There were 93 of them. The TD story indicated that 93% of the victims were killed by gunshot, that 75 of the 93 killed were male, that 75 of the 93 victims were black, that 70 of the killings have been cleared by local police. All rather sterile statistics.

For no other reason than that’s where the maven lives, I will publish the names of the victims in the City of Richmond:
January 2010:
Angela Moore, age 41
Brittney Randolph, age 20
Leonicio Deleon, age 43
Tracy Scott, age 42
Shawn Smith, age 26
March 2010
Keith Brunson, age 23
Gavin Pollard, age 21
April 2010
Tyree Jefferson, Jr., age 39
Devin Morse, age 26
Tarchelle Daniel, age 36
Charles Jackson, age 56
William Bagely, Jr., age 38
Christopher Johnson, age 22
Christopher Mackin, age 30
Jeremy Uzzle, age 20
Brandon Webb, age 24
May 2010
Reshawn Thurman, age 23
Carlos Funn, age 21
William Peet, age 29
Jarneal Smith, age 18
July 2010
William Charity, Jr., age 46
Jataynun Fleming, age 22
Keith Bates, age 47
William Ennis, Jr., age 29
Shamari Whittaker, age 22
Tameka Claiborne, age 27
August 2010
Gregory Jones, Jr., age 29
Marcel Davidson, age 20
September 2010
Eric Jackson, age 44
Napoleon Hargrove, Jr., age 42
Lawrence Sykes, age 23
William Howell, age 68
Katrice Robertson, age 25
Sophia Alexander, age 19
October 2010
Terrance Robinson, age 31
Tyler Franks, age 45
Brandon Thomas, age 25
Devon Jones, age 23
James Louis, age 36
November 2010
Christopher Lee, Jr., age 29
Richard Church, age 52
Wendell Jones, age 24
Donald Dock, age 48
December 2010
Terezo Santizo, age 40
Arki White, age 24.

So there they are, good reader. All these people were alive in Richmond on January 1, 2010, but have been taken from us by murder. Were we at all shocked when we read or heard of their deaths? Did we feel as much shock or fear or anger as we did after the Tucson shootings, or three years ago after the Virginia Tech shootings?

Why do we care less for these dead than for the others? Well, I didn’t publish the addresses of the victims, but if you look at them in the TD you will notice that most of them lived in areas we describe as the inner city. And as we all know the inner city is violent. If people live there they have to expect they may be the victims of violent crime. And, did you notice the names? So many of the victims had names that are clearly African American. And, I bet that the people who killed them were probably African Americans, too. Why should I be concerned if blacks kill blacks? It’s not in my neighborhood. It doesn’t affect me. In addition, I bet that most of those murders were drug related—one criminal murdering another. It was inevitable. If they weren’t killed today it would happen in a few weeks. Aren’t we better off after the killing?

I am sure that there are many other reasons why we didn’t pay much attention when we first learned of the deaths of these victims and probably didn’t pay a whole lot more attention when we saw their names in the paper today.

But, let’s look at the list again. What I notice is how young most of them were—in their teens, twenties or thirties. They were all somebody’s sons or daughters, or somebody’s brothers or sisters, or somebody’s cousins or uncles or aunts, or somebody’s lovers. Somebody was deeply grieved when each of them died. Can any mother ever really deal with the violent death of the one she gave life to? What a terrible tragedy each of these deaths was.

So, what are we to make of all this? Reader, we need to start caring more. We need to mourn the deaths of these unknowns in our region as much as we would mourn for a nine year old girl or a federal judge in Tucson. We have to regret the terrible waste of life in these murders as much as we regretted all of those who were cut down at Virginia Tech. We need to recognize that there is a killing epidemic in our midst and that we must find a cure for it. It doesn’t matter if the murder rate goes up a few or down a few. We must realize, in Bob Dylan’s words, “that too many people have died.” And, then, we need to do something about it.

On Guns—An Ode in Prose

In an epic battle of good (gun owners, gun manufacturers, gun merchants, gun swappers, gun lovers, gun users) against evil (gun haters, gun victims, families of Virginia Tech victims, namby-pambies, enemies of freedom, those who can’t understand what “shall not be infringed” means, friends of al Qaeda), the gunnies have carried the day. Yesterday a Senate panel joined a House of Delegates panel in killing for this legislative session a bill that would have required private gun sellers at gun shows to run criminal background checks on their customers. I don’t know about you, but this maven is already feeling much safer now that this dastardly attempt to crush our freedoms has been repulsed.

Dear reader, there is something you must know. As a teenager, I was a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association. To the NRA I owe my ability to handle firearms safely. I know that I should never point my weapon at any creature, either animal or human, unless I intend to kill it. I also know that I should always assume that my weapon is loaded when I start playing with it. I also know that I should keep all my firearms in a safe place where young ‘uns can’t get to them. Thank you, NRA, you have taught me well.

Back in the day, of course, the NRA was an organization for sportsman. It provided information, training and a wonderful magazine for people who enjoyed shooting at targets both animate and inanimate. Some time after I let my membership expire, however, the NRA mutated into an organization dominated by gun manufacturers, dealers and others for whom guns were a business. And that is when the whole question of guns started moving toward a zero sum, I win-you lose conflict.

Early on the new NRA started with its slogans. The first was a beaut. “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” This tautological statement was, with the exception of law-enforcement and military personal, obviously true. But, what did it really mean? Did it mean that if guns were outlawed law abiding gun owners would surrender their weapons and that only criminals would still have guns. Or, did it mean that even heretofore law abiding gun owners would refuse to surrender their weapons and would therefore become outlaws? The statement contained the germs of disobedience to law.

The second slogan was, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Not quite a tautology, but clearly a very powerful half-truth. The true part was that no gun has ever been seen loading itself, aiming and then blowing away someone’s head. Clearly people kill people, but a whole lot of them use firearms to do so. Thousands of people are murdered with guns every year. Yet, this NRA slogan would have us believe that even if their were no guns the number of murders would stay the same. And, of course, they are right—not a week goes by, in which we don’t read about drive-by stabbings and battles in the streets, in which members of one gang wipe out members of another by throwing arsenic on them.

The most dangerous of NRA slogans, made particularly popular by the late Charleston (Moses) Heston, is “I'll give up my gun—when they pry it from my cold, dead, hands.” Now the NRA incitement to lawlessness had become quite open. The message was quite clear—if you want to take my gun away, you will have to kill me first. Or the flip side, I will use my weapon against anyone who tries to disarm me. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment, but I have strong objection to an organization that teaches insurrection to its members.

The trouble is that for a very vocal segment of gun proponents any suggestion that the Commonwealth (or any other government) take action that could possibly provide an ounce of extra security for society but at the cost of even a minor inconvenience to a few individuals is greeted as an attack on their right to bear arms, which they insist is absolute. For these people there can be no compromise; for them there is no minor gun regulation. These people portray even an innocuous gun restriction as a call to Armageddon.

My suggestion last week that the Second Amendment might have a different than absolute meaning drew some nasty comments. There was even the suggestion that the right to possess and bear firearms was one that transcended the Second Amendment. This natural rights type of argument is that the right to own guns does not come from any government or from the Constitution. It is a right that is natural to all humans. The right to bear firearms even preexists the invention of gun powder.

Now, I don’t think that the proposed restriction that was killed in the General Assembly is a particularly big thing. Certainly, had it been in effect last year it would not have prevented the Virginia Tech disaster. The mass murderer at Tech bought his firearms and ammunition from licensed gun dealers, not at a gun show. On the other side, had it been enacted by the General Assembly this year it would have caused only the slightest inconvenience to a few people.

You know, reader, guns sure stir up a lot of sentiment in the good ol’ US of A. I’m not sure I understand it, exactly. When the state decides to regulate the use of automobiles does it lead to screaming crowds in front of the Capitol? The Commonwealth of Virginia makes me take a written test. It makes me take a road test to prove that I can handle my car safely. It forces me to wear eyeglasses when I drive. It posts restrictions that prevent me from driving too fast and make me stop at intersections. It forces me to inspect my vehicle periodically at my own cost. It charges me to register my vehicle before I can use it. It even threatens me that “Speed Limits are Enforced by Aircraft.” Yet, when it is suggested that a seller of a weapon first make sure that the person to whom he is selling is not a criminal, all hell breaks loose.

The gunnies have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to any limitation on gun ownership or use. The line is drawn so close to “absolutely no controls” that they must resist with all their righteous indignation any measure designed to make the public safer. Inevitably, this position will make these people more and more unpopular in our country. Eventually, their refusal to accept even the slightest restrictions on their “rights” may lead a large number of citizens without guns to question whether we can still afford a Second Amendment in our violent times. That would be a shame because there are millions of responsible gun owners out there that would suffer.

Second Amendment: Clear As Mud

Saturday’s TD published the letter “Second Amendment Isn’t Hard to Understand.” (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/letters.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-01-19-0014.html.) As I’ve mentioned before, the TD publishes a whole lot of letters interpreting the Second Amendment as guaranteeing your right and mine to own and bear AK-47s, Uzis and other killing machines. And they all opine that the amendment is crystal clear on its face. Our writer today is no different. After quoting the amendment (although not without adding her own words) our writer asks “Why are the words ‘shall not be infringed’ so difficult to understand in 2008?” So our writer not only adds to the language of the amendment but also interprets only a part of it. I could reply to the writer “Why are the words ‘A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State’ so easy to ignore in 2008.”

What our writer is unwilling to recognize is that the Second Amendment is not as clear as she says. Interpreting it without knowing the context in which it was proposed and ratified may just produce the wrong conclusion. She needs to realize that our founding generation was deathly afraid of standing armies. As British citizens, they surely knew that it was only about a century since Oliver Cromwell had used Britain’s “New Model Army” with its red uniforms to overthrow the king and have himself installed as Lord Protector. They also knew that the kings in Europe, including their beloved George III, maintained power by keeping large standing armies to protect them. Even during our Revolution there were many Americans who feared George Washington’s Continental Army as a force that could impose a new tyranny after ousting the British. Militias of the people, however, could provide for the national and state defense without the dangers of a standing army.

The first statement of what later became the Second Amendment was contained as Article XIII of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. It read,

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

The phrase “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms” was added to this language in 1788 by the Virginia constitutional ratifying convention in its proposed bill of rights. The New York convention broke up the right into three paragraphs:

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection.
That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

When James Madison submitted his version of the Bill of Rights to the Congress in 1789 the provision was close to its final language,

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The final version, adopted by the Congress and then sent to the states for ratification, reversed the order of the first two clauses and dropped the conscientious objector provision.

To me it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms must be read in conjunction with the founding generation’s determination to rely on militias, rather than a standing army, for national defense. Certainly the right to bear arms is a right of the people, not the state or federal governments. On the other hand, the right was clearly intended to guarantee the existence of militias, not for any other purpose. Further, the fact that we now are perfectly comfortable maintaining a standing army, navy, air force and marine corps and that our state militias have been themselves formalized into National Guards and Reserve components, could lead one to the conclusion that the right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a strong national defense is no longer relevant in 2008.

What This City Needs is More Gunfights

My nephew called me this evening and wanted to know whether I had stopped writing. I went on line and saw that, in deed, I hadn’t posted anything in nearly three weeks. To those of you who have been eagerly awaiting some wisdom from me, I apologize. For those of you who couldn’t care less, I assume that you aren’t reading this and to you I have nothing to say.

You people in River City are aware that every day the Times-Dispatch chooses one of its letter writers as “correspondent of the day.” I suppose the award is given to the letter that is best written or deals with the most important issues. Well, to force myself to write more, I am hereby introducing the maven’s “most wonderful letter of the day.” I will choose a letter from the TD that is of the greatest importance and discuss it. Today’s award goes to the letter “Store Manager Made the World Safer.”

Nearly two weeks ago, the Baskins-Robins ice cream store on Forest Hill Avenue was robbed by a man who seemed to be holding a semi-automatic weapon. The store manager, not wanting to be viewed as an easy mark, drew out his own weapon and started firing at the unfortunate robber. Eight shots later, the robber had been hit in the back and in the hand. He fled from the store and was found dying nearby. The weapon the robber used in the robbery turned out to be a BB gun.

Some people suggested that perhaps the store manager had used excess force. Not our winning letter. It states that “[t]he store manager has saved the taxpayers the cost of further prosecution and incarceration. . . If more idiot sociopaths who prey on decent citizens were to be shot in the act of committing crimes—by their intended victims—then perhaps others of their kind would realize that we aren’t going to be intimidated.” The letter then uses the Wild West as a model for our city. “The American frontier was cleaned up, not by courts that were more concerned with the safety and rights of criminals, but by tough-minded lawmen and citizens defending themselves.”

Now you know why I chose this letter as the most wonderful of the day. Its writer has come up with the obvious solution to Richmond’s crime problem—arm everybody. And none of this hidden weapon business. If we’re really serious about dealing with crime the way they did in Dodge or Tombstone, every person in Richmond must be required to carry a hand gun in a holster strapped to their side. There must be no room for doubt that everybody is packing.

This is a great idea for several reasons. First we can save tons of money that we now waste on our criminal justice system. We won’t need the Commonwealth Attorney’s office any more. We also can cut in half the number of judges. Police officers will no longer have to fill out those pesky crime reports. We won’t need trials any more; our criminal justice system will be self-enforcing. When the store clerk sees a teenager shoplifting at the 7 Eleven he can enforce the law with his Glock.

Second, arming everybody will put a quick end to aggressive drivers and road rage. Now, when some idiot cuts you off on I-64 and you bang your head on the sun visor because you have to slam on your brakes, there is no reason to repress that anger. Just take out your Colt and blow the sucker’s head off. You’d be doing the public a favor. A driver like that would surely cause a bad accident and kill some innocents.

Third, packing a powerful weapon would add some excitement to our boring lives. Now if some doofus insults you at the bar at O’Tooles, you can call him out to settle things on Forest Hill Avenue with your Smith & Wesson.

Most important, all these guns will give us a whole new generation of heroes for our kids. We can produce our own Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Ike Clanton and others. Or lawmen like Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson and Matt Dillon. Our children need to have gun-toting idols to look up to.

So, writer of our first “most wonderful letter of the day” I salute you. When your suggestion is implemented, Richmond will undoubtedly become the safest city in America.