1. Gun Safety and Gun Education in the Schools: What has Creigh Deeds done or does he propose to do to promote gun safety and to promote gun education in the schools?

Answer: First, education begins at home. My children have all learned the basics about gun safety. My three older children have been through the hunter safety program which is offered in public schools in Bath and Alleghany counties. Decisions related to curriculum must, to a large degree, be left to local school boards. I support giving local school boards the option of allowing hunter safety courses. I also support the efforts of other groups to continue to offer hunter safety programs in other public venues. That takes place, to a large extent, throughout rural Virginia.

I have supported legislation to create gun-free and drug-free zones around public schools.

2. Constitutional Amendment to Hunt and Fish: Creigh Deeds was the sponsor of the constitutional amendment guaranteeing Virginians the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

To many, the need for such an addition to the constitution seemed slight. Frivolous parallel amendments were discussed protecting for example, the right to shop, or the right to play golf.

More seriously, there was concern that local rules in towns and cities prohibiting hunting within their borders might be undermined by the Hunting & Fishing amendment. Or that it could be used to get around protective orders that prohibit people who have committed domestic violence or stalking from purchasing or carrying guns.

In 1998, Deeds was in fact a co-sponsor of HB 436, which "Prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person convicted of stalking, sexual battery, or family member assault and battery, on a first conviction, for five years, and on a second or subsequent conviction, permanently.

Why does Deeds believe the amendment was necessary and what is his position on the issues raised in the debate?

Answer: Hunting and fishing are a part of the fabric of life of rural America. The right to hunt and fish is part of the common law which we acquired from England. Language specifically protecting the right to hunt and fish, similar to the language proposed by last year's amendment, has been in the Constitutions of Vermont since 1777, Rhode Island since 1812, California since the early part of this century, Alabama since 1996, Minnesota since 1998, and North Dakota since last fall. This is certainly not a new concept and the amendment broke no new ground.

Over the last 20 years there have been a number of attempts in other states to erode these rights, which are basic to the lifestyles of many people. Specifically, there have been referenda in other states to prevent hunting different species of animals, or to end hunting altogether. Some of those efforts have been successful, others have not. With the Constitutional amendment in Virginia, we have simply given Constitutional integrity to a common law right and firmly embedded a traditional part of life in our law.

On another level, I think the amendment is important for Democrats. The amendment was first proposed in Virginia by Bill Dolan, the Democratic nominee for Attorney General in 1993 and 1997. Democrats have been losing elections in rural Virginia for quite some time. This amendment, which was sponsored by Democrats, provided a way for our party to reach out to rural voters and let them know that we care about issues of importance to them, that we are not simply an urban/suburban technocratic party. I think that is probably why Chuck Robb was the first elected statewide official to publicly announce his support for the amendment last year. That is probably also why Mark Warner soon followed in supporting the amendment.

The language of the amendment clearly defeats the argument that somehow local ordinances which prohibit hunting would be endangered. The amendment itself is specifically subject to regulation passed by the General Assembly. And, because the General Assembly must approve charters that contain local provisions restricting hunting and have granted local governments the ability to pass such ordinances, it is clear that those ordinance will not be affected by the amendment.

Likewise, the argument that one who has committed spousal abuse, who is prohibited by federal and state law from possessing a firearm, can somehow get in the back door and possess a firearm because of this language protecting the right to hunt and fish, is simply ridiculous. That is somewhat akin to arguing that the First Amendment, guaranteeing the right to free speech, is absolute despite laws which prohibit fighting words.

In short, the Constitutional amendment which simply gives Constitutional integrity to what is already the law, and has been placed in the Constitutions in at least six other states, does not cause the mischief that was feared. In my view, it protects a traditional part of rural life and allows our Democratic Party to reach out to voters we are losing.

3. Unloaded Firearms in Closed Containers on School Property: In his campaign for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General, Donald McEachin argued that individuals should not be able to even leave unloaded weapons locked in motor vehicles on school property. Gun advocates argued that this right should not be taken away and that it was important to gun owners in rural areas during the hunting season.

What is Creigh Deeds position on bringing "unloaded weapons in motor vehicles onto school property?"

Guns have no place in school. Having grown up in a rural area, however, it is easy for me to understand how, particularly during the hunting season, kids who have hunted before school or plan to hunt afterwards may have a firearm in their vehicle.

Current law protects the possession of "an unloaded firearm which is in a closed container" on school property. I support current law.

4. Individual Second Amendment Rights: In his campaign for governor, Mark Warner proclaimed himself to be a strong supporter of individual Second Amendment rights .

Both candidates for the Republican nomination for the 25th District Virginia seat, Sharon Jones and Jane Maddux, have said they are strong supporters of the Second Amendment (Bob Gibson, The Daily Progress, November 16, 2001).

Does Creigh Deeds hold a similar position to Democratic Governor-elect Mark Warner on individual Second Amendment Rights?

Yes.

5. One-Gun-A-Month Law: In his campaign, Mark Warner said he would not support altering Virginia's one-gun-a-month law, while Mark Earley backed exemptions for concealed weapons permit holders as well as exemptions for gun transfers between friends and family.

Both candidates for the Republican nomination for the 25th District Virginia seat, Sharon Jones and Jane Maddux, have said they would vote to repeal the state's one-gun-a-month law (Bob Gibson, The Daily Progress, November 16, 2001).

Will Creigh Deeds oppose altering Virginia's one-gun-a-month law, including exemptions for gun transfers between friends and family?

While this is referred to as a "One Gun A Month" law, that is somewhat of a misnomer. This law simply applies to handguns. It does not prohibit the purchase of more than one rifle or shotgun a month. While I cannot imagine why anyone would want to purchase more than one handgun a month, I also have trouble understanding how this legislation has been effective. If I am convinced that this legislation has contributed to a reduced crime rate, I will consider opposing changes to the bill.

6. Giving Localities the Power to Prohibit Guns in Municipal Buildings and Recreation Centers: In the 2001 Virginia General Assembly, Creigh Deeds supported HB1969 to prevent localities from regulating guns by policy or ordinance.

By contrast, Mark Warner has said that "he would sign bills to give local officials the power to prohibit guns in recreation centers" (R.H. Melton and Craig Timberg, The Washington Post, October 17, 2001).

If he is elected to the Virginia Senate, will Creigh Deeds continue to support bills to prevent localities from regulating guns by policy or ordinance if given the opportunity? Will he oppose the governor should a bill come before the Senate that would give local officials the power to prohibit guns in recreation centers?

It is difficult to say what I may or may not do on a specific bill. In the past I have believed that uniform rules regarding firearm possession should be favored. That is because people should have an idea of what is legal, no matter where they go in Virginia. I still think that is the best rule. In the past, I have not been convinced of the need for legislation prohibiting the possession of firearms in recreation centers. My guess is that most people who bring firearms into recreation centers are already violating the law to one degree or another. For example, I wonder how many people who bring firearms into recreation centers have a permit to carry a concealed weapon? So I have not, in general, supported the recreation center legislation in the past and I would need to be convinced that I am wrong to change my position.

7. Concealed Hanguns in Restaurants that Serve Alcohol: In the 2001 Virginia General Assembly, Creigh Deeds supported HB2658 to remove the prohibition on taking a concealed handgun into a restaurant that serves alcohol.

If elected to the Virginia Senate, will Deeds support or oppose such a measure if given the opportunity?

In 1994 or1995, legislation was introduced to make it easier to carry a concealed weapon. Because I had been a Commonwealth's Attorney and, as such, had to approve concealed weapon permits that were issued in Bath County, before I went to the General Assembly, I had trepidation about such a bill. In the end, I supported the legislation but also supported the amendment that prohibited carrying a concealed weapon in an establishment that served alcohol. I supported that provision then because we were going to expand by great numbers the number of concealed weapon permits that were issued. Before that year, it had not been against the law to carry a concealed weapon into an establishment that served alcohol. My concern was that with an explosion in the number of permits, there would be a greater possibility of a problem.

Since the law was changed in 1994 or 1995, there has been an explosion in the number of concealed weapon permits issued. However, there has not been one instance where a person to whom a permit was issued has been charged or convicted of any offense related to the possession or use of a firearm. I have heard from any number of people who have concealed weapon permits who have been concerned about leaving the weapon in an automobile while they go into a restaurant. You have to remember that the prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon in an establishment that serves alcohol applies whether the permittee is drinking or not. Based on those conversations, and seven years of good experience with the expanded concealed carry law, I am not convinced that there is any reason to continue to prohibit the possession of firearms in restaurants.