Well done Virginia! Hats off to Governor McAuliffe!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Overall, a net gain in civil liberties.

Recognizes all out of state permits and takes the decision out of the AG's hands. Huge gain.

Prohibits those under a court issued protective order from possessing a firearm, in line with federal law. No loss.

Allows a person who has been put under a protective order 24 hours to transfer his property legally, as opposed to being immediately in violation of the law. Gain.
 
No hats off to him, if his AG and he hadn't taken the reciprocity away they wouldn't have had to do this at all.

I second that... McAuliffe IS NO FRIEND of gun owners. In this case, I can only smile now that he upset many in the "gun control crowd" by reaching out & giving in on something pro-gun.

I also read some details on the voluntary background checks at gun shows. They expect them to be $5-10 dollars and will not record the info other than long gun or handgun. That means it is NOT registering the sale of the specific firearm; it is checking the buyer’s eligibility. And there is NO FFL involvement in the check. BUT, I can't seem to find the link. :( I know I read it today; my web history search has come up empty.

chuck
 
Last edited:
Don't trust that New York carpet bagger just yet. He still has a few anti-gun edicts in play right now, so much so that the Republicans in the General Assembly were getting ready to remove his State Police bodyguards and they still might. They hold sway over the VSP budget.
 
Although this is, on the surface, a "gain" for us, I don't trust Governor Terry McAuliffe.

The actions of the state AG were mighty suspicious, to me.

McAuliffe's stance in the past has been pro-gun control, all the way and I don't see him changing his spots on this.

2000 - Advocated smart gun technology
2007 - Proclaimed the Brady Bill was the right thing to do and still supports it.
2016 - Wants to reinstitute the 1 gun per month law, as well as "closing the gun show loophole" that doesn't exist, and revoking gun rights to those who don't pay their child support.

This guy is a gun control freak, make no mistake about it, and if he "compromised" at all with this bill, it was ONLY with the long view in mind.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not applauding the gov... He simply caved to political pressure.

It's times like this that I wish I could vote where I live.
 
Alright everybody, time to put on your conspiracy hats. I've got one for you. Tell me what you think:

For the first time, I recently heard someone, other than on gun forums, mention national reciprocity. With this move, what are the odds it is losing a battle to win the war? That is, several states go with universal reciprocity, push for federal recognition of such, and then place CCW under federal jurisdiction with unobtainable training requirements and exorbitant fees?

Adjust your tinfoil and give me an opinion.
 
The Gov is absolutely anti gun, make no mistake. I think he realized that this sudden, unilateral action might mobilize voters he'd rather were not energized in an election year in what is now a contestable state. I must admit to indulging in a little schadenfreude seeing the attack ads from Bloomberg.
 
Well, they already HAD the right until the AG took it away, I am sure with the Gov's instance or at best encouragement. It was a crock to begin with. :banghead::cuss:
 
Old Dominion, hail!

Glad to see a win for the 2A anywhere, but especially in my old home state.
 
With this move, what are the odds it is losing a battle to win the war? That is, several states go with universal reciprocity, push for federal recognition of such, and then place CCW under federal jurisdiction with unobtainable training requirements and exorbitant fees?

I see this or similar sentiments expressed by those opposing national CCW reciprocity. It is, frankly, an unlikely scenario, especially inasmuch as it would be difficult to pass a "national" CCW law. The easiest way to accomplish that goal without interfering with states rights would be to simply pass a law denying all Federal law enforcement funds to any state or subordinate gov't that did not recognize EVERY other jurisdiction's CCW permits. NY, NJ, and similarly inclined states could keep their restrictive "may issue" laws, but would come under tremendous political pressure to loosen them up, as their citizens would demand the same loose restrictions as the out-of-staters carrying in their fair cities. :cool:
 
Could be wrong, so any Virginia folk here feel free to correct me, but ...

... I could've sworn I'd read somewhere that McAuliffe wanted to impose on Virginia some form of an AWB/hi-cap mag ban similar to federal one from the '90s? No?
 
How about a big "well done" for the people of VA that that didn't accept the AG's crap and pushed this to happen. I doubt the Gov just volunteered to sign a pro-gun bill.
 
BHO signed NP carry and many praised him as well.
I think it's great the citizens rose up in a number adequate to get the anti gun politicians attention. On the other hand keep an eye on what that other hand is doing.
 
Could be wrong, so any Virginia folk here feel free to correct me, but ...

... I could've sworn I'd read somewhere that McAuliffe wanted to impose on Virginia some form of an AWB/hi-cap mag ban similar to federal one from the '90s? No?

Those bills come up every session.

Fortunately, they are killed every session as well.
 
I'll wait until his executive order banning firearms in Executive Agency buildings is overturned , as well as the laws allowing Government Employees to keep firearms in their locked cars is codified to celebrate.
 
McAuliffe is a bloody carpet bagger from New York. Thank the Virginia Legislature for this.

Virginia has a history of doing this. When they first passed Shall Issue concealed carry, several judges (who were supposed to issue the permits) conspired together to block the law by simply refusing to issue licenses.

Unfortunately for them, that was the year the Republicans achieved parity in the Virginia legislature. Prior to that time, all judges were appointed in the Democrat Caucus, and then expected to be automatically re-appointed every six years.

But the Republicans insisted on following the State Constitution, which calls for a hearing prior to re-appointing a judge. The judge heading the conspiracy was up for re-appointment and was insulted to get a letter summoning him to his hearing.

He was outraged, OUTRAGED I tell you, to find that ORDINARY CITIZENS were going to be allowed to testify at his hearing.

And he was stunned when the legislature declined to re-appoint him.

The other judges sprained their wrists signing CCW permits.:p
 
Personally, I don't want a "national reciprocity" law...not at all.

That's just another law on the FEDERAL level that would be subject to all kinds of BS modifications and limitations over the years.

What I'd RATHER have is for the Federal Government to simply stand back and recognize the Second Amendment for exactly what it is and knock off all the BS with respect to infringing on it.

That would take care of the "national reciprocity" aspect, right there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top