Virginia regains its sanity, restores CCW reciprocity

C

coachdb18

New member
Well, not really, but at least reciprocity will be restored for all the states that that ignorant AG tried to prevent. Bottom line is, Gov McAuliffe is restoring the reciprocity with all 26 states affected. It goes deeper. The movement in the state legislature had come to the point where it was going to be reversed by changing VA law, which McAuliffe planned to veto. But the delegations had sufficient votes to override his veto, so he has tried to make it look like he proactively restored reciprocity. Truth was, his hand was forced.

This is a major victory for the rule of law, and a major setback for the gun grabbers. It's a day to celebrate!
 
coachdb18 said:
Well, not really, but at least reciprocity will be restored for all the states that that ignorant AG tried to prevent. Bottom line is, Gov McAuliffe is restoring the reciprocity with all 26 states affected. It goes deeper. The movement in the state legislature had come to the point where it was going to be reversed by changing VA law, which McAuliffe planned to veto. But the delegations had sufficient votes to override his veto, so he has tried to make it look like he proactively restored reciprocity. Truth was, his hand was forced.

This is a major victory for the rule of law, and a major setback for the gun grabbers. It's a day to celebrate!
Click to expand...

If the bold part is true, then why did they make concessions to the gun grabbers in order to restore reciprocity? The gun grabbers won. They held concealed carry permit reciprocity hostage in order to get other things they wanted. This is no victory for the rule of law, either - it's 100% politics:

Virginia Back-pedals on its Proposed Reciprocity Changes - USA Carry
In what is being called a “bipartisan deal”, they have reach a deal to keep the current reciprocity in place and in exchange, take away guns from anyone who is under a two-year protective order for domestic-violence offenses and require State Police to run background checks for private sellers on request at all gun shows.

While we don’t agree with holding the reciprocity agreements hostage to get agreements made, concealed carry holders should be happy that these drastic reciprocity changes will not be taking place.
Click to expand...

You want a real victory for the rule of law? Enforce the 2nd Amendment exactly as it is written which says nothing about having to obtain the government's permission to bear arms.
 
NavyLCDR said:
If the bold part is true, then why did they make concessions to the gun grabbers in order to restore reciprocity? The gun grabbers won. They held concealed carry permit reciprocity hostage in order to get other things they wanted. This is no victory for the rule of law, either - it's 100% politics:

Virginia Back-pedals on its Proposed Reciprocity Changes - USA Carry


You want a real victory for the rule of law? Enforce the 2nd Amendment exactly as it is written which says nothing about having to obtain the government's permission to bear arms.
Click to expand...
Indeed. This was the gun grabbers plan from the beginning.
 
They like to call it "compromise". The gun grabbers threaten to take "A" away. In Virginia it was reciprocity. It might be an "assault weapons" ban. So the pro-gun side says, "Oh my gracious, we don't want to lose 'A'...so how about if we give you option 'B' instead if you take 'A' off the table!"

"B" might be something like universal background checks. And the gun grabbers respond, "Well....OK. We'll 'compromise' and take away 'B' and take 'A' off the table."

Then the media publishes headlines about how some great bipartisan deal was reached.

Now let's examine this. Compromise means everybody gives a little. But what did the gun grabbers give up? They didn't give up a damn thing. They didn't have "A" to begin with. They didn't lose "A" because they didn't have it! They only threatened to take it away and get a few high ranking politicians to stand behind them. What they gained was "B". Meanwhile, what did the pro-gun side get out of the deal? Absolutely nothing. We lost "B". How is it compromise when the gun grabbers didn't give anything up - they only gained ground. And we get people like coachdb18 who buy it hook, line and sinker and tout what a great defeat of the gun grabbers it was.
 
Still, this was a big deal for me. As a Virginia resident, CCW holder and truck driver I rallied the troops and sent probably in excess of 1000 emails and other forms of correspodence to the AG, legislators and other organizations to fix this before the Feb. 1 deadline.

Voluntary back ground checks at gun shows and people with domestic violence charges can't have a gun for the two year duration are things that I am fine with. It is a constitutional right to own a firearm. I am okay with taking away that right for two years if you can't help beating your spouse. If you can't live with that I hope your spouse or son/daughter also has gun the next time you try that.

You people who cry that you should be able to carry carte blanche are ignorant and do more harm than good to our cause. Pure blind ignorance. Everytime I see someone post about it I think "now there's a cat that wants to beat his wife".
 
AmericanHero! said:
****It is a constitutional right to own a firearm.**** I am okay with taking away that right for two years if you can't help beating your spouse. If you can't live with that I hope your spouse or son/daughter also has gun the next time you try that.

You people who cry that you should be able to carry carte blanche are ignorant and do more harm than good to our cause. Pure blind ignorance. Everytime I see someone post about it I think "now there's a cat that wants to beat his wife".
Click to expand...


LMBOOOOOO You almost had me till I read the part about the "cat wants to beat his wife." Satire is truly your gift, BRAVO!
 
AmericanHero! said:
people with domestic violence charges can't have a gun for the two year duration are things that I am fine with. It is a constitutional right to own a firearm. I am okay with taking away that right for two years if you can't help beating your spouse. If you can't live with that I hope your spouse or son/daughter also has gun the next time you try that.
Click to expand...

Want to take away the right to keep and bear arms over CHARGES of committing a crime. So much for due process of law to obtain a conviction. Just doesn't matter if the person charged is actually guilty or innocent to you does it? And guess what? The person charged has their right to possess firearms removed - so what does that mean for the spouse? They have to keep their firearms locked up in a location that the person charged does not have access to otherwise they can be charged with providing a firearm to a prohibited person and, according to you, when they are charged should have their right to possess firearms removed. So what's this poor victim spouse supposed to do when the charged person comes at them - you know that cat that wants to beat his wife - "excuse me, can you please wait to beat me for a few minutes while I go and unlock that safe that you can't have access to?"
 
NavyLCDR said:
Want to take away the right to keep and bear arms over CHARGES of committing a crime. So much for due process of law to obtain a conviction. Just doesn't matter if the person charged is actually guilty or innocent to you does it? And guess what? The person charged has their right to possess firearms removed - so what does that mean for the spouse? They have to keep their firearms locked up in a location that the person charged does not have access to otherwise they can be charged with providing a firearm to a prohibited person and, according to you, when they are charged should have their right to possess firearms removed. So what's this poor victim spouse supposed to do when the charged person comes at them - you know that cat that wants to beat his wife - "excuse me, can you please wait to beat me for a few minutes while I go and unlock that safe that you can't have access to?"
Click to expand...
He was being sarcastic... [emoji52]
 
NavyLCDR said:
Want to take away the right to keep and bear arms over CHARGES of committing a crime. So much for due process of law to obtain a conviction. Just doesn't matter if the person charged is actually guilty or innocent to you does it? And guess what? The person charged has their right to possess firearms removed - so what does that mean for the spouse? They have to keep their firearms locked up in a location that the person charged does not have access to otherwise they can be charged with providing a firearm to a prohibited person and, according to you, when they are charged should have their right to possess firearms removed. So what's this poor victim spouse supposed to do when the charged person comes at them - you know that cat that wants to beat his wife - "excuse me, can you please wait to beat me for a few minutes while I go and unlock that safe that you can't have access to?"
Click to expand...

What NewWaveGuy said ^^

Sorry, and I understand a lot of people can't find humor in this issue.
 
NavyLCDR said:
And we get people like coachdb18 who buy it hook, line and sinker and tout what a great defeat of the gun grabbers it was.
Click to expand...

Gotta love both the gun grabbers and the NavyLCDR chest thumpers, they have a lot in common! Every post he writes seems to be a new opportunity to jump in somebodies face and grunt, so how's that any different from the guy that wants to jump your Constitutional rights? Please just zip up your fly and take a nap.

And yea, I restate my position, when these people made a push against how I protect myself, and they had to back down from their overreach, that's a good day.
 
coachdb18 said:
Gotta love both the gun grabbers and the NavyLCDR chest thumpers, they have a lot in common! Every post he writes seems to be a new opportunity to jump in somebodies face and grunt, so how's that any different from the guy that wants to jump your Constitutional rights? Please just zip up your fly and take a nap.

And yea, I restate my position, when these people made a push against how I protect myself, and they had to back down from their overreach, that's a good day.
Click to expand...

Seems like you may have missed the point in your rush to whine about Navy's blunt way of describing what really happened, which is precisely as Navy stated. A politician held one political issue hostage in order to get what he wanted all along, more State Police involvement in the buying decisions of otherwise legal gun owners, and a movement towards the gun-grabbers' ultimate wet dream of "universal background checks."

You have gained nothing as a resident of VA. Your own OP said your legislature was ready and able to pass a veto-proof law that would restore the reciprocity agreements back to where they started, taking the decision out of the AG's hands forever. Now the decision is subject to the whims of the AG again, and for as far as the eye can see, but anytime you wish to make a private party purchase, you're liable to have to call the State Police before you can just buy a gun like a free man. In essence, the whole Kabuki Theater has the citizens of your state being forced to take one huge step backwards (cancelling reciprocity agreements), then removing that step and putting you back where you were, and finally adding an even bigger step backwards by making it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire legal firearms through a simple handshake and exchange of merchandise for money or trade.

So your "good day" is when more cops are in your life even though you have done absolutely nothing to cause them to contact you, or force you to contact and get permission from them for a simple purchase of private property?

That's a very strange assertion.

Blues
 
Yup. This was not a win. And it is SOP in politics. It even has a nickname, "Killing the Bunny". A classic example would be the threat to defund something that most people (or at least the opposition) loves and wants (usually parks, museums, etc.) in order to get a bill passed throughout the legislature.
 
Maybe it's just time to get a President that will send in the troops to force rogue states like VA, NY, NJ, CT, and CA to accept the US Constitution and ALL of its amendments, like they did in Alabama to put black kids in the schools and to sit in the front of the bus, or let these liberal states in the overt act of secession face dozens of years of 'oversight'. Conceal carriers are not second class citizens.
 
coachdb18 said:
Maybe it's just time to get a President that will send in the troops to force rogue states like VA, NY, NJ, CT, and CA to accept the US Constitution and ALL of its amendments, like they did in Alabama to put black kids in the schools and to sit in the front of the bus, or let these liberal states in the overt act of secession face dozens of years of 'oversight'. Conceal carriers are not second class citizens.
Click to expand...

Comparing Virginia with those states in terms of gun ownership and CC laws is a bit off base IMO. Aside from this recent dust up VA is pretty reasonable in laws, cost and restriction of gun ownership and carry laws. It is a shall issue, open carry state with no gun registry and consistantly ranks in the top 10-12 states with the most favorable gun rights.
 
coachdb18 said:
Maybe it's just time to get a President that will send in the troops to force rogue states like VA, NY, NJ, CT, and CA to accept the US Constitution and ALL of its amendments, like they did in Alabama to put black kids in the schools and to sit in the front of the bus, or let these liberal states in the overt act of secession face dozens of years of 'oversight'. Conceal carriers are not second class citizens.
Click to expand...

Let me make sure I understand you. You are in favor of Federal intervention into the rights of the state that were not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution?

Please keep in mind, that it is the citizens of these states who have elected the legislators who make these laws. It should be the citizens, if they desire, to elect legislators to reverse these types of laws. Obviously the majority of citizens of NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA want the laws they have since they elected the legislators who voted for them. What we see as stupid laws they must feel are common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

Total: 187 (members: 1, guests: 186)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,662
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top