Here's the full text, in context:
C. Except as provided in subsection A of § 18.2-308.012 [you cannot carry if you are intoxicated with alcohol or other drug - TFred], this section shall not apply to:
12. For the sole purpose of carrying a concealed handgun, any resident of the Commonwealth who carries a concealed handgun anywhere he may lawfully carry a handgun openly within the Commonwealth and who is otherwise qualified under this article to obtain a concealed handgun permit.
Interesting that the way they wrote it does not make sense grammatically. "shall not apply to: for the sole purpose of ..." All the other paragraphs actually make sense if read together as a sentence, such as:
C. Except as provided in subsection A of § 18.2-308.012, this section shall not apply to: 1. Any person while in his own place of business;
The only problem I see with such an idea is what if one is disqualified, but does not know it? I suppose it is a step in the right direction. As I noted in a post a while back, there really are not very many differences between qualified to possess and qualified to carry concealed.
P.S. I noticed that it was introduced by Jeffrey Campbell, who was just elected for the first time this past November. Very good and quite encouraging to see such a pro-gun bill from a Freshman Delegate!