James, re: your posting that "it's still illegal" to carry in a church...
The statute says "if any person carries any gun, pistol ... or other dangerous weapon, without good and sufficient reason, to a place of worship..." and Cuccinelli's opinion letter states that "carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason."
Although the AG is (was) a heavy weight when it comes to his opinion, its still just an opinion from a lawyer. Its not law. A judge may agree with his opinion, or a judge / jury may say "yeah that's nice, but the law says otherwise". Until the law is changed to reflect his opinion, its still just an opinion.
This dialog has become rather interesting, and here's why:
The statute says what it says. We can't deny the fact that it
allows one to carry
with good and sufficient reason. The fact that the phrase is in the code explicitly implies that there does exist (or at least
could exist) a good and sufficient reason to carry a gun... So, the question at hand seems to be, is carrying a gun for self-defense included in what they meant to be a "good and sufficient reason?"
Let's turn the question around: If self-defense is
not a good and sufficient reason, what other possible reason could be? And more importantly, upon what guidance would you base such an assertion, that would not also allow for self-defense to be similarly classified?
ETA: I can accede to the fact that it is not certain that self defense
is good and sufficient, but at the same time, and for the exact same reason, there are no facts that would support that it is not.
TFred
