peter nap wrote:
Saturday, Kenny and I were in the smoking room (outside) watching it snow.
He looked at me and said, Isn't the ultimate goal to make things right in Virginia. I mean, isn't Alaskan Law the right way.
Then he said, isn't it going the wrong direction to make it easier for people to carry a gun with permission, while everyone else has to suffer.
Now according to written statements by VCDL, the "Unwashed masses" aren't left out in the cold. All they have to do is get a permit and then exercise their God given right to protect themselves.
This is an abrupt change for VCDL. I believe it was last year when Philip stated in an Alert, that VCDL opposed a law because it only benefited a certain segment (CHP holders) and they represented All gun owners in the state.
Good post Kenny!
Ah, if life were only that simple. Of course it's not. Every decision we make about a change to law is a case-by-case thing.
But I'm glad you bring up the bill that we turned down because it benefited only some gun owners. We opposed it because they wanted to move the ball backwards and restrict gun owners at libraries (as I recall), but then sweetened the pot by exempting permit holders.
There was no need to restrict anyone at libraries and we accordingly told them we couldn't be bought out by exempting CHP holders.
BUT that is totally different from the case where we are trying to move the ball forward. It is going to be almost impossible to get non-permit holders the ability to carry in certain locations. If we have a chance to move the ball forward and allow 204,000 Virginians to be able to protect themselves or allow nobody to be able to protect themselves, we will move the ball forward for CHP holders.
If we can bring everyone right off the bat (such as the bill put in for us dealing with courthouse carry after hours), then that's what we'll do without making a CHP exception.
If we can first take care of CHP holders (lower hanging fruit) on tough laws and then come back for everyone else, we'll do that (exactly what we did with preemption in 2003, then 2004).
Why being pure on the subject is a good goal, getting there could take some time and we need to protect as many lives as we can based on realities (which can change over time).
These are not decisions VCDL leadership takes lightly or casually.