Constitutional carry is not a decisive blow.
A decisive blow would be a Firearms Freedom Act, which includes: complete preemption (including all Commonwealth agencies and public colleges with only narrow exceptions for courtrooms and jails and prisons, the ability to manufacture Virginia Guns without a federal permission slip, constitutional carry, mandatory public school firearms training, felonies for supression of firearms rights (including federalagents), repeal of all state firearms sales requirements (only federal FFL rules) and anything else that would lower our Brady score and possibly give Bloomberg a coronary.
Yes there is alot to do to restore rights. We can never get there if we think that P4P is where we should focus our attention. It often takes several sessions to get a legislation approved in Virginia. Start next year with constitutional carry.
Constitutional carry is a decisive blow, but it's not a final blow. We won't be able to get constitutional carry without a lot of the other things on your list first. Some of them are more achievable in the short term (such as the repeal of state firearm sales requirements or complete preemption).
However, I have to say that I disagree with a few items on your list, because we simply cannot or should not reach for them on the state level. For example, because of the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, a state cannot charge a federal officer for enforcing federal law. That is well-established constitutional law. At the same time, a state cannot be forced to enforce federal law either. The net effect is that Virginia cannot make it illegal for federal officers to enforce something like the GFSZA, but they can tell the feds "if you want to enforce it, do it yourself". There's nothing we can do about it on the state level. That's simply how things are.
Similarly, your "Virginia Guns" desire has significant problems due to federal law. While there are some indications that the pendulum is starting to swing the other way with regards to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, there is still a long way to go before such a law would be considered a valid defense against federal charges by the courts. That's simply not a battle that will win use anything useful in the short term.
What I think you are missing is that I'm not saying that we need to add P4P in order to get to these goals. What I'm saying is that there are some things related to CHPs that aren't P4P. The simple fact is that we don't have constitutional carry at this time. We have a permit system right now. P4P (to my understanding) isn't a matter of the existence of CHPs. It's about tying things to CHPs beyond the actual purpose of them (allowing someone to legally conceal a firearm).
So a law that repeals part of 18-2.308 to remove the restriction on CHP holders not being able to drink if carrying concealed wouldn't be P4P, because that is a restriction only on CHP holders (moving them towards greater parity with OCers). On the other hand, creating an exemption in state law for CHP holders to sidestep background checks would be P4P. (Note, I wouldn't consider it P4P if that were done on the federal level and the state merely repealed the additional background check requirements for everyone. My primary concern with P4P is on the state level. On the federal level it's pretty much hopeless at this time to try and avoid such things.)
Going back to your original complaint that I took exception to, sealing the private information of CHP holders isn't a P4P. Instead, it is a mitigation of a harm caused by the existence of permits as a public record. That information should never have been public in the first place.
Note: I do have a CHP, but I got it primarily for two reasons. First, I wanted the option of concealing at times, such as when visiting my aunt (who is vehemently anti-gun, but lived in a very bad part of town) and wanted to do so legally. Second, because I do try to follow the law, and because I lived within 1000 feet of a school at that time (and later bought a house also within 1000 feet of a school), I wanted to make sure that I couldn't face problems from the GFSZA no matter what my mode of carry. (While the GFSZA doesn't restrict carry on your own property, it would have restricted carry to/from my property.)
