TYR Tactical

Virginia Announces Changes to Concealed Carry Weapon Reciprocity and Recognition

The Virginia State Police released this announcement yesterday. It is very important for those visiting the Commonwealth of Virginia who previously enjoyed reciprocity for their CCW permit. The action was taken at the direction of Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark R. Herring, who had the VSP review concealed carry rules in each of the states that currently have reciprocity agreements with Virginia.  Likewise, Virginians will need to pursue alternative CCW licensing from other states such as Utah or Florida which offer non-resident options, if they plan to carry while in other jurisdictions where it is legal.

This is the second firearms restrictive executive action taken by Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe’s administration.  The previous move prevents open carry of firearms by non-LE in Executive branch agencies and buildings.  


Legal review conducted in 2015 pursuant to § 18.2-308.014 of the Code of Virginia identified several jurisdictions that currently fail to meet the statutory requirements for recognition of the concealed carry permits they issue. As a result of that review, effective February 1, 2016, concealed carry permits issued by the following jurisdictions are NO LONGER VALID in Virginia:

New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota

As a result of this revocation of recognition Virginia concealed carry permits may no longer be valid in the jurisdictions listed above. Permit holders should, prior to travel, contact each jurisdiction to determine if their permit will be recognized prior to carrying concealed in that jurisdiction.

According to the legal review conducted by the Attorney General’s Office, certain states will no longer recognize Virginia concealed handgun permits because Virginia no longer recognizes that jurisdiction’s concealed handgun permit. These states are:

North Dakota
South Carolina

Virginia extends reciprocity or recognition to citizens holding both resident and non-resident permits/licenses from the following jurisdictions as set forth below:

Listing of states with which Virginia has Reciprocity Agreements (A formal written agreement exists between the two jurisdictions):

West Virginia

Listing of states with which Virginia has mutual recognition (Jurisdictions have informally agreed to honor permits issued by the other):


Virginia non-resident permit holders

Virginia non-resident permit holders should contact each jurisdiction to determine if their permit will be recognized prior to carrying in that jurisdiction.



94 Responses to “Virginia Announces Changes to Concealed Carry Weapon Reciprocity and Recognition”

  1. TominVA says:

    So Virginia (well the Dems anyway) want out of staters to abide by its own concealed carry requirements? Sounds reasonable – what am I missing? If Virginians have to meet certain standards, apparently set by Republican legislature, why shouldn’t out of staters?

    True, Virginians lose the right to carry in the states who don’t meet the Virginia standard, but frankly, so what? I mean, if you’re Philip Van Cleave, I guess it’s a problem:

    “I don’t go on vacation in states where I can’t carry my gun,” he said. “Particularly in states like New York or New Jersey, where you really need a gun. I won’t go there.”

    • BillfromVA says:

      In reply to TominVa, the criteria for Virginia is lower than most of the other states in obtaining a CHP. You can use a certificate from a web-based course to satisfy the training requirement versus actual classroom/range training, as well as not having to get fingerprinted. What AG Herring used as his basis for the audit standards is highly questionable. He just opened the door for thousands of visitors to being arrested in parts of VA that are anti-gun and who also choose not to recognize FOPA for those who also are just traveling through the state.

      • SSD says:

        It would be interesting to see the exact criteria they used to determine each state was at a lower threshold.

      • Rick says:

        Bill it’s worse than you know. As a Virgina CCW holder don’t you realize that most states will not honor your Virgina chl in return? The governor and your attorney general screwed his own state chl holders the most.

    • Mick says:

      I agree. I haven’t dug into the requirements, but it seems reasonable to me that the state sets a rule that “if you’re going to conceal carry, we’re going to make sure you have some minimum training standards.”
      That seems like a reasonable, common sense safety precaution to me.

      • P.J. says:

        Then you can easily make it impossible to get the training and this ban carry. It’s what happened it Chicago. Had to get live fire training and it’s illegal to have a shooting range.

        Also note that this was action by the attorney generally, not a legislative body.

        • Mick says:

          No legislative but the AG is an elected position.

        • Mick says:

          Ok, but there’s a pretty good distance between what was actually done here (imposed training requirement, provided avenue to meet requirements) and what you’re fearing (making it impossible to achieve).
          The state imposed a training requirement, and clarified what training qualified and what did not. That seems like an appropriate function of government to me.

          • SSD says:

            I don’t believe it’s the training requirement at issue. Ours is one of the most lax in the country.

            • Nate says:

              Yeah I literally took an online course, printed a .pdf certificate and mailed it in with my application. No live fire, no specific state laws instructed, just basic safety.

            • Rick says:

              The cond amendment is a right not a privilege screw their license games. Constitutional carry for Virgina is the only way. Now they have done this, there needs to be constitutional carry enacted. Teach the burecraps a lesson.

          • P.J. says:

            Agreeing to a training requirement at all is a loss. Registration alone is no big deal right? Not like they’ll use it to confiscate right now. Once you agree to the idea that the government can require training to exercise a right you agree that they get to decide what the training is. once you let the AG decide what counts he’s free to do this and decide what doesn’t. Which is truly laughable considering they count hunter safety courses. By decideing that other state requirements aren’t enough, (when it’s hard to imagine a state that requires training not requiring more) he’s already doing what I said inevitably happens and imposing arbitrary restricts that affect citizen’s right to carry.

            • TominVA says:

              Who approved AG’s training requirements? The AG or the legislature?

              • P.J. says:

                Don’t know but it’s kinda irrelevant here. The AG’s office is the one who determined that those 26 states had lower requirements. And again that’s laughable given how low VA’s requirements are. Several of those states require live fire, which VA does not.

              • majrod says:

                Tom – it’s irrelevant who sets the VA training requirements. Training requirements vary from state to state yet can achieve the same competency but because they aren’t exactly the same allows anti gun proponents to say “your training isn’t good enough.”

                For instance compare the way the Army and the Marines do qualification. There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches. E.G. Marines shoot 20% of their rounds at targets 500m away but the Army has multiple target engagements. Marine target grading gives credit for missing the black and calling it “suppression” vs. the Army that only counts hits in the black. Now imagine someone saying the Army or the Marines is better. Well, it’s really not that simple.

                BTW, it’s just not concealed carry training requirements that are driving this train. It’s who can get a concealed carry. “Virginia is revoking concealed handgun permit recognition with 25 states effective February 1, 2016 because their laws are not sufficient to prevent someone who is disqualified under Virginia law from receiving a concealed handgun permit. These states therefore do not meet Virginia’s standards for issuance of a concealed handgun permit or for recognition of such permits.” http://www.oag.state.va.us/index.php/media-center/news-releases/675-december-22-2015-herring-and-vsp-complete-audit-and-update-of-concealed-handgun-permit-recognition

                Sounds reasonable but considering Herring’s record of selective enforcement (see gay marriage enforcement), this guy was looking to shut down 2A rights. Personally I see this as hurting Virginians a lot more than us Floridians when it comes to tourism/travel.

      • Rick says:

        Mick, you should be ashamed of yourself, are you a man or a sheep? The founding fathers would be ashamed of you.

        • KurtinIL says:

          Cool it with the personal attacks, please. They contribute very little and they cause hostility that often just leaves threads as a river of flame.

    • RFfromVA says:

      So I suppose you are ok with VA denying driving permission to visitors from out of state who haven’t met VA’s standards for a driving test/course. What about recognizing marriage licenses for those who did not meet VA’s standards? Adoption? What activities, in your opinion, do not demand reciprocity for like license structure. And why do you, or the VA state attorney, get to decide? Reciprocity is a basic operating principle mandated by the federal government to encourage free commerce (a constitutional requirement) amongst the independent states?
      In the end, each state will have their own intricacies to any activity that requires a license (it is dubious at best to license an activity protected explicitly by an amendment to the constitution) and the individual needs to take it upon themselves to know the law in the particular state they happen to be using their license to avoid fine, but reciprocity should not be denied based on an arbitrary decision by any single state as that decision is contrary to the overall function of the republic and the freedom of the individual citizen.

      • SSD says:

        Consequently, it’s time to move forward with national right to carry. Some states won’t like it, but then again, some states didn’t like having to legalize gay marriage. The ultimate question is, how far should the nationalization of laws go?

        • TominVA says:

          What would you say should be the requirements for a national carry permit? Given that VA’s are pretty weak, would you argue for demonstrated competency (even though that is not specified in the 2d Amendment)? And how would you define competency?

          • Baldwin says:

            There are no competency requirements in the Bill of Rights.

            • Mick says:

              Seems like competency could very easily fit under the “well regulated” part of the 2A.

              • HSR47 says:

                Let me break this down for you Barney-style: The Second Amendment, like many others, has what’s called a “preamble.” That preamble — the bit about “a well regulated militia” — explains the purpose for the actual meat of the Amendment: To prevent the government from acting to put limits on the right of the people, individually, to keep and/or bear arms.

                Further, you see “well regulated” and choose to parse it through your modern lexicon: At the time that amendment was written and adopted, “well regulated” had a very different meaning.

                Today, we hear of “regulation” and it conjures a picture of some officious bureaucrat sending cops out to hand out citations to kids operating lemonade stands.

                Historically though, “regulate” meant “to keep in good working order” — thus, we get “regulator clocks” and “well regulated bowels.” When it comes to the preamble of the Second Amendment, the period-correct meaning of the text is “Since a uniformly well trained and well equipped militia, is necessary for the security of a free state…”

                Which is then followed with the general prohibition on government action, of which the period-correct meaning is: “The government is prohibited from taking any action which would serve to in any way inhibit the people, from whom that militia is raised, from manufacturing, purchasing, possessing, owning, or carrying any form of armament, especially any form of armament particularly suited for military use.”

            • TominVA says:

              It does say “well regulated.”

              • Baldwin says:

                It does not mean what you think it means. Refer to the operative portion of the amendment…the rights of the people shall not be infringed. Additionally, getting back to the whole Bill of Rights, what training and permissions are “required” for the exercise of those other rights? Why are so called common sense do-gooders so obsessed with imposing their will on citizens going about their lives in the way those citizens choose to do, you know, without doing harm to anyone? Do you even FREEDOM?

              • Sean says:

                well regulated MILITIA. lets not take things out of context. It also says right to bare arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.

                Infringe – act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

                None of this should be happening then.

              • majrod says:

                “Well regulated” applies to militia not the right of people to bear arms.

                One of the intentions behind the 2A was to ensure Americans were allowed to own firearms and (unstated) the capacity to operate those firearms so they could serve in a militia. A militia that was “well regulated”.

                The amendment according to the founding fathers also serves as a bulwark and final solution to tyranny.

                In all the supporting documentation behind the 2A does it establish standards beyond good citizenship to practice the right. We just don’t value citizenship too much these days.

                • Balnk says:


                  The term “militia” in the 2nd Amendment is the people. It does not mean two different groups. Yes, the “people” make up the “militia”, but the “militia” is the “people”. They are synonyms.

                  • majrod says:

                    Yes and no.

                    At the time of the founding fathers the militia consisted of all men. Times have moved on and I would agree it includes women also today.

                    That said, the militia is not always “on duty” or called up.

                    The founding fathers realized one would have a substandard militia when the people have no background in firearms.

                    If militia and people were truly synonymous in every respect there would be no need to use both words would there? Just say militia-militia or people-people. The reason the founders used two words is that a militia has a specific martial quality while the “people” do not.

                    They understood that to be able to maintain that martial quality the people must be able to own and retain firearms separate from government control.

                  • HSR47 says:

                    As it’s used in the preamble, “well-regulated” refers to a militia that is both well trained and well equipped to a uniform standard.

                    Thus, the government could arguably compel the citizens that make up the militia to purchase their individual militia equipment, and to show up periodically for compulsory training/service.

                    In other words, if the government wants to mandate firearms-related training, there IS actually an avenue for them to do it; It just has to be a general requirement for all those in the militia pool, and not a prior restraint on the practical ability to exercise the right to keep and/or bear arms.

                    Barney-style: A mandatory firearms education course in high school is arguably within the scope of the Second Amendment. Mandating that individuals that want to exercise their right to keep and/or bear arms must first seek seek out specific training or licenses is NOT within the scope of the Second Amendment.

            • Rick says:

              Right on brother… He is a libtard, ignore his sheepie whine.

        • majrod says:

          Love the idea of national right to carry. (Will never happen with this administration.) What I’m extremely suspicious of is giving any government the ability to set training standards. That power has already been used in certain states to keep people from owning guns by making the training so difficult and expensive to obtain.

          • SSD says:

            Ala poll taxes

          • Paralus says:

            or requiring onerous insurance to own or use firearms.

          • HSR47 says:

            I would argue that the the Federal Government already has it’s nose under that tent, and they haven’t gone evil with it. Yet.

            Under the NICS system, there is a standard for a state-issued ID card as a stand-in for a same-day background check.

            While many states don’t fully recognize that potential benefit, practically every state issues a document that meets this federal standard.

            Congress could easily use this standard, along with both the full faith and credit clause and the equal protection clause, to mandate national reciprocity.

      • Mick says:

        You do know that’s the law now, right? VA does not have to recognize every marriage performed in other states, and can legally deny them those rights. This is why gay marriage went to the supreme court. The state of the law today is that different states have different requirements about relationships (specifically, if 1st or 2nd degree cousins can marry). If two states have different rules on that, they do not have to recognize marriages that don’t fit their laws.
        As far as driver’s licenses, if some state had super lax rules to get a license, then I would support VA saying you had to do more to have your license recognized. And as long there’s a mechanism to do that (which it appears there is, as detailed in other comments), that’s good enough.
        As to why does the AG get to decide? Well he is an elected representative… isn’t that his job?

        • Joe says:

          He isn’t an elected “representative”.

        • majrod says:

          You know that same elected official didn’t choose to enforce VA’s ban on gay marriage?

          His interest in enforcing VA concealed carry law is entirely political.

          Elected executive branch officials are supposed to represent us and enforce law, not make it…

          • Mick says:

            Well, I agree with you there… this certainly looks to be a political play all the way. Politicians gonna politic and all that.
            Of course he would argue that he was elected, so he has a MANDATE to do what he’s doing… that’s what they do once they win elections.
            So is it to advance his agenda? Develop a new revenue stream for the state? Both?

          • TominVA says:

            Every elected official makes choices about where to focus effort. Enforcing the gay marriage ban is a waist of time and money. Honestly, who cares of the guys down the street tie the knot. None of my business and none of yours.

            I don’t think it’s too shocking to find a politician, republican or democrat, whose actions are politically motivated, do you? Still, many of them actually believe what they do is for the good of the country.

            • SSD says:

              Yeah, the other AGs who defended their states’ gay marriage bans thought their actions were in the best interest of the country as well.

              • TominVA says:

                Undoubtedly some do and others just do it because it’s the team their on. Waste of time and money. Not sure why the government has anything to say about marriage at all.

      • TominVA says:

        Why would you suppose any of those things? What has marriage, adoption, or driving a car have to do with it? The issue is concealed carry, and it’s not being denied to anyone who qualifies. Regardless of motive, this decision seems perfectly reasonable to me.

        • Joe says:

          So half of the country doesn’t qualify due to the whim of someone that doesn’t care about the Bill of rights. Nice to see which side of the line you stand on. Why do you hate freedom?

          • TominVA says:

            No, half the states don’t have reciprocity for the time being. Those states, if they wanted to, could modify their requirements to the apparently week standards VA has set if they wanted to. In the mean time, the probably very few individuals traveling to VA from one of these states, assuming they wanted to carry during their visit to VA could get a non-res permit.

            How is this even remotely an attack on freedom?

          • TominVA says:

            And while we’re on freedom, why does VA have those stupid ABC stores. In other states you can order your booze online and Total Wine delivers.

    • looks like you can only drive to wva with your weapon

  2. d says:

    While this decision is horseshit, at first glance it would appear that obtaining a non-resident permit isn’t all that difficult. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

    • P.J. says:

      Looks fairly straightforward. You have to mail them a fingerprint card.Oddly enough their “competency with a handgun” requirement is VERY lax. Any firearm training course essentially, including a hunter safety course. Seriously why even bother?

      • TominVA says:

        Spoke with my FIL this morning. He has concealed carry in OK and took a course with guys who could barely hit the target – and they passed!

        • P.J. says:

          That’s because training requirements are a joke at best and at worse a trap for when anti-gun politicians are the ones in charge of enforcing it.

  3. Paul says:

    It’s just a slick way to infringe on our gun rights w/o legislation. It won’t stop one criminal, but a scumbag politician gets to make national news.

    • Mick says:

      How does this infringe on your rights?

      • Sean says:

        You have the right to bare arms (no brainer)
        You have the right to defend yourself with necessary force
        you have the right to freely travel throughout the country

        If the law infringes these from coinciding it’s in the wrong. The reasoning used to support was that it would make it harder for bad elements from carrying in the state but as with anything laws only effect law abiding citizens not criminals.

        • Mick says:

          It looks to me like you can still do all those things, just not conceal a weapon on your person. Actually, you can still do it, you just have to go through VA’s requirements to do it, which fits into the “well regulated” part of the 2A.

          And I disagree with the logic that it’s a law the only affects law abiding citizens. I know a number of prosecutors and someone that gets picked up for anything… if he’s got a gun tucked into his waistband with a shirt over it, that’s another huge lever prosecutors have to use against that person either to get a better plea deal or to exact a tough sentence.

          • Sean says:

            With that logic I could pay upwards of $75 per state i have to travel through to get to family living two states away. That only applies with staying in VA. Consequently this law hurts VA permit holders when going elsewhere.

          • majrod says:

            Mick, you have to read what you write before posting. You likely aren’t law abiding if you are getting picked up and someone with a concealed carry is law abiding versus the individual with a gun stuck in his waist. The law before this change addressed that situation.

            You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2A.

            “Well regulated” applies to militia not the right of people to bear arms.

            One of the intentions behind it was to ensure Americans were allowed to own firearms and (unstated) the capacity/skill to operate those firearms so they could serve in a militia. A militia that was “well regulated”.

            You can’t just pull words willy nilly from an amendment to create meaning. Context is important.

            • Mick says:

              I’ll be the first to admit I’m no 2A scholar. But many far greater minds than mine have come to the same conclusion that the whole first clause does indeed apply to the right of the people.
              But only four of the Supreme Court justices saw it that way in Heller, so the weight of the Supreme Court is on your side.

    • TominVA says:

      I’m with Mick. I live in VA. I own guns. I can get a carry permit if I choose. How are my rights infringed?

      • Sean says:

        When you go visit Grandma two states over. due to Virginia’s dropping reciprocity now they don’t respect ours. Now to cross an imaginary line and continue your everyday setup you are committing a felony. This change had to much collateral.

        • TominVA says:

          So, I just won’t carry when I go see Granny. Why is that such a biggie? And if I just have to, maybe Granny’s state has a similar deal for out-of-staters to qualify for a permit. Again, no biggie.

          • mike says:

            It’s not a biggie for you because you don’t carry. For those who do, and do so legally, the ability to legally carry is in fact a big deal.

            • TominVA says:

              Why? What makes you feel the need to carry?

              • SSD says:

                Are you fucking serious?

                • TominVA says:

                  Well…yes…I’m serious. I don’t carry. Not saying I never would but I live in a pretty safe county – sheriff’s office does a great job.

                  • SSD says:

                    Then why would you ask someone why they carry?

                    • TominVA says:

                      Just curious. I have no need to carry myself and wonder why others feel they do. Too personal?

                    • Ground Pounder says:

                      Some of us have a very valid reason to carry, and no you don’t get an explanation on the internet.

                    • Nate says:

                      @TominVA – The choice to have a personal protection, be it a gun, a knife or a bat by your front door is a decision to be responsible for yourself without fully relying on someone else to be there for you when you need them to be.

                      I’m happy for you that the county you live in is both safe, and that the local law enforcement does a good job of keeping things peaceful in your area. I’m in the tidewater area, where there’s simply too many of us to for the local law enforcement to always be there for us right when something happens. So, as a bridge between the need to defend myself and the time when LEO arrive, I carry a gun, and a knife, and a flashlight every where I legally have the right to do so.

                      In this way I am no longer relying on the response time of my city’s finest to come to my defense when I would need it most.

                    • SSD says:


                  • majrod says:

                    I find that many people that don’t carry have never been or know victims of violent crime.

                    They tend to have a radical conversion when it knocks on the door.

                    I don’t have to have collision insurance on my car and I’m a pretty careful driver but it doesn’t take an accident happening to me or someone I know to realize its better to have it and not need it than vice versa.

                  • Sean says:

                    There are those in this world willing to take from anyone at anytime. Those same people have very little care for another persons life or well-being. That fact is becoming more prevalent in almost every corner of our country. If this instance does occur, will your local law enforcement be at your aid in the 10 seconds or less that it takes for this to happen. If they are, tell me where you live cause I’m moving there. However if your local LEO are not superheros, you should expect to be your own “first responder”.

              • Mac says:

                Well we could start with the fact that I am responsible for my own safety and not the government, as per US Supreme Court decision….

      • P.J. says:

        You can no longer carry in at least 6 states. We’ll wait and see if others join that list.

      • SC says:

        Wow, I never thought I’d see so many Terry McAuliffe loving gun grabbers on SSD. When’s the Hillary fund raiser?

        • TominVA says:

          He hasn’t grabbed mine.

          • mike says:

            It doesn’t seem as if he will have to as long as he asks in a nice and “common sense” manner.

            • Mick says:

              I guess I have a hard time getting the “slippery slope” fear here. 2A rights are on pretty firm footing here, aren’t they?
              With Supreme Court’s Heller decision, there’s an individual right to bear arms.
              I think it’s a pretty big leap from “additional administrative requirement” to “they’re coming for my guns.”
              With this new rule, anyone know what the $$$ imposition is?

              • P.J. says:

                I’m sure they guy who had his guns seized in Cali because his wife had depression felt the same way about the slippery slope.
                Do you even understand what’s going on here? There’s no “additional administrative requirements.” The AG’s office unilaterally “reevaluated” what other state’s requirements and decided they weren’t good enough for VA, without explaining why.

  4. Darkhorse says:

    A few more major events within our borders and Americans (on a large scale) will finally realize that it is THEIR responsibility to protect themselves and their families. The police can only do so much.

    When Americans figure out that their government can’t fully protect its citizens and that same government is limiting its citizens rights to protect themselves, the country will further divide.

    The next 10-20 years are going to be very interesting in America.

  5. cimg says:

    VA turned into a Blue state a long time ago. Sad given Virginia’s history.

  6. BillfromVA says:

    It’s interesting that those who have commented that they do not see how this has an impact on those who have qualified for their permits, both in VA and out of state, use “it is reasonable,” “common sense,” “I have guns…”, “well-regulated.” These are the same phrases of those who groups who don’t support an individual’s right to self defense or believe that I should be able to defend myself or my family from those whom intend harm. And yes I have VA CHP and will be applying for other non-resident permits so that I can remain a law-abiding citizen.

  7. Contractor says:

    I hate this state. Full stop.

  8. Jim says:

    I live in VA and the last election for the Governor’s post was probably the most crooked election I have ever seen. Michael Bloomberg dumped 2 million dollars into Terry McAuliffe’s campaign(McAuliffe himself with strong political ties to a Clinton campaign). Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican canidate, a Tea Party member, was essentially the only Republican on the ballot, and it hurt our side even more when, for some reason, the Republican Party leadership turn its entire back on this race. To show how criminal it was, the third party candidate, Libertarian Robert Sarvis(Suspiciously NOT endorsed by Ron Paul), had some huge campaign contributions by none other than Michael Bloomberg.

    So please, before you go accusing an entire state of being in line with this BS commie anti-2nd Amendment agenda keep in mind that we had a battle going, and we were left behind.

    As for concealed carry, the two San Bernadino terrorists were illegally armed, and yes I’m sure if there a couple of CHL holders were present then, yes, they would have been killed quicker. Also please look for a Los Angeles area police blotter report. Ive seen a number of robberies involving knives, that usually escalate into stabbings.

    On the AG’s announcement, it’s BS, the government, any government, should focus less on an inalienable right, and more about how NOT to overtax your populace and call that an economic windfall.

    In closing, on the national whatever CHL system, NO. Its a right that you SHOULD have already, and even before you were born. Allowing any politico into this, runs the almost total and complete collective bargaining of your birthright and the future rights of all Americans. Have you even read the entirety of these anti-2nd Amenment legislations? It’s always broad to the point where it can cripple well passed it’s intent. Say one was against .50 caliber rifles. In one instance it was, but the vague wording

    • Jim says:

      Continued from above…
      In that instance the vague wording, since it said ‘any firearm .50 caliber and above’ would have applied to muzzleloaders, shotguns firing slugs, the list could go further.

      Be educated about your rights because they are written in stone.

    • SSD says:

      The most crooked thing about the last Gubernatorial election in Virginia was how Cuccinelli ended up on the ballot. He was not chosen by the people as their Republican candidate. The Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis was the strongest of the three on the Second Amendment and did not receive a large contribution from Michael Bloomberg. In fact, I’ve seen no record of him receiving any money from Bloomberg. Sarvis received a total of $222,127 and the single largest donation of $21,057 came from himself.

  9. Airborne_fister says:

    I hate to say it. But some people think that this is a big deal. While I’m a huge 2A supporter. My state of Indiana has only one stipulation when it comes to getting a carry permit. Must be fingerprinted. And that’s basically it. I mean they run your background that’s not a big deal if you are clean. But then there are states whom they do not require any form of a permit or any thing. Like NH. They believe in constitutional carry. All for it. I believe everyone should carry. It’s like the drug world. Let’s make heroin illegal. Ok roger got it. It’s against the law. Yet you have people selling it smuggling it and using it. Even tho it’s illegal. Laws only keep the good guys in the “white” side of the law. I get that VA wants a person to complete training or what ever. But if you are in Indiana or NH. You don’t have to take a class. You go buy your handgun. (In Indiana get your permit by filling out your paperwork and getting finger printed). Then stick that in your waistband or your holster or how ever you plan to carry. And walk out the door.

    The only thing that bothers me about Indiana’s law. Former police or retired police do not have to get fingerprinted or pay. Yet military whom more then likely have about the same if not more training. Have to pay and be fingerprinted. Why do I have to be when I was actually serving my country and fighting for the freedoms of the governing body have to do more then a police officer of a town with 10 people. He gets a free pass all because he was cop of 10 people. Horse shit.