Herring said severing the out-of-state agreements can prevent people who may be dangerous or irresponsible from carrying a concealed weapon.
“To me, this is a commonsense step that can help make Virginians and our law enforcement officers safer by ensuring that Virginia’s laws on who can and cannot carry a concealed handgun are applied evenly, consistently, and fairly,” he said in a statement provided to The Washington Post.
The State Police superintendent accepted Herring’s recommendation to sever agreements with those states, effective Feb. 1, according to Herring’s office. The states are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Agreements will remain with West Virginia, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.We have been having this debate back and forth for nigh on 60 years, but despite facts about human nature, studies, and the experience of Virginia and other States, the Left still continues to fight on making carrying a weapon as difficult and inconvenient as possible. As David Codrea has noted, every day with these people is opposite day, so the facts obviously do not matter. Instead, what matters is their ideology.Virginia has long had agreements with these States, and I suspect that a reasonable interpretation of the law supports these agreements. The AG's new interpretation, then, represents a novel interpretation that most reasonable people would reject.
Meanwhile, over at Ammoland, David Codrea has in interesting piece on the current debate raging about denying citizens on the terror watch list the right to buy a gun (legally.) Of course, if these people really do intend to commit an act of terrorism, they will get whatever they need illegally. Codrea's article can be found here. The problem, as has been explained ad nauseum, is that there is no due process. Due process involves charging an individual with a crime, holding a trial in which the accused can confront his accusers, and have a jury of his peers weigh the facts and decide his guilt. Anything less is does not constitute due process to deny a person his natural rights acknowledged by the Constitution.
Of course, everyone knows that. The Leftist know it, the Republicans know it. Therefore, there must be another reason they are proposing this idea. Indeed, a little thought suggests that they are hoping we will buy off on it, after which a Democrat administration can deny any one's rights at will. Clearly the desire to compromise on the watch list shows us that the Republicans want essentially the same thing, they just don't want to be as obvious about it. The proper response of anyone wanting to protect your rights should be "Not no, but Hell no!"