I’m surprised that the Roanoke Times, of all papers, would say gun control advocates are too quick to criticize Virginia’s Attorney General for his ruling that self-defense was a sufficient reason to carry a firearm in a church. Virginia law prohibits carry in churches unless the person has “good and sufficient reason.” Cuccinelli’s ruling is a completely reasonable reading of the statute.
4 thoughts on “A Defense of Cuccinelli’s Ruling on Guns and Churches”
Comments are closed.
I’ve always had my line ready in case someone complained when I carry to synagogue. VA law says I need a good and sufficient reason. I’ve got six million good and sufficient reasons to carry to synagogue. Asshole.
I talked a little about it last week, in relation to McEachin’s proposal that they’re talking about today. “Good and sufficient reason” is so vague that it probably renders the law void.
I think you’re reading the intent of the latest RT editorial wrong, though. It looks to me more like they’re applauding the AG opinion as fuel for the anti’s to push for the General Assembly to “clarify” the law – and by clarify they mean to make the exemption so restrictive as to be useless – and any attack they may be making on McEachin for proposing it is because it’s too blatant.
They would rather have the total ban, but they realize it would “present problems of its own” – as in, it would probably never even get out of committee, and might be considered unconstitutional if it did pass.
And what if being armed while at worship were a central belief of a religion? Shouldn’t the place of worship have the only say in matters like this? Why involve the state at all when they are perfectly capable of establishing their own rules?
The comments on that editorial jumped the logic train faster than usual, it seems. I guess it was too soon after the first one.
I should probably bow out of that debate at this point – I’m starting to get a headache from banging my head against that brick wall.