This comes as no surprise to me, I knew the Gov was rabidly anti-gun long before he was elected. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed already, and I know I'll just be preaching to the choir if I chime in. I would like to point something out though; while it seems highly unlikely in the immediate future, I believe that at some point we're going to see the passage of legislation regarding private sales/transfers of firearms. I am totally against this (& all forms of gun control). However, if faced with the prospect of an outright ban on private sales, and the option of being able to utilize the VSP call in line like FFL's do now, I would definitely choose the latter.

I think that we should fight tooth and nail all proposed gun control, but keep this notion in our back pockets - if we are provided access to the VSP call-in we will still be able to buy/sell/trade privately, without the added expense and hassle of coordinating thru an FFL. And we could ultimately dodge a bullet on the Federal level as well, much like VA did when it instituted the instant call-in line in the first place; our system met the criteria of Federal legislation passed after we created it, while many states were stuck with (& continue to have in some cases) a 3-day waiting period for purchases. Just my .02

Gun Control is his silent, number one priority.

Two of the three proposals seem reasonable to me...

I don't think restricting gun ownership for folks that owe child support will do anything for safety but if it makes a guy not meeting his obligations start paying, then maybe it's worth considering. We deny felons' constitutional rights to vote, hard to see how this is much different.

Background checks seem reasonable to me. My background, and the background of a significant majority of folks on this site are clean. If the background check process is quick and simple, why not?

I'm less confident about the reasonableness of one handgun a month. I can think of many reasonable scenarios where an individual would buy or sell more than one handgun in 30 days. Perhaps there is some benefit to limiting quantity but exceptions would need to be added. Not sure how to write this one yet...

I welcome any constructive comments that don't engage in personal insults and can provide counter view points of substanence. Simply stating "these rules infringe on gun rights" without elaborating why is not constructive and are actually counter productive to your argument because it makes reasonable people less willing to listen.

Two of the three proposals seem reasonable to me...

I don't think restricting gun ownership for folks that owe child support will do anything for safety but if it makes a guy not meeting his obligations start paying, then maybe it's worth considering. We deny felons' constitutional rights to vote, hard to see how this is much different.

Background checks seem reasonable to me. My background, and the background of a significant majority of folks on this site are clean. If the background check process is quick and simple, why not?

I'm less confident about the reasonableness of one handgun a month. I can think of many reasonable scenarios where an individual would buy or sell more than one handgun in 30 days. Perhaps there is some benefit to limiting quantity but exceptions would need to be added. Not sure how to write this one yet...

I welcome any constructive comments that don't engage in personal insults and can provide counter view points of substanence. Simply stating "these rules infringe on gun rights" without elaborating why is not constructive and are actually counter productive to your argument because it makes reasonable people less willing to listen.

Two of the three proposals seem reasonable to me...

I don't think restricting gun ownership for folks that owe child support will do anything for safety but if it makes a guy not meeting his obligations start paying, then maybe it's worth considering. We deny felons' constitutional rights to vote, hard to see how this is much different.

Background checks seem reasonable to me. My background, and the background of a significant majority of folks on this site are clean. If the background check process is quick and simple, why not?

I'm less confident about the reasonableness of one handgun a month. I can think of many reasonable scenarios where an individual would buy or sell more than one handgun in 30 days. Perhaps there is some benefit to limiting quantity but exceptions would need to be added. Not sure how to write this one yet...

I welcome any constructive comments that don't engage in personal insults and can provide counter view points of substanence. Simply stating "these rules infringe on gun rights" without elaborating why is not constructive and are actually counter productive to your argument because it makes reasonable people less willing to listen.

Sorry, but I think your perspective is crap. People owe child support for a wide variety of reasons. How about people who went bankrupt? Why not penalize them. How about people who owe back taxes? Punish people for their crime. Don't take their rights away, unless it is directly related to the crime. There is a reason we call them rights.

Most people have good backgrounds. And serious criminals are not "the people" defined in the 2nd Amendment. "The people" were those who could bear arms as part of a militia. Some of those didn't have stellar records, and wouldn't qualify for weapons as ordained by the Stalinists in our government. Yet they were the militia that fought in the Revolution, the War of 1812 and made up much of the forces on both sides in the Civil War. Punish criminals if they illegally take weapons, not "the people." I have no issue with a non-violent felon who's done his time and has made amends having a weapon to defend himself and his family.

Just to clarify, I don't owe child support. I'm married to the beautiful wife I met 28 years ago. And, I'm a retired Marine officer, who's worked at pretty high levels of government. But people that attack my fellow Americans are scum, and I will defend their rights to the death. That's the oath I took.

If you don't believe in rights, then leave. Go to another country. This is ours.

And if you don't believe in insults then don't post crap concepts.

Outstanding post Frizzman .... we are of the same generation and I too took guns to school and was a member of the schools rifle team.

Amazing how the country has changed in the last 50 years.

I was born and bred in Virginia. I am over sixty and have been a shooter, hunter and collector since I was a kid. I remember when we could bring our shotguns to school as long as they stayed in the car in the school parking lot so we could leave from school and go small game hunting. There was a school shooting team when I went to high school.

Those days are long past. I have watched our rights erode based on the actions of the thugs in our society. Boys who grow up without fathers to guide them and teach them what a real man is and many who have no idea who their father is have created most of the problems. Sperm donors who bear no consequences for their irresponsible behavior create these problems. Women who expect little or nothing from the other parent are the problem...Does Governor Carpetbagger address these and other social issues that are the real cause of societal volence...Absolutely not!

The inanimate object is the easy target for simplistic thinking. Politicians do not base their appeals on facts or logic. They pander to be elected. The present Governor is typical. He is obviously an opportunist who was rewarded for being the Clinton's bagman and huckster. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. One did not have to be a political pundit to expect this from him and his ilk.

We now have a situation where both US Senators are wealthy carpetbaggers and a Governor that is just more of the same. The electorate is uninformed. How many voters have studied history, government or political science? How many understand anything about statistical proof or objective evidence? How many have even read a book or at least a newspaper in the last year? Few, I suspect. Yes, these people "buy elected offices" but without ignorant and apathetic voters, that would not happen. We get the government we deserve.

I also find "common sense rules/laws/retrictions/etc" as the phrase that means that one's freedom of choice and personal responsibilty and consequences for a person's individual behavior are to be removed by the lawyers running our lives. There is no way to define "common sense". What exactly does that mean? If it can't be objectively defined, it means nothing. That is precisely why the politicians use that phrase so often.

So far as the current drone in the Governor's Office goes, I doubt he has an original idea in his repertory. His proposals are a safe bet for him and his puppeteers. He knows very well there is no chance of their passage. His failed proposals will go nowhere and will be forgotten by all but a small amount of people who have much interest in this topic. To his political creditors and constituents, he will have made good on his pre-election promises..."At least, our wonderful Governor TRIED to reduce the terrible gun violence and FIGHT the evil NRA and all those gun nuts."...He was defeated by those evil Republicans and "the gun lobby", right? It's a wining proposition for him.

The "common sense" proposal regarding "the gun show loophole" is obviously aimed at curtailing and ending private sales. If it was put as a mandated prohibition of the right to sell personal property that will be enforced with severe sanctions, people may be less enchanted by this "common sense" proposal. Many of us know the instant check isn't instant. Due to my common name, I am always put on a hold. My record is spotless. I was a LEO. Yet, I have to wait for unpredictable amounts of time to be told I am not to be denied. All the new users of the system will further slow an already over burdened system. Is that acceptable? It is not for me. As has been stated many times, those who comply with the law will suffer the inconvenience and those who do not comply will do so with little actual risk. Anyone with any "common sense" knows that. The drug laws have certainly extinguished the trade in illegal drugs, right?

So, I am all for showing up for lobby days and other such events. The local "news" outlets will marginalize the pro Second Amendment. Will the politicians who don't make themselves scarce be influenced to change their votes? Perhaps...But, showing up to a rally isn't enough. Just sending money to the NRA alone won't influence people much. We need to be politically active and informed and willing and able to state our case to those who will pay attention. We need to be able to present reasoned, evidence based information to those around us and avoid exhibition of emotionalism that serves to confirm to others that supporters of the right to keep and bear arms ARE sane and pose no threat to them.

To the Brian VAGT and the MODS..thanks for all that you do here on the VAGT.

I'm not 'quite' as old as BobVA and Frizzman, but we took guns to school for show and tell, and we needed them in plays that we were doing in grade school. THAT WAS IN NEW YORK, in the late 1960s and early 70s. It just goes to show you what can happen and how fast.

I'm originally from San Francisco and was born in those aforementioned late '60's. Unfortunately, we weren't bringing guns to school for show 'n' tell, not in the Bay Area. I wasn't even allowed to have a BB-gun because my parents didn't approve of it. "YOU DON'T NEED THAT!" I envied my friends whose parents let them have BB-guns.

If we don't start doing a better job selling the idea of freedom to younger folks, about why this matters, we're in for it, folks. We will become California if we don't do this.