"Virginia Democrats Send Nearly 40 Anti-Gun Measures To Governor"

[Silence Dogood]

Hopefully Youngkin vetos all of them.

Chestnut, M. (2024, March 4) Virginia Democrats Send Nearly 40 Anti-Gun Measures To Governor. The Truth About Guns.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/virginia-democrats-send-nearly-40-anti-gun-measures-to-governor/

With nearly 40 anti-gun measures either already on Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin?s desk for consideration or headed there this week, the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) is calling on all gun owners in the state to contact the governor as soon as possible. . .

Here?s a full list of the measures that Gov. Youngkin will be considering. He has until mid-April to act on the legislation.

HB2, bans ?assault firearms? and magazines holding more than 10 rounds made after July 1, 2024. The definition of ?assault firearm? is expanded to capture more types of firearms. It also prohibits ownership of ?assault firearms? by young adults.
SB2, bans ?assault firearms? and magazines holding more than 10 rounds made after July 1, 2024. The definition of ?assault firearm? is expanded to capture more types of firearms. It also prohibits ownership of ?assault firearms? by young adults.
HB46, requires someone holding firearms for a prohibited person to be 21 or older and to live at a different address.
SB47, requires someone holding firearms for a prohibited person to be 21 or older and to live at a different address.
SB57, prohibits a CHP holder from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of a restaurant or club that serves alcoholic beverages.
SB99, prohibits the carry of semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features in public areas and removes an exemption for CHP holders.
SB100, requires serialization of homemade guns made after 1968.
HB173, requires serialization of homemade guns made after 1968.
HB175, prohibits the carry of ?assault firearms? in public areas, regardless of whether they are loaded, and removes an exemption for CHP holders.
HB183, requires all firearms in a home, that are not being carried by the owner, to be locked up if there is a minor present.
SB225, requires schools to text or email subjective information on guns to parents at the start of a school year.
SB258, expands the things a judge can consider and must consider when issuing an Extreme Risk Protection Order (Red Flag).
SB273, requires a five-day waiting period for firearm sales.
HB318, allows for frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry in a blatant attempt to litigate a legitimate industry out of business.
SB327, makes it illegal for young adults to purchase an ?assault firearm.? The definition of ?assault firearm? is expanded to capture more types of firearms.
HB351, requires a person purchasing a firearm to sign certification that no minor lives in the home or a locking device must be included with the firearm.
HB362, adds ?dating relationship? to the definition of a ?domestic relationship? for purposes of prohibiting guns for misdemeanor domestic violence.
SB363, makes it unlawful to possess, sell, or distribute a firearm with an altered serial number.
SB368, requires all firearms in a home, that are not being carried by the owner, to be locked up if there is a minor present.
SB383, prohibits firearms in higher education buildings unless part of an authorized program or activity in that building.
SB447, creates a $500 fine and makes a vehicle subject to towing if there is a visible handgun inside an unattended vehicle.
HB454, prohibits firearms in higher education buildings unless part of an authorized program or activity in that building.
HB466, severely restricts recognition of out-of-state CHPs.
SB491, allows for frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry.
HB498, requires schools to text subjective information on guns to parents at the start of a school year.
SB515, prohibits firearms in hospitals.
SB522, removes NRA and USCCA training courses from the list of qualified training courses to get a CHP.
HB585, prohibits home-based Federal Firearms Licensees from operating within 1.5 miles of any elementary or middle school.
HB637, creates a training program to make more frequent use of Substantial Risk Orders (Red Flag).
SB642, adds ?dating relationship? to the definition of a ?domestic relationship? for purposes of prohibiting guns for misdemeanor domestic violence.
HB797, removes NRA and USCCA training courses from the list of qualified training courses to get a CHP.
HB798, takes away a person?s right to own a firearm for several misdemeanor convictions, including simple assault.
HB799, requires a person be fingerprinted when applying for a new or renewed CHP.
HB861, prohibits firearms in hospitals.
HB939, prohibits firearms within 100 feet of an electoral board, voter registration, voter satellite building, or a drop-off location or absentee voter precinct.
HB1174, makes it illegal for young adults to purchase an ?assault firearm.? The definition of ?assault firearm? is expanded to capture more types of firearms.
HB1195, requires a five-day waiting period for firearm sales.

[mshill]

When Youkin vetos these they will say he doesn't care about "the children".

[AlmostHeaven]

The Democratic Party in this state has gone absolutely full tyrant, despite wielding the barest of legislative majorities.

The huge avalanche of gun control passed through the 51D-49R House of Delegates and 21D-19R Senate on purely partisan lines for virtually every bill. I knew that dark clouds lied ahead when, despite the efforts of me and other activists, the GOP lost both General Assembly chambers in November 2023, but the party has vastly exceeded my expectations for its pure evil disdain for the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

I pray that Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin vetos every single bill, but "compromise" and "moderation" looms large.

[nick]

When Youkin vetos these they will say he doesn't care about "the children".

Why would anyone care about the infantile idiots in question? Because that's the only "children" negatively affected by legal gun ownership, and that's just in their heads.

[Jimi Jah]

As goes California, so goes the nation.

[BAJ475]

As goes California, so goes the nation.

So, you are saying that the whole nation is going down the toilet?

[AlmostHeaven]

So, you are saying that the whole nation is going down the toilet?

The country, and society at large, certainly seem so.

[TTT]

Democrats hate gun owners, nothing new there.

[AlmostHeaven]

Democrats hate gun owners, nothing new there.

The new development is the malignant cancer of progressive ideology spreading to formerly Republican states, such as Virginia.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The new development is the malignant cancer of progressive ideology spreading to formerly Republican states, such as Virginia.

It's not exactly 'new.' As I pointed out to you before, California used to be a Republican state.

After decades of Republican victories, here's how California became a blue state again

...California's Latino and Asian populations boomed in the 1990s and the growing segment of voters were turned off by the Republican Party's hard-line stance on immigration. After the party closely tied itself to Proposition 187, a controversial California ballot measure that denied public services to people in the country illegally, Republicans struggled to win back the state's immigrant population. Democratic candidates have won decisively in every election since 1992 by performing well in the most populous areas. Despite failing to win the presidency, Hillary Clinton won a higher percentage of votes than any candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt...

That was over 30 years ago.

[AlmostHeaven]

It's not exactly 'new.' As I pointed out to you before, California used to be a Republican state.

After decades of Republican victories, here's how California became a blue state again

That was over 30 years ago.

I do have the impression that California never featured a particularly pro-gun state legislature, even in the "before" era. Aside from constitutional carry, Virginia had the entire Second Amendment community wishlist, including no private transfer background checks, as recently as 2019. California, as far as I understand, never had full state preemption or harmonized shall-issue concealed carry.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I do have the impression that California never featured a particularly pro-gun state legislature, even in the "before" era. Aside from constitutional carry, Virginia had the entire Second Amendment community wishlist, including no private transfer background checks, as recently as 2019. California, as far as I understand, never had full state preemption or harmonized shall-issue concealed carry.

You didn't say "pro-gun" to "anti-gun" state. What you said was...

The new development is the malignant cancer of progressive ideology spreading to formerly Republican states, such as Virginia.

Formerly REPUBLICAN states. Being pro-gun isn't necessarily a sign of being a "Republican" state. But, let's stick with what you said. This piece came out in December... Over Two Decades, Much of the West Has Turned Blue. Why Hasn't Texas?

Over the last 20 years, the West has politically transformed.

The onetime Republican stronghold has become a Democratic bastion, dramatically reshaping the fight for the White House as Colorado, New Mexico and Oregon joined California and Washington in the ranks of solid-blue states.

Arizona and Nevada, once reliably red, have become two of the country?s prime presidential battlegrounds...

Even Texas has changed... Texas Is Now a Majority-Minority State. Why Haven?t Our Politics Changed?

...That same year, while reflecting on the state's fast-growing Hispanic population, Democratic Party chairman Molly Beth Malcom told the New York Times, "The political ramifications are excellent for the Texas Democratic Party." In 2004 the news that we were now a majority-minority state kicked these prophecies into overdrive. The University of Houston political science professor Richard Murray said, "The long-term demographic trends suggest the state will inevitably change in many ways, and it will have a different political balance."

And in some ways these predictions have come true. Far more non-Anglo politicians than ever before are running our major and not-so-major cities, our congressional delegation is more diverse than it was at the turn of the twenty-first century, and George P. Bush's tenure as land commissioner was the rare example of a Latino statewide elected official (though a very Anglo and very famous last name had a lot to do with that). Think of modern pols such as Colin Allred, Lina Hidalgo, and Gene Wu - the days when people regarded Barbara Jordan as an outlier or an interloper are long gone, and for that we can all be grateful.

Yet when you pull back and look at our statewide political leaders and the priorities of the Texas Legislature, it's hard to remember a time when our government was less responsive to many minority residents' concerns. Try to forget for a moment whether you're conservative or liberal or something in between. As a simple matter of empirical observation, it's clear that the majority of minorities in the state vote Democratic and that a disproportionate number of people of color live in our urban areas. But despite the huge demographic shift, Republicans continue to have a lock on the Lege, where they're undermining our major cities' ability to govern by, for instance, taking over Houston's schools and threatening to turn Austin into a capitol district essentially run by the Legislature. Which is to say, the Lege is taking away many minorities' ability to make their own political choices...

There's something odd about this. Back in 2004, Texas was one of only four majority-minority states, along with California, Hawaii, and New Mexico (plus Washington, D.C.). Since then, Maryland and Nevada have joined that club. Over the next few years, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and New York will too. Most of these states have experienced significant political changes along with their demographic shifts. New Mexico has transformed from a bellwether state that voted for George W. Bush in 2004 to a Democratic stronghold. Formerly bright red Georgia and Arizona have become full-on battleground states in federal elections and recently tipped control of the U.S. Senate to Democrats. Even bright blue California, New Jersey, and New York are much less friendly to Republicans than they were twenty years ago. (For complicated reasons - a massive influx of Republican voters from other states, a steadfastly conservative and influential Cuban American population, an extremely effective GOP operation - Florida is our fellow outlier in this list.)...

Texas is not the 'Conservative' stronghold it used to be. It's becoming more of a 'purple' state. Thus, you still see the Republican Party holding power, though even that has seen shifts. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean Republicans can stave things off inevitably. It just means Texas still has a chance, but that the political ebb and flow is in the process of making alterations in the political landscape.

The bottom line is that sitting in rural Virginia, the change(s) may seem 'new' to YOU. But, it's something that many parts of the country have been seeing for some time, with 20 - 30 years (the basis of 'a generation') often being pointed to. Pat Buchanan warned about it a little over 20 years ago and was criticized as a 'racist' for it. (see his book The Death of the West) What he was talking about were cultural changes occurring, in part and/or largely as a result of changing demographics. Those cultural changes manifest themselves in many ways, including politically. And... He has not been alone in terms of what he was observing. He just came at it from a demographic premise.

According to the article, and I think they have a legitimate observation...

...So why hasn't Texas made similar moves? There's no single reason. Gerrymandering of state and federal legislative districts has made it more difficult for Democrats to win, as has the rising influence of wealthy conservative donors. A turn to the left by members of Gen Z has prompted many Republicans to move even further to the right. And, of course, there's the complicated matter of some Latinos moving to the right.

All of those explanations would seem to apply to the other majority-minority states. And yet New Mexico, which has many conservative Hispanics who are centuries removed from the immigrant experience, offers free college tuition to high school graduates and has relatively strong gun-control laws.

No, something else is at work here, and I think our Texas-size sense of state pride is at the heart of it all. Texas identity, as it has been passed down to generations of schoolchildren, is rooted in a pantheon of mythic freedom fighters, rugged individuals, and devout families. These legends were created by Anglos in the nineteenth century and, with few exceptions, gloss over the many people of color who were trampled along the way. The next chapter of Texas history, by contrast, will be dominated by the rise of Hispanic, Black, and Asian Texans, rendering the history of Anglo dominance a historical moment that is receding in the rearview mirror. And that scares the hell out of some people...

It's why many on this site talk about the 'racism' tripe which comes from the Left. It's not about 'race' or 'racism,' despite what outlets like The Washington Post push... The Republican Party is white and Southern. How did that happen?

It's easy to forget that President Trump's surprising victory in 2016 depended more on the South than Rust Belt states. Trump won all the former Confederate states except Virginia. Combined, those 10 states provided 155 electoral votes - more than half of his total.

Of course, the South has gone for Republicans for quite some time. Since 1972, Republican presidential nominees generally have carried a majority of Southern states. In five elections - 1972, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 - they swept the region. Since support for the Republican Party is notoriously low among black voters, this means that the party's contemporary base consists of white, Southern voters.

Before the 1970s, Republicans didn?t do nearly so well in the South. With the exception of the short period of Reconstruction after the Civil War, the GOP was notoriously ineffective in the ex-Confederacy. The region was dominated by the Democratic Party from the late 1870s through the second half of the 20th century.

Why the shift? Historians and political scientists traditionally emphasize how the national Democratic Party began supporting civil rights, which alienated white Southern voters. But our research shows that it wasn't just the Democrats who changed. The Republican Party in the South consciously chose to exclude blacks early in the 20th century, which helped it to dominate Southern politics decades later...

If you don't agree with Democrats, you have to be 'racist' is the mantra referenced on this site. What it really is, however, is a change in the cultural alignment. Sure. 'Race' is part of that, but it's not necessarily defined by it. It's just easy to see the demographic shifts and pounce on 'race' without 'inconveniently' noting that 'race' is not the entirety of 'demographics.' For instance, last month saw this piece... Demographics: How to Collect, Analyze, and Use Demographic Data, which states...

Demographics are statistics that describe populations and their characteristics. Demographic analysis is the study of a population-based on factors such as age, race, and sex. Demographic data refers to socioeconomic information expressed statistically, including employment, education, income, marriage rates, birth and death rates, and more...

That 'definition' is cited as stemming from a source which also directs you to Webster's (see above link). In short, it is a combination of factors used by business, politics, etc. to generalize and/or target segments of a population. The results are used in business for marketing and planning. They are used in politics to 'sway' voters. An example is what we recently saw with the NRA and how the anti-gun forces 'targeted' existing fractures/schisms within the membership.

The relationship between Demographics and Culture is more complex than we have room/time for here. Suffice to say that the introduction to this piece from 2014... Culture and Demography: From Reluctant Bedfellows to Committed Partners... alludes to it...

Demography and culture have had a long but ambivalent relationship. Cultural influences are widely recognized as important for demographic outcomes, but are often "backgrounded" in demographic research. I argue that progress towards a more successful integration is feasible and suggest a network model of culture as a potential tool. The network model bridges both traditional (holistic and institutional) and contemporary (tool kit) models of culture used in the social sciences and offers a simple vocabulary for the diverse set of cultural concepts such as attitudes, beliefs and norms, and quantitative measures of how culture is organized. The proposed model conceptualizes culture as a nested network of meanings which are represented by schemas that range in complexity from simple concepts to multifaceted cultural models. I illustrate the potential value of a model using accounts of the cultural changes underpinning the transformation of marriage in the U.S. and point to developments in the social, cognitive and computational sciences that could facilitate the application of the model in empirical demographic research...

...or, more accurately, alludes to how the relationship is used.

That "diverse set of cultural concepts such as attitudes, beliefs and norms, and quantitative measures of how culture is organized" is what you see in things like the gun control debate and the 'marketing' employed, by both sides. It's what you see in all 'marketing,' from beds to baby powder to cars to anything else. It's what you see in politics. It's what you see in... A whole lot of what is going on, even your efforts to align "Republicans" with "pro-gun" and "Democrats" with "anti-gun."

There is some truth in such an alignment. However, it is not the 'whole' truth and that gets lost. Why? Because it is inconveniently complex.

Synopsized, it could be said that it's at the heart of... 'divide and conquer;' a phrase often used to describe strategies in gun control, politics, et al. Again, it's what we've been witnessing in the 'campaign' which has been waged against the NRA in recent years where people begin questioning the 'identity' of the organization by conflating what some in the leadership have done with what the organization actually stands for.

It's also a faux pas committed by 'activists' for one cause or another, including with guns. Why? Because it often 'oversimplifies' so as to make things like 'targeting' and 'explanations' more comprehensible/doable. Sometimes, it is 'accidental.' Other times, it's deliberate.

Just like your segue from "Republican" to "guns." Currently, there is some truth to the connection and it might seem like a convenient connection to allude to so as to 'realign' the discussion. However, at one time and in many places, there is/was also some truth that true believers in the 2nd Amendment weren't strictly tied to political party alignment. It all depends on how you attempt to parse things so as to make your 'targeting' more 'acceptable,' or seemingly so.

Put another way, it goes back to what I have been indicating. It's the same thing as "If you don't agree with Democrats, you have to be 'racist.'" It's "orange man bad." It's about "the children." It's a catch phrase or term which cloaks what is really going on or being said by tying it to something else which will cause the audience/listener to 'react' based on an emotional, rather than an intellectual level.

It's also the long way around to saying... You don't get to move the goal posts you originally set.

It's also a way of explaining what I am referencing when I tell you, again, that it's something that isn't 'new' and has been going on for some time.

[AlmostHeaven]

You raise some valid points about the nation at large.

I concede that the situation presents complexities when zooming out to the overarching picture, but here in Virginia, the correlation does not constitute a merely overwhelming trend, but rather a total lock. Not even one Democrat voted against a single example of the 37 gun control bills detailed above, and a Democratic governor would gleefully sign every piece into law.

I have already detailed several times how the Virginia General Assembly currently features mathematically minimal majorities of 51D-49R in the House of Delegates and 21D-19R in the Senate. Any individual Democratic representative could have upheld the Constitution and derailed the bills by thinking independently on the issue and crossing the aisle.

Thus, to the Second Amendment community of this Commonwealth, Democrat is synonymous with anti-gun. This oversimplified distinction matters since unlike for example, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, which have virtually shifted into purely litigation-centric postures due to the respective states having unassailable Democratic supermajorities, the Virginia Citizens Defense League spends most of its efforts campaigning to elect GOP politicians at the state and local levels, reinforcing the connection between "Republican" and "pro-gun."

[TrappedinCalifornia]

You raise some good points about the nation at large.

I concede that the situation presents complexities when zooming out to the overarching picture, but here in Virginia, the correlation not constitute a merely overwhelming trend, but rather total lock. No even one Democrat voted against a single example of the 37 gun control bills, and a Democratic governor would gleefully sign every piece into law.

I have already detailed several times how the Virginia General Assembly currently features mathematically minimal majorities of 51D-49R in the House of Delegates and 21D-19R in the Senate. Any individual Democratic representative could have derailed the bills by thinking independently on the issue and crossing the aisle.

Thus, to the Second Amendment community of this Commonwealth, Democrat is synonymous with anti-gun. This oversimplified distinction matters since unlike for example, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, which have virtually shifted into pure litigation-centric postures due to the respective states having unassailable Democratic supermajorities, the Virginia Citizens Defense League spends most of the efforts on electing Republicans, reinforcing the connection between "Republican" and "pro-gun."

Exactly. You are speaking from a parochial perspective, not necessarily with an eye to what is actually going on nationally. Yet...

The new development is the malignant cancer of progressive ideology spreading to formerly Republican states, such as Virginia.

States, plural. Not every state shares the same experiences or the same populations. Just as I detailed, Texas is seeing a similar progression as California once did, but it has its own idiosyncrasies; thus, the results aren't exactly the same. Similarly, what you are experiencing in Virginia also has similarities, but differences.

It's what we went back and forth about before. Sitting on the East Coast, it is simply not possible for you to grasp what it is to live in California. In a sense, it can be intellectually understood, but the 'feel' just isn't the same.

You claim to be aware of your 'limitations,' yet you continually proffer opinions and advice regarding what we should do or how we should view things. Yet, threads like this pop up indicating the defense of the 2nd Amendment in Virginia isn't quite the sterling exemplar of 'how it's done.' It makes some members 'question' the 'activism' you claim to be engaging in. In a sense, it goes back to the perception many have that if one cannot 'properly' take care of their own backyard, why should they listen when that same individual insists they know how you should tend yours.

For now, California precludes an opportunity for 'victory' by the Right. Places like Texas and Virginia, however, still have the opportunity to stem the tide. But, you have to be careful becoming too comfortable with Party labels. There is an overwhelming penchant, in both parties, toward 'extremism.' Is it more pronounced among Democrats? In some respects, I think an argument can be made that it is.

But, that's not necessarily the reason for voting alignment or hegemony. It can be and, many times, it is. However, there are other times when, as with firearms, being a Democrat isn't necessarily indicative of being 'anti-gun.' Likewise, being Republican doesn't denote a reliable 'pro-gun' philosophy. A prime example is Trump, who used to be more 'anti-' than 'pro-' and, so much so, that, if you go back through older threads from around the time of his first campaign, some members were asking if we could truly trust him on "guns." Some of the things he said and did as President didn't quell that 'nervousness.'

In many respects, for many Democrats, it's about a trade-off. We hear about 'single issue voters' and, according to some, that is the premise we are supposed to work from on this site. Yet, truth be told, 'firearms' is typically not the single issue most see it as. It is a derivative of larger, philosophical issues and that is the conundrum which confronts voters along the political spectrum.

If you are pro-gun, but also pro-abortion, how do you vote? If you vote Democrat due to your stance on abortion, as you say, the likelihood is that Democrat is not going to be as pro-gun as you'd like. If you vote Republican because of your feelings regarding the 2nd Amendment, there's an even money chance that candidate may be more 'tolerant' of abortion or homosexuals or other issues you also care about. It's the very problem being confronted in the House with the Conservative Caucus impeding the new Speaker's ability to get things done. Yet, as an impediment, they actually 'risk' alignment of less-Conservative Republicans with Democrats where the result is a more Democrat-controlled outcome since Democrats will be a greater portion of the balance passing the bill.

The same holds true right down the list of issues. We can cuss and swear until the cows come home about RINO's and lament the idea that there doesn't seem to be an equivalent among Democrats, but it doesn't change things and it's not necessarily universally true. Likewise, those who elected them did so often being fully aware of their 'mixed' stances. As a 'for instance,' my Grandmother was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and, while she could see the differences between an FDR Democrat and the modern Democrat Party, she could not bring herself to vote for a Republican. Conversely, my Grandfather was an hardline Republican and couldn't bring himself to vote for a Democrat, even JFK who he knew in the Navy. Yet, they both lamented that a 'middle ground' never seemed to be effectively sought. Let's just say it made for some interesting and heated discussions or a good amount of time spent in the barn to keep the peace.

In the same way, when you say - Any individual Democratic representative could have derailed the bills by thinking independently on the issue and crossing the aisle. - uh... First, you are not truly talking about them thinking 'independently.' Your point of reference is that they think more like you or I do on a certain issue. Second, you ignore the 'trade-off' for them if they do. As a result, you 'condemn' them for being a Democrat and not thinking independently when, in fact, what is being expressed is something else.

This is where I regularly point to a middle ground. I'm not talking about compromise on a given issue. I'm talking about the crux of horse-trading. If you want guns to be inviolable, what do they want to be inviolable? If you refuse to accept such an 'extreme' on their issue, be prepared for them not to accept the 'extreme' on your issue. At what point do you seek a 'middle ground' where you both get all or mostly what you want on your respective issues? When things become dysfunctional due to the 'hard lines' extremism engenders? When you start losing rights and/or liberties due to 'their extremists' outnumbering 'your extremists?'

The 'middle ground' is how the country was designed to run. There are very few things which were intended to be, well, as per a quote I regularly employ...

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Just remember, it's not simply about enumerated rights, for as the 9th Amendment reminds...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It is, in part, supposedly why we have political subdivisions where, parochially, you can have, mostly, what you favor. That is the problem we're experiencing now. Those subdivisions are being subsumed and/or ignored.

I wouldn't want California or the portion I live in run like it is Virginia anymore than you'd want your section of Virginia administered like California. However, you might be surprised at how 'similar' two sections of geographically dispersed states can actually be. It is that 'similarity' which comprises the 'middle ground,' not invectives over differences or oversimplifications which conflate too many things.

It all goes back to the thought that the solutions are typically simple. It's the implementation of those solutions which is often impossible.

Such is why Lincoln is purported to have observed...



In the context of what we're discussing, I think the variant of that expression is more on point...

[pdsmith505]

Back on topic...

Youngkin outright vetoed 2 gun bills sent to him this session (HB46 and SB47). 1 more was sent back with amendments (HB 498).

https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/news-releases/2024/march/name-1023240-en.html

The remainder have until 30 days after the session was adjourned (so, april 7th-ish) to be signed into law or vetoed.

VA General assembly will reconvene 17 April for consideration of Governor's amendments and vetoes.