Typical Anti-Rights Drivel from the Daily Press

The Newport News Daily Press is no friend of gun owners.  They often pen editorials decrying Virginia's pro-rights approach to firearms ownership.  This editorial, Pistols in the Pews, offers little that is constructive and instead is a snarky response to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's opinion on self-defense in Virginia's house of worship.

Is it going to come to this: Will the ushers who pass the offering plates "pass the ammunition," too?

While decrying the opinion, they do pose one question that make's sense:

The carve-out of churches never made much sense. We allow guns practically everywhere on public property, including streets and libraries, parks and public buildings. The exception are obvious ones: schools, airport terminals and courthouses. On private property, the choice is up to the owners. So why were churches set aside as a special category of place?

But after this little glimpse of logic, they descend into the type of name calling we have come to expect from the anti-rights crowd. Discussing how the opinion came about - in response to Delegate Mark Cole's request after he could not get legislation expressly allowing self-defense in houses of worship they offer:

What is lamentable is that gun bills that addressed real needs also failed. Like legislation that would close the loophole that enables people who by law can't buy guns to do so, so long as they buy from private sellers at gun shows. Licensed dealers at the shows have to run purchasers through background checks, to weed out those who aren't allowed to have guns (like convicted felons and people who have protective orders against them). Private sellers don't have to vet their customers.

Never-give-an-inch gun rights activists insist there's no such loophole. There is. It helps make Virginia a leading exporter of illegal guns. Sloppy procedures at some guns shows and some dealers put into the wrong hands guns that cause a lot of carnage.

The Daily Press hates the fact that localities can't create a patch work of gun laws like. It probably was expecting too much for the paper to think logically about the AG's opinion,