Hysteria Over Cuccinelli Cuccinelli Carry in Churches Opinion Borders on Ridiculous

And this Fredericksburg Free Lance Star blog post by editorial cartoonist Clay Jones is a perfect example.

I believe in the Second Amendment, but the gun worship in this country just goes overboard at times.

One reader comment posted in response had it right; all you have to do is Google "Church Shootings" to see why some would consider carrying their self-defense firearm to their place of worship.

Michael Paul Williams Misses the Point

Where do I start?  The below screed from Richmond Times Dispatch commentator (I refuse to refer to him as a reporter because most all of his articles are slanted to his point of view) Michael Paul Williams is so filled with hate toward gun owners and out right ignorance of the issue of self-defense,  I almost hesitate to include the video in the post.  But it is good to see and hear how our opponents view us and how they present themselves.



His disdain for gun owners and the NRA seeps out with every word. But his comment about anyone needing to carry a firearm to their church service for protection might want to consider finding another church illustrates just how ignorant he is. It's not that a person feels the need to defend himself against a member of his or her church, it's about protecting yourself and fellow congregation members from wackos like this and this.

In related news, anti-rights State Senator Don McEachin said yesterday that he would fix this with legislation next year.

McEachin says places of worship should not have to put up signs specifically banning weapons from their premises. He also suggests the Attorney General is ruling via "fiat," because the General Assembly refused to consider a bill that would have loosened the law regarding guns in church.

Sadly, the response of people like Williams and McEachin is predictable.

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,

More on AG Cuccinelli Self Defense in Houses of Worship Opinion

A number of media outlets yesterday reported on Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's opinion that self-defense is sufficient cause for carrying a fiream in houses of worship during regular services.  Most of the outlets carried the AP report written by Bob Lewis.

Current law is somewhat unclear in that it prohibits carrying during regular services "without good and sufficient reason."  Unfortunately, the legislature did not define what constitutes good and sufficient reason.  In steps Delegate Mark Cole who asked the AG for clarification in the form of an AG Opinion.

Cole said he sought the opinion the one-paragraph provision in the state's criminal statutes after receiving inquiries from some churches in his district resulting from recent deadly shootings in churches.

Gunfire last month killed the pastor of an Illinois church and wounded two people in the congregation.

Cuccinelli wrote that the self-defense is at the heart of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

WAVY10 in Portsmouth ran this story on local reaction to the opinion.

Local churches react to "armed worship": wavy.com

The Brady Campaign reaction was typical.

Brian Malte, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the opinion by the pro-gun Republican attorney general nudges Virginia closer toward making firearms more prevalent throughout society.

"Places of worship don't need loaded guns brought into them," Malte said. "The way Attorney General Cuccinelli states it, it looks like he's giving an opening to guns in churches, and we oppose that."

Rosalind S. Helderman somewhat parrots the Brady response when she wrote on the Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog:

The legal opinion comes in response to an inquiry from state Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg), who had sponsored an unsuccessful bill in 2010 to make it legal for a concealed weapons permit holder to carry a handgun in a place of worship during religious services with the permission of a religious leader.

If widely followed, Cuccinelli’s ruling would have the same effect — opening places of worship to weapons unless they are barred by the religious institution.

The AG stated that places of worship can choose to restrict or bar weapons if they wish, indicating that churches, synagogues, mosques and other institutions have a private property right to set their own rules with regards to guns.  AG opinions are only advisory and do not carry the force of law.

Hopefully, the AG's opinion will not cause a mad rush by churches to post "no guns" signs. That is a sure way for someone wishing to cause harm in a church to pick easy victims, as we have seen with other self-defense free zones.

AG Issues Opinion on Carry in Virginia Churches

Attorney General Cuccinelli has issued an opinion related to the carry of firearms in churches during regular services.  Delegate Mark Cole asked the question whether it is permissible for a citizen to carry his firearm into a place of worship for personal safety purposes under § 18.2-293, which requires a "good and sufficient reason" for carrying a firearm into "a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place.  The AG responds:

It is my opinion that carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason under the statute to carry a weapon into a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held there. 

It is further my opinion that places of worship can restrict or ban firearms from their premises.

It should be noted that an AG's Opinion is just that, an opinion, and does not carry the force of law.