We're giving away a Custom AR-15 rifle to the user who posts the 100,000th post in our forum!

The Virginia Gun Owners Forum is nearing the 100,000 post mark, and to celebrate this event, we have teamed with Sterling Arsenal to give away a custom built Gladius SAR-XV AR-15 rifle with an MSRP of $1,350!

AR15 Rifle Giveaway - More Info Here

I'm considering a visit to the Virginia State Fair at the Meadow Event Park near Richmond (actually in Doswell right next to Kings Dominion). So, I was browsing their website, trying to determine whether they allow legally carried weapons or not.

I couldn't find the answer readily available, so I sent them the following email:

##################
Hello Jay,

I would like to know the Fair policy regarding the legal carry of firearms on the Fairgrounds property (concealed with a valid Virginia concealed handgun permit).

When I read your mission statement, I get the feeling that legally carried firearms are allowed, since your policy states:

"[The SFVA] mission is to celebrate Virginia's heritage - to heed its roots in agriculture, advance its youth through scholarships, encourage friendly competition and foster multicultural celebrations in a fun, safe atmosphere."

and

"As a not-for-profit independent of state government, SFVA is much more than one event. In a world where Virginia’s open land and traditions that shaped our culture are rapidly vanishing, our goal is to keep cherished ideals and experiences alive in the Commonwealth. "

Thank you for your time.
###################


I received a negative response indicating that weapons are not allowed:


###################
Rick,

Per our State Fair of Virginia web site:

All Guests Subject to Search

For the safety of all individuals, everyone entering the event is subject to search. Metal detectors may be used. Weapons, contraband and alcoholic beverages are prohibited. Anyone refusing search cannot be admitted.

Our no weapons policy actually is for The Meadow Event Park year round.

Thanks!

Jay
####################


So, I have no problem with them denying our rights on their private property (The Meadow Event Park). What I *DO* have a problem with is their mission statement, which specifically states "In a world where Virginia’s open land and traditions that shaped our culture are rapidly vanishing, our goal is to keep cherished ideals and experiences alive in the Commonwealth."

So, how does restricting the carry of firearms fit in with that mission statement? Your guess is as good as mine. Seems they should adjust that mission statement to read something more along the lines of:

"In a world where Virginia’s open land and traditions that shaped our culture are rapidly vanishing, our goal is to keep cherished ideals and experiences alive in the Commonwealth - except for those ideals which we would like to see vanish."

---------------
Discuss this story at the following link: Virginia State Fair Mission Statement discussion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3QGovMYCYc

We are nearing our 50,000th post at VaGunForum.net and to mark this occasion, I will be giving away a free Leatherman "Freestyle" multi-tool to the person who posts the 50,000th post!

50,000th post giveaway - Leatherman "Freeestyle" Multi-tool - Click here for more information! (or read the rest of the article and comment here at VGOF.org)

A bit of background on each of our Contenders:

IN THE RED CORNER - Speaking from Richmond Virginia on behalf of thousands of gun owners who are members of his group the Virginia Citizens' Defense League (VCDL) - Philip Van Cleave!

IN THE BLUE CORNER - A Richmond bartender who writes a blog filled with profanity and name-calling - where gun owners are labeled as "F***ing stupid A**H****" and "Uneducated A**H*****" (by the way - how educated must one be in order to be a bartender?) - Jack Lauterback!

The first shots were fired in this debate as Mr. Lauterback tossed out insults and dared that one of us "Uneducated A**H****" come to the table for a discussion. Here's how it went down:

---------------------
Mr. Lauterback via his blog:
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Gun Debate Update

I've just been informed that a gun debate roundtable is tentatively scheduled for the NBC 12 'First At Four' feature next Wednesday, featuring yours truly. I'm not sure if they're going to find some gun nut for me to make look stupid, or if I have to find one, either way, it's going down.

Who wants to bring it live on TV in front of thousands of people??? I'm waiting...

---------------------

Mr. Van Cleave in an announcement to his VCDL members in a VA-ALERT (Sign up for VA-ALERT by visiting VCDL.org)

I've notified him via email that I'm the "gun nut" he's "going to make look stupid."

I'm looking forward to it.

---------------------

Read more at the following link:
VCDL to sit down with Anti-gun Bartender on NBC-12 (Richmond, VA)

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Joint Statement by Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President & CEO,
and Chris Cox, Executive Director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action


There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that the Court has clearly stated that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans, NRA members and gun owners expect a nominee to the Court to fully support, defend and preserve that freedom.

The Virginia Gun Owners Forum RSS Feed is a running feed of the last thirty (30) active topics at The Virginia Gun Owners Forum. I am especially happy with the content of the feed just a few moments ago, as there was a wide array of informative topics ranging from a Dan Wesson CBOB post (A post in the "Show off your hardware" forum) to Second Amendment-specific postings and a couple of For Sale (locally) ads from forum members.

Here are the latest 17 posts in the feed as of this moment.

Dan Wesson CBOB
Post by: allingeneral
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:10:45

Above the law.
Post by: Tweaker
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:09:19

Silhouette Targets (Human)... OK in VA?
Post by: Tweaker
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:05:02

Red Dot Sights?
Post by: Edfastdraw
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:50:35

WTS: Rock River Arms Dominator II EOTech Mount and BUIS
Post by: Ried
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:52:56

Response to someone with a knife
Post by: ProShooter
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:46:25

NRA to endorse Harry Ried???????
Post by: GS78
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:13:46

Hiking with my CHP
Post by: FrankG0
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:47:52

43 states now allow gun carry where alcohol is served
Post by: OakRidgeStars
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:20:30

Gun license fees and the right to keep and bear arms
Post by: VBshooter
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:16:14

Why liberals should defend the 2nd Amendment
Post by: gunderwood
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:57:43

Declaration of Independence for a New Revolution
Post by: Mindflayer
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:21:09

I try, really I do.....
Post by: KaosDad
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:00:53

A gunny vs. an officer
Post by: gunderwood
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:25:09

TheGunSource.com Offering Guns at Cost!
Post by: gunderwood
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:52:22

WTS: Marlin 336XLR 30-30
Post by: gunderwood
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:32:18

WTB New Carry Gun
Post by: maverick2694
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:52:01

I will be adding the RSS Feed to the VGOF.org site (this site) soon. If you use a newsfeed reader, please consider adding VGOF to your RSS Feeds!

Virginia Gun Owners Forum RSS Feed

The SP-248 form used for the application of a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) in the State of Virginia has been updated to Revision 01 July 2010. All new CHP applications in the State of Virginia must be requested on this new version of the form. The old version is no longer in effect.

Changes from the previous version of the form are as follows:

Line 6 added after Place of Birth
Country of Citizenship and a blank for Alien Number

Line 7 changed from Phone Number (Home/Work) to Phone Number (Home/Other)

Line 8.E added a note stating: (SEE NOTICE 4 PAGE 3) - This is not a new notice, just a new reference to it on line 8.E of the form.
This notice states:
NOTICE 4: COMMITMENTS TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MENTAL HEALTH,
MENTAL RETARDATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES
ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN ACQUITTED BY REASON OF INSANITY PURSUANT TO §18.2-308.1:1 OR ANY SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR LAW OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION, HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED LEGALLY INCOMPETENT OR MENTALLY INCAPACITATED PURSUANT TO §18.2-308.1:2 OR HAS BEEN INVOLUNTARILY ADMITTED TO A FACILITY OR ORDERED TO MANDATORY OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PURSUANT TO §18.2-308.1:3 OR HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A TEMPORARY DETENTION ORDER UNDER §37.2-809 WHO SUBSEQUENTLY AGREED TO VOLUNTARY ADMISSION UNDER §37.2-805 IS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR POSSESSING A FIREARM UNLESS HIS OR HER RIGHT TO PURCHASE, POSSESS, OR TRANSPORT A FIREARM HAS BEEN RESTORED BY THE AUTHORITY OF AN APPROPRIATE COURT.

Line 10 regarding fingerprint requirements changed from "Initial Permits Only" to "Initial Resident Permits Only"

NOTICE 3 (IF YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN DENIED)

The RESIDENT portion of this notice has changed to:

VIRGINIA RESIDENT APPLICANTS: (1) UPON DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION, THE CLERK SHALL PROVIDE THE PERSON WITH NOTICE, IN WRITING, OF HIS RIGHT TO AN ORE TENUS HEARING. UPON REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT MADE WITHIN 21 DAYS, THE COURT SHALL PLACE THE MATTER ON THE DOCKET. THE APPLICANT MAY BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, BUT COUNSEL SHALL NOT BE APPOINTED, AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE SHALL APPLY. THE FINAL ORDER OF THE COURT SHALL INCLUDE THE COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. (2) UPON DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION BY ANY PERSON WHO PREVIOUSLY HELD A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT, THE CLERK SHALL PROVIDE THE PERSON WITH NOTICE, IN WRITING, OF HIS RIGHT TO AN ORE TENUS HEARING. UPON REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT MADE WITHIN 21 DAYS, THE COURT SHALL PLACE THE MATTER ON THE DOCKET. THE APPLICANT MAY BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, BUT COUNSEL SHALL NOT BE APPOINTED, AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE SHALL APPLY. THE FINAL ORDER OF THE COURT SHALL INCLUDE THE COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. (3) ANY PERSON DENIED A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN MAY PRESENT A PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE PETITION FOR REVIEW SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR REQUESTING AN ORE TENUS HEARING,OR IF AN ORE TENUS HEARING IS REQUESTED, WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOLLOWING THE HEARING. THE PETITION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PAPERS FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, INCLUDING A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DENYING THE PERMIT. THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OR JUDGE SHALL BE FINAL. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, IF THE DECISION TO DENY THE PERMIT IS REVERSED UPON APPEAL, TAXABLE COSTS INCURRED BY THE PERSON SHALL BE PAID BY THE COMMONWEALTH. [VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 18.2-308 PARTS D, I, L AND SECTION 17.1-410]


Page 4 Space designated for court use only can now be signed by JUDGE or CLERK

Here is a link to the new form SP-248 Virginia Application for Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) Form SP-248 (REV July 2010)

.

June 30, 2010

The big headline in the U.S. Supreme Court's McDonald v. Chicago gun-ban-case decision, handed down on June 28, 2010, is that the individual states are now bound by the Second Amendment. Previously, only the federal government was technically bound.

The right to keep and bear arms is "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment and applies to the states, under the Due Process clause used to apply other BOR requirements to the states. For publicity, bragging rights, moral and many legal purposes, this is a big win.

And it is a win, despite some negativity floating around. The alternative -- no gun-rights protection at the state level, which was avoided by just a single vote -- would have been an unmitigated disaster. Everyone now has a claim to constitutional gun-rights protection instead of none, which is what four of the nine Justices would have given you.

"The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban."

Fox News

High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights
June 28, 2010 - 10:07 AM | by: Lee Ross

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

Backgrounder:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appears poised to issue a ruling that will expand to the states the high court's historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms, following an hour-long argument Tuesday. If so, the decision would mark another hallmark victory for gun rights advocates and likely strike down Chicago's handgun ban that is similar to the Washington D.C. law already invalidated by the justices.

Tuesday's lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008. He now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago's handgun ban doesn't allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country.

"In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship," Gura told the Court.

He argued the language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment forces the states to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government.

It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply--or incorporate--parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. It has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution's first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn't appear to be enough support from the bench on that front.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. "I don't see how you can read -- I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

The discussion over "liberty" was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city's handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision's Second Amendment guarantee doesn't comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the states.

"[T]he right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Feldman said. "States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. "I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn't have the right to trial by -- by jury."

Roberts was part of the five member majority in Heller and there's a good chance Tuesday's case will result in a similar 5-4 outcome. All of the members of the Heller majority are still on the Court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail.

Added over 100 pictures from the Shoot and Greet in the photo album here at VGOF.org. You can get to the photo album in the left menu of the site here. Here's a shortcut link:

Sgt Bill's VGOF Shoot and Meet Pictures


...