Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

"I tangled with Gunderwood and all I got was a 10 page thread on VGOF"

ROTLFMAO!



I learned along time ago, bringing liberals into the "PROGUN" side of the argument would result in conversations like this...

I don't believe like they do. I don't have to believe the same thing. AND!

THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE LIKE ME!

As long as they like guns, want to see freedom prosper, and remove gun laws that only trouble lawbiding citizens (comrades for them). We're on the same ground.

The problem comes with the politicians we have to choose. I have yet to find a far left, progressive uber-liberal Democrat who is PRO GUN!

Are there conservative Democrats? Sure! Blue Dawgs!
Are there liberal Republicans? Sure! RINOS!

The point comes to this... Do ya' like guns? Do ya' think "Reasonable gun control" is truly UNREASONABLE? Do ya' thnk happiness begins with the emptying of a magazine, and the smell of gunpowder in the air? Well a'ight. Good enough for me.

I agrree with you and from now on this thread/discussion should follow the Discussion Guidelines below:

Reverenddel wrote:As long as they like guns, want to see freedom prosper, and remove gun laws that only trouble lawbiding citizens (comrades for them). We're on the same ground.
The problem comes with the politicians we have to choose. I have yet to find a far left, progressive uber-liberal Democrat who is PRO GUN!
The point comes to this... Do ya' like guns? Do ya' think "Reasonable gun control" is truly UNREASONABLE? Do ya' thnk happiness begins with the emptying of a magazine, and the smell of gunpowder in the air? Well a'ight. Good enough for me.

Nicely said. Maybe I will be able to hang out in these forums with people like you.

Not sure I agree about happiness beginning with the emptying of a magazine...for me happiness begins with an intimate encounter with the girlfriend....THEN emptying a magazine at the range. (Sometimes watching her empty a magazine at the range works too!)

I think the problem comes when we generalize and theorize. I do think there is such a thing as reasonable gun control: Mentaly unstable people, violent felons, known terrorists should not be allowed to own them here in America, and probably anti-tank weapons and howitzers and nuclear bombs should not be sold on gunbroker.com.

But I should be able to transport my firearms around without worrying I will get arrested and charged because I simply was driving and parking with it in my vehicle or carrying it with a valid carry permit.
Dems4Guns

dems4guns wrote:I do think there is such a thing as reasonable gun control: Mentaly unstable people, violent felons, known terrorists should not be allowed to own them here in America, and probably anti-tank weapons and howitzers and nuclear bombs should not be sold on gunbroker.com.

But I should be able to transport my firearms around without worrying I will get arrested and charged because I simply was driving and parking with it in my vehicle or carrying it with a valid carry permit.
Dems4Guns

Please explain how "reasonable gun control" will stop a violent felon or known terrorists from obtaining guns?

Also, I am wondering why a permit should be needed to transport or carry firearms?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not state that the right shall be permitted.

Taggure wrote:I agrree with you and from now on this thread/discussion should follow the Discussion Guidelines below:

I like it!....Where is the popcorn making step?

Thanks
Dems4guns

Yarddawg wrote:Please explain how "reasonable gun control" will stop a violent felon or known terrorists from obtaining guns? Also, I am wondering why a permit should be needed to transport or carry firearms?

Good point, Yarddawg, but we shouldn't make it easy for them either. And, having an open market for guns would make it too easy for them. I think the violent felon and mentally ill restrictions are reasonable and the vast majority of people think it reasonable as well. Note that I wrote "violent" felons only. I don't think the gun restrictions should apply to nonviolent offenders.

And, while we are at it, possesion of a gun and illegal drugs should not automatically make it a Class 6 Felony with a 2 year mandatory minimum. Prosecutors have enough punishment options at their disposal without this punishment, or the amount of drugs should be above 4 ounces for more severe punishment.

Maybe you misunderstood my previous statement. I don't think you should be required to have a license to transport a firearm in your vehicle....only to carry the loaded handgun on your person concealed or unconcealed.

It provides a comfort factor for those who do not carry.
Dems4guns

Yarddawg wrote:

dems4guns wrote:I do think there is such a thing as reasonable gun control: Mentaly unstable people, violent felons, known terrorists should not be allowed to own them here in America, and probably anti-tank weapons and howitzers and nuclear bombs should not be sold on gunbroker.com.

But I should be able to transport my firearms around without worrying I will get arrested and charged because I simply was driving and parking with it in my vehicle or carrying it with a valid carry permit.
Dems4Guns

Please explain how "reasonable gun control" will stop a violent felon or known terrorists from obtaining guns?

Also, I am wondering why a permit should be needed to transport or carry firearms?

Tblehe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not state that the right shall be permitted.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Yarddawg didn't you read the 2 recent SCOTUS opinions? While both were narrowly decided, How many times must SCOTUS repeat the following before we get it: 1. The right to keep and bear arms is not an unfettered right 2. Reasonable gun control regulations are permitted. 3. The 2nd Amendment is fully incorporated against the States.

Like it or not this is the law of the land. Basic Federal gun control legislation level has not been adjudged Unconstitutional. State gun control regulations may or may not be declared Unconstitutional. In Heller V D.C., and MacDonald V Chicago SCOTUS adjudged those gun laws to be Unconstitutional. Since these 2 cases, scores of cases have been turned away by Federal courts. Ironically felons are behind most of these case, claiming as you do that 2nd A rights are unfettered.

Since the SCOTUS conservative majority wrote these opinions the only option for gun owners and organizations is to bring suit that a specific gun control law is "unreasonable". I suppose you could also find and support a Presidential candidate who would publicly proclaim that he or she would only appoint SCOTUS judges who would vote to overturn gun control laws. There's no chance that this strategy would succeed. We could also lobby Congress to remove gun laws from the jurisdiction of Federal Courts. Again, no chance.

Realistically, from state to state gun owners had better engage state legislators, gun control groups, and none gun owning citizens concerning gun laws. The bottom line? Gun owners can no longer be seen as dismissive of any and all gun control laws. That's a long term losing strategy.
Gat6

dems4guns wrote:

Yarddawg wrote:Please explain how "reasonable gun control" will stop a violent felon or known terrorists from obtaining guns? Also, I am wondering why a permit should be needed to transport or carry firearms?

Good point, Yarddawg, but we shouldn't make it easy for them either. And, having an open market for guns would make it too easy for them. I think the violent felon and mentally ill restrictions are reasonable and the vast majority of people think it reasonable as well. Note that I wrote "violent" felons only. I don't think the gun restrictions should apply to nonviolent offenders.

And, while we are at it, possesion of a gun and illegal drugs should not automatically make it a Class 6 Felony with a 2 year mandatory minimum. Prosecutors have enough punishment options at their disposal without this punishment, or the amount of drugs should be above 4 ounces for more severe punishment.

Maybe you misunderstood my previous statement. I don't think you should be required to have a license to transport a firearm in your vehicle....only to carry the loaded handgun on your person concealed or unconcealed.

It provides a comfort factor for those who do not carry.
Dems4guns

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Dems4guns I quite agree with you. The idea that we can sit back and reject any gun control law is a none starter. That's also why it made no sense for the NRA to refuse a meeting with President Obama. Not only was it arrogant, rude and disrespectful to the Office of the President it was politically short sighted.

As far as Yarddawg's closing line it seems to be a call for the elimination of all prohibitive laws and regulations since no law, rule or regulation can stop a determined perp from violating it. Breaking and entering is illegal, but that doesn't stop some from doing exactly that. It's about consequences.

While we're at it can we stop this straw man "law abiding" citizen phrase as an excuse to stop reasonable gun laws. The majority of guns are legally sold at first point of sale. So guns recovered from crime scenes were in many cases legally sold initially. Further, every gun owner is potentially one trigger pull away from being a criminal. Remember the mother in FL, the COL's wife, who shot and killed her teenaged kids?

From 1975 to 2005 for all solved homicides the murderer knew the victim approx 80% of the time. Thousands of law abiding citizens have committed gun crimes from murder to straw purchaser, so the term is a red herring. It's rarely used as an excuse not to promulgate laws in almost any area other than gun control.

Gat6

Reverenddel wrote:The problem comes with the politicians we have to choose. I have yet to find a far left, progressive uber-liberal Democrat who is PRO GUN!

http://guntotingliberal.com/

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

http://www.liberalswithguns.com/

I will agree there is almost no elected pro-gun liberals...Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennett both (D) of Colorado come to mind.

Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, and current Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer too..but that isn't many people sadly. I don't know why this is.

"Mentaly unstable people, violent felons, known terrorists, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS should not be allowed to own them here in America..."

There, fixed it for you. If you're not a Citizen? I don't think you should own a weapon. You have no dog in the fight. If you're not willing to make a commitment to my country? You should not have all the rights available. Sorry, I know it's a lil' cold, but I hate someone who has an "out" telling me how my home should be. I won't tell a Canadian how to run his province, don't tell me how to run my Commonwealth.


"Senators Mark Udall,Michael Bennett both (D) of Colorado, Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, and current Montana Gov. Brian Schweitze " Those guys couldn't win being FAR LEFT UBER LIBERALs in Colorado, Montana, and New Mexico. They may have LIBERAL OVERTONES, but they ain't Schumer, Franken, Boxer, or Feinstein by a LONG shot!

dems4guns wrote:

Yarddawg wrote:Please explain how "reasonable gun control" will stop a violent felon or known terrorists from obtaining guns? Also, I am wondering why a permit should be needed to transport or carry firearms?

Good point, Yarddawg, but we shouldn't make it easy for them either. And, having an open market for guns would make it too easy for them. I think the violent felon and mentally ill restrictions are reasonable and the vast majority of people think it reasonable as well. Note that I wrote "violent" felons only. I don't think the gun restrictions should apply to nonviolent offenders.

And, while we are at it, possesion of a gun and illegal drugs should not automatically make it a Class 6 Felony with a 2 year mandatory minimum. Prosecutors have enough punishment options at their disposal without this punishment, or the amount of drugs should be above 4 ounces for more severe punishment.

Maybe you misunderstood my previous statement. I don't think you should be required to have a license to transport a firearm in your vehicle....only to carry the loaded handgun on your person concealed or unconcealed.

It provides a comfort factor for those who do not carry.
Dems4guns

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that you answered my questions. I am really trying to understand your positions,

How does "reasonable gun control" prevent terrorists and/or violent felons and/or the mentally unstable from obtaining guns? It seems to me that these measures only place more restrictions (read more paperwork, fees, possible gun tracking capabilities, etc.) on the average American.

Yes, I must have misunderstood you, but how does having a permit to carry provide a "comfort factor" to those that do not carry? How would they know that I have a permit?

@dems4guns - hey, here's an idea....lets strictly enforce the laws already on the books for "gun crimes." And my definition of enforce means that LE actively pursues it not wait for it to happen or fall into their laps. Get them off this mode of easy picking stuff like harassing law abiding citizens and have them fight crime like they are supposed to...and by LE I mean the management and people who run things not the foot soldiers who merely do what they are told...of course my idea makes too much sense and the legislators plus the antis like to apply some twisted form or Occams Razor...take the easy side and merely make more and more laws...yeah, have a headache and 2 tylenol dont work....take the whole bottle or just cut off the head...because the easy solution isnt going after the bad guys its going after the good guys cause they know most will comply...thats why we are called and call ourselves law abiding citizens...the only problem is sooner or later with enough dumb laws is some of the good guys become bad guys...at least according to the dumb laws....

Yarddawg wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't believe that you answered my questions. I am really trying to understand your positions,

How does "reasonable gun control" prevent terrorists and/or violent felons and/or the mentally unstable from obtaining guns? It seems to me that these measures only place more restrictions (read more paperwork, fees, possible gun tracking capabilities, etc.) on the average American.

Yes, I must have misunderstood you, but how does having a permit to carry provide a "comfort factor" to those that do not carry? How would they know that I have a permit?

Yarddawg: Let me clarify.
Reasonable gun control doesn't prevent them, but it does put barriers in the way and it does make it much more difficult for them to obtain guns. Using your theory, once someone has been caught driving drunk, we shouldn't put in place restrictions to obtain a drivers license because it causes the rest of us too much paperwork, or we shouldn't run a background check on child sex offenders when we are screeded for a job in child care because it is too difficult. The law has a deterrent effect...Virginia's handgun law has made us all make sure we are not selling to a felon in a personal sale. That is a good thing (except for my position on non-violent felons). I personally didn't find the process that onerous. In fact, I was suprised just how easy it was to buy my first handgun. So, agreed it doesn't prevent it, but it will slow them down and discourage procurement and discourage us from selling to anyone unauthorized.

On the carry question, note that I said open or concealed carry. When people see your firearm or learn you are carrying concealed, people want to feel safe, and if you can say, "I have a permit to carry," it reassures them that *someone* reviewed your background and verified you are legit. Now, I will agree it may be a false comfort, because felons don't become felons until they get caught. In time with more education and awareness the public could get more comfrtable with the idea of unlicensed people carrying firearms.

But here is the thing: If you want to make progress with liberalizing gun laws, you have to take it one step at a time. If you try to argue for unregulated carry, you will be seen as radical and too extreme, and you won't make real progress. The political reality is not going to allow for unlicensed concealed carry or unrestricted open carry, but some progress can be made by asking for reasonable liberalizations that make it easier for "authorized persons" to carry and transport without risk of prosecution or fear factor.
Dems4guns

@dems4guns - pick a new debate...we already have enough "reasonable gun control" laws on the books...if not, please explain why they are inadequate....

Yarddawg wrote:

dems4guns wrote:

Yarddawg wrote:Please explain how "reasonable gun control" will stop a violent felon or known terrorists from obtaining guns? Also, I am wondering why a permit should be needed to transport or carry firearms?

Good point, Yarddawg, but we shouldn't make it easy for them either. And, having an open market for guns would make it too easy for them. I think the violent felon and mentally ill restrictions are reasonable and the vast majority of people think it reasonable as well. Note that I wrote "violent" felons only. I don't think the gun restrictions should apply to nonviolent offenders.

And, while we are at it, possesion of a gun and illegal drugs should not automatically make it a Class 6 Felony with a 2 year mandatory minimum. Prosecutors have enough punishment options at their disposal without this punishment, or the amount of drugs should be above 4 ounces for more severe punishment.

Maybe you misunderstood my previous statement. I don't think you should be required to have a license to transport a firearm in your vehicle....only to carry the loaded handgun on your person concealed or unconcealed.

It provides a comfort factor for those who do not carry.
Dems4guns

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that you answered my questions. I am really trying to understand your positions,

How does "reasonable gun control" prevent terrorists and/or violent felons and/or the mentally unstable from obtaining guns? It seems to me that these measures only place more restrictions (read more paperwork, fees, possible gun tracking capabilities, etc.) on the average American.

Yes, I must have misunderstood you, but how does having a permit to carry provide a "comfort factor" to those that do not carry? How would they know that I have a permit?

**************************************************************************************************************************************
yarddawg "reasonable gun control" DOES NOT totally prevent terrorists and/or violent felons and/or the mentally unstable from obtaining a gun. This is not surprising because laws against robbery, theft of all kinds, rape, assault, murder, fraud, manslaughter, speeding, driving without a license, etc do not prevent people from doing all of these things either. But no one says well let's do away with criminal codes dealing with car theft because they don't prevent criminals from stealing cars. If we did that, do you think car theft would go up or down? Up is the obvious answer. Criminal laws then deters some people from committing crime. Are you suggesting that all criminal codes be repealed because they don't stop people from committing crime? Why should guns, perhaps society's most lethal weapons be exempt from "reasonable controls"?

Reasonable controls should make it difficult but not impossible for the ineligible to purchase a firearm. Do you want a felon to be able to walk into any gun store, in a no control environment, and buy say a dozen Glocks,or 10 AR-15 type rifles? I sure don't. I think a reasonable control is that every gun sale should go through the background check system. That's not difficult to do. Some gun owners will not sell a weapon to anyone unless they get full information from the buyer, some of us won't buy a weapon under questionable circumstances. I say the standards set by responsible gun owners should be applicable to the rest of us.

Here's another reasonable control: if a gun is stolen, the owner should be required to report it to the police within 24 hours of discovery. I was astonished to find that maybe 6 states have a reporting requirement for stolen weapons. I was also surprised to find that FLL holders had no reporting requirement for inventory differences until 1994. Some 100K to 300K guns are stolen annually. A stolen gun then turns up at a crime scene. the police track down the original owner. The owner says oh I sold it or it was stolen. the lack of controls then become an impediment to a criminal investigation.

Requiring a permit to carry is comforting on two levels. First, there was a background check before it was approved. Second, it requires that you are at least minimally competent to safely handle a firearm.

Anyway, gotta go.
Gat6

zephyp wrote:@dems4guns - hey, here's an idea....lets strictly enforce the laws already on the books for "gun crimes." And my definition of enforce means that LE actively pursues it not wait for it to happen or fall into their laps. Get them off this mode of easy picking stuff like harassing law abiding citizens and have them fight crime like they are supposed to...and by LE I mean the management and people who run things not the foot soldiers who merely do what they are told...of course my idea makes too much sense and the legislators plus the antis like to apply some twisted form or Occams Razor...take the easy side and merely make more and more laws...yeah, have a headache and 2 tylenol dont work....take the whole bottle or just cut off the head...because the easy solution isnt going after the bad guys its going after the good guys cause they know most will comply...thats why we are called and call ourselves law abiding citizens...the only problem is sooner or later with enough dumb laws is some of the good guys become bad guys...at least according to the dumb laws....

************************************************************************************************************************************
Again Mr Z, are you talking about gun laws, or any laws? Specifically which ones are not enforced? Or can you give examples of important ones you think are not enforced?
gat6

gatlingun6 wrote:

zephyp wrote:@dems4guns - hey, here's an idea....lets strictly enforce the laws already on the books for "gun crimes." And my definition of enforce means that LE actively pursues it not wait for it to happen or fall into their laps. Get them off this mode of easy picking stuff like harassing law abiding citizens and have them fight crime like they are supposed to...and by LE I mean the management and people who run things not the foot soldiers who merely do what they are told...of course my idea makes too much sense and the legislators plus the antis like to apply some twisted form or Occams Razor...take the easy side and merely make more and more laws...yeah, have a headache and 2 tylenol dont work....take the whole bottle or just cut off the head...because the easy solution isnt going after the bad guys its going after the good guys cause they know most will comply...thats why we are called and call ourselves law abiding citizens...the only problem is sooner or later with enough dumb laws is some of the good guys become bad guys...at least according to the dumb laws....

************************************************************************************************************************************
Again Mr Z, are you talking about gun laws, or any laws? Specifically which ones are not enforced? Or can you give examples of important ones you think are not enforced?
gat6

Hey Gat6, not talking about any specific law just the general trend that criminals seem to have too many rights in the wrong places and too many liberal courts allow them to walk or be released early. At any rate, the answer is not a flurry of new legislation. It is a careful review of existing laws, developing a strategy, and then execution. Strategy should be the same thing we do on any large project. Where can the justice system get maximum benefit at the best cost.

Regardless of how we back up the opinion I will state next with data or fact it is the bald faced truth -- crime flourishes because criminals view the risk of getting caught and punished by the system or victim worth the effort or they would simply move on...

dems4guns wrote:Yarddawg: Let me clarify.
Reasonable gun control doesn't prevent them, but it does put barriers in the way and it does make it much more difficult for them to obtain guns. Using your theory, once someone has been caught driving drunk, we shouldn't put in place restrictions to obtain a drivers license because it causes the rest of us too much paperwork, or we shouldn't run a background check on child sex offenders when we are screeded for a job in child care because it is too difficult. The law has a deterrent effect...Virginia's handgun law has made us all make sure we are not selling to a felon in a personal sale. That is a good thing (except for my position on non-violent felons). I personally didn't find the process that onerous. In fact, I was suprised just how easy it was to buy my first handgun. So, agreed it doesn't prevent it, but it will slow them down and discourage procurement and discourage us from selling to anyone unauthorized.

On the carry question, note that I said open or concealed carry. When people see your firearm or learn you are carrying concealed, people want to feel safe, and if you can say, "I have a permit to carry," it reassures them that *someone* reviewed your background and verified you are legit. Now, I will agree it may be a false comfort, because felons don't become felons until they get caught. In time with more education and awareness the public could get more comfrtable with the idea of unlicensed people carrying firearms.

But here is the thing: If you want to make progress with liberalizing gun laws, you have to take it one step at a time. If you try to argue for unregulated carry, you will be seen as radical and too extreme, and you won't make real progress. The political reality is not going to allow for unlicensed concealed carry or unrestricted open carry, but some progress can be made by asking for reasonable liberalizations that make it easier for "authorized persons" to carry and transport without risk of prosecution or fear factor.
Dems4guns

Please define "reasonable gun control". Reasonable to who? Obviously, what you may feel is "reasonable", I, or others on here, may find to be unreasonable.

I never mentioned anything about liberalizing drunken driving laws or sex offender laws. I am referring to a Constitutionally guaranteed right. There are no Constitutional protections for drunken drivers or sex offenders, so please, let's stay on topic and compare apples to apples.

I am glad to see that you admit that even these so called "reasonable gun control" measures will not stop crime. I could not agree with you more! Where we differ is that I do not believe that it will/has any effect on crime. In fact, I have seen too many articles and interviews with violent criminals who stated that they do not go through FFL's to obtain their weapons. Instead, they go through their "homies" to obtain their weapons. No amount of laws will stop the black market.

As far as permits are concerned, I agree with your statement about the "false comfort" to a degree. The problem is, will the individual(s) give me/you/us an opportunity to state that I/you/we have a permit? Will I need to present it upon demand by John Q. Public?

The problem, as I see it, is that we gun owners have already given up far too much in the name of "reasonable gun control".

I equate reasonable gun control to the additional and reasonable security measures in the pentagon...random searches of those holding credentials. The way they are conducted (infrequently and random) will most likely never catch the rogue element seeking to do harm. Same with additional and reasonable gun control laws...current gun control laws inhibit and aggravate law abiding citizens and have infrequent and random success in stopping the rogue element...

Yarddawg wrote: Please define "reasonable gun control". Reasonable to who? Obviously, what you may feel is "reasonable", I, or others on here, may find to be unreasonable.

I never mentioned anything about liberalizing drunken driving laws or sex offender laws. I am referring to a Constitutionally guaranteed right. There are no Constitutional protections for drunken drivers or sex offenders, so please, let's stay on topic and compare apples to apples.

I am glad to see that you admit that even these so called "reasonable gun control" measures will not stop crime. I could not agree with you more! Where we differ is that I do not believe that it will/has any effect on crime. In fact, I have seen too many articles and interviews with violent criminals who stated that they do not go through FFL's to obtain their weapons. Instead, they go through their "homies" to obtain their weapons. No amount of laws will stop the black market.

As far as permits are concerned, I agree with your statement about the "false comfort" to a degree. The problem is, will the individual(s) give me/you/us an opportunity to state that I/you/we have a permit? Will I need to present it upon demand by John Q. Public?

The problem, as I see it, is that we gun owners have already given up far too much in the name of "reasonable gun control".

As of today, The Supreme Court has said there is a Constitutional right to self defense with a firearm, but that Federal, State and Local Governments have a right to reasonable regulation. What is "reasonable" is, of course, different based on the individual, but has to be a matter for mutual agreement or compromise based on the political process. When someone thinks a law is unreasonable, they are free to use the political process to change the law, or sue, and appeal, and appeal until a court makes a decision as to what is reasonable. Courts make judgements as to what is "reasonable" thousands of time a day. You may not agree, but that is the process, and it works pretty good because judges tend to reflect the values of the community in which they live.

I brought up drunk driving and sex offenders as an analogy to show you that your argument doesn't hold up against well-established methods to control undesireable behavior and incentivise desireable behavior. It is the foundation of our civil society.

I agree with you about the black market, but there has to be an appropriate balance between barriers to access and it being too cumbersome for ordinary citizens. I find the current background check acceptable.
If someone asks me for my permit, I will gladly and proudly provide it for inspection. It is a part of making carry an accepted norm in public. It reassures them.

I agree that gun regulation has gone to far, but that is no reason to argue that it should be totally unregulated. Let's focus on gaining the confidence of John Q Public, and lobbying for reasonable liberalization.

For instance, we should ask Virginia to amend the law that firearms may be stored in vehicles if they are parked on any commercially or industrially zoned property. That way I can drive and park at work or at the Walmart without violating some private property rules.

And, change the State law that supports the use of a firearm to prevent anyone from death or serious injury (as the Fairfax law states.)

And, reduce the penalties for violation of a firearm law unrelated to an incident/discharge.
Dems4Guns