Was it appropriate for Virginia to change its concealed carry reciprocity rules?

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - "shall not be infringed" is also included in that amendment. Restricting how an individual can bear said arms is an infringement. I'll have to check the exact verbage of the full faith and credit clause.......but I don't think it says anything about "public acts" and what "issues" are you referring to? In the mean time, I just won't be going to Virginia, and encouraging others to do the same.

GySgt (Join to see)
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

GySgt (Join to see) - Bottom Line: Virginia has exercised it's right to provide extended guidelines for those exercising their 2nd Am rights. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that defines "how" firearms should be carried. The Virginia AG did not revoke their own citizens' CC capacities. They simply have moved to NOT recognize other (but, not all) states' CC's. This decision does NOT impact one's ability to form a well-regulated militia nor impede its citizens rights to own firearms. Thus, this decision is both legal and Constitutional. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people --hmmm... Sounds like the 10th Amendment to me. Like I originally stated, it is my opinion that this is "bench politics."

On a personal note: If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'd be happy to host you at any of our wonderful marksmanship ranges or guide you to a good hunting spot. I appreciate your passion, Gunny. Semper Fi.

Appreciate the invite sir. Infringing on a person bearing arms, is contrary to a specifically enumerated amendment, and the 10th shouldn't apply. Unfortunately the 2nd amendment is the only one that it is ok to restrict. My biggest issue with this is the false pretenses the Attorney General used to do this. Most of those 25 states have identical or even higher requirements than VA.
I also still don't understand how concealed carry is the only personal license that the full faith and credit clause doesn't apply to, the Supreme Court recently ruled that marriage licenses must be honored regardless of state law..........or even the will of the people in some states for that matter.

SGT William Howell - Also, um, the Attorney General is an elected position in Virginia. The more you know. :)

Now I know.

Funny how this works both ways. I happen to be on the side of States Rights, Therefore I think it was wrong for the Supreme Court to make same sex marriage the law of the land. But even though I favor States Rights it still gets very muddy. Take for example Pot Smoking. 6 states allow that but that is in direct conflict with Federal Law and if we had a President that actually enforced the laws those six states would be in hot water and a ton of arrests made...So See very muddy. I guess States Rights isn't a black and white subject like people argue here. What is funny is when its a conservative point they are all about states rights and the left argues against it. When its something the left likes they are all for it. Seems we are for or against it depending on the subject.

I'm for the Supreme Court decision on marriage because I see it as a 14th Amendment consideration, and thus the morally and legally correct choice. There is nothing at all legally or morally compelling to stand against Virginia when they say that you have to obey their laws when you're within their borders. If you're not a fan, VA - not unlike my home state of PA - is open-carry. The wording of this discussion, with regard to treason, was hyperbolic and unfounded, with a touch of immaturity.