April 15, 2008

Virginia Permit To Carry Applications Jump 60 Percent

The number of Virginians who obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon jumped 60 percent last year over 2006, an increase that many gun experts say was a reaction to the fatal shootings of 32 students and professors at Virginia Tech.

In Northern Virginia, the numbers were much the same. In Fairfax County, there were 2,471 concealed-carry permits issued in 2007, a 64 percent increase. In Prince William County, the number rose to 1,636, a nearly 59 percent gain. In Loudoun, the number of permits issued was 962, a 52 percent increase.

People applying for a concealed-weapon permit do not have to explain why they want one. But most experts think the Virginia Tech shootings, in which a heavily armed student met no resistance as he went from classroom to classroom firing, could explain the sudden increase in applications.

Click to read the full Post story

Comments (3)

I am a Virginian and recently received my concealed weapons permit due to my concern about the election as opposed to the Tech massacre.

Posted by: Stephen Z | May 5, 2008 12:09 PM    Report this comment

The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. And the purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.

The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed.

Our constitution states that the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void.

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.

In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)

To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no
steenking permits!"

Neil Evangelista
Pistol & Personal Protection Instructor
Boca Raton, FL

Posted by: neilevan | April 17, 2008 3:47 PM    Report this comment

The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. And the purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.

The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed.

Our constitution states that the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void.

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.

In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)

To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no
steenking permits!"

Neil Evangelista
Pistol & Personal Protection Instructor
Boca Raton, FL

Posted by: neilevan | April 17, 2008 3:46 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In