Yes

A thousand times "Yes!" 

Aspects of Virginia State Forest Regulations [4 VAC 10 ? 30] should be modified, and the unconstitutional provisions should be excised.  The authors and sponsors of the current unconstitutional provisions should also be identified, so that the Citizenry knows the foes of Liberty among us ... and can avoid such enemies of the State and the Nation like the plague.

Citizens of the Commonwealth should not be forced to suffer any longer the infringement to one of the rights imbued them by their Creator, the right to keep and bear arms.  Supposedly warranted at the state level in the Commonwealth's Constitution, as well as at the National level by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, I remain both puzzled and dismayed that the question even needs to be addressed.  Here in the Commonwealth, we are afforded constitutional guarantees for the pursuit of "happiness and safety" (Article 1, Section 1), as well as "the right to keep and bear arms" (Article 1, Section 13).  The Bill of Rights' Second Amendment addresses infringements also on the right "to keep and bear arms."

Against this backdrop, how can this situation even have been allowed to come about?

The enemies of the State talk about the intangible risk they incur from arms borne lawfully by their fellow Citizens.  The only effective countermeasure to the demonstrable risk of arms -- when unlawfully borne by criminals -- is an armed Citizen, who can repel or extinguish a criminal's attempt at predation with lawfully borne arms.

Legislation is a bad thing, when its principal affect is being a sop to feeble-minded folk who simply don't comprehend that bad things are visited on good people illegally by bad men ... in the veritable blink of any eye.  Good men (and women) have been imbued by the Creator with the right to keep and bear arms to assure their safety and happiness.  Those who choose to not keep and bear arms -- for whatever reason -- and advocate unconstitutional infringements on individual rights must not be allowed to influence the discussion about the matter at hand.  Those who are not armed when they become vicitimized should take solace in the fact that the police will respond as quickly as they are able ... which could be measured in hours when one is in the woods.

The Commonwealth's Constitution seems to adequately address this question in my belief:

"Section 1. Equality and rights of men.

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

What's so difficult in understanding these words?


-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-


A message to Carey * (the first contributor to this thread) 

Felons and other adjudicated individuals may not lawfully keep and bear arms ...

... long guns or handguns ...

... concealed on their person or in plain view.

It's already illegal for the above to keep and bear arms.

Why do you fear your fellow citizens lawfully carrying arms? 

Why would you seek to bridle the Creator-granted right to your fellow citizens to defend themselves from predation with arms, lawfully kept and borne?

Are you afraid to drive your car, Carey *? 

You must be, because every swinging Richard (and Sheila) sharing the roads with you has the ability to kill you and yours, unintentionally or otherwise, at any time.  I'm not talking about the vanishingly few drivers who are tooling about unlawfully, Carey *, I'm talking about your fellow citizens who are lawfully operating a motor vehicle.  Cars inflict death and carnage daily in the Commonwealth. 

Would you have roads simply stop at the border of the parkland?

In light of your fears, Carey *, would you even venture to drive to the parking lot outside one of the Commonwealth's parks ... that you seek to ensure meet your "feelings."

If I were to advocate legislation being passed so that ignoramuses -- or is that ignorami(??) -- should have to prove a modicum of intelligence prior to being able to post anything to the internet would I be wrong?  Is there a Constitutional guarantee for the right to embarrass oneself by spouting nonsense ... err strike that ... is there a constitutional guarantee for the right to express oneself?

Now, Carey *, to some of your questions ...

"Why would it be neccessary (sic) to lawfully carry handguns, either concealed with a concealed handgun permit or openly, in a state forest?"

I can think of a number of reasons.  Most importantly, I am fully aware that my thoughts apply to me, not to any others.  Folks who choose to lawfully carry an arm probably have one or more reasons for their actions.  The same can be said for those folks who choose not to carry.  This individual freedom -- like many others -- distinguishes our Nation from others.  And our Forefathers fought for, and died for, this right.

"I feel that I have a RIGHT to enjoy the woods without the fear of walking upon someone carrying a handgun."

You are welcome to your feelings, Carey *.  Your feelings trump neither my Natural rights, nor the associated constitutional guarantees at the National and state level. 

"The laws are designed to protect the population as a whole and not the need to statisfy (sic) a few individual who feel the need to carry a gun everywhere."

I recommend that you borrow an elementary school student's Civics textbook, Carey *, and learn more about legislation, the legislative process, and how legislation supports our society. 

"(H)ow am I suppose (sic) to know who the "good guys" are out in the middle of the woods.(sic)"

I suggest that you, Carey *, view those sharing the park experience with you in the same manner that you regard those sharing the road with you ... during those rare times when you gather the courage to drive somewhere on roads that are full of killing machines.