When I attended law school, on of my favorite professors used to start every semester by posing to us three questions for consideration throughout the year...what is the law, why is it the law, and should it be the law?  The what question is fairly clear in this case, a ban on concealed guns in state executive agency buildings.  Why is this the law? Purportedly to protect state workers from active shooter scenarios? In Executive Order 50, upon which this regulation is proposed, Governor McAulliffe indicates his desire to "prevent gun violence."  He goes on to cite the terrible 2007 events at Va Tech among others, and states it has become too easy for "criminals and others intent on harm" to access firearms. Therefore, the governor states "we must take every precaution to protect our citizens and state employees from gun violence." To effectuate this goal, the governor has decided to prohibit the open and concealed carrying of firearms as noted above. 

So, we not arrive at the third question...should this be the rule? By this, we mean does the means effectuate the ends? More specifically, will the governor's declaration of prohibition prevent gun violence and protect our citizens/state employees? Although this measure clearly fails the giggle test, let's discuss it anyway. As an example, we need look no further than the recent events in San Bernardino. California has prohibitions against the carrying of guns in hospitals.  It also has bans on the exact weapons that were used, bans on magazines greater than 10 rounds (the San Bernardino couple used 40 round magazines). In addition they have background checks and waiting periods. In sum, the state of California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Did those laws prevent those "intent on harm" from acquiring or using guns in a banned location? No, the shootings were not prevented by the restrictions the governor now wishes to impose in Virginia.  Did the laws and prohibitions in California somehow diminished the gravity of the assault? Absolutely not! They were fortunate to have law enforcement armed with equally powerful firearms. That was not the case in France, and we see the death toll was 120+. I personally have a concealed carry permit, why, because several years ago I took an oath to defend this country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I will keep that oath until I die. Bottom line it's about time we stop placing blame and prohibitions on inanimate objects, and start looking at the root causes of these crimes, which include poverty, discrimination, substance abuse, and mental illness. Trust me, no gun law will not fix those issues.  When a rule does not serve its purpose, it is merely an additional infringement upon ones liberty.

Further, this clearly represents an additional deterioration of our ability to prevent tyrannical government...it makes no sense that a free people, who are presumably entitled to the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, would allow their chosen representatives to disarm them of their ability to protect those rights.