No, VA Dems’ Proposed Bill Doesn’t Ban All Private Indoor Gun Ranges

No, VA Dems’ Proposed Bill Doesn’t Ban All Private Indoor Gun Ranges

No, VA Dems’ Proposed Bill Doesn’t Ban All Private Indoor Gun Ranges

If you’ve been keeping up with the government tyranny about to take hold in Virginia with regard to gun rights, it’s about to get real. And as I scrolled through social media last evening looking for updates on what the Democrats are up to since taking control of the entire Virginia state government, I came across this post about indoor gun ranges in the state:

Sounds crazy, right? I’d seen chatter about this elsewhere, but was unable to locate the actual proposed bill, only screenshots, which as anyone used to fact-checking knows, isn’t good enough. Then lo and behold, I found my way here, where I discovered a direct link to the proposed gun ranges bill. It reads:


Offered January 8, 2020

Prefiled January 6, 2020

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2, relating to indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government; exceptions; civil penalty.


Patron– Helmer


Committee Referral Pending


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

  1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2 as follows:
  • 18.2-511.2. Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in private buildings; exceptions; penalty.
  1. As used in this section, “indoor shooting range” means any fully enclosed or indoor area or facility designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, or black powder or any other similar sport shooting.
  2. It is unlawful to operate an indoor shooting range in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or the federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers, as defined in § 9.1-101, or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user’s name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user’s identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card.
  3. Any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.

Now, some of the reaction to this gun ranges bill has been over-the-top to put it mildly. Without a thorough reading, a brief scan might have some readers believing it will ban most private indoor gun ranges and fine owners out of existence.

From Law Enforcement Today:

If it wasn’t bad enough watching the action unfold surrounding unconstitutional gun laws and the militias being formed to fight against them, now it seems like Virginia is trying to pull yet another move threatening the rights of law abiding gun owners.”

“They want to shut down every gun range in the state that isn’t owned by the government.”

“According to House Bill 567, any indoor shooting range would be prohibited by law – UNLESS it was inside of a building owned or leased by the state.”


For those that would be staying open, the state appears to want them to act as a data collecting operation, creating a state-controlled list of who is using the range as well as their photo ID and home address.”

Except a close reading of the bill doesn’t say that at all; it applies only to buildings with 50 or more employees (I think my local indoor range has maybe six employees, tops). Is the proposed fine for non-compliance hefty and punitive? Yes. (Not to mention: Would their be any “legal” firearms left with which to practice should the Dems have their way? Nope!) And that’s an argument that Virginia citizens should make with the bill’s authors. Bankrupting business owners is never okay. By the way, their real target may be the NRA and its gun range(s), which are relentlessly in the left’s cross-hairs.

That said, the remainder of the proposed gun-control bills—with one notable and SANE exception all but guaranteed to fail—will soon be coming down the pike, and are beyond any sort of “common sense gun control” measures Democrats would have us believe they’re after. So histrionics over this particular bill are unhelpful. Nevertheless, it’s wise to keep an eagle eye on it. Because Democrats will, if let unchecked, quietly whittle this down so that no one may operate private gun ranges of any size.

And if you’ve been watching and/or reading any of the alphabet “news” networks in the days since ruthless Iranian terrorist, Qasem Soleimani, was carbonized by our U.S. military, you’ll see that they’re doing their very best impression of Iranian state-run television:

Nice head scarf, Mashhad Martha. Sickeningly, she’s not an anomaly in disseminating Iranian propaganda to anyone stupid enough to listen.

And do you know what the good people of Iran—who themselves live under an oppressive, brutal regime—don’t have? The right to self-defense, and access to weapons for which to throw off their chains. And as we’ve seen, our own version of state-run media is glorifying not those celebrating the demise of a man who’s directly responsible for scores of Iranian deaths, but their oppressors.

So couple what is transpiring in Virginia as I type—with the liberal media, and just about every Democratic candidate running for president and their cohorts in our U.S. Congress, overtly sympathizing with a terrorist regime (and their reciprocal love-fest with Antifa fascists) over America and her freedoms—and it should tell you everything you need to know about why liberty-loving Virginians, and the citizens of any other state where similar leftist gun-control edicts will likely arise, should reject them with extreme prejudice. And without unnecessary, and hyperventilating, distractions.

What happens next in Virginia will be, as I wrote two weeks ago, ground zero for what happens in the rest of America: we’ll either bow in compliance with the radical left’s tyranny, or we’ll stand and fight as our Founders envisioned. There is no third option.

Here in Idaho, a rally in support of Virginians vowing non-compliance is planned for later this month. I know where I’ll be that day. And it won’t be groveling at the feet of bullies as has the cowardly Rose McGowan, who fancies herself a strong woman who stands up to abusers while prostrating herself before murderous Iranian mullahs at the same time. No, it’ll be in solidarity with those who find themselves—through no fault of their own—standing precisely for what the Second Amendment was designed to prevent.


Feature Image Credit: Chris Flynn via Pixabay; Pixabay license; image cropped.

Written by

  • SFC D says:

    The proposed bill may not explicitly be a ban on privately owned ranges, but items (b) and (c) will effectively prevent anyone from using one. It’s basically economic blackmail. I’m not about to give my money to a range that’s being used as an indirect data collection point for the federal government.

    • Formerly known as Skeptic says:

      I think you are misreading the bill. Items (b) and (c) are actually ii(b) and ii(c) and only apply to ranges in buildings with 50 or more employees which would also be restricted to only operate with >90% law-enforcement users [ii(a)]. There are no such requirements levied on the part i facilities. More likely Michael Cust is correct that this is targeted ban the range at NRA HQ.

      • Jodi Giddings says:

        That’s how I initially read it, too, SFC, but Skeptic is right: as I read it now, it applies only to ranges of 50 or more employees…and that defines the NRA’s HQ. BUT…it’s something that needs to be watched given that the VA Dems have shown in other language that they don’t want people training with firearms. It wouldn’t be surprising if the verbiage changes.

        • GWB says:

          The key to it is to look at the “short title” at the top:
          prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government; exceptions;
          Note that the law is primarily to eliminate private ranges – according to the title – with certain exceptions. Oddly, those exceptions include just about everybody but one. Which is really odd. But it sure looks like the intent is to regulate all ranges out of existence – eventually.

          So, while we are right that this legislation only tries to outlaw the NRA range, it’s titled in such a way so as to perhaps, someday, just eliminate them all. After all, they would just be voting to get rid of a silly exception or two……

          [If the thought were to only eliminate one small category of problematic gun ranges, then they could have easily written it to say “banning of all gun ranges where more than 50 people work or reside in the building; exceptions”. So, don’t trust these folks farther than you can throw them – uphill… against the wind.]

  • GWB says:

    The only range like that in VA (that I know of) is NRA HQ.
    Yep, that’s their goal. It’s an attempt at a bill of attainder.
    Personally, I think we should hold any Va critter voting for such an unconstitutional measure personally, physically responsible for their vote.

    reject them with extreme prejudice
    As in sic semper tyrannis prejudice? I’m down with that.

    And without unnecessary, and hyperventilating, distractions.
    Concur. It isn’t just the left that’s prone to low-information freak-outs.

    as our Founders envisioned
    Are you really ready for that? Because we’re waaaaaaay past anything they would have tolerated.

    We must stand together. You know the rest.

  • JayfromVA says:

    The issue is that it just says “50 employees work in the building,” not “50 employees work in the gun range.” So if the range is one business in a strip mall or multi-use building, in theory every employee “in the building” is counted. Stand alone ranges may not have the issue, except maybe the NRA or CSA Richmond, but multi-use buildings seem to be open to the law. How many does it effect? I don’t honestly know, but it’s still obvious they’re targeting gun owners in any way they can.

    • Formerly known as Skeptic says:

      Yup, that’s how I read it.

      • MS.B says:

        I need to research more of the bill. However, the dig at the reporter about the headscarf is unfair. Female reporters, missionaries, and workers always cover their heads while working in Muslim countries. Now do I think the media’s bias against the Trump administration is out of control? Yes, I do! Even the tone of her voice was pathetic during the piece, but to ridicule her for covering her head when it has been done for years by American women in walks of life was just silly. Let’s rise above the way the left behaves.

        • GWB says:

          Except these women are feminists, demanding equality (and more) in the places that won’t stone them when they put stupid knit hats on and march and yell. Then they gladly cover themselves and pretend cultural sensitivity over there.

          It’s the hypocrisy that stinks with these folks.

  • UH1H CE says:

    I agree that this is targeted at the NRA HQ in Fairfax. But as noted, it would affect nearby ranges such as Blue Ridge Arsenal that share a joint-use commercial/industrial building with other businesses.

    I feel that the goal is to goad the NRA into a long, costly legal battle that should get to the Supreme Court a few years from now after the left has either seated a few new justices or packed the courts to achieve the same

  • mrsizer says:

    I think people are confusing “and” with “or”

    unless (i) or (ii) (a), (b), and (c)

    That said, I wouldn’t bet against a “typo” changing the language. That’s awfully subtle wording.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner