Virginia Democrats approved more than twenty gun-related bills this session, and Gov. Abigail Spanberger has already signed off on most of those measures. Despite lawmakers rejecting her proposed changes to the “assault firearm” ban bill, I’m sure she’ll allow that gun and magazine ban to become law as well, and come July 1, Virginia gun owners are going to be subject to all kinds of new restrictions on their right to keep and bear arms.
Anti-gunners aren’t satisfied, though. They’re already looking ahead to next session, and they’re already making duplicitous arguments about their gun control agenda.
Liz Witmer, a therapist in Loudon County, Virginia, recently penned a column promising that we can have both “gun rights and gun safety.” She’s right, but Witmer isn’t calling for actual “gun safety.” She’s demanding gun control, and what she wants would absolutely impact and infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
There are concrete solutions, requiring legislation, that taken together could provide layered protection to decrease gun violence:
1. Instituting mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases is a proven, effective technique for reducing violence and allowing temporary feelings to cool down. As of 2026, 13 states and DC have instituted mandatory waiting periods, resulting in moderate reductions in firearm deaths.
2. “Red Flag” laws, or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), help increase citizen safety by engaging the courts to temporarily remove an individual’s access to their firearms when they are at risk of harm. The Johns Hopkins National Survey of Gun Policy (2025) found 77% of Americans agreed families and courts should be allowed to temporarily remove guns from those at risk.
3. Safe storage laws, passed by states or nationally, could protect our vulnerable children from accidental gun deaths. Nearly 5 million children live in homes with unsecured, loaded guns. Storing guns unloaded (using locks or in safes) and keeping ammunition stored and locked separately can provide increased levels of protection from accidents. One such tragic death occurred in February of this year to a 6-year-old boy in our area (2/17/26, Montgomery county).
Witmer concludes her column by stating again that “this is not a gun rights vs. gun safety argument.” She’s wrong.
Waiting periods may impose a “cooling off” period, but the vast majority of people who purchase a gun aren’t running hot when they do so. By depriving people of the ability to acquire a firearm when they need one, waiting periods put some people at risk of harm because they’re unable to protect themselves.
These “cooling off” periods are also ahistorical when it comes to the national tradition of gun ownership and gun regulation. They’re a thoroughly modern invention, and that alone makes them untenable under the Supreme Court’s “text, history, and tradition” test. The Tenth Circuit reached that conclusion when it tossed out New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period.
The First Circuit recently upheld Maine’s 72-hour waiting period, but only by asserting that while there may be a right to keep and bear arms, there is no right to acquire one. Taken to it’s logical end, that means that states could impose a ban on the sale of all firearms without running afoul of the Second Amendment; an absurd conclusion that would render our right to keep and bear arms meaningless.
We’ve written about the issues with “red flag” laws so many times here at Bearing Arms that I don’t think I need to do a deep dive on her assertion. But as a therapist, Witmer must be aware that when someone poses a danger to themselves or others, getting rid of one item they might use to hurt someone doesn’t mean they’re no longer dangerous. “Red flag” laws are a gun-centric solution to a mental health problem, and when even advocates say these laws prevent just one suicide for every 13 to 20 “red flag” orders that are issued, it’s pretty clear that they’re not a serious solution at all.
I’m a big believer in keeping guns away from young children and other unauthorized users, but one-size-fits-all storage mandates aren’t the answer. Witmer wants a law requiring gun owners to keep their firearms locked up and unloaded, with ammunition locked up and stored separately. If she honestly thinks that would have no impact on the ability to use a firearm for self-defense inside the home, she’s delusional.
Real gun safety involves things like treating every gun as if its loaded, keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, and being aware of what’s behind your target. What Witmer is demanding are restrictions on acquiring and keeping firearms, as well as using them in self-defense. That’s not gun safety. It’s gun control, and it’s completely incompatible with the Second Amendment.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
