Well what does ARFCOM think with 2 elections in a row with his vote well over the D/R margin so , real libertarian  or Dem operative ?

As I said in the other thread, the GOP needs to actually try in Northern Virginia. Sarvis is annoying but he isn't the problem.

Ed Gillespie had virtually no yard signs, I saw no TV ads, no fliers in my mailbox. You would''t have known there was a Republican candidate if you didn't go to the polls and see his name on the ballot.

The GOP can't continue ignoring Fairfax if they expect to win anything statewide anymore.

Real Libertarian? I guess so, with his name on the ballot for the party.

Real libertarian? I don't think he would know true liberty if it bit him on the ass.

I'm not sure the GOP was in it to win it, as all the kids say, with their choice as from where I stand I wasn't impressed.

TR

Sarvis is a fool.  His changes his ideals just a little bit each interview.   He's not a libertarian IMO and I wish he would go away.   He should have run against the "unopposed" asshat Rep Bobby Scott and he might have gotten more votes.

He holds positions inconsistant with Libertarian Party values.

One of the reasons I didn't vote for him.

Tell that to rhomberg and the other Sarvis rubes.

What? Were you on MARS?

I watch very little television, but I must have seen Gillespie's anti-Warner ads a dozen time a day on channels 4 and 7. Were you watching WETA?

As for mailers, I recycled my paper trash this morning, and between Gillespie and Comstock I'll bet I had 60 pieces of campaign literature. Most of it was from Comstock, but I'd be willing to bet that I had 20 campaign flyers from Gillespie. And there must be 50 Comstock / Gillespie yard signs between my house and Leesburg (12 miles).

 

Comstock actually ran a darn good campaign... and won.  Beat the snot out of Foust with the dem's own War ON Women crap.

Compare that with Suzanne Sholte's nearly non-existent campaign against a true shitbird who has no business being in Congress.  He is wrong onever. single. issue.  She lost.  Connolly practically HANDED her a win with his statements in the IRS hearings.  She didn't use them, and the only people who would have known about his performance were those of us who watched the hearings on C-SPAN.  All I saw from Sholte was a few ads on Youtube, and got one phone call on the 3rd.  (Well, one that I answered, anyhow).  I saw ZERO campaign signs anywhere for her, until I got to the polling place, and got no mailers.

It really does seem as if the 8th and 11th Districts are considered throwaways by the Republican Party.

Gillespie was hampered by the poles that showed him down by double digits; the GOP wrote him off and restricted the cash flow.  A week before the election polling showed Gillespie down by 3-5 points and I don't think the GOP believed he closed the gap so the money still didn't flow.  Two days before the election the polls showed Gillespie down by 1 and it was too late to push him over.  If the money had been spent a week earlier, he would be Senator elect.

Gillespie travelled 56,000 miles conducting town halls and visiting the Commonwealth during his campaign and had his ads translated into 7 languages; he did his part.  I personally don't believe the yard sign thing, it's like thinking because you didn't see as many Obama bumper stickers in 2012 that he was going to lose; we know how that worked out. Spending that money or air and radio time is a better bet IMHO.

This blurb in tonight's VCDL post election "Alert" sort of gives me pause.

Taken from: "Deja vous all over again - ignore grassroots gun owners at your own political peril."



.....I know from emails I received that some of you decided to cast your vote for the Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, largely because he had filled out the survey.  Others said they were not going to vote for anyone on that part of the ballot.

I also must say that because Gillespie ignored grassroots gun owners before the election, I wouldn’t have been surprised to get the same useless Warner-type canned email responses on gun issues had he been elected......

Who the fuck is sending out this crap? Has the VCDL taken a turn toward Libertarianism?

I saw that as well. I'm not sure what I think about it yet though. I know they are a one issue group but they are also a state level group.

Well I have to say the latter part is probably true about Gillespie since his campaign was giving anyone contacting them about the survey a canned response.

And the first part is true too.  There were a bunch of turds over on the VCDL facebook page taking those exact stands. Sometimes I just shake my head and bite my tongue at Lobby Day.  I mean based on some of their flawed logic if Warner was the only one that had filled out the survey they would have voted for him no matter how he answered the survey.

Last I recall, the VCDL position was a who not to vote for and listed the obvious antis.....essentially Dems.  Did the VCDL actually endorse any candidates?  I get the ho-hum feel of Gillespie, but he was the best chance to oust Warner and isn't a flip-flopping fake libertarian.  Since the VDCL entertained Sarvis they need to provide some thought on him; he is beginning to have a costly effect on our elections, and partly by BSing his way with our platform.  Not to overlook that fact that Gillespie created this mess for himself by blowing off the VCDL, but Sarvis capitalized on it...at least with a small % of voters who don't see what he really is.

I'm really starting to have some misgivings about the direction/leadership of the VCDL. I've been to a couple of events and felt embarrassed for the herp-derp coming out of the mouths of some of them....I won't go to another.

Some of those nut-jobs need kicking out.

Yeah... I read that and had serious case of  .  Sarvis (and Warner, who didn't fill it out either, same as Gillespie) could bullshit  all they want on that survey, I still wasn't going to vote for them, because, yes there are more issues than just what VCDL asks about.  

That e-mail I think also shows an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

I can see thinking that about the 8th - it's mostly Arlington and Alexandria - AKA DC Adjacent.  The 11th is a very different animal, IMO, and Connolly is a particularly shitty Rep.  A little effort could see him shown the door.

They asked Gillespie a bunch of times to just fill out the damn survey and he just refused.

True and very costly for him.  I still wish the VCDL would have spoken to it's constituents and said something like: folks we have no stellar choices here; however, for the greater of good of the Commonwealth and to stifle the Obama agenda, Gillespie remains the best choice.  We will actively work in the candidate process to hopefully have better choices going forward.  

The VCDL email almost reads as someone was slighted and let their getting butthurt get in the way. Sadly there are some hardheaded people that need groups like the VCDL to spell stuff out........we didn't          
ETA:  In some regard, I feel like we helped Sarvis out, clarity was needed and not provided.   If someone more active in the VCDL wants to challenge this, great....I hope I'm wrong.

The answer to the original question from the OP is that it doesn't matter whether he is a real libertarian or a Democrat operative.  I voted for Gillespie for a variety of reasons, but 2.5% of the electorate chose to cast their vote for Sarvis.  Instead of complaining about Sarvis being on the ballot, Republicans should be asking themselves a simple question:  Why did these people choose to vote for Sarvis, and what can we do to better compete for those votes?  I find it amazing the number of Republicans who fancy themselves as free market champions but are not really in favor of a free market when it comes to third parties.

All that being said, we should be working hard to get a tree-hugging, liberal as hell Green party candidate on the ballot for all statewide races in the future to negate the Sarvis effect.

I agree with VCDL on this one. Gillespie had no excuse whatsoever to NOT fill out the survey. Even an idiot would recognize VCDL as THE most effective state-level gun rights group in the country. Either Ed or his advisors were fools.

Further, I agree with VCDL on the fact that if you don't take a stand, even one they disagree with, then your are FAR more likely to screw over gun owners. We don't need fair-weather friends in the House or Senate, we need stalwart, unapologetic, hard-core second amendment supporters in DC.

I thought it interesting that all the talking heads were saying that most Republican pickups were because they campaigned on the theme of "We're not Democrats" except for Gillespie, who they indicated actually ran a positive campaign focused on actually having an agenda. Seems to me that if your theme is "Here's my agenda" and he refuses to say how he'd support the 2nd, that your beliefs are not in line with what gun owners should be voting for.

Doing stupid things can cost you an election. Making disparaging remarks about gun rights activists whose only request is to know where you stand is stupid. And, it likely cost him the election.

Stew on that one Ed.

FRS.

The loss to Warner may have not been 100% Sarvis' fault, but the dumbass certainly isn't helping.

Solution:  join Fairfax GOP, make your voice known, go out and put up signs, spend some time in a call center on your candidates behalf.  Don't wait on someone else to do it.

Said it during the governor's election. I'm willing to bet there's a paycheck in his bank account that came from some Democrat donor

Except the survey creates a no win situation. Running as a candidate who would, eg., repeal the Hughes amendment would turn him into "a nut job" -- from the Northern Virginia namby-pamby liberal perspective -- and cost him more votes. If he says 'no' to that question, then he's not pure enough. It's a no win. Gillespie also didn't take the Grover Norquist no tax pledge for the same reason.

The "I'm purer than thou" mentality is what gives us Terry McAwful as governor and another 6 years of the senator who gave us Obamacare. I'm letting my VCDL membership lapse over that post-election VCDL email, which was all about stoking the ego of VCDL, completely missing the big picture.

I'm on the list, which email are you referring to?

Side note, you're letting your membership go because of an email?

I'm going with this.

Agree.  Hard to say where those 50k+ votes would have gone, but as a candidate, he is a waste of fresh air.  Spoiler, maybe.  "Making a point", sorry guys, it is a stupid and meaningless point you are making by running a candidate with no chance.  If he did win, who would he caucus with?  And if it's with the Repubs, then just try running as a Republican and take your chances, instead of trying to be a special snowflake.

What is the VCDL supposed to do?

If Sarvis is the only one that took the time to respond - then more power to him.

If Gillespie took the 20 seconds it would have taken to fill out the questionnaire, it may have really helped bridge the gap.

Why are people blaming the VCDL? They go on what info they are provided. If a candidate doesn't care enough to respond to the biggest and most successful rights organization in Virginia then they just don't give a hoot.

This is all a big "my baby didn't do nothing" when it comes to [insert gop candidate name here] running for office in VA. They don't put in the effort, then people complain when they lose.

The VCDL went with the info they had. Want to complain to someone? Email Gillespie.

You need to be a Team Member.  

Not completing the survey doesn't mean they aren't the better selection.  That said, I hated to vote for Ed and wrote his sorry butt about the survey....doesn't change what was the best action to take.  Some of us just got tired of the Sarvis love coming from certain members and no thoughts from the organization to follow up, until this weird email that deserves scrutiny.  Sarvis is a poser, he's not a gun guy, but those (not just VCDL members) who looked at him at face value "L", "gun survey", "L" ...etc rally behind what they know NOT.  Suggestions to drop out of the VCDL are silly, it's still a damn good organization doing great things.  Nothing wrong saying they didn't do a good job providing clarity, especially when they knew they had a base that was sitting out or swinging for Sarvis.  You can't let a slighted feeling get in the way of the course that was best for us.

+1

I have no problem saying VCDL dropped the ball on this.  They hemmed and hawed and while not coming out in full support of Sarvis there was what seemed to be a tacit approval that he was THE guy just because he completed the survey.  No matter that Sarvis would sell other rights down the river.  Just go back and read the VCDL facebook discussions (some of which were scrubbed) about this.

I am paying member and every right to criticize the group.  If you don't like my opinion on the matter TS.  

There has been a strong undercurrent that has raised its head in VCDL in the last year or two that as taken on the my way or the highway mentality.  When it was just Phillip and few others running the org it was different mentality.  I think It is some of the new board members that the group has brought on the last few years that are pushing this out as the message.  I find it very telling that they are scrubbing members facebook posts because a few of the people in charge don't like being disagreed with.  They are starting down the path of the Brady bunch.  They just can't see it because of their self righteousness.  I'll still send in my dues every year but I really would like to see the reigning in of a few people who seem to pushing that message.

Can someone IM me the names of these people?  I have no clue who you guys keep talking about. If there are some idiots acting stupid, I'd like to know who watch out for.

VCDL was right on this one. Period. They can't, shouldn't, and didn't endorse somebody who wouldn't go on record with them as supporting gun rights. Furthermore, if Gillespie HAD done the survey, it ABSOLUTELY would have gotten more votes for him. There were some Republicans that were fence-sitting and/or lukewarm towards him to begin with. Dodging an important issue before being elected is a rather clear sign that he'd be dodging it resolutely if he got in. Some mamby-pamby liberal in Northern Virginia wasn't going to vote for him anyway simply because he had an (R) beside his name. He needed to appeal to "the base" in a big way.

Rule #1 in politics is to "dance with the one who brung you". Gillespie forgot that gun owners care about such things in a very passionate way. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a shortage of ammo nor would gun sales have gone thru the roof the last 6 years. VCDL represents the tip of the iceberg relative to gun owners. We're the ones who care, the ones who get out and go to Lobby Day, the ones who write, call, and e-mail and the ones who vote. There are a lot more not-so-active gun owners who still take VCDL's advice because they know that VCDL is looking out for their rights.

Missed being Senator by 9000 votes? That's only a fraction of the size of VCDLs e-mail list size. There's always some Monday-morning quarterbacking going on, but it occurs to me that if he or his staff had returned the survey, that there was at least some probability that the 9000 votes would have been there simply because for every VCDL e-mail recipient, there's 4-5 other folks that are informed by VCDL members of important issues. It was just stupid on his part not to.

As for VCDL pointing out how stupid previous campaigns were for not doing so, and the fact that some who did won big and some that didn't lost, I'd say that the Republicans in Virginia that are running for office need to pay attention to the facts. Because if you don't, it will likely cost you the election you otherwise could have won.

Agree (mostly) with the part in red... The part I don't completely agree with is that while there are a load of namby-pamby libs in Northern VA, there are also a lot of solid conservatives - we're just outnumbered right now.  But to that end, yeah, the survey can be counter-productive.  Sometimes you have to read between the lines a little, and sometimes you have to accept that while Gillespie may not have been a purist like us, he could not possibly have be as bad as Warner, who is a solid anti vote, and dead wrong on very other issue as well. Perhaps he got some votes from people on the edge who are not gun people (yet ) that would have been scared off by yes answers to those questions.  Perhaps no.  We'll never know.

Yes, Sarvis completed the survey.  But ask yourself if you believe he actually answered honestly, or was just giving the obviously desired answers in order to convince VCDL to support him.  I have no reason to trust his honesty in responding, and I despise liars.

That said, I wouldn't let my VCDL membership lapse over this - they still do very good work at the GA level, which is where it mostly counts for us.  I urge you to reconsider, and voice your concerns to Phil, because they are valid.

Warner could have been defeated.  Sarvis used us and it worked.  What's worse, being offended by the guy who ignored us or the one that whispered us sweet nothings while being backed by Dem $.....and NOT only not calling him out on it, but subtly having an element within support the lie?

I'm referring to the pre-election "Sarvis is the only one who answered the survey" emails, and the post-election email that blamed Gillespie's failure to complete the survey as the reason he lost. My problems are (a) anyone who votes for Sarvis is electing a gun grabber (Warner), so promoting Sarvis in any way is idiotic (b) it shows VCDL has a massive ego problem. The goal should be advancing gun rights at the federal level, not making VCDL feel important. The email basically said we destroy every candidate who doesn't make us feel special by filling out the survey. I don't want to support that.

Democrats are masters of running stealth candidates. They do it because it works. Not answering a survey doesn't make Gillespie a gun grabber. I happen to know he isn't. He didn't answer Grover's tax pledge either. He's not a tax hiker.

I got about 50 emails that day.  I went back and found it and read it.  You are correct, it didn't need to point out every past race and allude that it was surveys alone that get people like us to vote one way or another.  We are much more intelligent than that.

The NRA is much more subtle, but they also sent an email about this election being a referendum on 2A rights.  I, however, don't think that is the top reason people voted against Dems, as they would have you believe.  Was it a factor, sure.  But it certainly wasn't in the "Top 3" for Joe Public, I'm almost certain.

I'm going to disagree with some of this. I think VCDL did right by pointing out a correlation (not a causation) between not filling out their survey and candidates losing. One could argue what specifically the actual cause of those particular candidates losing might be. But, facts are facts. That, and in a very real sense, VCDL correctly is looking for candidates who solidly support a pro-2A agenda and are not afraid to go on record for the public to see. It's about accountability, something rather lacking in politics these days.

Was it rubbing salt in the wound? Maybe, but I don't think it was done in a mean-spirited way, I think it was done to point out to GOP candidates in the future that gun owners are a strategic part of the base, one which should not be ignored or taken for granted. Don't think for a minute that there aren't a lot of people who vote single issue, in this case guns, because it points to an overall mindset of the candidate. Soft on guns == likely to compromise other rights we have as well as the 2nd.

As for whether guns was in the top 3, I'm not convinced that the exit polling was all that accurate in that regard. Economy, Obamacare, illegal immigration, maybe? Or maybe Guns, Economy, Obamacare or Guns, Guns, everything else. Freedom as a basic tenet was "on the ballot", though, and, in most cases, it won.

As for Sarvis, he strikes me as a douchebag, one not worthy of my vote - whether I lean Republican -or- Libertarian, particularly a smarmy type taking Democrat money specifically to act as a spoiler.

I'm a mostly single issue voter and I didn't vote for any of those candidates based on whether or not they filled out a survey.  So, account for that.

Before I was in the VCDL I lived here for 12+ years and voted the same way, not knowing a damn thing about their survey.

If, that's an if, you have a positive voting record on gun rights, that's what I care about and that's how I vote, not some survey.

You think I'm going to believe some horseshit some politician says to get elected?    I'm voting on them based upon how they have voted in the past.  This whole survey thing is a red herring.

But everyone is free to believe what they want.

I find this poll interesting (albeit small), as it suggests the gun crowd is more polarized about Sarvis then the general populace.  Even with an overwhelming # of Arfcommers that believe Sarvis is Dem operative, gun enthusiasts here are nearly 4X (3% vs 11.x %) as likely to believe in Sarvis then the general population was.  Why is this?  I am going to have to respectfully disagree that the VCDL handled this matter appropriately.  We didn't have a clear message and Sarvis absolutely benefited from sharing his drivel with us, and may have added to this unusual polarization.   Will anyone that believes Sarvis is legit weigh in, I'm curious why there is seemingly more support here.

VCDL has to be careful about candidate statements since they are a non-partisan group - whether that had much influence on their actions here, I'm not sure.

Sarvis spoke the group at the Annandale meeting on the 28th of October; he basically accused VCDL of collaborating with the Cuccinelli campaign to smear him last year.  He came off as a whiner and offered no solid reason to vote for him.  I would be surprised if any VCDL member who was there that night ended up voting for him.

Understand the care with positioning.  I truly think that Sarvis's MO is to keep the Dems in power.  I believe the media down played his significance in his first show down to keep him as a viable 'L" once again.  In both races he certainly took more then enough votes to change the outcome, and he has appealed some gun owners  (not necessarily VCDL) better then overall to the general populace.   I should just leave at that though b/c the Repubs have done plenty to keep losing ....Ed chose not to have the VCDL work for him.  So what can we do to get better candidates going forward?  I think it's high time I make it to Lobby Day.

Been a while since I posted on AR-15.

As president of VCDL i'd like to make some points at this thread:

1.  Looking at the complaints about VCDL on the thread, most seem to key off of some kind of misconception that VCDL could, or does, endorse candidates in a federal election.  We CANNOT endorse candidates in a federal election by law.  Neither can the VCDL-PAC.  All we can do is provide facts, including survey results.  Nowhere in the alerts will you find VCDL making a statement in the last election to vote for either Warner, Gillespie, or Sarvis.  Take a look, you won't find anything.  In fact I carefully word the alerts to not come across as an endorsement.

2.  VCDL has a survey that tells us what the candidate plans on doing in the future on certain key issues important to Virginia Gun Owners.  Failure to return that survey is viewed as not being a positive statement on the candidates rating of the importance of gun rights or an indication that he even supports gun rights at all.  

3.  Someone talked about a candidate having a voting record as being more important.  It is important, but neither Gillespie nor Sarvis have one, making the VCDL survey doubly important.

4.  Sarvis answered the survey and our membership was told that simple fact and also that neither Gillespie nor Warner had followed suit.  How can telling our members the status of the survey results be the wrong thing to do?  How can that be interpreted as endorsing those who turned in a survey?  On the other hand, suggesting that we should ignore or punish Sarvis for returning his survey is nonsensical.  Gillespie and Warner didn't turn in their survey - they are to blame for that, not VCDL and not Sarvis.  If the lack of a survey hurt Gillespie, and I'm convinced it did, then he was his own worst enemy by ignore us (and ignoring some Republican party chairs who personally handed Gillespie a VCDL survey).  I got an email from a Republican party worker who said he asked Gillespie about the VCDL survey and said that Gillepsie simply turned on his heel and walked away.  I chose not to put that in an Alert, but there it is.

5.  Some on this thread were saying we should just blindly support Gillespie because he was the "good guy."  Forget that he has no voting record to show where that conclusion came from.  The NRA endorsed him, but you will never see how he answered their survey, so you have no idea on what they are basing the "A" on.  (We've been down this road before.  Heck,  even Harry Reid got an NRA A and an endorsement a few years ago.)  VCDL is non-partisan and has to be by law.  Don't expect VCDL to be party shills for the Republicans, the Democrats, the Libertarians, the Greens, or any other party - it's not going to happen.  We are looking for the best candidates on guns, regardless of party.  If you are partisan,that's fine.  Just remember we can't be and don't blame us for a candidate shooting themselves in the foot.

6.  If you have problems, concerns, or suggestions about VCDL, I am infinitely reachable.  We are a GRASSROOTS organization, working with and on behalf of Virginia's gun owners and our membership.  VCDL telephone lines ring ON MY DESK.  My telephone number is 804-639-0600.  My email is:  [email protected].  If you want to discuss VCDL issues, you have a direct line to do so.

7.    We are looking out for your gun rights at all levels:

*  Elections, providing surveys results for federal, state and local elections and VCDL-PAC endorsements for state and local elections

*  The General Assembly session  - getting good bills introduced and passed and bad bills killed

*  Being a watch dog looking out for and fighting localities trying to implement illegal gun bans and police harassing or unlawfully arresting gun owners.  

*  Educating gun owners on the laws and their rights.  A smart electorate is a strong electorate.

If you are not a member than you are weakening our ability to do all those things, as numbers count.  If one VCDL email or even one VCDL position causes you to drop your membership, then you've lost sight of forest for the trees.  We cover a wide spectrum of gun issues and have to take a positions on all kind of things.  It's virtually guaranteed that no matter what we do, someone is going to disagree with us.

And If tomorrow, your locality bans guns in their library, the police tell you that you can't shoot a BB gun on your own property, or your Circuit Court Clerk is not processing your CHP application in the required 45 days - what group would you look to for help?  I think you know.

And VCDL has had long list of legislative success over the years, some huge (like Shall issue in 1995, locality preemption law in 2004, CHP carry in a vehicle on school property in 2005, restaurant ban repeal in 2010).  We've got lots of smaller bills passed into law, some every year.  The number of anti-gun bills we killed?  We kill at least 15 or so every year - all of them.  The last gun control bill that passed that VCDL couldn't stop was in 2004 - over a decade ago.  It was a ban in the airport terminals.  And we couldn't stop that bill because a secret deal between the House and the Senate traded that bill for the full locality preemption law.  If one passed, the other had to pass, too.  In the end, gun owners gained a mile and the anti-gunners gained an inch.  That's an inch too much, but there it is.

Please remember that VCDL is watching an entire forest and not just one tree.

 

Thank you for joining in.  Doubtful you'd find another group willing to do so.  If fact, I've gotten two co-workers to sign up in the past two or so months because I believe strongly in what the VCDL stands for, and they now do as well.

great post, and thanks for dropping in

please, drop the "don't call your handgun a weapon" bit that was in a recent email though

Thanks for responding, you do a lot for us and that appreciation should not be lost.  My only issue is #5.  Many us did not blindly vote for Gillespie, nor are we Rs or hardly partisan...I don't think that it was evident in these threads at all.  It's the critical thinkers that are saying, what just happened?  Why did Sarvis gain more favor among gun people then the general populace?  Simply completing our survey should not be interpreted as best candidate to consider.  I share the displeasure with Gillespie, but he was the best candidate to take out Warner, an Obama lapdog all the way....and while apathetic, he was not a poser.  The VCDL message IMO just hasn't been clear...it reads like there is greater criticism of Gillespie then Sarvis.    I was President of 501 C3 once......I understand there are SOME limitations to politics, but the VCDL does a have a lot of political influence regardless. I really don't want to see Sarvis play out as potential spoiler and an ongoing lie for a 3rd time.  I'm all for vetting better I, L and R candidates, so how do we help?

Thanks to everyone for the nice welcome back.  I used to hang out on AR-15.com a lot - great site!  I've gotten so busy that I don't have the time, but send me a direct email if you want me to come up here to answer questions or to respond to something that's posted that I might not know about.

Federal elections put VCDL in a particularly tough position.  We certainly don't mean to imply that just because someone returns a survey that they are the bee's knees.  But the survey lets gun owners compare candidates on issues that are important to them.  By actually seeing the survey, they can see how the candidate answered, or dodged, items of interest.

Best thing that can be done to help is to push your favorite candidate to fill out the survey.  Also, if you can get video or audio (self-documenting as to authenticity is best) of items of interest dealing with guns from candidates you like and hate and get me a copy that I can post, that could be very, very useful.

VCDL obviously wants only the best for Virginia gun owners, but we have to be careful how we handle partisan issues.  In state and local elections, the VCDL-PAC can endorsed candidates, and takes into account all kinds of information.  However, a prerequisite is the VCDL survey to be considered for an endorsement.

Philip