Virginia Gun Owners Have an Important Decision To Make

Ben Sanderson, representing Gun Owners of America, frames Virginia’s statewide elections as a pivot point.

He tells viewers the outcomes for governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general could shift the state’s direction on gun policy – and ripple into national politics.

In his telling, this isn’t an abstract debate. It’s about whether Virginia models itself on states with stricter firearms laws, or doubles down on broader protections for ownership and carry.

Sanderson says that choice will be made by voters in the next election cycle.

The Governor’s Race Through Sanderson’s Lens

Sanderson puts the governor’s race at the center of his argument.

He highlights Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, describing her as the most pro-gun figure on the ballot. He notes she scored 100% on GOA’s candidate survey and publicly commits to vetoing laws she sees as infringing the Second Amendment.

He also emphasizes personal identity and practice. As Sanderson tells it, Sears is a gun owner who keeps an AR-15 close by and rejects the view that the right is only about hunting or plinking.

On the other side, Sanderson contrasts Abigail Spanberger’s record in Congress. 

He cites GOA’s scorecard awarding her roughly 4%, and he lists votes he opposes: the Cornyn–Murphy compromise, the 2022 federal “assault weapons” bill, and measures he characterizes as encouraging gun lockup mandates.

Sanderson argues Spanberger’s professional background – USPS inspector and CIA officer – doesn’t translate to support for broader civilian carry. 

He recounts her past association with Moms Demand Action and claims she backs bans on semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

In short, Sanderson paints a stark policy divide, with Sears as an ally of expansive gun rights and Spanberger as a supporter of tighter restrictions.

The Clips and Cross-Talk Sanderson Cites

To bolster his portrayal, Sanderson weaves in clips and third-party voices.

He plays a segment featuring Mike Fox, a Moms Demand Action leader in Virginia, expressing excitement about Spanberger’s run and the prospect of a governor who would sign gun-control bills previously vetoed. 

Sanderson uses this to argue that organized advocacy expects a friend in the mansion if Spanberger wins.

He also references debate moments pitting Sears and Spanberger. In one exchange, Sanderson spotlights a question about Jay Jones, the Democratic attorney-general candidate, and a widely circulated controversy over remarks about “shooting political opponents.” 

The clip shows Spanberger declining to withdraw her support, stressing that “every person [should] make their own decision,” and Sears pressing Spanberger to respond more directly. 

Sanderson presents that as a character and judgment test – though, to be fair, voters will interpret the exchange through their own partisan lenses.

Sanderson’s point with the clips is to personalize policy differences. He’s saying this isn’t just platform language – it’s who will sign or veto bills and how they talk about the people who own guns.

The Down-Ballot Offices, as Framed by Sanderson

Sanderson argues the attorney general’s post is pivotal for enforcement and litigation.

He portrays Democrat Jay Jones as aligned with bans, red-flag laws, “expanded background checks,” and lawsuits against the gun industry. He also says Jones favors removing school resource officers, which Sanderson frames as a safety risk.

He claims GOA litigation helped halt universal background checks and reduce NFA-related taxes – tying the attorney general’s policy posture to whether past gains hold or get reversed.

For lieutenant governor, Sanderson lauds John Reid, saying he holds a 100% score on the Virginia Citizens Defense League survey, opposes gun-free zones, and personally carries concealed. 

He places Ghazala Hashmi on the other side, aligned with bans, red-flag laws, and universal background checks.

The thrust is simple: in Sanderson’s view, control of these offices will determine the fate of carry zones, enforcement priorities, litigation strategy, and the practical boundaries of ownership.

Redistricting, Congress, and the Longer Game

Sanderson goes beyond state policy to talk maps.

He says Democrats, if they win the statewide slate, could pursue congressional redistricting that disadvantages GOP incumbents like Ben Cline, Morgan Griffith, and Jen Kiggans. In his narrative, fewer Virginia Republicans in Congress means fewer pro-gun votes in Washington.

He doesn’t get into technical map-drawing questions, but the message is intuitive: statewide power can shape federal representation, which can shape federal gun policy.

He closes with process notes. He reminds viewers that Virginia allows same-day voter registration and directs them to the state elections website for polling locations and details. 

It’s a practical coda to a video that otherwise sticks to sharp contrasts on gun issues.

My Notes and Observations

First, Sanderson’s case is deliberately binary. That’s common in advocacy videos, but real policy effects can be more granular than “California” vs. “not California.” 

Voters who care about gun rights may still want to parse which specific bills each candidate says they would sign, veto, or litigate – assault-weapons definitions, magazine thresholds, permit regimes, sensitive locations, and dealer obligations all matter in the details.

Second, clips are powerful but selective. The Mike Fox segment shows energized gun-control advocates; the debate exchange presents a moment that will strike viewers differently based on priors. 

If you’re weighing temperament alongside policy, consider watching longer stretches of each candidate’s public appearances, not just highlight reels.

Third, the “redistricting” warning is part political analysis, part prediction. Control of state offices can influence mapping, but the process also moves through courts and public scrutiny. 

If congressional balance is your top concern, look at how Virginia’s mapping has actually unfolded in prior cycles and what legal constraints apply now.

Fourth, agency matters. Governors sign and veto. Attorneys general sue and defend. Lieutenant governors break ties. Even if your focus is a single issue like firearms, expect interactions with other priorities – public safety, schools, mental health, and budgets—once a campaign promise meets the governing agenda.

Finally, process is power. Sanderson points viewers to registration and polling information. That’s a reminder that participation rules – deadlines, ID, early voting – can be as consequential as platform planks. Whatever your stance, know your options and timelines.

What This Adds Up To

Ben Sanderson’s video is a clear brief for one side of Virginia’s gun debate.

He says Winsome Earle-Sears, John Reid, and a Republican attorney general would protect carry and ownership, block bans, and back GOA-style litigation. 

He says Abigail Spanberger, Ghazala Hashmi, and Jay Jones would sign bans, expand red-flag laws and background checks, and reframe enforcement against the gun industry.

He extends those stakes to Congress via redistricting and reminds viewers how to participate.

If firearms policy is your priority, scrutinize the exact proposals, not just labels. If governance style matters, watch the full debates, not just the spiciest clips. 

And if representation beyond Richmond counts for you, study how state outcomes historically translate into congressional maps.

The decision is important. The details are, too.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.