Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: gotta say this concerns me

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    gotta say this concerns me

    HB 1390, Delegate Berg, is a state-agency firearms preemption bill, which would make Virginia’s firearms laws consistent, with all laws, regulations, and ordinances based on specific statutes created by the General Assembly.* Currently, unlike localities, state agencies can create firearms regulations without having to get prior approval from the General Assembly.* This creates a confusing, and sometimes conflicting, set of gun regulations.* The bill makes exceptions for correction facilities and the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.

    There are no specific laws allowing OC so we would be P4Ped again.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    IMO, it leaves OC exactly where it is = de facto legal by not mentioning or restricting.

    Still "consistent, with all laws, regulations, and ordinances based on specific statutes created by the General Assembly"
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    IMO, it leaves OC exactly where it is = de facto legal by not mentioning or restricting.

    Still "consistent, with all laws, regulations, and ordinances based on specific statutes created by the General Assembly"
    It's worth a try just to see if they twist it I suppose.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    In the absence of some restrictive statute, Art.1, Sect. 13 of the Va. Constitution applies:

    Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power. — That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
    That is, of course, unless our enlightened judiciary "interprets" it away. I wonder if anyone's ever been prosecuted on a violation of such regulations, and if so, whether the argument was made that the regulations are illegal as inconsistent with the Constitution. Barring a specific statute authorizing a regulation which, on its face, is unconstitional, I'd say there is no such authority, and the general statutes authorizing issuance of agency regulations never say that power can be used in a way that is inconsistent with the Constitution. Even such a statute would not necessarily make the regulation permissible, but at least the Commonwealth would have an argument that the agency did not exceed the bounds of its authority in implementing the regulation.
    Last edited by user; 01-16-2015 at 05:33 AM.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    In the absence of some restrictive statute, Art.1, Sect. 13 of the Va. Constitution applies:



    That is, of course, unless our enlightened judiciary "interprets" it away. I wonder if anyone's ever been prosecuted on a violation of such regulations, and if so, whether the argument was made that the regulations are illegal as inconsistent with the Constitution. Barring a specific statute authorizing a regulation which, on its face, is unconstitional, I'd say there is no such authority, and the general statutes authorizing issuance of agency regulations never say that power can be used in a way that is inconsistent with the Constitution. Even such a statute would not necessarily make the regulation permissible, but at least the Commonwealth would have an argument that the agency did not exceed the bounds of its authority in implementing the regulation.
    Some would say that "enlightened judiciary" is a conflict of terms.

    Didn't see prior (wasn't avaiable) all after the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph......wonder why not?

    Ne'er mind, you were editing while I was typing.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 01-16-2015 at 05:39 AM. Reason: Got answer
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    There are a number of bills that remove restrictions on possession on state agency/school property - for concealed carriers!

    I'm rushing out the door to make it to a dentist appointment buut wanted to post this as, if nothing else, a reminder for me to come back and cite the other bills.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    There are some bills that bother me but don't have any impact on me or OC.
    My biggest fear is that P4P gets to the point that the General Assembly creates a permit state and legislates OC without one, out of existence. Making permits lifetime are a good step toward that. VCDL loves it. NRA loves it, they've already gotten their training money. CHP people aren't going to look that far ahead. Anti Legislators love it because they are looking down that path.

    Now after everyone has to have a permit to purchase or carry, they can start chipping away at that privilege. SB 943 is a good example. Chip (no pun intended) away enough and the anti's have what they want.

    SB 943 Firearms; possession or transportation following convictions for certain misdemeanor crimes.
    Barbara A. Favola | all patrons ... notes
    | add to my profiles
    another bill? Log in LIS Home - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bills & Resolutions Members Committees Meetings Calendars Communications House Minutes Senate Minutes Statistics Lobbyist-in-a-Box

    Summary as introduced:
    Possession or transportation of firearms following convictions for certain misdemeanor crimes; restoration of rights; penalty. Prohibits a person who has been convicted of stalking, assault and battery of a family or household member, or sexual battery from possessing or transporting a firearm. A person who violates this provision is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The bill provides for a process by which a person convicted of such crimes may petition the circuit court for a reinstatement of his rights to possess or transport a firearm.



  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I understand how pro-2nd folks gets all excited about a gun bill that appears to be in their favor.

    But its a trap !


    All gun bills are BAD.

    By supporting a gun bill, you are supporting the gov't claim that they CAN regulate you and your guns.

    Food for thought.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Are you going to tell the legislator that on Monday David?

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I understand how pro-2nd folks gets all excited about a gun bill that appears to be in their favor.

    But its a trap !


    All gun bills are BAD.

    By supporting a gun bill, you are supporting the gov't claim that they CAN regulate you and your guns.

    Food for thought.
    100% correct!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I understand how pro-2nd folks gets all excited about a gun bill that appears to be in their favor.

    But its a trap !


    All gun bills are BAD.

    By supporting a gun bill, you are supporting the gov't claim that they CAN regulate you and your guns.

    Food for thought.
    Actually it is more insidious than just supporting the government's claim they can regulate us and our guns.... it is accepting the belief that the government SHOULD regulate us and our guns. And once that belief is imbedded within ourselves then there will always be a willingness to accept having ourselves and our gun regulated in some fashion.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Actually it is more insidious than just supporting the government's claim they can regulate us and our guns.... it is accepting the belief that the government SHOULD regulate us and our guns. And once that belief is imbedded within ourselves then there will always be a willingness to accept having ourselves and our gun regulated in some fashion.
    IMO - it is more recognition that we and our guns are being regulated. To hit the mark, we must first acquire the target, then take careful aim.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I understand how pro-2nd folks gets all excited about a gun bill that appears to be in their favor.

    But its a trap !


    All gun bills are BAD.

    By supporting a gun bill, you are supporting the gov't claim that they CAN regulate you and your guns.

    Food for thought.
    You want to go there, and make this argument? OK, let's go there.

    Government is based on force. Taxes are taken from the productive, and if they refuse, their property is confiscated. If they use force to prevent this theft, then force will be against them, up to and including lethal force.

    Police are also known as "law enforcement" - because it is their job to threaten (and if necessary, use) force against the people in order to ensure compliance with the law.

    If you vote, you are asking government to act on your behalf. Every time a tax is collected, a driver is detained, or a child is taken from their parents by the state - that is done in your name. You supported it.

    With all of the above said, do I believe that one should neither vote nor participate in the politic process? Of course not. As small of an impact as a single vote has, it is the only effective tool you have to limit the impact of government upon your rights. Yes, it's authorizing force, but I argue that it is a form of self-defense. Force will be employed, regardless of whether or not you vote.

    Now, to your assertion - can government regulate guns? Of course they can. They have lots of men with guns to come to your house and haul you to jail. If you resist them, they will use violence. They will kill you if necessary. The vast majority of the people in our society support this, and most will even go so far as to celebrate your death as a success for law enforcement.

    It's not always about what's right, because what's right is not always possible. Government is not going to decide tomorrow that they shouldn't regulate guns, so the only practical course of action is to be active in the process and attempt to steer debate so that the regulations that are in place are as tolerable as possible.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Hey Simon,

    Your post wanders outside the subject matter of the OP's subject...you should start a thread about the other points.

    But the gov't does not regulate guns IMO .. they simply oppress our rights. Some people accept this, some people allow it w/o accepting, and some don't allow or accept it.

    And some folks draw these lines, varying ideas, thoughts, or actions, sometimes on a case by case basis of the laws proposed or passed.

    So I don't run around and support pro-gun laws ... because there is no such thing in my mind. I even have a hard time seeing supporting laws to repeal other laws... like this one:
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/TOB/H/201...196-R00-HB.htm
    to repeal the 2013 omnibus gun bill made into law in 2013 if folks can recall
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/ACT/PA/20...B-01160-PA.htm for recollection

    I do like to give testimony to ID commies ! They love me at the capitol bldg !
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-17-2015 at 02:08 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member scouser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    [snip] They love me at the capitol bldg !
    So are you going to accept skid's invitation and have those at the VA capitol love you too?

    He'd deny it, of course, but I can just picture the 2 of you together creating havoc

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •