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.

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"

Grapeshot said:

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"

Click to expand...

It's worth a try just to see if they twist it I suppose.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

user said:

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.

Click to expand...

Some would say that "enlightened judiciary" is a conflict of terms.

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

Ne'er mind, you were editing while I was typing.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Are you going to tell the legislator that on Monday David?

davidmcbeth said:

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.

Click to expand...

100% correct!

davidmcbeth said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Bikenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

davidmcbeth said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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/2013PA-00003-R00SB-01160-PA.htm for recollection

I do like to give testimony to ID commies ! They love me at the capitol bldg !

davidmcbeth said:

[snip] They love me at the capitol bldg !

Click to expand...

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