Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: 2016:HB49 Right to keep and bear arms.

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    2016:HB49 Right to keep and bear arms.

    I can't tell you what an honor it is to be represented in the General Assembly by Mark Cole. McAuliffe will certainly veto it (I can't even imagine what sort of a lame excuse he would write for that, other than "I hate the US Constitution"), but this is a critical line in the sand that must make it to his desk to force his hand!

    TFred

    Virginia Bill Takes Unique First Step Toward Protecting the Second Amendment

    HOUSE BILL NO. 49
    Offered January 13, 2016
    Prefiled November 25, 2015
    A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 1-240.2, relating to the right to keep and bear arms.
    ----------
    Patrons-- Cole and Poindexter
    ----------
    Committee Referral Pending
    ----------

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 1-240.2 as follows:

    § 1-240.2. Right to keep and bear arms.

    The right to keep and bear arms conferred by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an individual right that is unconnected with militia service.

    2. That it is the expressed intent of the General Assembly that this act codify the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
    Last edited by TFred; 12-05-2015 at 01:20 PM.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Hmmm - "shall not be infringed."

    You're right - McAwful won't like that!
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The Heller opinion is not that you think its cracked up to be ....

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    .
    The right to keep and bear arms conferred by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an individual right that is unconnected with militia service.
    Let's not go overboard and write out the armed militia from the code. The right of the people and of the states to an armed militia was one of the intended purposes of both declarative amendments (2nd & 13th).
    It's an individual and a collective right.
    It's for personal and collective defense from individual and institutional criminals, foreign and domestic.
    "... that is not limited just to militia service."

    ... and Cole is fantastic
    Last edited by ChristCrusader; 12-06-2015 at 01:35 AM.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    I pasted the entire bill in my original post above. It does nothing to remove the militia, it just makes clear that being a part of a militia is not a requirement for the ownership and possession of arms.

    Take another look at how the bill is constructed. Paragraph 1 adds a new Section to the Code of Virginia:

    § 1-240.2. Right to keep and bear arms.

    The right to keep and bear arms conferred by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an individual right that is unconnected with militia service.


    Paragraph 2 does not change the Code of Virginia, but merely makes a statement about the intent of the General Assembly:

    That it is the expressed intent of the General Assembly that this act codify the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

    These kinds of bills can be a little confusing, because once they are passed and the Code is updated, the second paragraph is NOT included in the Code itself. That is why you have to go back to the CHAPTERS that are published, which is where Paragraph 2 will remain as a part of the record.

    A similar thing happened a few years back with the air-gun law. It was just such a paragraph (that was not included in the actual Code of Virginia) that made void any existing ordinance that did not allow for the changes being introduced by that bill.

    TFred

  6. #6
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I pasted the entire bill in my original post above. It does nothing to remove the militia, it just makes clear that being a part of a militia is not a requirement for the ownership and possession of arms.

    Take another look at how the bill is constructed. Paragraph 1 adds a new Section to the Code of Virginia:

    § 1-240.2. Right to keep and bear arms.

    The right to keep and bear arms conferred by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an individual right that is unconnected with militia service.


    Paragraph 2 does not change the Code of Virginia, but merely makes a statement about the intent of the General Assembly:

    That it is the expressed intent of the General Assembly that this act codify the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

    These kinds of bills can be a little confusing, because once they are passed and the Code is updated, the second paragraph is NOT included in the Code itself. That is why you have to go back to the CHAPTERS that are published, which is where Paragraph 2 will remain as a part of the record.

    A similar thing happened a few years back with the air-gun law. It was just such a paragraph (that was not included in the actual Code of Virginia) that made void any existing ordinance that did not allow for the changes being introduced by that bill.

    TFred
    Seems unenforceable. Seems like a stunt.

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    The right is NOT confered by the Virginia Constitution

    It is confirmed in the Constitution. It is a human right recognized by the Constitution. It exists with or without the Constitution. Semantics matter a lot! The wording must be fixed or it becomes something the Commonwealth can issue or take away. Terry might approve it just to be legal in taking it away.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-07-2015 at 09:20 PM. Reason: No overkill please - reduced emoticons
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  8. #8
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wolfhound View Post
    It is confirmed in the Constitution. It is a human right recognized by the Constitution. It exists with or without the Constitution. Semantics matter a lot! The wording must be fixed or it becomes something the Commonwealth can issue or take away. Terry might approve it just to be legal in taking it away.
    I agree, of course. Even so, I prefer the term safeguarded.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-07-2015 at 09:21 PM. Reason: editd quote

  9. #9
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    I agree, of course. Even so, I prefer the term safeguarded.
    It is good to see we have nothing to argue. Safeguarded is a perfectly agreeable word.
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  10. #10
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    From the bill:

    2. That it is the expressed intent of the General Assembly that this act codify the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
    From DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, Page 19:

    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

    TFred

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    I'd have preferred the word, "described", rather than "conferred". No government can grant you something you already have by virtue of natural law or divine providence. The right to personal defense pre-existed any government, and all the constitutional provisions do is recognize the fact that you have that right and prohibit people operating the government from trying to mess with it. Try telling a wolf in the wild that he doesn't have the right to defend himself.
    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.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I'd have preferred the word, "described", rather than "conferred". No government can grant you something you already have by virtue of natural law or divine providence. The right to personal defense pre-existed any government, and all the constitutional provisions do is recognize the fact that you have that right and prohibit people operating the government from trying to mess with it. Try telling a wolf in the wild that he doesn't have the right to defend himself.
    Would not that same wolf have the right to treat you as a food source?

    Now I'm thinking about a wolf trimmed parka for extreme cold weather.....to be offered in homage by brother wolf.
    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 solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Would not that same wolf have the right to treat you as a food source?

    Now I'm thinking about a wolf trimmed parka for extreme cold weather.....to be offered in homage by brother wolf.
    might not be needed this winter

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Posting Permissions

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