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).

Hmmm - "shall not be infringed."

You're right - McAwful won't like that!

The Heller opinion is not that you think its cracked up to be ....

TFred said:

.
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.

Click to expand...

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

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

TFred said:

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

Click to expand...

Seems unenforceable. Seems like a stunt.

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.:banghead:

The Wolfhound said:

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.:banghead:

Click to expand...

I agree, of course. Even so, I prefer the term safeguarded.

Repeater said:

I agree, of course. Even so, I prefer the term safeguarded.

Click to expand...

It is good to see we have nothing to argue. Safeguarded is a perfectly agreeable word.

TFred said:

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).

Click to expand...

From DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, Page 19:


TFred

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.

user said:

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.

Click to expand...

Would not that same wolf have the right to treat you as a food source? :uhoh:

Now I'm thinking about a wolf trimmed parka for extreme cold weather.....to be offered in homage by brother wolf.

Grapeshot said:

Would not that same wolf have the right to treat you as a food source? :uhoh:

Now I'm thinking about a wolf trimmed parka for extreme cold weather.....to be offered in homage by brother wolf.

Click to expand...

might not be needed this winter

ipse