Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: What Virginia Gun Laws are unconstitutional, post MacDonald?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    What Virginia Gun Laws are unconstitutional, post MacDonald?

    1 Gun a Month

    Assault Weapons Ban

    State Forest Ban

    VCU Ban

    What else? Anyone, anyone....

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998
    I have not yet read the ruling, but my guess would be none of the above.

  3. #3
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    All gun laws are unconstitutional. Period.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    700
    All of them.

  5. #5
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788
    The same ones that are unconstitutional under Virginia's Constitution.


    15.2-915.4. Counties, cities and towns authorized to regulate use of pneumatic guns.
    15.2-1209. Prohibiting outdoor shooting of firearms or arrows from bows in certain areas.
    15.2-1209.1. Counties may regulate carrying of loaded firearms on public highways.
    18.2-295. Registration of machine guns.
    18.2-296. Search warrants for machine guns.
    18.2-308 et seq.
    44-54.12. Arms, equipment and facilities. (last paragraph)
    Many more...too many to list in a reasonable amount of time.



    Now, a question for those who say all of them. Is something like 18.2-56.1 (Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting) unconstitutional?

    Maybe it is, but I fail to see it at this time.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by virginiatuck View Post
    Now, a question for those who say all of them. Is something like 18.2-56.1 (Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting) unconstitutional?

    Maybe it is, but I fail to see it at this time.
    It was more of a rhetorical statement to emphasize displeasure of any sort of gun control. Sorry that it wasn't more obvious.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    My opinion which won't get coffee at River City Diner, is that it did fill in some of the holes but it was remanded back to the court to determine what was reasonable under the SCOTUS opinion.

    Many of Va's laws are in question including CC since shall issue requirements are close to unlicensed OC.

    It did leave a lot of room for interpretation though. The next phase for this IMO is the current Heller case that;s on appeal now. That will firm up the Reasonable issue but I;m sure it won't settle it.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    My opinion which won't get coffee at River City Diner, is that it did fill in some of the holes but it was remanded back to the court to determine what was reasonable under the SCOTUS opinion.

    Many of Va's laws are in question including CC since shall issue requirements are close to unlicensed OC.

    It did leave a lot of room for interpretation though. The next phase for this IMO is the current Heller case that;s on appeal now. That will firm up the Reasonable issue but I;m sure it won't settle it.
    Would have much preferred reversal rather than remanded.

    Don't think that will shall see Va. CC laws successfully challenged under this ruling - there are others that hopefully will be impacted though.

    ----Dale

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    SNIP hopefully will be impacted though.
    Impacted? I-m-p-a-c-t-e-d?

    What? Are we talking about wisdom teeth or meteorites?

    Where do you learn your words?


  10. #10
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Impacted? I-m-p-a-c-t-e-d?

    What? Are we talking about wisdom teeth or meteorites?

    Where do you learn your words?

    Perhaps he meant compacted, as in garbage.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by t33j View Post
    Perhaps he meant compacted, as in garbage.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Impacted? I-m-p-a-c-t-e-d?

    What? Are we talking about wisdom teeth or meteorites?

    Where do you learn your words?

    Impacted: To affect or influence, especially in a significant or undesirable manner; as, budget cuts impacted the entire research program; the fish populations were adversely impacted by pollution. [PJC]

    or as in do not obversely orient your mental acuity lest it impact the outcome.

    Yata hey

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297
    GMU & VCUs bans, if its unconstitutional for localities to ban firearms then I can't see public institutions getting away with it.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    SNIP or as in do not obversely orient your mental acuity lest it impact the outcome.
    Is this your way of saying I should eat plenty of fiber so I don't impact my outcome?

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by longwatch View Post
    GMU & VCUs bans, if its unconstitutional for localities to ban firearms then I can't see public institutions getting away with it.
    Heller left intact bans at "sensitive places." You know how that will be argued by the gun-controllers.

    Also, I haven't finished reading McDonald. It mentioned defense in the home several times. Does it limit defense to the home, or is it broader?

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297
    Universitys are abodes for students and these cases don't limit self defense with a handgun to the home, just point out the acute sensitivity in law for the protection of a persons home.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Heller left intact bans at "sensitive places." You know how that will be argued by the gun-controllers.

    Also, I haven't finished reading McDonald. It mentioned defense in the home several times. Does it limit defense to the home, or is it broader?
    and universities aren't sensitive places, and are not schools as defined by state law (meaning K-12) If Pre-schools aren't considered sensitive places, then neither are post-secondary institutions.

    As for defense in the home, when college students are living on campus their dorm is their place of residence. During the 2008 presidential election they had busses for students living on campus to go to the local polling place in Fairfax. My brother told me they did the same thing at VT (he voted down there, not absentee either). Dorms are nothing more than public housing, which has been established as not having the authority to ban guns in.


    (of course this is how it is supposed to be, not how it is in practice right now)

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    This was in this mornings syndication feeds.
    http://news.oldva.org/

    The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been virtually a dead letter since 1873, when the court in The Slaughter-House Cases limited its scope to rights of a purely national scope, such as the right to access a foreign embassy or to be protected when traveling on the high seas. It was a preposterous interpretation—these were hardly the rights congressional Republicans in the aftermath of the Civil War were most concerned to protect in the wake of the terrible abuses of free blacks and white unionists by Southern states.

    There is a remarkable academic consensus that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms against interference by state governments. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago affirmed that this is indeed the case. It is, therefore, a great victory for enforcing the original meaning of the Constitution. Thankfully for the rights of Americans, the Chicago gun ban at issue will soon be consigned to the dust bin of history.

    To the conservative fear that the full scope of the Privileges or Immunities Clause was uncertain, Justice Thomas countered that the only "question presented in this case is . . . whether, and to what extent, a particular clause in the Constitution protects the particular right at issue here." With this narrower focus, Justice Thomas presented an extensive and detailed analysis of the original meaning of the Clause in the belief that "this case presents an opportunity to reexamine, and begin the process of restoring, the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment agreed upon by those who ratified it." While conceding that "interpreting the Privileges or Immunities Clause may produce hard questions," Justice Thomas countered that "they will have the advantage of being questions the Constitution asks us to answer."

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Cuccinelli to Review VA Gun Regs in Light of McDonald


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629
    Misdemeanor domestic violence restriction would seem unlawful.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    I remember Donkey.

    If Ken Brady were serious he would amend his brief and indicate that there is no compelling state interest in taking away the fundamental rights of law abiding citizens. But no, that isn't as important as keeping those dangerous weapons that just might accidentally go off and hit a child that happens to be on the campus.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    The replies to this article are telling. The pro-McDonald posts are all well-thought-out and based in the Law and History.

    The negative comments are all knee-jerk hyperbole, and threats of violence and assassination attempts against government officials.

    No wonder the "anti gun" folks don't want anyone having guns--many of them are sociopaths with SERIOUS anger-control issues and homicidal tendencies...

  23. #23
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    From the quoted blog:

    Both of Virginia's senators and 8 of its 11 Congressional representatives signed a friend of the court brief urging the court to strike down a restrictive Chicago gun law, the victorious side in the case.
    And yet, both of Virginia's senators blindly followed their pied pipers in confirming Sotomayor who voted to essentially repeal the Second Amendment, and I have absolutely no doubt that both will vote to confirm Kagan who would certainly have voted the same.

    These two must be completely devoid of any conscience whatsoever.

    TFred

  24. #24
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    And yet, both of Virginia's senators blindly followed their pied pipers in confirming Sotomayor who voted to essentially repeal the Second Amendment, and I have absolutely no doubt that both will vote to confirm Kagan who would certainly have voted the same.

    These two must be completely devoid of any conscience whatsoever.

    TFred
    I'm not trying to start a fight here but the role of the Senate is to 'advise and consent'. I personally do not see much wiggle room is the President wants someone in the Judiciary.

    I'm not saying I'm happy about it, just saying that is the law of the land.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    The replies to this article are telling. The pro-McDonald posts are all well-thought-out and based in the Law and History.

    The negative comments are all knee-jerk hyperbole, and threats of violence and assassination attempts against government officials.

    No wonder the "anti gun" folks don't want anyone having guns--many of them are sociopaths with SERIOUS anger-control issues and homicidal tendencies...
    It is a little disturbing to read.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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