What Virginia Gun Laws are unconstitutional, post MacDonald?

1 Gun a Month

Assault Weapons Ban

State Forest Ban

VCU Ban

What else? Anyone, anyone....

I have not yet read the ruling, but my guess would be none of the above.

All gun laws are unconstitutional. Period.

All of them.

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.

virginiatuck said:

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.

Click to expand...

It was more of a rhetorical statement to emphasize displeasure of any sort of gun control. Sorry that it wasn't more obvious.

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.

peter nap said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Grapeshot said:

SNIP hopefully will be impacted though.

Click to expand...

Impacted? I-m-p-a-c-t-e-d?

What? Are we talking about wisdom teeth or meteorites?

Where do you learn your words?

Citizen said:

Impacted? I-m-p-a-c-t-e-d?

What? Are we talking about wisdom teeth or meteorites?

Where do you learn your words?

Click to expand...

Perhaps he meant compacted, as in garbage.

t33j said:

Perhaps he meant compacted, as in garbage.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

Impacted? I-m-p-a-c-t-e-d?

What? Are we talking about wisdom teeth or meteorites?

Where do you learn your words?

Click to expand...

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

GMU & VCUs bans, if its unconstitutional for localities to ban firearms then I can't see public institutions getting away with it.

Grapeshot said:

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

Click to expand...

Is this your way of saying I should eat plenty of fiber so I don't impact my outcome?

longwatch said:

GMU & VCUs bans, if its unconstitutional for localities to ban firearms then I can't see public institutions getting away with it.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Citizen said:

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?

Click to expand...

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)

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."

Cuccinelli to Review VA Gun Regs in Light of McDonald

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/06/scotus_ruling_will_guide_virgi.html

Remember: hahahahahahaha

Misdemeanor domestic violence restriction would seem unlawful.