2019 Special Session Bills Starting to Appear

[TFred]

The first two bills of the 2019 Special Session of the General Assembly have been posted to the LIS site.

They are both PRO-gun-rights bills, submitted by our good friend Mark Cole.

HB 4001 Right to keep and bear arms.
HB 4002 Carrying concealed handgun with a permit; employees of any agency of the Commonwealth.

HB 4002 may need some tightening up. As written, there does not appear to be any requirement that the security guard actually be on duty during the entire time employees are in the work space, leaving me to suspect that a local jurisdiction might try to hire someone for one hour per week and use that to justify a total ban on carry by employees.

We're off to a good start, but of course we know what's coming.

TFred

 

[ChristCrusader]

Nor do those references in HB4001 confer, but rather affirm.
As good as any pro rights bill to be vetoed, but if we ever do something all the way, it should be polished first.

 

[TFred]

Nor do those references in HB4001 confer, but rather affirm.
As good as any pro rights bill to be vetoed, but if we ever do something all the way, it should be polished first.

Feedback on the use of "conferred" has been passed along to Mr. Cole.

TFred

 

[ChristCrusader]

"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."

Perhaps "...is an individual right that is not dependent upon militia service." would be better nuanced.
The connection between the right to arms and the militia is an important one to keep, but it should not be inferred to be dependent upon militia service, as the gun and Liberty haters would have it to be.

 

[2a4all]

The big question is "How do we get His Nibs to sign them?"

 

[TFred]

The big question is "How do we get His Nibs to sign them?"

You can't, and he won't. But IMHO it's a VERY effective message to send that when he tries to shove all this gun-control down our throats, the response he gets is a bunch of bills that he is forced to Veto!

ETA: I REALLY hope that ALL the Republicans, from the Speaker on down fully grasp this, and do what it takes to get these good bills ON the Governor's desk! If ever we needed solidarity on the pro-gun side, it's now.

TFred

 

[2a4all]

As a practical matter, I think that no anti-gun bills getting passed with all pro-gun bills getting passed & vetoed is the best possible outcome here.

 

[user]

"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."

Perhaps "...is an individual right that is not dependent upon militia service." would be better nuanced.
The connection between the right to arms and the militia is an important one to keep, but it should not be inferred to be dependent upon militia service, as the gun and Liberty haters would have it to be.

I'd use the term, "unrelated".
I'd take out the reference to Heller v. DC - that opinion said that the Bill of Rights is subject to "reasonable regulation" without reference to the important distinction between state regulation and federal regulation.

And, as to the other proposed statute, I'm all for it exactly as written. I suppose that will let schools that have "resource officers" continue to prohibit carrying by teachers & staff, even though a single semi-retired former traffic officer is hardly going to provide actual protection against criminal violence. In fact, such officers have no duty to provide any protection at all - their job is still limited to detection of crime and apprehension of suspects (except, as it appears, in Florida). We need a statute that says school districts shall either permit teachers and staff to carry OR hire armed special police for the specific purpose of providing actual protection against criminal violence.

I still maintain that where the means of personal defense has been prohibited by law or by regulations having the force of law, sovereign immunity has been waived (because a restriction on individual rights means that the state has stepped into the shoes of the individual for any purpose for which he might have protected himself by the exercise of such rights) and the state and all political subdivisions thereof can be sued for negligent failure to protect.

 

[color of law]

I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm going to repeat myself.

Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.

Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.

Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.

Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.

Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum

The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.

The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.

 

[TFred]

I'd take out the reference to Heller v. DC - that opinion said that the Bill of Rights is subject to "reasonable regulation" without reference to the important distinction between state regulation and federal regulation.

That might be problematic, since the stated purpose of the bill is to codify the Heller opinion!

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 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).

TFred

 

[user]

I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm going to repeat myself.

Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.

Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.

Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.

Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.

Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum

The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.

The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.

I'm with you as to the conclusion- though I'd broaden it to include the entire Bill of Rights. It strikes me as very odd that we can have inconsistent "interpretations" of the degree of "reasonable regulation" that can be applied to different enumerated rights. I see every attack on 2A as also an attack on freedom of religion, the right to counsel, etc.; the first paragraph quoted above identifies such an attack. But it's a linguistic/logic trick. It's as if the Sup.Ct. had said, "white", and the lower courts are implementing that opinion as "not black". Heller made no ruling at all as to carrying outside, but intellectually dishonest judges are treating it as if it had limited the Second Amendment to indoor use only. And, now that my own First Amendment rights have been restored by virtue of my having completely resigned from the Virginia State Bar, I can say the following without running afoul of "ethical rules": those judges swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and to treat the corporate charter of the U.S. as a "historical artifact" that can be subject to their "interpretation" is treasonous, tyrannical, an abuse of power, malfeasance in office, and a direct threat to the American People. And a much greater threat, in my opinion, than China or Russia will ever be. I see this as a matter of national security.

As to the opinion in Schenk, It's my opinion that there is no basis under any provision of the Constitution for federal regulation restricting either the speech or the panic. Those things are entirely state issues. I see the importation of the 14th Amendment "due process" clause as a means of regulating state action with regard to the enumerated rights as a way of muddying the water in order to assert federal control where there is no authority to do so. The states and the federal governments are different KINDS of government, with their own spheres of authority and power. There are six branches of government, not three, and they are structured in parallel, not hierarchically.

I'd like the Bill of Rights to be strictly construed, with no fudging to allow encroachments by the United States (or "infringements", if you like). The due process clause has nothing to do with substantive issues, though the equal protection clause does (though it's never been used because of the fear that black folks might really get equal footing under state law). And the 10th A. is the state-law-supremacy clause: as to any authority or power not granted explicitly to the United States, state law pre-empts federal law.

There is one implication of my Constitutional fundamentalism that some gun-owners won't like. It is my opinion that, if the people of the State of Illinois wish to violate their own constitution (which provides the same protection as the Second Amendment) and enact draconian statutes prohibiting the right to self-defense, I don't see any Constitutional impediment to their doing so. I stay out of Illinois (as well as D.C. and Maryland which are a lot closer to me), and I wouldn't go there any more than I'd fly to Australia or any other place where I'd be required to be defenseless. The NRA has been working on a "national agenda" that has resulted in compromises at the federal level, such that Virginia's citizens have less autonomy and freedom so that people in New York and Illinois can have more. That's a load of crap in my estimation and I've stopped supporting the NRA, because, as to regulation of health, education, the police power, and the public welfare, this is SUPPOSED to be a patchwork of disparate laws. The people of each state have the right to self-determination and can make their legal system say whatever they want it to say, outside of those narrow areas of authority carved out for the U.S.

People in Loudoun County who were offended by big development in the 1980's used to have bumper-stickers that said, "Don't Fairfax Loudoun". I want one that says, "Don't Illinois Virginia". (By the way, I was prepared for the July 4 celebration of Virginia's Declaration of Independence, had my Virginia flag flying over the garage. The U.S. wasn't invented until thirteen years later, you know, so July 4 has nothing to do with "our nation's birthday". If you want the real birthday, that was on May 14, 1607, the founding of Jamestown.)

 

[ChristCrusader]

I'd use the term, "unrelated".

While agreeing that "unrelated" is better verbiage than "unconnected", to me they both still drive a dangerous wedge between carrying and the militia.
The 2A admirably affirmed 4 things:
1.) "A well regulated Militia,"
the right of the people to be well-trained and disciplined as an effective, organized military force
2.) "...being necessary to the security of a free State,"
the right of a State to be free, and to keep its security via #1
3.) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
the right of the people (not just militia) to personally own and carry arms.
What kind of arms? This is the established bind that I'd like to leave intact: militia arms.
4.) "shall not be infringed."
no complications, restrictions, hindrances, hurdles, licenses, prohibitions, registrations - unarguably by the govt; arguably in any venue open to the public, even when privately owned or managed.**

I don't want to weaken the necessary militia clause or the keeping and bearing clause of the 2A by using the words unrelated or unconnected. They strengthen each other, when understood and applied properly.
Militias are necessary to a free and secure community, but not necessary in order to keep and bear.
The people keep and bear to be the militia, but the militia is not necessary to keep and bear.
Relating militia to the right to keep and bear identifies those arms as militia-grade, not nerfed.

**I'll concede to courtrooms and prisons, being unique and well defined places with limited compulsions to visit, where the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuits of happiness are weighed and suspended in the pursuit of justice for victims who were criminally denied their rights to life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.
- And hazardous environments where the use of a firearm would be indiscriminately catastrophic.

 

[TFred]

The first slew of gun-grabbing bills have appeared this morning at the LIS site.

Same link as above.

TFred

 

[ChristCrusader]

The first slew of gun-grabbing bills have appeared this morning at the LIS site.

Same link as above.

TFred

disgusting

 

[solus]

ChristCrusader, your commentary was going well until the last sentence...

Quote: And hazardous environments where the use of a firearm would be indiscriminately catastrophic. Unquote

Who in your humble opinion determines
‘what constitutes the...’
’where is this ...’
‘who discerns this...’
‘Ad nauseam...’

Oh dear, now we are back to the same square on scrabble of accurately defining words
Hazardous
Environment
Where
Use
Firearm
Indiscriminately
Catastrophic

Who did you say was making this ‘firearm’ statutory clause for which set of citizens ~ community, or state, or federal rulers?

Welcome to the reality of ‘lets change a couple word to enhance understanding of our statutes’ mentality!

 

[solus]

By the way, outstanding discussions...tis appreciated.

 

[ChristCrusader]

ChristCrusader, your commentary was going well until the last sentence...

Quote: And hazardous environments where the use of a firearm would be indiscriminately catastrophic. Unquote

I totally agree that it's insufficient as stated.
The goal would be to address explosive locations, typically industrial venues, where a spark destroys everything.
But you're right, if not honed well enough, it would be twisted to still effectively prohibit everywhere.

 

[solus]

I totally agree that it's insufficient as stated.
The goal would be to address explosive locations, typically industrial venues, where a spark destroys everything.
But you're right, if not honed well enough, it would be twisted to still effectively prohibit everywhere.

Sorry I truly didn’t even consider ‘hazardous environment’ from that perspective, but from a DV concept...tho one community’s exclusionary zone proliferates across the rural & urban landscape cuz someone feels ‘their’ definition is ‘close’ enough to the official standard...sigh!

 

[poetdante]

From another forum

HB: 4021: What it means for Virginia (and the rest of the nation) - AR15.COM

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.

www.ar15.com

Edited to fit


The special gun control session lasted only about an hour or so before they voted to adjourn until November 18; well after the elections coming up in Virginia in 2019.

One of the bills put forth in this session is HB 4021 Assault firearms, certain firearm magazines, trigger activators, & silencers; prohibiting sale, etc..


I'll attempt to summarize the bill in some detail so that you know how bad it is; rather than the single "ban assault weapons" sentence that the media and even some on our side will reduce it to.


I'm no lawyer, so I may not be correct on everything, due to the way lawyers word bills via referencing Virginia Code subsections instead of plain language; but here goes.....


A.) If you're a delinquent juvenile between 13 and 18 years old, if you're found with a concealed handgun or assault firearm (as defined in this bill), you lose driving privileges for two years.


B.) They make it unlawful to carry a loaded shotgun with a magazine with more than 7 rounds on or about your person on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way, or in any public park or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public. (They originally intended it to include any semi automatic centerfire rifle or pistol, but this was struck out.)


C.) They make it unlawful for any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully present in the United States to knowingly and intentionally possess or transport any firearm.


D.) They make knowingly transferring a firearm to anyone you know is prohibited (see list below) a Class 4 felony.

persons acquitted by reason of insanity
persons adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated
persons involuntarily admitted or ordered to outpatient treatment
convicted felon
any person who is not a citizen of the United States or who is not a person lawfully admitted for permanent residence
under the age of 18


E.) 100% Registration of all FFL transferred firearms; even gun range rentals!

"Any person purchasing from a dealer a firearm as herein defined shall consent in writing, on a form to be provided by the Department of State Police, to have the dealer obtain criminal history record information. Such form shall include only the written consent; the name, birth date, gender, race, citizenship, and social security number and/or any other identification number; the number of firearms by category intended to be sold, rented, traded, or transferred"

and

"No dealer shall sell, rent, trade or transfer from his inventory any such firearm to any other person who is a resident of Virginia until he has (i) obtained written consent and the other information on the consent form specified in subsection A, and provided the Department of State Police with the name, birth date, gender, race, citizenship, and social security and/or any other identification number and the number of firearms by category intended to be sold, rented, traded or transferred and (ii) requested criminal history record information by a telephone call to or other communication authorized by the State Police and is authorized by subdivision 2 to complete the sale or other such transfer."


They claim in the law VSP will not maintain records longer than 30 days (except in case of multiple handgun purchases, in which case it goes to 12 months); but that's bullshit; since they later claim that at the end of the month, the dealer's hard copy forms are to be mailed to VSP.


They also claim that: "No dealer shall sell, rent, trade or transfer from his inventory any firearm, except when the transaction involves a rifle or a shotgun " later on, so they're trying to carve out this exemption to keep Johnny Fudd McFudderson from getting upset when he travels to Virginia for duck hunting or deer hunting and wants to rent a purdy rifle or shotgun and is told nope.



F.) Assault Firearm Definitions

Okay, there are multiple types of "assault firearms"

A semi auto center fire rifle with a fixed magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds.

A semi auto center fire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has ONE (1) of the following features:
a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle
a thumbhole stock
a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand
a bayonet mount
a grenade launcher
a flare launcher
a silencer
a flash suppressor
a muzzle brake
a muzzle compensator
a threaded barrel capable of accepting a silencer, a flash suppressor, a muzzle brake, or a muzzle compensator


A semi auto center fire pistol with a fixed magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds.


A semi auto center fire pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and has ONE (1) of the following features:
a folding or telescoping stock
a thumbhole stock
a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand
the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip
a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned
a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded
a threaded barrel capable of accepting a silencer, a flash suppressor, a barrel extender, or a forward handgrip


A semi automatic shotgun that has ONE (1) of the following features:
a folding or telescoping stock
a thumbhole stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun
the ability to accept a detachable magazine
a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds



Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify, or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm.


G.) It will be unlawful to manufacture, purchase, possess, import, sell, transfer or transport an assault firearm and punishable as a Class 6 Felony. They then put in a carve out for police and federal officers to possess above items "within the scope of his official duties" as well as police departments being able to purchase/transfer them. Cops gotta have their murderweapons.

I.) They define "Large-capacity firearm magazine" as anything that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition, including any such device with a removable floor plate or end plate if the device can be readily extended to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. They exempt tubular .22 rimfire magazines from this as well as magazines that have been "permanently altered" so that they can't hold more than 10 rounds of ammo.


J.) It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport any large-capacity firearm magazine. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 6 felony. They then put in a carve out for police and federal officers to possess above items "within the scope of his official duties" as well as police departments being able to purchase/transfer them.

Cops once again get an exemption carved out


K.) They define a silencer as "any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a firearm, including any part or combination of parts designed or intended for use in assembling or fabricating such a device." and make it unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport a silencer. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 6 felony. Cops once again get an exemption carved out.


L.) They define "trigger activators" as "any device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of any semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter." It now is unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport any trigger activator. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 6 felony. Cops don't get a carve out on this one.

M. The "silent" confiscation language.

Any person who legally owns an assault firearm, as defined in § 18.2-308.8; large-capacity firearm magazine, as defined in § 18.2-308.9; silencer, as defined in § 18.2-308.10; or trigger activator, as defined in § 18.2-308.11, on November 1, 2019, may retain possession of such assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator until July 1, 2020.

Your options are:
Render the assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator permanently inoperable
Remove the assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator from the Commonwealth
Transfer the assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator to a person outside the Commonwealth who is not prohibited from possessing the assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator
Surrender the assault firearm, large-capacity firearm magazine, silencer, or trigger activator to a state or local law-enforcement agency.

 

[poetdante]

Links


LINK TO IT IN VIRGINIA LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM

LINK TO FULL TEXT IN VLIS