1. You won't find one
2. It's not even what I said. What I said was "incorporation of clauses in the constitution". That was accomplished via your favorite method: judicial fiat.
Virginia Gun Control Controversy
- Thread starter Tidewater
- Start date
2. It's not even what I said. What I said was "incorporation of clauses in the constitution". That was accomplished via your favorite method: judicial fiat.
Okay.
I thought I had missed something.
"Judicial fiat" = "violation of the Constitution" in my book.
That is where a judge says, "This principle is not in the Constitution, but I want it to be in the Constitution, and since I'm a judge and no one (except a higher judge) can overrule me, it is in the Constitution. I have spoken."
A friend who runs a lawn care business in Huntsville, just up the road from me, just called.
Last Saturday morning at 8 o'clock his lead man was approached by a couple panhandling at a gas station. He didn't give them any money...they shot him through the windshield in the chest. He has a baby on the way. He survived, but the bullet is lodged in his chest in such a way that it can't be removed.
I take it as a reminder that every day some gun nut doesn't shoot you is a good day.
Last Saturday morning at 8 o'clock his lead man was approached by a couple panhandling at a gas station. He didn't give them any money...they shot him through the windshield in the chest. He has a baby on the way. He survived, but the bullet is lodged in his chest in such a way that it can't be removed.
I take it as a reminder that every day some gun nut doesn't shoot you is a good day.
this is one of those times where the headline writer seems to go a little overboard with the headline.
I have no opinion about what the state of VA did here other than, I am happy to see this tested in a state that generally supports gun rights. The reason - it will test our nation's willingness to accept reasonable restraints on gun ownership rights in America.
Let's find out what mainstream Americans think about this because we already know where the fringe stands.
just a slight clarification, per wikipedia: 91 out of 95 [List of cities and counties in Virginia|counties], 15 out of 38 independent cities, and 33 towns have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions .
The legalities of this is where it gives me a headache. 2A is supreme law of land. Some laws that are in state constitutions today are ignored because they conflict with federal constitution (e.g. supreme being clause). So why cant county Sheriff ignore state laws enacted by simple majorities when they conflict with 2A (supreme law of the land).
Yeah, it's almost like the editor just wanted readers to click on the link.
,,,,,, reasonable,,,,,,, fringe,,,,,,, I read a lot of opinion into that. But I do have opinion to start, grounded in those pesky "shall not be infringed" words.
White Nationalists Arrested ahead of Richmond Rally Planned to Kill Gun-Rights Demonstrators to Spark Civil War | National Review
Three alleged members of a white supremacist group were plotting to murder demonstrators at Monday’s gun rights rally in Richmond before they were arrested by the FBI
www.nationalreview.com
I tried a quick search for multiple reports on this but could not find, if this is true, I think we all need to remind ourselves these are the real fringe, not those with very different core beliefs.
Yep - those are the kind of crazies who I was worried about. People like that attempt to insert themselves wherever they can in an attempt to create the anarchy that they preach about every day.White Nationalists Arrested ahead of Richmond Rally Planned to Kill Gun-Rights Demonstrators to Spark Civil War | National Review
Three alleged members of a white supremacist group were plotting to murder demonstrators at Monday’s gun rights rally in Richmond before they were arrested by the FBI
I tried a quick search for multiple reports on this but could not find, if this is true, I think we all need to remind ourselves these are the real fringe, not those with very different core beliefs.
I support the Constitution, but I also remind myself that it was written a long time ago. Its principles about government remain valid, which is astounding considering the time that has passed. But that is because people are the same, so those principles still apply.
The problem with the 2A is that weapons have not stayed the same. If taken literally, the 2A allows individuals to own any weapon that they choose, without restriction. If you can build an atomic bomb in your basement or buy one somehow, that is your right. Only crazy people support that train of thought, but the 2A demands it. So, really, the 2A is dated as written and needs to be addressed directly, without forcing the states to tackle this one at a time.
But, since no one will challenge it directly for $$$ reasons, the states are forced to do this.
I think that is correct, and Virginia is a state where they can't. If there is not already a law on the books, they soon will be, requiring local officials to enforce the law or face suspension of salary.
This is why I say that, if the local law enforcement and prosecutors truly feel the new gun laws are unconstitutional, the smart ones will just suddenly become "incompetent" at enforcing such laws, but they will not openly and directly refuse to enforce them. Sheriffs and Commonwealth's Attorneys are elected locally in Virginia, not selected in Richmond.
"Darn! You mean I did not properly execute that search warrant and all the evidence I found is now inadmissible at trial? Darn!" or "You mean I missed the deadline to file the charges the accused walks free? Darn!"
While there will always be those who think 2A covers everything, the right to bear arms is an important distinction. At the least if you cannot carry it on your person it's not protected, at least as a vast majority of people view it. Those who think it covers tanks, bombs, etc. have an uphill battle convincing even the most ardent typical 2A supporter that they're correct.
That said, I think we have to be careful about how we talk about 'modernizing' rights. The reality is the way that we communicate has changed even more radically than firearms have in the last 230ish years, and one could easily argue that social media platforms are far more dangerous to the republic than firearms. In that vein, do we really want government modernizing 1A?
I don't.
This is one of those questions I wish I had a time machine for ten minutes. I'd like to clarify with the Founders what they meant.
There were firearms in that day that could not be carried (say, a 6 pounder cannon; it had to be wheeled around, usually by horses). If someone were to ask George Mason, Patrick Henry or James Madison if a normal citizen could keep a 6-pounder in his house, I reckon they'd look at you and say the eighteenth century equivalent of "You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?"
On the other hand, the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 1776 covers the matter this way: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Obviously, firearms are not protected because they are useful for sport shooting, hunting, but are intended to allow the people to protect themselves against abusive government (and also probably protection against Indians). If the government has improved weapons, the idea that the people would have improved weapons as well would not seem altogether strange to Mason and the Virginia Founders.
How far they would have gone is a good question. If the Brits had used bolt-action rifles 1775-1783, would the Founders have allowed citizens to "keep and bear" them? If the Brits had used magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles?
The two things I am sure about are these. The Founders, if questioned would say, "We left you an amendment process. Use it." Second, they would say, "absent an amendment, the general government must remain within the limits we set up for it."
There were firearms in that day that could not be carried (say, a 6 pounder cannon; it had to be wheeled around, usually by horses). If someone were to ask George Mason, Patrick Henry or James Madison if a normal citizen could keep a 6-pounder in his house, I reckon they'd look at you and say the eighteenth century equivalent of "You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?"
On the other hand, the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 1776 covers the matter this way: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Obviously, firearms are not protected because they are useful for sport shooting, hunting, but are intended to allow the people to protect themselves against abusive government (and also probably protection against Indians). If the government has improved weapons, the idea that the people would have improved weapons as well would not seem altogether strange to Mason and the Virginia Founders.
How far they would have gone is a good question. If the Brits had used bolt-action rifles 1775-1783, would the Founders have allowed citizens to "keep and bear" them? If the Brits had used magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles?
The two things I am sure about are these. The Founders, if questioned would say, "We left you an amendment process. Use it." Second, they would say, "absent an amendment, the general government must remain within the limits we set up for it."
Very good post. To this part - that is why I think that the 2A needs to be reviewed and changed with another amendment rather than handled on a state by state basis.
It was all over the news the other day.White Nationalists Arrested ahead of Richmond Rally Planned to Kill Gun-Rights Demonstrators to Spark Civil War | National Review
Three alleged members of a white supremacist group were plotting to murder demonstrators at Monday’s gun rights rally in Richmond before they were arrested by the FBI
I tried a quick search for multiple reports on this but could not find, if this is true, I think we all need to remind ourselves these are the real fringe, not those with very different core beliefs.
"White Nationalists Arrested ahead of Richmond Rally Planned to Kill Gun-Rights Demonstrators to Spark Civil War | National Review
Three alleged members of a white supremacist group were plotting to murder demonstrators at Monday’s gun rights rally in Richmond before they were arrested by the FBI
I tried a quick search for multiple reports on this but could not find, if this is true, I think we all need to remind ourselves these are the real fringe, not those with very different core beliefs.
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — Three alleged members of the white supremacist group “The Base” were hoping that the gun rights rally in Virginia would spark a civil war, according to court records.
Brian Lemley, Jr. and William Garfield Bilbrough IV, both of Maryland, and Canadian national Patrik Jordan Mathews were charged on Jan. 16 on federal firearms charges ahead of the Richmond rally that took place on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
Judge: Canadian Man Tied To Extremist Group Is 'Very Dangerous'
Three alleged members of the white supremacist group "The Base" were hoping that the gun rights rally in Virginia would spark a civil war, according to court records.
baltimore.cbslocal.com
Latest threads
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 10
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
