The Virginia legislature passed a flurry of bills stripping away limitations on gun possession in the state. After intense lobbying from the National Rifle Association and over $1 million in NRA campaign contributions, the lawmakers passed 20 gun bills expanding possession and ownership rights in the state.
The bills include lifting the ban on buying more than one gun a month, allowing guns to be taken into bars and emergency shelters and allowing more people to get concealed handgun permits.
The timing of the passage of the laws is interesting with the arguments in the McDonald case only a couple weeks away. That case, to be argued during the first week of March, will determine whether the right of gun ownership, recognized in 2008, will be applied to the states as a fundamental right. That would mean that some restrictive laws could be found unconstitutional, including outright bans on handguns or concealed weapons.
For the story, click here.
116 thoughts on “Guns-O-Plenty: Virginia Passes 20 Gun Bills”
“That all may be true…” I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to.
That all may be true, but how do you explain the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Obama; Pelosi absolutely precluding the possibility of impeaching Bush during his administration and Obama’s tripe about “looking forward instead of back?”
most of the republicans like Romney are just big government wannabes. they want what democrats want just less of it. Less being a very small difference.
Most republicans are to the left of Sam Nunn and Scope Jackson today.
To continue the discussion.
Analysis: Untruths have consequences in politics
WASHINGTON – Conservatives leapt to their feet when Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney declared Democrats the party of “No!” — no to balanced budgets, limits on lawsuits, tax cuts and tough interrogations of terror suspects.
So where does the top quit spinning?
I actually think the right designations now are people who believe in limited government and those who don’t. Liberal and conservative don’t mean anything anymore.
There are many “conservatives” who believe in big government, Bush being one of them and there are many liberals who believe in limited government and individual rights.
I think you will find many democrats and republicans who side with George Bush’s idea of “compassionate conservatism” which is nothing more than “I love big government and it has all the answers”.
The problem so many have, both dems and repubs, is fear of the masses. They don’t believe in freedom for the masses, they don’t think the average person can take care of himself. We are too stupid for self government and our elite elected representatives know far more than us simple minded rubes.
But are you both for Laissez Faire? Economic and political freedom are liberal attitudes, one without the other is nothing more than believing in control of peoples lives. Which is nothing more than big government good, individual bad.
The conservatives also allowed that president who “defrauded the country into war” into leaving us with a huge deficit. I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. As for being spineless marvels–that’s true of liberals and conservatives in both parties. It’s also true of many members of the MSM who never held Bush’s feet to the fire when he talked about launching a preemptive war against Iraq.
Unfortunately, we probably have few TRUE liberals and conservatives in our two major political parties. Too many politicians are bought and paid for by corporations and their lobbyists. We have few people of courage representing us in Washington today.
Don’t get me wrong, I used to think I was a liberal for most of my life; until I watched a group of spineless marvels allow the Supreme Court appoint a president and then excuse the same president as he defrauded the country into war.
I join in every objection Rachel Maddow has made against the left for not fighting back or holding anyone on the right accountable for anything.
Are you implying that all conservatives are close minded bigots? I’m familiar with the lot you’re referring to and I despise them equally; but none more than the rabid right wing.
I also agree with John Dean, in so much as his observation that attempting to organize liberals to do anything is tantamount to herding [indecisive] cats.
What liberals don’t seem to understand is that there’s a difference between being open minded and paralyzing themselves with indecisiveness and being bereft of spine.
“Liberals are far too trusting; witness their slack-jaws at the news that the Justice Department won’t be prosecuting any war crimes.”
That’s certainly not true of many of us liberals. Conservatives and right wingers like to impose their definition of liberal on us and are trying to turn the word liberal into a pejorative.
Definitions of liberal (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal. Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions
As for me, I’m not ashamed to say that I have a liberal outlook on most things. I believe it’s good to be open to new ideas and to be free of bigotry. I also believe in progress–and in working for reform where it is needed.
So do you believe in a strong central government or weak central government Bryon?
I dont want to run to the federal government, that is generally a rights inhibitor.
Thanks for the lessons. I read Fed 84 the other day on your recommendation about 9th amendment considerations above.
What Hamilton was saying wouldn’t happen has pretty much happened. We have a rights stomping federal government
Byron: “If I understand what you are saying a particular state could abolish gun ownership? How so since the 2nd amendment guarantees individual ownership?”
Because the 2nd Amendment has not yet been ‘incorporated’ as good against the states. The BOR are nothing more than particular restrictions on the Fed’s power; not the states.
Byron: “A state cant unilaterally declare an end to free speech or start searching people in the middle of the night.”
Of course not; but it could have tried. Read Federalist 84 for Hamilton’s description of where rights come from.
Byron: “I hope I am thinking like a “liberal”, a true liberal. One who believes in individual rights. Not the faux liberality of today’s collectivists.”
Like I’ve said before, the labels of today don’t match the classical descriptions that have been in place for centuries. When I said ‘liberal’, in this sense, I was talking about the modern knee jerk reactionaries who constantly look for that father figure federal government to ‘make everything all right in the world’ via increasing the power of the Fed.
Liberals are far too trusting; witness their slack-jaws at the news that the Justice Department won’t be prosecuting any war crimes.
Would a liberal look into a state’s power to remedy the problem? Hell no; not when they can convince themselves there’s some sort of virtue in ‘moving on.’
If I understand what you are saying a particular state could abolish gun ownership? How so since the 2nd amendment guarantees individual ownership?
A state cant unilaterally declare an end to free speech or start searching people in the middle of the night.
I hope I am thinking like a “liberal”, a true liberal. One who believes in individual rights. Not the faux liberality of today’s collectivists.
Here’s the summary I always go back to when thinking of tax acts merging with an imaginary power to promulgate criminal laws:
Prof. Charles Whitebread
“The very first criminal law at the Federal level in this country to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs came in 1914. It was called the Harrison Act and there are only three things about the Harrison Act that we need to focus on today.
Number one is the date. Did you hear the date, 1914? Some of you may have come this morning thinking that we have used the criminal law to deal with the non-medical use of drugs since the beginning of the Republic or something. That is not true. The entire experiment of using the criminal sanction to deal with the non-medical use of drugs really began in this country in 1914 with the Harrison Act.
The second interesting thing about the Harrison Act was the drugs to which it applied, because it applied to almost none of the drugs we would be concerned about today. The Harrison Act applied to opium, morphine and its various derivatives, and the derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. No mention anywhere there of amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, hashish, hallucinogenic drugs of any kind. The Harrison Act applied only to opium, morphine and its various derivatives and derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine.
The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969. And what was that model?
It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date — 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call “states’ rights” and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That’s why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.”
Byron: “How do you come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government? Isn’t the Bill of Rights dedicated to individual citizens for additional protection?”
No. For nearly a century, i.e. before ‘the incorporation doctrine,’ the Bill of rights applied only to the federal government — AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
Byron: “Back then the militia would have been local level individuals who would come out to protect the town from Indian attack or the British at Concord. So wouldn’t the 2nd Amendment support the right of individuals?”
Only against the federal government. You’re thinking a bit like a liberal right now; looking for that all powerful father figure federal government to solve all your problems. REALITY CHECK: The federal government exists as a constitution of SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS; all the remaining powers, i.e. THE LARGER SHARE OF SAID POWERS, were retained by the states under the concept known as dual federalism.
Byron: “It may have been written at the Federal level but it applied to the state/local level. Guns were part of our country’s early history.”
Please spare me the appeals to emotion.
Byron: “To me it is inconceivable that our founders would have meant that guns should only be in the hands of an armorer to hand out during times of trouble to people who had been trained on the weekends.”
They left that up to the state governments to decide for themselves; which, after just winning the revolutionary war, meant that the right to gun ownership was a foregone conclusion — else we’d have no republic to speak of.
Byron: “Miller seems to say that if the weapon has a military purpose then you can own one. From what I am reading it appears that tax law is what is controlling firearms and not actual 2nd amendment considerations.”
Tax laws were the foot in the door for the Fed to start promulgating penal laws — in the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF THE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWER TO PROMULGATE SAID PENAL LAWS. That power was left to the states.
How do you come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government? Isn’t the Bill of Rights dedicated to individual citizens for additional protection?
Back then the militia would have been local level individuals who would come out to protect the town from Indian attack or the British at Concord. So wouldn’t the 2nd Amendment support the right of individuals? It may have been written at the Federal level but it applied to the state/local level. Guns were part of our country’s early history. To me it is inconceivable that our founders would have meant that guns should only be in the hands of an armorer to hand out during times of trouble to people who had been trained on the weekends.
Miller seems to say that if the weapon has a military purpose then you can own one. From what I am reading it appears that tax law is what is controlling firearms and not actual 2nd amendment considerations.
Here’s a good article to read.
I too enjoy long range target shooting and I too would probably pay a pretty penny for something like an A3 O3 in its original cosmoline.
I think I offended someone recently when he sent me a picture of him behind his .50 cal stainless custom and I said ‘it’s not the most practical gun in the world.’ Apparently he’s a bit of a 2nd Amendment freak that’s very attached to his toys.
Also regarding the 2nd Amendment, you need to stop looking to that portion of the Bill of Rights to make your claim that it protects your right of gun ownership. It doesn’t. The 2nd Amendment applies only to the Federal government (I believe that’s what the 1800’s Miller case was about). It has not been incorporated as good against the states yet via the 14th amendment.
Remember our discussion about D.C. being a Federal District? Remember the holding from District of Columbia v. Heller? Well, it turns out that the federal district known as D.C. is populated with American Citizens. And if SCOTUS has deemed that American Citizens in D.C. have a 2nd Amendment right to KBA, then guess what the 14th Amendment says about the rest of us American citizens?
Get the picture?
I’m pretty sure it was a Piper Cherokee that crashed in Texas.
I read a story about a lady running over her husband with her car. Maybe we should ban cars too.
Isn’t that the proper reaction when an object can be misused?
I wonder how “rcampbell” will “justify” those deaths? What about the accidental deaths caused by careless drivers? Can “rcampbell” justify those deaths too?
in lite of the Austin tragedy I agree with you, we need to ban small airplanes so this cant happen again. If we dont more people will die tragically. Oh the humanity. They need to have strict limitations on Cessnas, you have to have a license and a registration and a special lock so kids cant start them up. They also need a 5 day waiting period to fly one, if they had had that rule this would not have happened.
Small planes need to be outlawed. Never Again.
I’m just waiting for the call to ban airplanes.
They have proven to be a very dangerous weapon when placed in the wrong hands. Shouldn’t we just assume that? Isn’t it a lot like assuming that the potential for deadly use isn’t worth the risk?
Can anyone justify the deaths caused by airplanes?
Comments are closed.