Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is reportedly “fuming” this week after the state failed to get a single justice on the Supreme Court to support her after she violated the state constitution in her attempted gerrymandering of the state. However, Spanberger may have just guaranteed another trip to the Supreme Court when she said the quiet part out loud about the new state gun ban.
After the Democrats took power recently, they went on a frenzy of tax and liberal legislative measures. The sharp move to the far left is out of sync with a purple state that remains roughly evenly divided. While Spanberger (who ran on being a moderate) has pushed forward many of these measures, she sought to moderate one bill banning so-called “assault firearms.”
Spanberger released a statement that:
“I am signing this bill into law because firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets. We are taking this step to protect families and support the law enforcement officers who work every day to keep our communities safe. While the General Assembly chose not to adopt my amendment that specifically carves out certain firearms frequently used for hunting, I will work with the patrons to clarify this language.” (emphasis added)
The governor’s acknowledgment that the law covers common hunting models will likely be cited in Second Amendment challenges. If the law is not amended, she could prove the main witness against her own signed legislation.
Even with such an amendment, the bill is problematic. I have previously written about my skepticism over bans on AR-15s and other so-called “assault weapons,” though some courts have upheld such bans.
We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. There are an estimated 32 million currently in private hands in the United States, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
AR-15s are purchased for home protection as well as target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater caliber.
Not only are they commonly used for hunting, but they remain statistically uncommon choices in homicides. Rifles are used in only about 3% of such cases, according to experts.
Again, lower courts are divided on both the bans on semiautomatic weapons and the magazine bans. Eventually, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the question. If the Virginia law remains unchanged, Spanberger may find that her signing statement will feature greatly in the appeal.
The second amendment does not grant anything, has nothing to do with hunting and in fact is, specifically a restriction on Government,
The Virginia government under Gov Spanberger takes assault rifles away from families “to keep them safe”. But the Iraqi government law allows families to keep one assault rifle per household to protect the families and keep them safe.
Banning assault weapons will not prevent a determined person from obtaining a prohibited weapon in carrying out a mass shooting. This is purely a gun grab, violating the 2nd amendment of the Constittuion as well as the constitution of the Commonweatl of Virginia. More effort should be applied to red flag laws.s
Based on the Pareto principle, would it not make sense for the politicians to busy themselves solving the big problems to tackle crime and its causes as a whole rather than this “3%” problems? There is a limited amount of attention and finite resources that the state can devote to a “problem”. If the state focuses on a “3%” problem they are undoubtedly missing out on addressing a much bigger problems.
Listen to those idiots in the Va General Assembly. These fkng morons will panic when they hear “Pareto” – they won’t know WTF that is.
The argument an AR-15 is a hunting weapon is problematic in VA. I hunted for years with mine until an older, wiser hunt lodge member pointed out VA requires a hunting weapon’s caliber be greater than or equal to .240. That year I bought a Remington .308.
Show me in the Second Amendment where hunting is mentioned. It’s about establishing an armed citizenry to throw off a burdensome, unconstitutional, tyrannical government.
Reset coming soon
People like to ignore the wording of the 2nd Amendment when it doesn’t suit their ideology. Specifically the intro, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . .” It’s not about hunting, it’s about the arms of a militia. It’s really more about what today is loosely called “assault weapons”, and AR-15’s. It was written to protect private ownership of such weapons. What arms are allowed for hunting is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I have an AR-15 chambered in 6.8. And in about 10 minutes could swap out the barrel and bolt to one of over a dozen rounds large enough to meet the medium game requirement. It’s part of why the platform is so popular
Wrongo. There are plenty of AR’s in calibers larger than .240. You could simply swap out the standard 5.56 NATO upper receiver assembly for one chambered in .300 Blackout, or swap out the upper and bolt carrier group for 6.8mm SPC II, 6.5mm Grendel, .458 SOCOM, etc.
And that doesn’t even scratch the surface if you use an AR-10 rather than an AR-15 lower receiver): AR-10’s are commonly in 7.62 NATO (a/k/a .308 Rem), 6.5mm Creedmore, and many other full power calibers.
I guess you have never hunted woodchucks or any varmint with a .17 Remington or a .222 Remington. I do not need a higher caliber to shoot a coyote in my sheep pasture in my state.
AR-15’s are available in a variety of calibers, including 6mm, 6.5mm, and .30 caliber. You seem to assume that all AR-15’s are .22 cal., which is simply not true, so your argument really lacks any weight.
You can hunt smaller game with the AR-15. The caliber restriction is for hunting deer.
You do realize that the AR-15 has the ability to work with calibers other than .223/5.56, right? My 6.5 Grendel is quite capable of humanely taking down descent size game. My .458 SOCOM can handle any game in the state.
My Bushmaster is in .450 BM, more powerful than even the newer .45-70 Gov’t. ammo.
Only for deer, lots of animals can be hunted with a .22 caliber. So your statement does not support your argument.
I’m so sick of all this banter. There isn’t any need for High powered guns that inflict maximum damage. Too many people (especially children) have died because of these weapons. They need to be banned
How many children have been killed by AR-15s?
How about parents killing their children with knives?
Machetes in the streets?
Please report actual statistics.
More people are killed with knives and other cutting weapons than all rifles and shotguns combined.
More people are beaten and kicked to death with hands and feet than all rifles and shotguns combined.
FBI, US Dept of Justice stats.
How many by puberty blockers, Redbull, ecstasy pills, fentanyl and Covid vaccine boosters?
You should likely leave our country and should be banned. Too many people like you are the reason our country is messed up.
You need to be banned
The AR 15/M16/M4 are designed to wound not kill. A wounded soldier requires 2-4 others to take care of him. Kill one and your enemy is short one man. Wound one and the enemy is short 3-5 men.
Not going to happen. Consider the bloodbath that would ensue if forced confiscation were even attempted. As I said, not going to happen.
… says a poster who doesn’t even have the spine to post under their own name! LOL!
You are misinformed. More children die of abuse, hunger, and car accidents than are killed every year by weapons. All the gun control pukes state that, but they are wrong. Check the FBI and/or local police records, and you will see the real answers. And yes, my name is David, I have the guts to leave my name unlike you!
For the sake of common charity I will assume you are genuinely interested in the welfare of the children of this and every other state. If you believe this is banter, I’m not sure why you piped in.
Be that as it may, there is a historical depth and element of human history that is grounded in this. Our forbears that wrote the specifics of what is mistakenly called amendments, but surely are a Bill of Rights. They’d had to live under and through desperate times people today can only imagine. Without these rights being spelled out and adopted it is questionable whether any Constitution would have been secured.
The same authoritarian spirit that now seems to prevail in Richmond is no ghost of the past but an ongoing struggle with those determined to undermine the blessings of our LIBERTY. These same forces have moved for decades erode and damage the individual liberties our predecessors invested their own life and living into. It is a fact of life that we must keep an eye out for those who would prevaricate on simple answers as those proposed to the current governor, by our former and honorable Lieutenant Governor, calling her into question on simple terms to allow her an easy opportunity about grievous harm to children and yet she was struck dumb, unable to utter the very words which should be natural to a mother let alone to those that would uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth. She and her partisans have shown so little restraint in the short time they have used the citizens of this state to their own ends that they have spent any credibility they may have had with the thinking public. The point you attempt at the outset of your comment is belied when parroting the words which are more drumbeat than reality based reasoning.
“That the 2A protects an individual right to have guns is a right wing lie. 2A is about state militias.”
That is a textbook example of the Left dropping the context.
The Founders were very clear about why they included a Bill of Rights in the Constitution: As a (partial) list of inalienable, *individual* rights — rights that government cannot usurp.
The Left would have us believe: Well, that may be true for 1A, and 3A-10A, but not for 2A.
Huh?
Second Amendment protects the First Amendment.