^ I agree that is a great idea! I'm in central Va too but we are getting a new Sheriff. I was told by board of supervisor's member that he is very 2A friendly. I'll have to track him down and talk to him about this idea.

Side note, I will be at our next board of supervisors meeting where I have a feeling we might be bringing up a 2A sanctuary resolution. I think everyone should be flooding their city council/board of supervisors/etc.. with emails and or phone calls about this. Also agree with someone else that said show up and talk to them face to face. We have to make our numbers known, locally and then group together and take it up to the next level.

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
Hmm. Sounds like a lot of people that visit or go on vacation to Virginia are in for quite a shock when they get there. Looks like I need to go somewhere else next year.

It may help if this is brought to the attention of these dumbasses that their favorite law will hurt the financial well being of the tourism industry as well. Not that this will matter. As long as they feel good about themselves.

Yeah, but these assholes do not give a shit about anything but their favorite Nazi theme of the day. How can anyone actually believe that they are smart enough to realize what this crap really means?

I see lawsuits by the hundreds coming, based on real constitutional principles. Federal court order to hold this crap in abeyance, for example?

The fourth circuit already said the 2nd amendment does not protect “weapons of war” when it upheld Maryland’s AWB and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The third circuit refused to step in when New Jersey passed a magazine ban with no grandfather clause. What do you think the federal courts are going to do?

You have a better shot with the state courts that still have more conservative judges and the constitution of Virginia

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
Hmm. Sounds like a lot of people that visit or go on vacation to Virginia are in for quite a shock when they get there. Looks like I need to go somewhere else next year.

It may help if this is brought to the attention of these dumbasses that their favorite law will hurt the financial well being of the tourism industry as well. Not that this will matter. As long as they feel good about themselves.

Yeah, but these assholes do not give a shit about anything but their favorite Nazi theme of the day. How can anyone actually believe that they are smart enough to realize what this crap really means?

I see lawsuits by the hundreds coming, based on real constitutional principles. Federal court order to hold this crap in abeyance, for example?

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
[T]hey will continue to come back.

Of course they will.

I feel very sad for gun owners in Virginia, but if any good can come of this sort of thing, it will be that it might—just possibly—get the message through to the chronically oblivious that no, the Democrats are not afraid to touch that third rail of gun control. Although that should have been obvious to even the most clueless for the past several years, if the heat is turned up enough, the frog might just notice that something happened and realize that now it’s time to do something other than sit there and enjoy the warm bath.

People who warn about what can happen to our gun rights are often mocked as “Chicken Littles” who are constantly saying the sky is falling, but there are two facts to consider.

The first is that if enough people take warnings seriously, whether it’s the threat of a deadly disease or an onerous law, then the threat may be headed off. That’s why we have warnings rather than just waiting until the bad happens and then try to deal with it then.

But the second is that parts of the sky have indeed fallen on a majority of us in this country, and the threat of more chunks’ falling becomes more apparent almost every day. If nothing has fallen on you thus far, or the ones that have fallen don’t really affect you, congratulations on your good fortune. But don’t fool yourself into believing that nothing more can fall if you and your fellow gun owners don’t work to prevent it.

Thanks for the clarification. I have some thinking to do.

Can anyone tell me where Williamsburg County stands on this 2A sanctuary idea?

Bloomberg bought the election and now the democrats are following his demands for gun control. Good luck to those in VA.

quote:

There is NO grandfather clause

Wouldn't (or shouldn't) that be ex post facto? This is retroactively making something illegal that was previously legal and is (or should be) unconstitutional.

quote:

And pretty much any center fire rifle that is magazine fed.

Detachable magazines? Any rifle that isn't a single-shot has a magazine.

This is still just a state senate bill. Let us hope it doesn't pass and make it to the other house.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
This is retroactively making something illegal that was previously legal and is (or should) be unconstitutional.

I will heed if an actual (knowledgeable) attorney corrects me, but IMO: no.

It is not making prior possession illegal, which would be making an act prior to passage of the law illegal and therefore ex post facto.

It would make current possession illegal, and therefore no different than changing the speed limit along a particular stretch of road or making it illegal to kill unicorns today whereas it wasn’t yesterday. At one time possession of a machine gun not registered with the ATF was legal; if I still have that unregistered machine gun today is it legal because I’ve always had it? As we (should) know: No, it’s not.

Merely because something was legal in the past does not prohibit making it illegal in the future.

Here in Illinois we do not have a statewide AWB yet though they keep trying, Bloomberg has a state house rep on his payroll named Willis who constantly pushes his anti gun bills, and there are super majority of democrats in the state house and senate. However there so far have been enough downstate democrats in rural areas who won't support it for fear of being voted out next election. There are over 100 counties in Illinois and just a hand few of deep blue ones rule the state for the most part but outside those few counties Illinois is mostly conservative leaning.

Correct, and well explained


(I am a member of the Virginia bar although I am not actively practicing law anymore)

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
This is retroactively making something illegal that was previously legal and is (or should) be unconstitutional.

I will heed if an actual (knowledgeable) attorney corrects me, but IMO: no.

It is not making prior possession illegal, which would be making an act prior to passage of the law illegal and therefore ex post facto.

It would make current possession illegal, and therefore no different than changing the speed limit along a particular stretch of road or making it illegal to kill unicorns today whereas it wasn’t yesterday. At one time possession of a machine gun not registered with the ATF was legal; if I still have that unregistered machine gun today is it legal because I’ve always had it? As we (should) know: No, it’s not.

Merely because something was legal in the past does not prohibit making it illegal in the future.

Irony: in attempting to confiscate these items, they are accelerating and driving their usage against those who are actually trying to confiscate.

Is this the line in the sand? Or at least the dot that starts the line?

It's clear - you can't get along w/ crazy people. You need to remove them from society so that they can't harm others or themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Time to change the state flag. Sic semper tyrannis doesn’t seem to fit so well anymore.

^^^^^^^

Where's that dang "LIKE" button?

"Weapons of War" is EXACTLY what the 2A was written to protect!

At the time of the writing, these were the common weapons of civilians. Rapid fire rifles - precursor to the machine gun - ships and cannon, all in the possession of the population.

"Weapons of War" are needed to resist a tyrannical government, which is the intent of the 2A.

swalwell promised to nuke us, so I see no reason to doubt his intent and that of others in the corrupt democrat party.

quote:

I could not find the bill that changed the law to make possession a felony

The link in the OP to the first law

page 8 section B at top of page

read it carefully



edit: others were quicker to point this out

So, when was the last time a civilian army invaded Virginia ?

If I lived in Virginia, a new Marlin and a case of 30-30 would already be on the way to me.
A very good example of how disproportionate Democrat populations screw everyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
This is retroactively making something illegal that was previously legal and is (or should) be unconstitutional.

I will heed if an actual (knowledgeable) attorney corrects me, but IMO: no.

It is not making prior possession illegal, which would be making an act prior to passage of the law illegal and therefore ex post facto.

It would make current possession illegal, and therefore no different than changing the speed limit along a particular stretch of road or making it illegal to kill unicorns today whereas it wasn’t yesterday. At one time possession of a machine gun not registered with the ATF was legal; if I still have that unregistered machine gun today is it legal because I’ve always had it? As we (should) know: No, it’s not.

Merely because something was legal in the past does not prohibit making it illegal in the future.

This is correct. A law is permissible if it makes things you do in the future illegal even if they were legal before the law took effect. An impermissible ex post facto law makes things you did in the past illegal even though they were legal when you did them.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

I could not find the bill that changed the law to make possession a felony

The link in the OP to the first law

page 8 section B at top of page

read it carefully

...

edit: others were quicker to point this out

When I posted my question the first link was not there.

Also, I did renew my membership to VCDL.

I always think the problem with these in the lack of a grandfather clause is that it is a taking. period. But the courts have pretty much said if you have an outlet (you can sell them out of State) that it is not a taking. Which of course is just plain wrong in my mind.
But if they pass that it would be a nightmare.