Skins,

thanks for that post above. I was unaware of the law you identified.

I am not a lawyer. I am certainly not a VA constitution expert. But lets explore this a bit. Let's put the two pieces together. What is the number one argument against the 2A? Usually it is about the definition of a "well regulated militia".

Part One:

Virginia Article I Bill of Rights

Section 13 Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

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, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Part Two:

VA 44 - Military Laws of Virginia

§ 44-1. Composition of militia .

The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age .

The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia .


§ 44-4. Composition of unorganized militia.

The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied persons as set out in § 44-1, except such as may be included in §§ 44-2 and 44-54.6 and except such as may be exempted as hereinafter provided.

xxxxxxxxxxx

so how can the DEMs pass these extreme anti-gun laws to deny the Virginia unorganized militia the right to have firearms. Even assault firearms. The state can (theoretically) call these people up to defend the Commonwealth.

Not sure where to go with this, but it seems to make the DEM push even more constitutionally illegal, both from the view of the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution.

Not for nothing and I realize what I say next is truly singing to the choir...

These liberals are selling the story of 'reasonable, sensible, or common sense' gun control measures. It's totally a false pretention they are getting away with.

Their assertion is akin to blaming cars for DUIs and then casting the DUI problem onto EVERY car owner, whether you drink alcohol or not (not to mention that one never drinks-and-drives if alcohol is used).

It's an absurd notion. Somehow we need to flip the script and call this absurd framework out properly. What they are saying is the same as saying "sports cars" need to be turned in, because they are fast and DUIs are a problem. It's mindlessly stupid, and they are getting away with it. I'm merely ranting.

This video was sent to all members of our gun club to share..
Please watch. He does a great job explaining what we are about to face in a rational manner...

https://www.facebook.com/34473...ens/712092305946362/

I have an idea.

We should find GREAT political candidates who are relatively unknown. Abigail Spanberger comes to mind (although, she is horrible). Her background is federal law enforcement and she has working familiarity with guns, of course. She is a democrat and will undoubtedly always vote along Dem lines.

Now for our chance (the idea). Let's put decoys up for election, a classic bait and switch. Flood the Democrat-held counties with our own, who are merely pretending to be Democrats. Then when voting for firearms measures in Richmond proceeds, our candidates who were elected as Democrats vote along Republican lines.

In short, begin completely adulterating the Democrat party by running our candidates as Democrat party operatives, when really they are Trojan Horse Republicans. A double agent, committed to quashing the Democrat-party votes.

Hell, if we know who they are at the outset, then those Trojan Horse republicans will likely garner 'some' Democrat citizen votes (because they are pretending to be a Democrat)...PLUS all of our votes, thereby having a high likelihood of being elected into Virginia state office. The truth would only be revealed during voting on firearms items like this (and perhaps taxes).

I like that idea quite a bit. Infiltrate and weaken the dem party from within. Only thing better would be destroying that party completely.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Skins,

thanks for that post above. I was unaware of the law you identified.

I am not a lawyer. I am certainly not a VA constitution expert. But lets explore this a bit. Let's put the two pieces together. What is the number one argument against the 2A? Usually it is about the definition of a "well regulated militia".

Part One:

Virginia Article I Bill of Rights

Section 13 Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

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, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Part Two:

VA 44 - Military Laws of Virginia

§ 44-1. Composition of militia .

The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age .

The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia .


§ 44-4. Composition of unorganized militia.

The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied persons as set out in § 44-1, except such as may be included in §§ 44-2 and 44-54.6 and except such as may be exempted as hereinafter provided.

xxxxxxxxxxx

so how can the DEMs pass these extreme anti-gun laws to deny the Virginia unorganized militia the right to have firearms. Even assault firearms. The state can (theoretically) call these people up to defend the Commonwealth.

Not sure where to go with this, but it seems to make the DEM push even more constitutionally illegal, both from the view of the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution.

I am no constitutional scholar or anything but whenever the word "shall" is used it means "must" from what I understand. So not only are the proposed laws a violation of 2A and Art 1 Sec. 13, so it also violates a number of other provisions about our militia (pretty much everyone). So there is also an issue with SB64 and Sec. 13 in that how do you legally have a "...well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms..." if you not only take away their ability to be armed, but also the ability to receive training with those arms?

I don't see how this could pass a test in court seeing how the proposed laws violate not only the 2A, but also the VA Constitution which is less ambiguous than 2A and makes clear that the militia is the people. Seems they would need to amend the state constitution first to pass either SB16 or SB64.

Skins' original ref to VA 44 - Military Laws of Virginia, 44-86 is also of interest


§ 44-86. When ordered out for service.

The commander in chief may at any time, in order to execute the law, suppress riots or insurrections, or repel invasion, or aid in any form of disaster wherein the lives or property of citizens are imperiled or may be imperiled, order out the National Guard and the inactive National Guard or any parts thereof, or the whole or any part of the unorganized militia .

When the militia of this Commonwealth , or a part thereof, is called forth under the Constitution and laws of the United States , the Governor shall order out for service the National Guard, or such part thereof as may be necessary; and he may likewise order out such a part of the unorganized militia as he may deem necessary.

During the absence of organizations of the National Guard in the service of the United States, their state designations shall not be given to new organizations

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

source link for these codes

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

still digging into this unusual VA set of laws

an update that puts some limits on this extreme case of using the "unorganized militia"

§ 44-88. Incorporation into the Virginia Defense Force.

Whenever the Governor orders out the unorganized militia or any part thereof, it shall be incorporated into the Virginia Defense Force until relieved from service.



§ 44-54.4. Organization; definitions.
The Virginia Defense Force with a targeted membership of at least 1,200 shall be organized within and subject to the control of the Department of Military Affairs.

When called to state active duty, the mission of the Virginia Defense Force shall be to

(i) provide for an adequately trained organized reserve militia to assume control of Virginia National Guard facilities and to secure any federal and state property left in place in the event of the mobilization of the Virginia National Guard,

(ii) assist in the mobilization of the Virginia National Guard,

(iii) support the Virginia National Guard in providing family assistance to military dependents within the Commonwealth in the event of the mobilization of the Virginia National Guard, and

(iv) provide a military force to respond to the call of the Governor in those circumstances described in § 44-75.1.



§ 44-75.1. Militia state active duty.

A. The Governor or his designee may call forth the militia or any part thereof to state active duty for service in any of the following circumstances:

1. In the event of invasion or insurrection or imminent threat of either;

...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


typically and normally Virginia Defense Force members are not armed

§ 44-54.12. Arms, equipment and facilities.
The Virginia Defense Force, to the extent authorized by the Governor and funded by the General Assembly, shall be equipped as needed for training and for state active duty. The Adjutant General, by regulation or otherwise, may authorize the use of privately owned real and personal property if deemed in the best interest of the Commonwealth.

To the extent permitted by federal law and contracts with the federal government or localities and to the extent that space is available, the Adjutant General in his discretion may authorize the use of armories and other facilities of the National Guard, other state facilities under his control, and all or portions of privately owned facilities under contract for the storage and maintenance of arms, equipment and supplies of the Virginia Defense Force and for the assembly, drill, training and instruction of its members.

Members of the Virginia Defense Force shall not be armed with firearms during the performance of training duty or state active duty, except under circumstances and in instances authorized by the Governor.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

one would think being called to provide a military force to respond to an event of invasion or insurrection would be "circumstances" justifying being armed

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

Buena Vista voted yesterday in a special session. That brings the number to 112. Two more localities, Fauquier and Charles City county, vote tomorrow.

Anyone heard what might be done regarding CCPs? I would guess the issuing process will be tightened to a show cause basis.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
This video was sent to all members of our gun club to share..
Please watch. He does a great job explaining what we are about to face in a rational manner...

https://www.facebook.com/34473...ens/712092305946362/

Great video. Worth watching for sure. Tells you what the left really wants!

quote:

Originally posted by RogB:
Anyone heard what might be done regarding CCPs? I would guess the issuing process will be tightened to a show cause basis.

Sshhh!
Lets not give Ralphie & Co any ideas.

Virginia AG Says 2A Sanctuaries "Have No Legal Force." But Is That Actually True?

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...-force-actually-true

The Attorney General of Virginia stepped into the fray yesterday with an opinion on the validity of Second Amendment Sanctuaries that have sprung up across the state in response to draconian gun control legislation. He said that the Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions have no legal force and that municipalities will have no choice but to enforce the unconstitutional laws, should the bill be turned into law in January.

But is this actually true? Or is it just a statement meant to discourage dissent? Digging into this, it seems that it’s certainly not as cut and dried as the AG would have us all believe.

This article will be filled with lots of quotes from pertinent legal documents. I’m not an attorney so I’m just laying out my findings. The emphasis throughout is mine.

You can draw your own conclusions.
The Official Statement

Let’s start out with what AG Mark Herring had to say.

The Virginia Constitution, the Code of Virginia, and established common law doctrines all bear on these questions.

First, the Constitution of Virginia provides that all local authority is subject to the control of the General Assembly. For example, Article V Il, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he General Assembly shall provide by general law for the . powers . of counties, cities, towns, and regional governments.”[1]

Second, the Code of Virginia establishes the supremacy of state law over local ordinances and policies. Section 1-248 provides:

The Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth shall be supreme. Any ordinance, resolution, bylaw, rule, regulation, or order of any governing body or any corporation, board, or number of persons shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth.[[2][3][4])

As the Virginia Supreme Court has explained, because local authority is subordinate to state law, “local ordinances must conform to and not be in conflict with the public policy of the State as embodied in its statutes.

Third, established common law doctrines specifically limit the authority of local governments. Virginia follows the Dillon Rule, which provides that local governments may exercise “only those powers expressly granted by the General Assembly, those necessarily or fairly implied therefrom, and those that are essential and indispensable. The Dillon Rule is one of strict construction: “[I]f there is a reasonable doubt whether legislative power exists, the doubt must be resolved against the local governing body. Thus, when a Virginia locality seeks to take any action, the Dillon Rule applies “to determine in the first instance, from express words or by implication, whether a power exists at all. If a locality cannot identify a reasonably specific source of delegated authority, “the inquiry is at an end” and the act in question is unauthorized.

These constitutional, statutory, and common law doctrines establish that these resolutions neither have the force of law nor authorize localities or local constitutional officials to refuse to follow or decline to enforce gun violence prevention measures enacted by the General Assembly.

l . By their own terms, these resolutions have no legal effect. Although the resolutions typically contain several “Whereas” clauses, the “be it resolved” clauses generally do not purport to take any concrete action. 15 Instead, the operative clauses: (a) “express[]” the “intent” of the locality’s Board of Supervisors “to uphold the Second Amendment rights of [the county’s] citizens,” (b) “express[]” the Board’s “intent that public funds of the [clounty not be used to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the [county’s] citizens,” and (c) “declare[]” the Board’s “intent to oppose” any “infringement” or “restrictions” of their residents’ Second Amendment rights using “such legal means [as] may be expedient, including without limitation, court action. These general statements do not direct or require any specific result, and any suggestion of potential future action is entirely speculative.

It also bears emphasis that neither local governments nor local constitutional officers have the authority to declare state statutes unconstitutional or decline to follow them on that basis. “All actions of the General Assembly are presumed to be constitutional. Furthermore, it has long “been the indisputable and clear function of the courts, federal and state, to pass upon the constitutionality of legislative acts. It follows from these well-established principles that all localities and local constitutional officers are required to comply with all laws enacted by the General Assembly unless and until those laws are repealed by the legislature or invalidated by the judiciary.

Nor may localities or local constitutional officers decline to enforce laws enacted by the General Assembly on the theory that requiring them to do so would “commandeer” local resources. Although the United States Supreme Court has held that “the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement . . . federal regulatory programs, that doctrine derives from the specific limitations on Congress’s legislative powers and the “residuary and inviolable sovereignty” retained by the states in our federal system. 25 In contrast, “the Constitution of Virginia is not a grant of legislative power to the General Assembly,„ 26 and, unlike Congress, [tlhe authority of the General Assembly shall extend to all subjects of legislation” not specifically “forbidden or restricted” by the State Constitution. 27 And neither the Federal Constitution nor Virginia law recognizes any “anti-commandeering” principle that allows localities or local constitutional officers to refuse to participate in the enforcement of state law.28

Conclusion

It is my opinion that these resolutions have no legal effect. It is my further opinion that localities and local constitutional officers cannot nullify state laws and must comply with gun violence prevention measures that the General Assembly may enact. (source)

You can read Herring’s entire opinion and get the citations here.
What is the Dillon Rule?

This is a rule of government embraced by 39 states.

Dillon’s Rule is derived from written decision by Judge John F. Dillon of Iowa in 1868. It is a cornerstone of American municipal law. It maintains that a political subdivision of a state is connected to the state as a child is connected to a parent. Dillon’s Rule is used in interpreting state law when there is a question of whether or not a local government has a certain power. Dillon’s Rule narrowly defines the power of local governments.

The first part of Dillon’s Rule states that local governments have only three types of powers:

-those granted in express words,
-those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted, and
-those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation, not simply convenient, but indispensable.

The second part of Dillon’s Rule states that if there is any reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred on a local government, then the power has NOT been conferred. This is the rule of strict construction of local government powers. (source)

Virginia set a precedent with Dillon’s Rule back in 1896 and is considered one of the strictest states for the rule. It has been applied consistently ever since, taking power from local governments and centralizing it at a state level.
However…

It’s important to note that Dillon’s Rule is no more a law than Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions. It’s a philosophy, albeit one that has consistently been applied in the Virginia Supreme Court for 125 years.

The Dillon Rule was adopted by the Virginia Supreme Court 120 years after Virginia declared its independence and created its first constitution. The rule is not a law passed by the General Assembly, and it was not based on a specific section in the 1869 state constitution that was in effect when the court ruled on the Winchester arson reward lawsuit.

The Virginia Supreme Court did not violate the separation of powers and somehow create a new law when adopting the Dillon Rule. Instead, when the court cited the Iowa justice’s rulings, it created the legal framework for interpreting the legality of many laws passed by state and local governments.

The framework has empowered the General Assembly and limited the authority of local governments. Judge Dillon’s legal philosophy was based on the assumption that local government was less competent and more corrupt than state government. However, that ignores the professionalization of local government since 1896. (source)

Dillon’s Rule can be federally preempted, too.

The American University Law Review published a paper regarding the Dillon Law in regard to sanctuary states and cities that were acting in defiance of federal immigration laws.

The issue of federal preemption of state law is a complex and prevalent topic in the immigration debate today,and the issue is relevant to Dillon’s Rule because it could be argued that preempts the outcome of a Dillon analysis in this context.

Furthermore, the issue of preemption is particularly tricky here because Dillon’s Rule deals with what the law does not say, rather than an express provision of state law in conflict with federal law. Under preemption principles, where state and federal law conflict, federal law governs. However, where there is no conflict, state law applies. (source)

The question here is whether federal law would conflict with state law enough to preempt Dillon’s rule.
Does the Dillon Rule override the power of County Sheriffs?

County sheriffs are often considered the last against unconstitutional legislation, with the authority to defy even federal law.

Historically, some sheriffs have not only enforced the laws; they have also decided which laws not to enforce. They view this as protecting the people from the intrusions of the federal government.

The “constitutional sheriff” movement is comprised of current and former members of law enforcement who believe that sheriffs are the ultimate authority in their jurisdiction—even above federal law enforcement…

…While it may seem like a fringe movement, it is prevalent enough to be taken seriously. In 2013, 500 sheriffs agreed not to enforce any gun laws created by the federal government. In Utah, almost all elected sheriffs signed an agreement to protect the Bill of Rights—and fight any federal officials who tried to limit them. [Robert Tsai / Politico] (source)

In 2013, Sheriff John D’Agostini of El Dorado County, California, famously kicked a federal agency out of his county.

“The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.”

The sheriff has sent a letter to the US Forestry Service stating officers will no longer be able to enforce state law in his county.

“The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.”

CBS 13 in Sacramento contacted a law professor to ask him if the sheriff’s actions are legal.

“Looks to me as though the sheriff can do this,” he said. “They don’t have state powers in the first place, but essentially the sheriff can deputize individuals to have authority in his or her jurisdiction.”

Fact: federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitution’s structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. (source)

So does that mean that Dillon’s Rule does or does not apply to county sheriffs? It’s complicated.

This Comment argues that Dillon’s Rule, a doctrine which limits the authority of cities, towns, and other localities to act unilaterally without authorization from the state legislature, creates a barrier to the enforcement of the 287(g) agreements currently in place between sheriffs’ offices and the federal government. Specifically, Dillon’s Rule precludes sheriffs from entering 287(g) agreements without authorization from the state legislature, rendering these agreements invalid in most cases. Accordingly, when an individual is detained or otherwise deprived of liberty or due process under an invalid 287(g) agreement, constitutional protections should apply. (source)

Wouldn’t depriving gun owners of their Second Amendment rights fall under the category of something constitutionally protected?
AG Herring’s statement contradicts a 2014 opinion.

Attorney General Herring’s current opinion seems politically biased since he has previously rendered more than one opinion at odds with this statement. House Majority Leader C. Todd Gilbert (R) said:

“Attorney General Herring’s opinion is interesting, as it directly contradicts his own statements and actions regarding the supremacy of state law over the preferences of the officials who must enforce them,” Gilbert states in a news release. “In 2014, Herring declined to defend Virginia law in state court, despite a statutory duty to do so.”

Gilbert adds that Herring told the Richmond Times-Dispatch: “…If I think the laws are adopted and constitutional, (then) I will defend them…”

“His opinion today notes that ‘it has long been the indisputable and clear function of the courts … to pass upon the constitutionality of legislative acts,’” Gilbert states. “This not only conflicts with his previous statement about his own conduct, but also the position of a number of Democratic commonwealth’s attorneys regarding (the) prosecution of marijuana possession.

“I look forward to the Attorney General following up with the Commonwealth’s Attorneys and Commonwealth’s Attorneys-elect in Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Portsmouth, and Norfolk about the supremacy of state law over the policy preferences of local elected officials,” Gilbert adds. (source)

Gilbert also provided another example of inconsistency.

Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, the current majority leader in the House of Delegates who will serve as minority leader in the next legislative session, issued a statement Friday afternoon drawing attention to what he sees as a contradiction between the sanctuaries opinion and Herring’s previous decision to not defend Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriages when Herring concluded the prohibition was unconstitutional, despite what Gilbert argues was a statutory requirement to do so. (source)

That certainly does seem inconsistent with a “rule of strict construction.”
Virginians are unlikely to back down over the AG’s opinion.

Virginians are outraged at the prospective new laws and many gun owners are openly defiant. Counties, cities, and municipalities across the state are decrying the unconstitutional new laws and they are getting organized.

When gun owners were threatened with the National Guard to enforce compliance, it only seemed to accelerate the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement. One county officially established a militia and more sure to follow, either officially or unofficially.

This is a battle of wills that’s being watched closely around the country. Where Virginia goes, the nation will follow, whether that’s compliance or outright refusal.

Gun control advocates may have chosen the wrong state as a testing ground. The state government seems to have underestimated the unflinching resolve of rural residents. So far, despite the state government’s threats and posturing, Virginians seem unbowed and gun owners across the nation are supporting them.

Seems it is time to consider peaceful ways of disarming the current government of Virginia. It is comprised of many people like Herring who are dangerous to the public liberty and safety. Perhaps firearms and related manufacturers (e.g. ammunition, parts, training, etc.) should refuse to sell anything to the State government or any other jurisdiction not supporting our inherent rights.

_____________________________________

I believe it is high time to quickly embrace what the Sheriff of Culpeper county has suggested:

* Deputize all willing citizens (a.k.a., gun owners) by the thousands to become adjunct deputy sheriffs. Across the State, perhaps this amounts to hundreds of thousands, if not more than 1 million new adjunct deputy sheriffs.

Of course, this would involve an application, a background check, and some minimal training, but it would result in this country's most massive and vocal support of the 2A and the governor couldn't stop it. * As a Deputy Sheriff, we could keep our arms according to the wishes of the sheriff of each county.

quote:

Originally posted by SteadyHand:
I believe it is high time to quickly embrace what the Sheriff of Culpeper county has suggested:

* Deputize all willing citizens (a.k.a., gun owners) by the thousands to become adjunct deputy sheriffs. Across the State, perhaps this amounts to hundreds of thousands, if not more than 1 million new adjunct deputy sheriffs.

Of course, this would involve an application, a background check, and some minimal training, but it would result in this country's most massive and vocal support of the 2A and the governor couldn't stop it. * As a Deputy Sheriff, we could keep our arms according to the wishes of the sheriff of each county.

I heard about this on some radio talk show yesterday.

I wondered, would there be some liability / insurance to the county by having so many people on the books. I volunteered at the county for a while, and the issue of someone getting hurt while volunteering, and the county having to pay for it was a massive big deal. It was never clear where the line was drawn.

If you do the Facebook thing take about 25 minutes of time and watch the video that Steve Huff, owner of Accuracy X, Inc. put together covering the legislation trying to be forced through in VA.

Accuracy X, Inc. is based out of Hardy, VA.

https://www.facebook.com/Accur...hJXULpJWeHA08OabSnrg

Fauquier and Charles City County both passed tonight. Should bring total to 114.

Unbelievably, the NRA just made a move that I can only describe as sabotage. Here's their announcement:

It’s Time to Stand and Fight!

Gun bans, gun rationing, confiscation – it’s all on the table when the new bought and paid for majority of the Virginia General Assembly fast tracks their anti-gun agenda in January. They will gladly cast your right of self-defense aside as they try to check off every gun control scheme on Michael Bloomberg’s wish-list.

This fight begins on January 13th during the first hearing of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, and we must hold tyranny in check. While it is important for Virginia gun owners to make their voices heard at all times, it is critical on this first day.

The pace of this session will be like none we have seen in recent history. Waiting even one week to visit the Capitol, whether on your own or at an organized event will be too late. It is time to stand with your fellow NRA members and urge the committee to block the Bloomberg – Northam gun ban. Together, we will defend our freedom.

January 13, 2020, starting 8AM
Virginia State Capitol
1000 Bank St.
Richmond, VA 23218

NRA staff will be on site with giveaways, including an emergency airdrop from Magpul.

Be on the lookout for postcards and emails with legislative updates and upcoming townhall events to defend and fight for our rights. We trust that when called upon, NRA Members will show Bloomberg and Northam why we are the most formidable political force in history. Stay Tuned – Get Active – Let’s Stand and Fight!

Although I don’t currently live in VA, I’m following this very closely.

Interesting article...
https://thevirginiafederalist....ntial-for-civil-war/