Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010 ... 010/533248

http://tinyurl.com/y8hxqo7

Gun rights and controls after the Chicago case
Date published: 3/11/2010


TWO YEARS AGO in District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court settled decades of Second Amendment debate by ruling that the right to possess firearms inhered in individual American citizens, not state militias. Perhaps Heller, boosted by the national surge in conservative populism and last year's resounding GOP electoral victory in Virginia, prompted Republicans in the current General Assembly to introduce scores of "pro-gun" bills, in full confidence that most would be signed into law by a like-minded governor.

Then the Dempire struck back.

Irked that his Senate Courts of Justice Committee, thanks to a few unreliable fellow Democrats, was approving bills expanding gun rights (e.g., the ability to carry a concealed pistol into a restaurant that serves alcohol), Chairman Henry Marsh, D-Richmond, created a special subcommittee, stacked with anti-gun senators, to weigh all gun bills. Also, departing from committee tradition, he empowered the panel to kill such bills rather than merely recommend their defeat and leave their fate to the full committee. The Marsh Special proceeded to mow down pro-gun measures, including one that would have scrapped Virginia's law limiting gun buys to one per month.

Thus, the wages of overreach. The anti-gun Virginia Center for Public Safety opposed 54 General Assembly firearm bills. This onslaught, says The Washington Post, represents a 15-year high in proposed gun-rights legislation, including such lulus as allowing the firing of weapons near subdivisions.

Unfortunately for Mr. Marsh and other Virginia gun-control enthusiasts, much of the quick work his "kill bill" committee accomplished will very likely soon be pronounced unconstitutional. Although the Heller ruling applies only to the federal government and its enclaves (notably, Washington, D.C.), the high court last week during oral arguments in a Chicago gun case gave every indication it will soon apply the right-to-possess principle to the states in the manner of other civil liberties--free speech, religious latitude, the right to assemble, and so on.

On its face, then, the one-gun-per-month law--which, despite many loopholes, restricts the average Virginian to a single gun buy every 30 days--seems scarcely more constitutional than a law limiting newspaper readership to one edition per month or church attendance to every fourth Sunday. Besides its dubious "liberty-rationing" aspect, One A Month was passed ostensibly to keep Virginia pistols off the streets of New York City. Continuing to defend it after the Supreme Court extends Heller to the states would put Virginia legislators in the position of valuing the welfare of Gotham over the basic constitutional rights of Virginians.

THREE CHOICES

Post-McDonald v. Chicago, as the newer case is styled, what is an opponent of handguns (surely few Americans want to ban normal rifles and shotguns) to do? Obstructionism is always an option--Southern states used it for years to deny blacks their rights--but there are two better ones.

One is to overcome visceral misgivings and embrace the high court's interpretation of gun rights. This may be prudent, whatever one thinks of Glocks and banana clips. Listen, with an open mind, to famed Democratic attorney Alan Dershowitz: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right, or that it's too much of a public-safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." Anyone think the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause needs a little trim?

This doesn't mean, of course, that Virginia liberals should strap on a big iron and join the NRA. They can work with conservatives to more effectively restrict firearm ownership to the law-abiding and sane, and they can support sensible gun regulations, such as no "carrying" on school grounds. They should, however, oppose outright gun bans or their equivalent as simply contrary to the rule of law. (Ironically, until the high court formally rules in McDonald, the right of a city dweller to have a firearm is guaranteed only for citizens of the until-recently disarmed District of Columbia--a Bizarro World inversion if ever there was one.)

There is one more perfectly honorable option for Americans truly convinced that an enlightened society should disallow the widespread ownership of guns, whose dangers, they believe, outweigh their
benefits: a new constitutional amendment that would reverse or revise the Second. This process is long and arduous and requires overwhelming public support. Moreover, no liberty contained in the Bill of Rights has ever been nipped and tucked by later amendment. But though the target is distant, it's in theory hittable.

Ideally, those on both sides of this contentious issue will work imaginatively and in good faith to put safety and freedom on the same team. That's where they belong, rather than blazing away at each other across the public square.



--

Have you remembered to sign up for the VA-ALERT yet? If so, are you enjoying it? If not, what are you waiting for? It's FREE! just click

http://www.vcdl.org/va-alert.html

Any amendment repealing the second would be an act of war. Plain and simple.

Whatever treasonous thug would submit such a suggestion will be the first one tried and hanged. All supporters would be summarily tried and executed in short fashion.

Even hinting at such folly should be grounds for deportation.

wylde007 you are 100% dead wrong and thinking like yours is what gives gun owners a bad name. We need to maintain peaceful methods of protecting our rights not declaring war if the Politicians use the procedures set forth by our fore fathers in the constitution to change or delete the second amendment that is not grounds for war that is our policaical process in action. We need not lower ourselves to tricks of the antis only using the parts of the constitution that we support.

((well , i feel like i have been beating a dead horse all day here at work, so one more beating,...what the hey...))

Can someone explain to me what is the difference if you carry on school grounds...? (beat)

you either obey the rules or you don't... no amount of legislation is going to stop someone from a shooting on school grounds if that is what they have set thier mind to do... a firearm, in the hands of a capable and qualified person, on the other hand, certainly has the ability to stop such an event...in some cases before it even starts...and the thought that a "Gun Free Zone" is going to stop someone is ridiculas... (beat beat beat)

these laws, JUST like the anti's, act like firearms can pull their own trigger, load their own clips, and go on a rampage down the street...and accross town...all on thier own... WTF???!!!!??? is it me... (beat, beat, beat,beat)

we act as if school ground is beyond holy...no, My chldren are, no question...but the actual grounds..not so much... if we, as America, have missed it, much of the rest of the world prays at holy sites and en mass, with a AK or a Galil straped over thier shoulder...

Geee, i wonder why?
Perhaps because they realize that people who mean you ill do not care what you hold to be important or acceptable...your god, your children, your country , or otherwise...

You're trying to use logic and common sense to understand the anti's ?. No wonder your arms are sore

Oakridgestars, that's the most cogent and profound thing I've read in a while. The antis won't be satisfied, ever. I'm keeping my guns if I have to pack 'em in kitty litter and hide 'em in the woods.

graybeard321 wrote:wylde007 you are 100% dead wrong and thinking like yours is what gives gun owners a bad name. We need to maintain peaceful methods of protecting our rights not declaring war if the Politicians use the procedures set forth by our fore fathers in the constitution to change or delete the second amendment that is not grounds for war that is our policaical process in action. We need not lower ourselves to tricks of the antis only using the parts of the constitution that we support.

I'm curious what you would set the bar at for declaring war? I'm not defending anything Wylde007 said, he can do that on his own if he so wishes - however, if they declare the 1st Amendment null and void, is that OK as long as the politicians in power did it according to the "procedures set forth by our fore fathers"? Right now, the vast majority of Americans are *against* the Health Care Bill - but the politicians in power don't care what you or I want - they care about pushing THEIR agenda. As it stands, that means the current office holders are no longer "of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE" - so if Wylde007 had said "Any nullification of the 1st Amendment is an act of war" would you decrying that statement in the same manner? If not, why not? Would that mean "Pencil and typewriter owners everywhere are stooping to the same level" because of their support of the 1st? If 90% of the citizens are against something but all politicians vote for it, is that OK as long as it's done in the correct format? I'm not declaring war nor am I pushing for anything - I'm just curious where you draw the line.

The saying is we have our say at the ballot box, some will say this is not true. our system is not perfect but it is better than any other I have seen in my 20 years of traveling the world in the navy. I see two major problems one is voter apathy and the generally poor turnout at elections. The other is our elected officials are the ones that make the rules and we need to pass laws to limit their terms and powers. My grandfather always told me that politicians only care about 1 thing "getting reelected" I believe that a good third party would go a long way in curing our system. with no party having a majority they would have to work together. Where do I draw the line is a hard question to answer but I guess it would be when the politicians bend the rules and no longer follow the constitution.

The ballot box works....if it is done fairly and not via the Chicago Method of "Vote early and vote often". The likes of Obama, Schumer, Boxer, Holder and the rest of their socialist bunch of weasels may well attempt to finish destroying our Constitution. If that were to happen, we would either have to make the choice to stand, whether in the courts, the fields or the streets or fall to our knees in surrender and relinquish our claim to be free Americans forever!

Wylde...I'll stand with you if it comes to that!

coltman wrote:Oakridgestars, that's the most cogent and profound thing I've read in a while. The antis won't be satisfied, ever. I'm keeping my guns if I have to pack 'em in kitty litter and hide 'em in the woods.

PVC pipe. Keep em nice and dry...

wylde007 wrote:Any amendment repealing the second would be an act of war. Plain and simple.

Whatever treasonous thug would submit such a suggestion will be the first one tried and hanged. All supporters would be summarily tried and executed in short fashion.

Even hinting at such folly should be grounds for deportation.

While I agree that to repeal the 2nd would be the absolute worst thing our so called leaders ever perpetrated we must avoid such rhetoric as this or possibly help precipitate the very act we fear.

We already have plenty of "ammo" IMO - let us not be "treasonous" ourselves and give the antis any more than they think they already have...

The ballot box works but as we all know we are fighting uphill battle 1 we need to vote out of office those who truely do not represent us. the 2 nd is harder we need to educate the masses becuase we know that are not going to hear our side of the debate from the liberal press.

I guess I'm just a lot more committed than some. To me the Constitution of VA and the U.S. RECOGNIZES (not grants) the right that is given by God.

If someone wants to try and take away a right which is not theirs to take, that is an act of war. It would be no different if they came to the door and murdered my first-born son because Herod said to.

My statements are not borne of rhetoric nor of hyperbole. I believe that if someone proposed this atrociousness, their just reward should be execution for treason against the People.

zephyp wrote:

wylde007 wrote:Any amendment repealing the second would be an act of war. Plain and simple.

Whatever treasonous thug would submit such a suggestion will be the first one tried and hanged. All supporters would be summarily tried and executed in short fashion.

Even hinting at such folly should be grounds for deportation.

While I agree that to repeal the 2nd would be the absolute worst thing our so called leaders ever perpetrated we must avoid such rhetoric as this or possibly help precipitate the very act we fear.

We already have plenty of "ammo" IMO - let us not be "treasonous" ourselves and give the antis any more than they think they already have...

I'll take up wylde's case, if only for fun. While his words could be chosen more carefully, he has a point. Our rights are unalienable and given to us by God. It doesn't matter what the government says; they can't revoke them any more than trying to legislate pi to 3 so math is easier. Any such attempt is laughable and should be met with contempt. I don't have the reference in front of me, but there are lots of discussions between the founders where they stated we are to ignore such laws or attempts to reduce our liberty. When the NFA was past, nearly everyone ignored it. I'm not advocated breaking the law, but it is an interesting discussion point. Today such passive resistance isn't possible because most juries believe the government is always right.

Edit: not to mention that the government has shown a propensity for violence in such situations vice restrained governance. They say it is the rule of law, but ask anyone who's ever been on the other end of that stick and it clearly is rule by fear.

I think what wylde was trying to say is that since our rights are unalienable and our allegiance is to the United States (our country), which is not the same thing as the entity we call the Federal Government, any such attempt to revoke our rights invalidates their claims to power. The Federal Government is a valid authority so long as it stays within the bounds we set forth or until we the people, through the States, decide we want something different. In theory at least...in practice we all remember the Civil War.

wylde007 wrote:I guess I'm just a lot more committed than some. To me the Constitution of VA and the U.S. RECOGNIZES (not grants) the right that is given by God.

If someone wants to try and take away a right which is not theirs to take, that is an act of war. It would be no different if they came to the door and murdered my first-born son because Herod said to.

My statements are not borne of rhetoric nor of hyperbole. I believe that if someone proposed this atrociousness, their just reward should be execution for treason against the People.

Its not that we're not committed. I learned some valuable lessons courtesy of some of Uncle Sam's finer schools for soldiers:

- You never leave anything for the enemy. Even something as simple as an old C-ration can makes a fine weapon against you. Dont say crap that can get you watched 24x7 because you've been labeled a threat.

- It is often better to wound rather than kill. IMHO it will take a lot (a lot) of work to repeal the 2nd. If the antis want to expend energy trying, let them have at it. That way they are occupied in a steep uphill battle which drains resources from attacking easier targets.

- AND its always better to walk away and live to fight another day

All 3 of those are applicable here, especially the last one. People are watching and the ground rules have been set. We must play by the rules of democracy or be labeled in such a manner that our freedoms could very well be restricted and then we wont be able to do squat.

zephyp wrote:Dont say crap that can get you watched 24x7 because you've been labeled a threat.

I think it is too late for us...unless we start spaming posts with the following keywords and phrases:

Obama
Messiah
Love
Peace
anti-gun
tax the rich
etc.

gunderwood wrote:

zephyp wrote:Dont say crap that can get you watched 24x7 because you've been labeled a threat.

I think it is too late for us...unless we start spaming posts with the following keywords and phrases:

Obama
Messiah
Love
Peace
anti-gun
tax the rich
etc.

I was labeled a threat months ago by carrying a firearm and a Bible... not because of anything I have ever said.

CCFan wrote:

gunderwood wrote:

zephyp wrote:Dont say crap that can get you watched 24x7 because you've been labeled a threat.

I think it is too late for us...unless we start spaming posts with the following keywords and phrases:

Obama
Messiah
Love
Peace
anti-gun
tax the rich
etc.

I was labeled a threat months ago by carrying a firearm and a Bible... not because of anything I have ever said.

Care to elaborate?

gunderwood wrote:Care to elaborate?

Obama said: "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations" (one source of many)

And Janet Napolitano released her report of "Right-wing extremism" which basically took anyone who was for state rights or opposed abortion, etc., and lumped those folks in with jihadist terrorists... (one source) except we don't have terrorists any more, we have "man-made-disasters" (which, IMO, started Nov 4, 2008...)

So even though I pay my taxes, don't jay-walk, but own multiple firearms and believe the Bible is a book of laws that supersede the laws of the land - i'm a threat....

wylde007 wrote:Any amendment repealing the second would be an act of war. Plain and simple.

Whatever treasonous thug would submit such a suggestion will be the first one tried and hanged. All supporters would be summarily tried and executed in short fashion.

Even hinting at such folly should be grounds for deportation.

I was going to launch into a long and detailed diatribe pointing out why you are correct, and halfway through I realized why? I'll just say, I agree, and would stand by you in this war.