A Message from Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

[NovaHunter]

Below is a letter that AG Cuccinelli wrote and appeared in a newsletter for the Virginia Shooting Sports Association a few months ago.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/05/a-messa ... z2cuBuo1oW

Quote form the first sentence: "You and I understand that our rights come from our Creator—not the government. Without the ability to defend ourselves, individuals have no rights"

Ken's a principled leader and he's fought for our 2nd Amendment rights since he was a State Senator. I've known him personally for 4 years now, and I can tell you all that he firmly believes in First principles and defending or rights. When he says "That’s exactly why I’m running for governor, to become the decision maker and your advocate for gun rights" he means it.

Ken's got a proven record, he will be our ally in the Governor's mansion.

I'll be doing everything I can to work and help him get elected. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

[SpanishInquisition]

It's truly sad that he's defending legislation that makes BJs illegal for everyone regardless of age or consent.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

It's truly sad that he's defending legislation that makes BJs illegal for everyone regardless of age or consent.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Didn't the bill only apply to "sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public."?

[trailrunner]

Didn't the bill only apply to "sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public."?

No.

From the discussion last week:

http://vagunforum.net/general-discussio ... ml#p171608

§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

[DryBones]

Yep, sounds like he also wants to legislate morality based on his own religious beliefs. Freedom means free in all aspects as long as you don't hurt others.

[WRW]

Hmm, and other candidates support the perversion of marriage to include same gender partners. None of which addresses the OP of Cuccinelli's stance on 2A rights.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[NovaHunter]

It's truly sad that he's defending legislation that makes BJs illegal for everyone regardless of age or consent.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

SI, Ken's office challenged a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that would have allowed a 47 year old man who was convicted of soliciting oral sex from a 17 yr old minor go free. Do you want that guy to walk the streets freely?

"The Facts:

-The Attorney General’s Office is appealing the March 2013 two-to-one decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in MacDonald v. Moose.
-This has very real implications for public safety. If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the Fourth Circuit’s decision, 90 sexual predators in Virginia – most of them child sex predators – may be eligible to have their names removed from Virginia’s sex offender registry.
-William Scott MacDonald was 47 when he was convicted of soliciting oral sex from a minor girl. This was a repeat offense.
-The Fourth Circuit’s 2-1 decision effectively struck down the law that was used to prosecute him – Virginia’s anti-sodomy law. The dissenting judge is an appointee of President Obama, and he agreed that the law should not be struck down.
-This case is about using current law to protect a minor girl from a 47 year-old repeat sexual predator. The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public. In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not – and cannot be – used against consenting adults acting in private."

This is taken from "www.vachildpredators.com" Yes, it is a campaign site set up by Ken's campaign, but everything that has been thrown out about Ken and the anti-sodomy laws has been directly from Terry's campaign so Ken's side deserves a little bit of air time.

Oh, and thanks for hi-jacking the OP

[trailrunner]

SI, Ken's office challenged a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that would have allowed a 47 year old man who was convicted of soliciting oral sex from a 17 yr old minor go free. Do you want that guy to walk the streets freely?

No, I don't want him to go free. But I also don't want a law that incriminates virtually every adult person who engages in sexual with another consenting adult in the privacy of their own home. Why is it so hard to get both. I'm not a lawyer, but I could probably write some laws the cover the cases we don't want. How about this:

1. Don't commit incest.
2. Don't commit pedopheilia.
3. Don't commit bestiality.
4. Don't commit necrophelia.
5. Don't commit rape.
6. If consenting adults engage in sexual activity privately in their own home and it's not prevented by sections 1. through 5. then it's none of the government's business. Go have fun.

That took me about 5 minutes.

Let's flip this argument around. Say they passed a law the outlawed all guns, but they *promised* they would only enforce it on robbers and thugs and wife beaters, and would never enforce it on otherwise law-abiding people. Wink, wink. Just trust us - it doesn't apply to you. Would you settle for that? Of course not.

[GeneFrenkle]

It is possible to work with your elected representative to introduce a bill to create, clarify, ammend, or eliminate laws.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

I'm not too fond of that particular law, but if that's the worst we can expect from KC, then I don't reckon that I'll be withholding my vote from him based solely on that.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm still going for Sarvis. He's Pro-2A and Pro-BJ (for consenting adults)!

[ratherfish]

wow

First time I've seen a BJ buy votes....

Course I've never been present in Chicago during elections...

[SpanishInquisition]

Well I am certainly NOT wanting one from Sarvis! Lol

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpanishInquisition]

Duplicate. Damn mobile.

Anyway, it's more about the right to enjoy 'em rather than any particular one. Kinda like not being limited to one firearm.

[NovaHunter]

Duplicate. Damn mobile.

Anyway, it's more about the right to enjoy 'em rather than any particular one. Kinda like not being limited to one firearm.

SI, how does a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme court in application to consenting adults infringe and is only applied to sexual predators on your right to a BJ?

[GeneFrenkle]

All this about a law that clearly is geared to be a tack on for other crimes because in and of itself it is unenforcable?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpanishInquisition]

SI, how does a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme court in application to consenting adults infringe and is only applied to sexual predators on your right to a BJ?

The AG defended the law when it was challenged...The Federal Court ruled, the AG appealed to the Supreme Court. As the AG, he should know when something is unconstitutional. Instead he tried to work it on the angle "It's constitutional if it only applies to pedofiles", which it clearly does not, as anyone that reads the thing can plainly see.

In 2004, the VA legislature attempted to refine the law to something I could have lived with and would have complied with the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence v TX. The now AG opposed the bill in committee. The now-AG also opposed it on the floor.

Not directly related, but there's this quite from an interview with the Virginian-Pilot where he says that it's OK to be homosexual, but not ok to do homosexual things. WTF? Which is it Ken?(or not wtf, that'd be illegal.) Anyway, here's the quote:

“ My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. ... They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society.”

The government has no place in the bedroom of ANY consenting adults. It is far too clear to me that the sitting AG would do nothing to change these laws, because he's already not done anything... in fact, worked against... refining these laws so that they apply only to nonconsensual acts, or acts with underage persons.

Dude has intent, and I don't like it.

Sarvis for Governor. He's Pro-2A and Pro-BJ!

[SHMIV]

As a Christian, I can fully understand KC's position on homosexuality. Basically, homosexuality is a temptation. We all get tempted; different folks get different temptations. Some are tempted by drugs or alcohol, some by thievery, some by the neighbors spouse, and some by gay sex. From the Christian viewpoint, we don't tempt ourselves, so we aren't held accountable for that.

We are, however, held accountable for our actions. Thus, while the temptation may be ok, entertaining or acting on the temptation is what
would be sinful.

Now, how much of that should carry over to public service is debatable. Finding the balance between legality and morality can be difficult for a devout Christian. It must be hard to vote in favor of something that you adamantly oppose.

As to Sarvis, the only thing I could find about his political activity is that he lost an election a couple of years ago. I couldn't find much of a track record for him. I do know that I don't like his stance on abortion, nor do I like his stance on gay marriage.

KC has a track record, so I know what to expect. And, my anti-cold-blooded-murder-of-unborn babies stance out weighs my pro-legal-bj stance by a longshot.

But y'all cast your votes where you each see fit. I may disagree, but I pass no judgement. We still have a right to vote how we each want.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

As to Sarvis, the only thing I could find about his political activity is that he lost an election a couple of years ago. I couldn't find much of a track record for him. I do know that I don't like his stance on abortion, nor do I like his stance on gay marriage.

Don't we normally abhor career politicians and supposed to favor citizen legislators? Sarvis has quite the background outside of politics and the lack of a political track record may be why he's actually talking about the issues while dumb and dumber just run attack ads.

[SHMIV]

Got me there, SG. I'm not overly fond of career politicians, or lawyers in office, for that matter.

But, regardless, I still loathe abortion, and what Sarvis said on the matter, to the Richmond Times Dispatch, does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I'd link to it, if I knew how on a smart phone. But, a search for his stance on your preferred search engine should bring it right up.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]