Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

So the 4th Circuit court can't find anything scary about those scary black rifles? You don't say?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/02/bi ... ntrol-law/

Hey, good news. I like good news. We seem to be getting good news with a little more frequency, lately.

Either that, or I'm just feeling more optimistic than usual, today.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

.
Even though this was a good end result, how we got there is just ridiculous. Keep in mind this is all from one judge who found in favor or the appellant. Its scary.

The right to keep and bear arms, as a matter of history and tradition, “is not unlimited,” of course, as even law-abiding citizens do not have “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Ummm, yea, the right to keep an bare arms IS unlimited in nature. It is man in the form of government infringing on that right.

The Second Amendment does not extend to all types of weapons, only to those typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” This limitation reflects “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” ..... Where, as here, the activity is directly tied to specific classes of weapons, we are faced with an additional threshold matter: whether the classes of weapons regulated are commonly used by law-abiding citizens.

Again, I call BS. Isn't the class of weapons defined as "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens" solely created by the laws passed by the government, not free market?

Significantly, however, Miller noted that “ordinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” ...

... “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” Accordingly, the Second Amendment extends only to those weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,... there is no protection for “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

I call BS yet again. "Typically possessed by law-abiding citizens" is solely created by the laws passed by the government, not free market. The more the lawmakers tighten the noose, the fewer weapons types are "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens".


This is pretty impressive...

For perspective, we note that in 2012, the number of AR- and AK-style weapons manufactured and imported into the United States was more than double the number of Ford F-150 trucks sold, the most commonly sold vehicle in the United States.

This is socialism's strongest tool. Its also complete BS. "Perceived problem" to whom?

The legislature must be allowed leeway to approach a perceived problem incrementally.”. “States are free to regulate by degree, one step at a time, addressing the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.

...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Basically, "arms" = "weaponry". "Keep" is to own, have possession of, "bear" is to carry, and to "infringe" is to impede, to create a barrier.

Any law that regulates weaponry, any form of weaponry, or the possession or ownership of weaponry, is an infringement, an impedance, a barrier, and is, therefore, in direct violation of the Second Amendment. This is true whether the Federal Government creates the law, or the State, County, City, Town, Village, or any other publicly governing entity.

Words have specific meaning; knowing the meanings of words is important. (Myself, I enjoy etymology. I like to know what, exactly, is implied by what I say.)

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You nailed it. My feelings exactly. The shortest two clauses in the whole Constitution, written in plain English, yet it is the most twisted and argued article or amendment in the collection.

Everyone knows power lays in arms and the elite ruling class can't exist (at least the way they want to) while the People have power.

I view it like this.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments define the USA. They were written by our forefathers, voted on by the people of the USA, documented and accepted as the process for which we live as legal citizens of the USA. There are rules for how government is expected to treat citizens and what is expected of citizens to the government. It describes voting, putting people into office, some voted and some appointed but the rules have worked and the process to change is defined as well.

Nowhere have I ever heard or read until recently from the anti-gunners about limitations or definitions of restricted arms.

wittmeba wrote:I view it like this.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments define the USA. They were written by our forefathers, voted on by the people of the USA, documented and accepted as the process for which we live as legal citizens of the USA. There are rules for how government is expected to treat citizens and what is expected of citizens to the government. It describes voting, putting people into office, some voted and some appointed but the rules have worked and the process to change is defined as well.

Nowhere have I ever heard or read until recently from the anti-gunners about limitations or definitions of restricted arms.

Generally speaking, I would agree with the above, but would add the Declaration of Independence as one of our defining documents.

I would make that addition because the rights codified by the founders and ratified by the several states are, in my view, "natural rights" given by our creator. The 2A is derived from the natural right of self-defense. The natural right of self defense precedes this country's founding by centuries, having been codified in Roman law and likely even prior to that. It is a means to an end and is not meant to promote anarchy as the progressives would have us believe, but constitutes a method whereby the people (from whom all power emanates) are able to defend themselves individually and collectively against the tyranny of the ruling class.

The fact that weapons, over the centuries, have become more sophisticated in no way constitutes a viable reason for banning certain weapons that some find objectionable. That process is a snowball that gathers speed as it goes and will ultimately result in completely disarming the people and vesting all power in the ruling class. Not something I'm interested in seeing.

I second that. The Declaration is important; without the Declaration, we would have no Constitution. The Declaration is our justification to the rest of world for severing ourselves from British rule. It articulates, very clearly, the offenses to humanity, committed by the King. In so doing, it lays out many of the offenses of government that the Constitution was designed to prevent. One really should not study the Constitution without also studying the Declaration of Independence, at the same time. Further, one should have Websters 1828 Dictionary handy, as that best defines the English language of the era, and helps to clarify what our Founding Fathers were talking about.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

First, Maryland wastes millions of taxpayer dollars on a failed gun "fingerprint" registry that solved exactly zero crimes. Now their Firearms Safety Act (FSA), a not-so clever attempt to ban certain types of semi-auto rifles, has also failed in a similarly spectacular fashion. Does anyone think that they might have learned their lesson when it comes to restricting citizens rights?

Yeah, me either.