Democrat Bill Mandates Licensing of All Virginia AR-15 Owners

[96coal449]

Its their Job to interpret the law. They cant just say , You guys figure it out , its whatever you think it means. Then go on to make decisions on firearms.

The meaning and writings of the founding fathers made it clear as day as to the intent of the 2ND A. An inalienable , God given, natural right that cannot be taken away. By anyone or anything . As stated before, Any laws must be in agreement with the constitution or it isn't valid. That's not my opinion , that's the law, the way it was written. There is no requirement for the interpretation of the word , ""infringed.""We dont need men in robes to explain that.

in·fringe | \ in-ˈfrinj \

infringed; infringing

Definition of infringe

transitive verb1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another .
Definition of INFRINGE

Does anyone need a lawyer to interpret this? Our rights are natural rights that cannot be given or taken away by the state. They can be oppressed, but never taken. What we have here in NY and Virginia is oppression , in open violation of the constitution , but not the ""law "" the laws are not consistent, and directly conflict with the constitution .It doesn't take a law degree from Harvard to discern this.




The authority is not derived from the supreme court, they interpret the law, The State derives its authority from the consent of the governed.
In the case where ""They left the matter open to interpretation as to what the word "arms" means in the 2A "" the authority doesn't then go to the state , it defaults back to the consent of the governed. Do you see consent in Virginia? or do you see the tyranny of the majority?



Then why are weapons of war being used against the citizens ?The redefining of an object, doesn't change the object. The purpose of the 2nd A was to ensure a militia could obtain weapons of war , not hunt . Bolt action rifles are weapons of war still used on the battlefield today Were as semi autos are still used, but not issued by governments, because they are seen to be less effective on the battlefield. ie: M1 Garand the SKS, The whole purpose was to kill tyrants and criminals , they are supposed to be weapons of war .




The Majority can pound fucking sand . That's not how it works. Either we follow the law or we don't . If they choose to not follow the law then theres going to be problems . its that simple. Its tyranny at gun point.

holdover thank you for thoroughly explaining how our system is supposed to work. I hadn't the incline to school in my post #208. Nor enough coffee. All this ways heavy on me and keeps me awake like last night. With only one cup of coffee not even spent ...... I'm still way overtired.
I am continually plotting to get my ducks in a row. Time for NY to kiss my ass goodbye ....the sooner the better. Cumo can have his Empire.
The serfs will never be profitable for him. Stupid fuck .....you'd think Cali would be a prime example.

 

[meketrefe]

The best antidote for this modern radical democrats is to let them talk and do what they are doing since this is actually what is turning many around due to the constant faliures like these failed states.
While it might look they are winning on their disarmament and full control agenda, the citizens will not disarm and the 2A will get stronger.
Keep fighting for your rights, be patient and remain positive.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You guys are funny. You explain how it’s supposed to work and when someone agrees that that is how it is indeed supposed to work but doesn’t due to corruption and what the people actually want, you argue the point.

 

[Phazer]

You guys are funny. You explain how it’s supposed to work and when someone agrees that that is how it is indeed supposed to work but doesn’t due to corruption and what the people actually want, you argue the point.

Might makes right once civil discourse deteriorates.

When both sides have access to "might," civil discourse can best be maintained.

 

[Chuck D]

The fault lays at the feet of shit head, traitorous politicians like Levine, Cuomo and their ilk. Not Fudd's. We have a constitution that is suppose to protect 'We The People' from them, they don't care, they don't abide by it, they are the lawless, they are to blame, solely.
Robin

I don't know where to begin.

Every gun club I've ever been a member of had a significant size of their membership that honestly believed that "no one needs an assault weapon and no one needs a 30 round (or 17 or 19) round magazine."

These are the ones who as long as they can hunt deer and waterfowl and break clay pigeons on a weekend afternoon couldn't care less about MSR's, handguns, CCW rights, background checks, or licensing schemes.

They're FUDDS and if they extracted their heads out of their asses and voted their 2nd Amendment rights (which only means hunting to them) Cuomo never would have become Governor and we'd have a robust Conservative movement in this State.

Your right in one perspective. It isn't ALL their fault but they own a significant portion of the blame.

 

[Robin]

A lot of people have just quit voting, not just Fudd's. A lot of gun owners still vote for democrat's, not just Fudds. Yes it would be good if they understood the truth of the intent of the second amendment, but they do not write or enact legislation. The ones that do, know what they are enacting is unconstitutional and don't care. They are proactively anti- American and the blame is theirs.
Robin

 

[Chuck D]

A lot of people have just quit voting, not just Fudd's. A lot of gun owners still vote for democrat's, not just Fudds. Yes it would be good if they understood the truth of the intent of the second amendment, but they do not write or enact legislation. The ones that do, know what they are enacting is unconstitutional and don't care. They are proactively anti- American and the blame is theirs.
Robin

Couldn't disagree more.

If you can't reasonably expect support from your own community, you can't expect support from anyone or anywhere.

FUDDS work against the best interests of pro 2nd Amendment citizens purposefully. They are as much the enemy and responsible for the decline of constitutional protections as are Progressives. All that matters to FUDDS is venison and roast duck.

You're letting them off the hook .

 

[Robin]

No, I am not letting them off the hook, just putting blame squarely where it belongs. I have been in more than one confrontation with club members at the range over their misunderstanding of the purpose of the second amendment. Sometimes I actually get through to them.
Robin

 

[GOPerfect]

People are talking like there is this huge community of gun owners.

Owning a gun does not make one part of this community. I know many people that own guns that have no idea what is occurring throughout the US.

Overall, people just don't care. Not just about guns and the 2A. Americans care so little for everything.

Taxes go up, they bitch.

Services decrease, they bitch.

Politicians spend our money in the absolute craziest ways, they bitch.

Besides bitching, most do nothing.

This gun community that so many think is huge is absolutely not.

 

[meketrefe]

Overall, people just don't care. Not just about guns and the 2A. Americans care so little for everything.

Until the lights go off and/or their internet service and playstatiton connection is disrupted. Then you will see an authentic revolutuon.

 

[holdover]

Well there's a good sized community of gun owners that are Going to Richmond. They are going to tell the governor they will not comply. That's about all they can really do . The point has been made loud and clear. By the Sherriff's, the Militia, and the people.

 

[John Stark]

Uprisings, insurrections, rebellions, revolutions, counterinsurgencies and such simply do not start "all at once," or at least that is certainly not the norm in history.

I just can't relate to any of those terms when I think of fighting for the return to a constitutional republic, our constitutional republic.
Robin

I understand how you feel mate. Its a damn shame what this nation has come to.

However, it ought to be as plain as the nose on my face to Americans who have read our founding documents and understand how communisim/fascism take hold, that what we have going on in this country is an insurgency, and the only thing that is going to stop it is a counterinsurgency.

The Cold War did not end. Its in our lap.

 

[holdover]

People are talking like there is this huge community of gun owners.

Owning a gun does not make one part of this community. I know many people that own guns that have no idea what is occurring throughout the US.

Overall, people just don't care. Not just about guns and the 2A. Americans care so little for everything.



This gun community that so many think is huge is absolutely not.

Well the fact that theres only about a dozen of us on this forum discussing it means your probably right.

I get the feeling, Im on the fucking Titanic

 

[John Stark]

Ha, you sir actually understand this topic & have actually read documented, well vetted sources of information. I’m kind of pleasantly shocked dude!

Being that you have a certain level of understanding, what do you think we in NYS could practically do to advance “Gun Rights” at this stage?

Ha, I’m still pleasantly surprised you exist on this forum! This guy won the internet today! My level of cynicism regarding “Gun Rights” activism actually went down five notches!

Someone buy this dude a coffee, or a beer, or some boxes of ammo, or all of the above! This guy actually gets it! Holy crap!

I appreciate the kind words, and I have not been dodging your question; I've had a couple of busy days.

I typically attempt to write in a semi-technical fashion to (maybe) make clear what I mean.

Your question requires a multifaceted response that would really be off topic for this particularly thread which has already drifted all over the place.

Suffice it to say that it is my opinion that we do not need to "advance" our Right to Bear Arms that much at all.

Not only is the Second Amendment perfectly clear (even most of the gun grabber lawyers and politicians know its clear, they just lie about it), but there are very serious Supreme Court decisions that have technically put the nail in the coffin for much of gun control among the states that have been crapping on the 2A for a century or more.

The RKBA is pretty much the most advanced law in the world that makes the average citizen a dire threat to government tyranny. States and FedGov have attempted to water that down and restrict it with crafty language and appeals to emotion to fool some of the People, but in terms of what the Founders clearly intended in their writings and speeches, commentary prior to the passage of the Amendment, and so on, from a true historical, legal, grammatical, and originalist point of view, no other nation has the written freedom to Keep and Bear Arms that the citizens of the United States have.

It could be argued that the Swiss as a matter of practice have more freedom of Arms than we do (males are required as a matter of law to have a full auto rifle, ammunition, and other ordinance in their homes, and the Swiss have a massive and popular competitive shooting culture), but I do not believe that as a technical matter of the law that is the case.

If by "advancement" you meant "activism," a word you used a bit later on in your post, let me be clear.

I am not interested in engaging in "activism" to "advance" the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I am interested in exercising my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in full accord with the law.

And that law is not only clear as a matter of historical fact (not interpretation!), it has been ruled that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual Right, that it is not dependent upon service in a militia (although intended towards that effect on a voluntary basis), and that Right has been incorporated to the States by the Supreme Court of this land (a power that the Supreme Court arrogated to itself and is no where found in the Constitution, but there it is).

The fact that states are ignoring both the clear meaning of the law and very potent Supreme Court decisions does not take away from the fact that, as a matter of law, we have every Right to own most weaponry and to bear such as we see fit within the confines of other statutes that regulate criminal behavior (murder, robbery, etc.).

Why do I write this in this manner, rather than address your question head on? Because the way we are going about securing and exercising our Rights has not worked.

Holding onto the Second Amendment and the rest of the BoR and our Constitution is going to require us to roll up our sleeves, not mail another useless letter or make another useless phone call.

 

[96coal449]

Right to own most weaponry

Not most. All.
Show me where it says "right to bear some arms."

Holding onto the Second Amendment and the rest of the BoR and our Constitution is going to require us to roll up our sleeves, not mail another useless letter or make another useless phone call.

Suggestions?

 

[John Stark]

Coonman reportedly no likey the exercise of the First and Second Amendments on the capitol grounds:

Virginia's Ralph Northam to ban guns from Capitol grounds, officials say

Fearing a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville more than two years ago, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam plans to declare a temporary emergency Wednesday banning all weapons, including guns, from Capitol Square ahead of a massive rally planned next week over gun rights.

www.foxnews.com

So not just the legislative buildings are off limits now to the citizens of VA, but also the outdoors anywhere near the capitol buildings... unless apparently VA citizens are willing to disarm themselves so they can "lobby" their asshole politicians are aren't going to listen to them anyways.

He's declaring a "Temporary Emergency."

Coonman "...plans to announce the plans at a news conference Wednesday afternoon because of credible threats of potential violence and extremism..."

Almost sounds like a Message of Necessity. I wonder when the "Are they extremists who support assault weapons, are against abortion, are anti-gay? If so, there is no place for them in Virginia..." speech will be made.

Looks they're quoting Holdover, lol:

"The official said the state does not have intelligence that the groups are planning a specific act of violence, but said Northam has grown increasingly concerned about numerous ominous-sounding postings on social media from forces outside Virginia. The official cited one posting that included a photo of an AR-15 and said there are “great sight angles from certain buildings” near Capitol Square."

Now we're going to see what kind of mettle the men in VA have.

 

[Acer-m14]

When was the last time a Governor, was removed from office for a crime? None that I can remember

Eliot Laurence Spitzer comes to mind over playing with some high dollar hookers .. and then the blind guy took over for a while ..

 

[holdover]

Holy shit, I forgot all about that. good catch.

 

[Acer-m14]

@holdover but he was doing the same shit FUAC is doing .. just busted from hookers .. we should send FUAC some LOl ..

On September 21, 2007, Spitzer issued an executive order directing that state offices allow illegal immigrants to be issued driver's licenses effective December 2007.[77][78] Applicants for driver's licenses would not be required to prove legal immigration status and would be allowed to present a foreign passport as identification.[78] After meeting with the Department of Homeland Security in October 2007, Spitzer altered the plan so that licenses issued to migrant workers would look different from other licenses and that the new licenses would not allow access to airplanes and federal buildings.[79]

 

[holdover]

Looks they're quoting Holdover, lol:

"The official said the state does not have intelligence that the groups are planning a specific act of violence, but said Northam has grown increasingly concerned about numerous ominous-sounding postings on social media from forces outside Virginia. The official cited one posting that included a photo of an AR-15 and said there are “great sight angles from certain buildings” near Capitol Square."

LOL. You don't have to be Erwin Frickin Rommel to see the problems here.

 

[ExMember_4526]

I appreciate the kind words, and I have not been dodging your question; I've had a couple of busy days.

I typically attempt to write in a semi-technical fashion to (maybe) make clear what I mean.

Your question requires a multifaceted response that would really be off topic for this particularly thread which has already drifted all over the place.

Suffice it to say that it is my opinion that we do not need to "advance" our Right to Bear Arms that much at all.

Not only is the Second Amendment perfectly clear (even most of the gun grabber lawyers and politicians know its clear, they just lie about it), but there are very serious Supreme Court decisions that have technically put the nail in the coffin for much of gun control among the states that have been crapping on the 2A for a century or more.

The RKBA is pretty much the most advanced law in the world that makes the average citizen a dire threat to government tyranny. States and FedGov have attempted to water that down and restrict it with crafty language and appeals to emotion to fool some of the People, but in terms of what the Founders clearly intended in their writings and speeches, commentary prior to the passage of the Amendment, and so on, from a true historical, legal, grammatical, and originalist point of view, no other nation has the written freedom to Keep and Bear Arms that the citizens of the United States have.

It could be argued that the Swiss as a matter of practice have more freedom of Arms than we do (males are required as a matter of law to have a full auto rifle, ammunition, and other ordinance in their homes, and the Swiss have a massive and popular competitive shooting culture), but I do not believe that as a technical matter of the law that is the case.

If by "advancement" you meant "activism," a word you used a bit later on in your post, let me be clear.

I am not interested in engaging in "activism" to "advance" the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I am interested in exercising my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in full accord with the law.

And that law is not only clear as a matter of historical fact (not interpretation!), it has been ruled that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual Right, that it is not dependent upon service in a militia (although intended towards that effect on a voluntary basis), and that Right has been incorporated to the States by the Supreme Court of this land (a power that the Supreme Court arrogated to itself and is no where found in the Constitution, but there it is).

The fact that states are ignoring both the clear meaning of the law and very potent Supreme Court decisions does not take away from the fact that, as a matter of law, we have every Right to own most weaponry and to bear such as we see fit within the confines of other statutes that regulate criminal behavior (murder, robbery, etc.).

Why do I write this in this manner, rather than address your question head on? Because the way we are going about securing and exercising our Rights has not worked.

Holding onto the Second Amendment and the rest of the BoR and our Constitution is going to require us to roll up our sleeves, not mail another useless letter or make another useless phone call.

This!!!

However, would you not agree that based on what you noted above, there needs to be some sort of “push” to make the “masses” aware of this, and some sort of legal action taken in order to hold certain elements accountable?

 

[John Stark]

Not most. All.
Show me where it says "right to bear some arms."


Suggestions?

Frankly I'm not interested in debating whether or not nukes constitute "arms," which is exactly where that kind of discussion goes, both among the gun grabers and the gun supporters. It is frankly a ridiculous rhetorical, hypothetical, reductio ad absurdum device used to make sure that we can never get a baseline for exactly what the Second Amendment means when it says Arms.

At the very least, that baseline is "bearable arms," that is, the kind of arms that can be personally carried. However, there were ships and canon and various other implements of war that are not necessarily "bearable" but were in private hands during and even after the Revolution. Thus, using "bearable" arms (i.e., personal weapons and implements of war like a helmet or grenade or a plate carrier) almost certainly doesn't go far enough IMO.

This is where the definition of "common use" that gets harped on and completely distorted comes into play.

Most people talk about "common use" as though that means "most popular weapons" for personal, local, state, or national defense; thus, people say that AR pattern rifle are the most "common" (read: populary owned) self-defense guns in America, and thus what is protected.

That is in complete error.

"Common use" is more akin to talking about "current technology." In the Revolutionary era, we'd be talking about muzzle loading weapons. Breech loading would be the obvious next major step in the evolution of arms, and thus what would then be in "common use." Eventually we get revolvers and lever actions and bolt guns and semi-autos and full-autos. Note that I am not attempting to list the exact time any one firearm technology became the standard or accepted "best" weapon in any period. Also note that here I am only talking about guns, and not things like grenades or canon/artillery or warships, etc., and eventually planes and rpgs and tanks, etc., which IMO must be talked about if we're going to talk about the Second Amendment.

A good rubric IMO would at the very least be a question something like this: what is the standard military technology that gives the best defensive and offensive power in order to defend our nation and secure our Liberty?

Answer: What the military has, at least in terms of "bearable" arms, is absolutely the bare minimum standard by which we are to judge whether we are living in a state of Liberty and preparedness for national defense, which would and absolutely should include full auto, magazines of all sorts, grenades, rpgs, mines, and so on.

Also note that I am not saying that this rules out other armaments that are not "bearable;" I am merely trying to establish a baseline or minimum threshold below which neither the Feds nor the States should have ever been allowed to distort or deny as a matter of our law.

Many Founders were against standing armies, or wanted them IMO limited in scope to something like an effective force that could immediately meet an enemy in the field or upon the waters to blunt any offensive against the nation, and skilled cadres who could effectively train other men for effective warfare when needed (i.e., when the militia would need to be called up for the sake of more men/talent/skill/armaments, etc.).

It is my view that this skill in warfare should have always been a matter of training and recruitment by militias, so that on a part time basis most adult men would be trained in the latest military technology (common use because its state of the art or near so), tactics, and so on.

Note that this does not preclude others from Keeping and Bearings Arms as they see fit if they do not wish to participate in militia training. The Individual Right is secure, because it is the basis for the Right for everyone.

It is also my view that every state should have at the local level various militias who associate together because they are family, friends, neighbors, and so on, who are trained periodically in warfare, equivalent to volunteer fire companies, based on who they want to associate with. Thus, a single village or town might have one militia if everyone got along, or perhaps several depending on local needs, wants, interests, etc.

Americans have the freedom to associate with whom they please, so different militias who are compromised of like-minded people in their local communities makes the most sense IMO to promote varied local interests while allowing for a diversified fighting force.

Then we move up the food chain. At the county level, elected sheriffs would at least be the theoretical head of that county's militia; however, that would not be to cram anyone into some pigeon hole, but to work with the local interests for the express and strict purpose of military preparedness to defend the local communities and the county, and the state and the nation only if necessary, and to ensure that our Liberty is secure.

Somewhere between the local villages and towns/cities, and the county level, the matter of artillery, aircraft, naval craft, and training and readiness for each of those, would have to be worked out and cooperative. Thus, tanks, boats and ships, aircraft, etc. would be scattered among the People in their own communities, ready for service if need be, and not all in the hands of a standing army that might suppress or oppress them.

At the state level, it is my view that every single state should have a military base or bases that best fits the type of warfare that would be needed for them to remain a "Free State." Thus, those that have access to water (the highways of the Revolutionary era) would be required to have some type of naval base and training requirements for voluntary militia; a base to train ground pounders (artillery and infantry); and an airfield. Thus, each state could have a reliable and highly trained force to immediately meet invasion or insurrection, and one that could protect each State from other states or FedGov if tyranny was afoot and some strong man or warlord attempted to strip a state of its Rights.

Then we move up to the Feds, with its own system of effective but limited full time military personnel, as need and circumstances dictate, in order to deal with immediate threats to the nation, as well as the possibility of the need to engage a foreign power at sea or otherwise in a foreign theater. The local, county, and state militias, trained and backed up by the smaller professional state forces that hold the state military bases then work hand-in-hand with Federal forces on a regular basis, for the purpose of training and readiness, and to keep the size of any standing forces small enough so they do not become a terrible threat to our Liberty, but effective and big enough to deal with any serious threat, foreign or domestic. Any given situation would determine the size of Federal forces depending on the needs of any given military situation and defensive or offensive necessity, requiring growth or reductions in force on a case by case basis.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote a fantastic commentary on the US Constitution in the early 1800s that should be required reading for every American. He essentially grew up during the post-Revolution (born in 1779), and his father a doctor and a member of the Sons of Liberty. In his commentary he talks about the fervency for the militia movement in the colonial and Revolutionary era, and laments the fact that in his time the militia movement seemed to have mostly faded back into the woodwork, and that volunteer spirit that won the Liberty of a nation should not have been allowed to flicker or be put out. He was right.

Now, this is a very rough sketch of my opinion on how things should have always been so that we did not end up at this point now where we have scum who want to put chains on us by stripping of us our Rights. I don't pretend to know what the full extent of the Second Amendment is, but it is my intuition that on a personal level, it at least has a bare minimum that the Feds and States MUST allow, and its my own view that this bare minimum ought to certainly include the necessary war implements such that local, county, and state citizens can mount an effective military offense or defense of themselves and their nation.

Make of that what you will.

 

[96coal449]

@John Stark that pretty much sums it up to my thinking as well. I believe nukes should not be used anywhere or by anyone. All bearable arms come into play as well as any that can be easily towed and or mobilized.

I was mostly referencing the fact that libs have no knowledge of why full auto was put into federal regulation via NFA act of '34.
Thanks to the propaganda of Al Capone and the Thompson which was readily available on hardware store shelves of the time.

PS: I apologize for taking up so much of your time......geezsh

 

[Acer-m14]

and mail order ..

 

[96coal449]

and mail order ..

Not quite the same ........ but still cool

 

[Robin]

No, I am not letting them off the hook, just putting blame squarely where it belongs. I have been in more than one confrontation with club members at the range over their misunderstanding of the purpose of the second amendment. Sometimes I actually get through to them.
Robin

Maybe sometimes an old man with a flintlock lends credibility to my stance when confronting these folks.
This has kind of stuck in my mind. These Fudds can a huge asset and shouldn't be scorned. Just talk to them, reason and purpose will work most times when stating our position, with anyone. Maybe think of them like Eve before she bit into that apple from the tree of knowledge, ignorant with no self awareness, once tasted, there is no going back.
God speed Virginia, I hope it all works out.
Robin