QOTD: Judge Benson Everett Legg

"A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."

Judge Benson Everett Legg, in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan.

The opinion grants the Motion for Summary Judgment to Plaintiff Woollard, and denies the State of Maryland's claim. Score one victory for the Second Amendment Foundation, and Maryland Shall Issue (at the District Court level, too!).

24 Hour notice

Rep Sheila Jackson Lee (Moron, TX) had an amendment to HR822 which would have required gun owners to notify the state police at their destination (and at all states in-between) that they were arriving with their firearm.

Really.

I wonder how that same thought pattern would apply to people who wished to exercise their right to assemble, speak, or worship in a neighboring state?

Should we make citizens call ahead to exercise their 4th, or 5th Amendment rights?

I wonder if we should apply this same requirement to the 13th Amendment? Maybe Rep. Jackson-Lee should be required to call ahead to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or North Carolina if she intended to present herself there? Shouldn't she prove that she is a "Freedman"? How do I know that she is not a slave?

Should we require a person to call ahead when they wish to exercise their 18th Amendment rights to a cocktail in a neighboring state? After all, alcohol-related car accidents claim more lives annually than all gun-related deaths (criminal or otherwise) in the USA combined. Think of the Children!

How about we require Ms. Jackson Lee to call ahead to see if she can exercise her right to vote, being a woman and all. Or, is the 19th Amendment applicable to ALL STATES just like the 14th is?

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is an All or Nothing proposition. Don't cry "Equality" and "Women's Rights" over abortion (and claim federal superiority) on the one hand, then hide behind "State's Rights" on the other. (Notwithstanding that the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Enumerated Individual Civil Right, and Abortion is merely inferred under the 9th.)

We fought a war over the ability of individual states to infringe on fundamental rights for certain individuals. I would think that, as a Black Woman living in the South, she would appreciate this fact. It doesn't really sound like it though. It really sounds like she enjoys being a shill for the Democratic Party Plantation when it comes to some rights for some citizens. Kind of like JIM CROW.

Shame on her.

Newbius

Dangerous Precedent

Or is that 'dangerous president'? 

Today, the US Government executed a US Citizen without a trial, tribunal, or finding of fact about his actual guilt.  We are no longer a nation of laws.  A precedent has been set, and we are at the edge of the abyss.

To be clear, I detest everything that Anwar al Awlaki (or whatever his name is) stood for.  But, until he either renounces his citizenship and/or fights on the field of battle against us (or is arrested, tried, and found guilty of treason), he is a citizen with rights.  Merely declaring him a "terrorist" is not sufficient justification to execute him. 

Hell, by the terms of the current rules of engagement, I am a terrorist. (see DHS/Fusion report on 'domestic terrorists')  Because, you see, I believe we are still a constitutional republic.  I believe that Socialism is incompatible with Liberty.  I believe in the Almighty God and his dominion.  I believe in free will.  I believe that I have the right to arms to protect my life and my property from all enemies foreign and domestic.  And, I might even vote for Ron Paul.

How long until some dweeb sitting at the control console of his drone decides to drop a Hellfire missile on my ass?  Or yours?  Do you even care?  Or, is party more important than principle?

Newbius
|||

Support those who support you

Yesterday I cleared out my email box of offers, spam, real messages, and news items from around the nation and world. Noteworthy is the regular email that I get from four groups I belong to: Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), US Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). These emails detail the issues being worked in the fight for my rights. Why four? Because these groups educate, fight for and defend my right to self-defense at the personal, local, state and national levels.

USCCA is a great resource for news and information relating to carrying your weapon. They have informative videos, pamphlets, and forums to discuss the practical and legal issues involved when you make the decision to carry your gun.

VCDL works the local events, demonstrations, and gun shows; and also coordinates advocacy lobbying at the state legislature.

The NRA does education, instructor training, industry news, and lobbies at the state and federal levels. They also do some litigation work, but their primary arm working in the legal area is their Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) which scores politicians every election cycle.

The Second Amendment Foundation is focused on litigation at the state and federal level to roll back existing infringements on our rights. They were the people responsible for bringing you the McDonald decision, and were an amicus in Heller. SAF is currently working on landmark litigation in the strongholds of Jim Crow Gun Control areas like Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Virginia, and Washington DC.

I value my civil rights. I have put my money where my beliefs are and I support these groups financially. If you value your Second Amendment civil rights, you should support them too. If you are not already a member of USCCA, your local and state organization, the NRA, and the SAF, then join them ASAP. These groups are working for your rights daily. They need your support. If you cannot send them money, donate your time and get active. Do it. Today.

Pax,

Newbius

QOTD: Judge Diane Sykes

"Mr. Gura, what would you like your injunction to say?"

7th Circuit Court of Appeals, oral arguments, Ezell v. City of Chicago.

The full audio recording is HERE. Save this one to your MP3 player. It is worth listening to over and over and over again. :)

Newbius

H/T Sebastian, John Richardson

Defensive Gun Use in Utah

Jay_G at MArooned has the link (DGC #111).

This story is a tragedy, but not for the reasons many are stating. The dead choirboy (sorry, some comments at the news article site are calling him a "good man") was arrested earlier in the day on Domestic Violence charges. Meaning, he was abusing the woman (not his wife) that he was shacking with. The police haul him off to jail, and he is slapped with a 'no-contact' order.

In the world of good intentions, said choirboy would realize the error of his ways and go get a motel room for the night, removing himself from the premises. Also in the world of good intentions, everybody kisses and makes up and life goes on normally.

In the real world, thugs who beat up on women tend to take offense at being told by said women to go away. Even more so when the law gets involved. Then they get a mite peeved at the restraining order. Add a little gray-bar time, and the likelihood is that the thug is going to return to the scene and finish the lesson he was trying to teach when he got arrested the first time.

The gun-banner (fantasy) mindset is that good intentions matter, that children (I think that means anyone under 26 nowadays) should not be able to access their parents guns (nor know how to use them), and that the police will protect people since they are the 'only ones' who should have force of arms. Additionally, chivalry dictates that the strong thugs will never prey on the weaker women, and that once things go to the courts that the issue is resolved.

This tragic case has reality coming home to destroy the liberal gun-banner fantasies in a very concrete way. No restraining order will keep a criminal abuser away from his intended victim, as the act of abusing the victim is already a crime. The police will not protect you. Children should be properly trained about guns in the home, and when appropriate, taught how to use them effectively. Guns should be accessible to those same 'children' so that they can be used defensively. And, finally, thugs generally don't listen to reason, and criminal thugs do not obey the law. They usually only understand force.

That a 17-year-old girl had to end this encounter with a gun speaks volumes about the situation. That she did so shows remarkable courage. The fact that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life is the real tragedy.

It is a terrible thing to have to take another's life, even in self-defense. Contrary to the media narrative (and Brady-VPC-Joyce spin), most gun owners recognize this. None of us are looking for a fight. But, to those who say that my 'stuff' is not worth my life I reply: "to the thug who wants to take it, it is". Therefore, I should be willing to meet that threat with a willingness to, and the ability to, return the same sentiment. In copper-jacketed lead, if required. God willing, I will never have to.

Pax,

Newbius

Opt Out, Part Deux

According to TSA'a guidelines, if you opt out, you can be subject to CIVIL penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. The procedure, outlined here, lays out the prosecution guidelines. Please note that at no point is the alleged violator given the option of a jury trial. Also, the alleged violator is accused, convicted, and assessed, with final disposition (if disputed) subject to the ruling of an Administrative Law Judge.

I have one word for this procedure: Unconstitutional.

Whether or not you agree that the act of purchasing a plane ticket waives your 4th and 5th Amendment rights, the fact that the penalties are civil in nature strikes me as an attempt to defuse the core constitutional question regarding the right to a jury trial. Since the attempted fine to be exacted exceeds the sum of $20.00, (it is $10,000 per alleged violation), the denial of the right to a jury trial under both Article 3 Section 2 AND the 7th Amendment strikes me as ripe for challenge.

What say you?

Newbius
|||

Virginia Reciprocity

There are a lot of things that are nice about living in Virginia. For a gun owner, it is nice to live in a state that has reasonable gun laws, and has a constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms enshrined in the state charter.

Up until 1950, the act of carrying a handgun in Virginia was a complete non-issue. In 1950, the legislature passed into law restrictions on concealed carry ("may issue"), but left open carry alone in order to satisfy the constitutional requirement. As the years progressed, through Jim Crow and the Civil Rights fights, these laws became more and more onerous for the average citizen. Unless you were politically connected, white, wealthy, or powerful, a carry permit was not going to be issued.

In 1995, Virginia joined a handful of states changing their laws to "Shall Issue", and the legislature has been peeling back the regulations ever since (over the vehement objections of the Democrats from Richmond, Fairfax, and Arlington county). Last year saw some of the most aggressive attempts to liberate the gun laws in Virgina, and many of these reforms passed. Many more were killed in a specially-formed committee of Henry Marsh's, which was created for the sole purpose of stopping the legislation.

Great, you say. Why are you telling me this, Newbius?

Here is why: Reciprocity. According to the Virginia State Police, Virginia has formal reciprocity agreements with 12 states. An additional 13 states have informal reciprocity with us. So, out of the total of 50 states, I can legally carry in 26 of them using my home state permit. What about the rest? Well, if I was a law enforcement officer I could carry using my status under LEOSA in all 50 states. Since I am not, I have to depend on bureaucratic dispensation...

OK, but where am I going with this? Well...50 minus 26 is 24 remaining states (plus DC) where my permit is not recognized. Several of these are Blue states where the right is essentially denied. These are Wisconsin, Illinois, California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Subtract these 8 states out of the mix, and that leaves 16 states (15 after Iowa becomes Shall Issue in January).

The remaining states in the US which have either Shall Issue permit laws, or are reasonable about their "May Issue" laws pretty much all have the same stance regarding recognition of the Virginia permit, to wit: "I'll recognize yours if you will recognize mine". Current Virginia statue requires any state which wishes to have their permits recognized in Virginia to have a permit process that is at least as onerous as ours, to have also constructed a 24-hour database sharing system, and to have adopted our prohibitions as well. This is ridiculous.

I have proposed to my Delegate that the statute be amended to strip out these requirements, and to grant recognition of another state's carry permits no matter where issued. The only caveats I would leave in place are restrictions on Prohibited Persons (at least until that is eliminated from Federal law), and persons who are under age. If another state has issued a permit, then we should recognize it.

Face it, every law-abiding person who complies with the carry permit process has had to prove he or she is not a prohibited person already. Most states also require some form of formal training. We should give full faith and credit to these states' permits, just as we do their drivers licenses. We don't require that other states adopt our driving standards before recognizing their licenses, do we? If we don't do this for the exercise of a privilege, why do it for a right?

I would love to hear some feedback on this one.

Pax,

Newbius

New link added

I support the Second Amendment Foundation. I am a Life Member, and I appreciate everything that they do. The Second Amendment Foundation are the people who brought you the Heller and McDonald decisions. They deserve your support. I have added links to their page at both the upper left and bottom right of my blog page. Please click through to their page and lend them your support.

Pax,

Newbius

Note to FTC: I do not receive any compensation from them. I believe in their mission. Do you believe in yours???

(H/T Joe Huffman)

July the First

In Virginia, my adopted home state, new laws take effect on July 1st. One of those new laws that takes effect this year is Restaurant Carry.

I didn't go out to eat last night, but intend to do so tonight. Just because I can. I am now another year older, and the state I live in is almost to the point of treating me like an adult. I had the human right to carry in a restaurant for self defense before today. Now I have the legal right to do so as well.

Small steps...take enough of them and your journey is begun.

Pax,

Newbius

QOTD - Dennis Henigan

From the Reuters article on the remaining SCOTUS cases, found HERE:

In the gun rights case, even gun control advocates said they expect the Supreme Court to strike down Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban.

They said they also expect the court to extend its landmark 2008 ruling that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns to all the cities and states.

Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said the decision will be used by the gun lobby to challenge a myriad of state and local gun laws. "With few exceptions, these challenges will fail," he said.

I wonder what his definition of "few" is? The prevailing wisdom on this issue is that SCOTUS incorporates the Second Amendment against the cities and states. It is only a matter of time before all of the infringements get rolled back. Through legislation, preferably, by lawsuit if necessary.

I wonder why this concept is hard for Mr. Henigan to understand? Willful ignorance? Or, just plain bigoted stupidity? Only time will tell.

Pax,

Newbius

McDonald Case Prediction

Today or this coming Monday, SCOTUS will rule against Chicago.

I predict that the ruling will be so convoluted, so shameless in the attempt to both strike down Chicago's laws, while preserving the worst aspects of NFA34, GCA68 and FOPA86, that the follow-on litigation will carry on for years.

Actually striking a clear blow for Liberty seems to be beyond the realm of the possible for the Roberts Court. I hope I am wrong. I hope that the ruling will be as clear and concise as the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Reasonable restrictions? Fuck that. What part of "Shall not be infringed" is hard to understand?

Newbius
|||

RE SCOTUS Pick

...Elena Kagan.

Given the choices "available" to the current POTUS, and given his ideological leanings, Solicitor General Kagan might very well be the least damaging pick possible.

I have it on pretty good authority that Ms. Kagan is, at least, a reasonable person of good temperament. She may not be "a wise Latina", but at least she isn't "a wise Latina". By this I mean that she doesn't have any overt, documented prejudices, EXCEPT FOR HER AVERSION TO OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. With this being said, she is not currently a swing vote. She is likely amenable to a good argument. She is hopefully able to be swayed to our side with solid cases and good presentation.

I say grill her to get her on record about the things important to us, but confirm her. There are much worse choices out there that could be in the hot seat instead.

Pax,

Newbius

Patriot's Day Rallies

Yesterday, two rallies were held advocating the preservation of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend due to a personal matter.

However, reading through all of the news coverage of the events, one thing is very clear to me. Namely, the law-abiding gun-owner is just that. Law-abiding.

If you listen just to the smear merchants and bed wetters, you would get the impression that we are foaming-at-the-mouth Neanderthals itching for a fight with Big.Gov. The truth is, even though the rhetoric can get heated at times, at no point was anybody threatened, harmed, or killed. No violence was advocated. No violence was experienced.

Unlike the protests that the Left conducts (like the G-20 summits recently), there was exhibited a respect for the law and an adherence to the principles of decency that define our Nation for the most part.

Yes, gun owners and advocates got together to protest. One protest was armed and another was not. The difference? The Law.

In Virginia, it is legal to bear arms. In DC, it is not. Even though I believe that the law in DC is unconstitutional, the protesters still obeyed it because we are law-abiding even in our advocacy.

The Progressive Left in America wishes to force a Socialist vision of government-mandated Utopian equality onto the rest of us. We in the Libertarian Right oppose this. Until the day comes where the choice is forced, "obey or die" (implied if the threatened response is arrest and jail time), we will continue to advocate using peaceful means.

Even when displaying our arms in protest, we are obeying the law. We are just trying to bring the Law into alignment with the founding principles of Liberty. Peacefully, if possible.

Pax,

Newbius

Riddle me this

Hypothetical court test case:

Defendant owns sequentially numbered firearms itemized below:

Exhibit A: Mossberg 500 12ga, 18.5" barrel, standard buttstock, S/N xxxxxxx4, produced 01/29/xxxx



Firearm "A" is considered a shotgun according to the BATFE. If the owner cuts the barrel down to a length under 18", it is a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Possession of the modified gun without registering it with the Federal Government (impossible to do with a modified weapon) and paying a $200 tax is a Felony.

Exhibit B: Mossberg 500 12ga, 18.5" barrel, pistol grip, S/N xxxxxxx5, produced 01/29/xxxx



Firearm "B" is not considered a shotgun according to BATFE. If the owner cuts the barrel down to a length under 18", it is not a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Please note that ALL of the parts on each firearm are interchangeable with one another. The act of putting the stock from Firearm "A" onto Firearm "B" would break no laws, according to BATFE, as Firearm "B" is not considered a pistol, nor is it considered a shotgun.

Arrest: Defendant swaps the stock and grip on his sequentially-numbered, but otherwise unmodified firearms. This act shortens Firearm "A" to an overall length below the minimum allowed and defendant is arrested by BATFE.

Accusation: Defendant is accused of violating NFA34 for possession of a contraband firearm, a "sawed-off shotgun" - Firearm Exhibit "A", without registering said weapon with and paying the Tax to the Federal Government.

No charges are filed for firearm exhibit "B".

If you were an honest judge, how would you decide?

As an aside- if you were to put a buttstock on an ordinary pistol, you would be in breach of NFA34. If you were to put a pistol grip on your rifle or shotgun in place of the buttstock, such that the overall length is less than the legal minimum, you would be in violation of NFA34. If the factory does it for you, it is legal as long as the tribute tax is paid.

Makes perfect sense, right?

H/T Sipsey Street
Images from "World Guns" website, Mossberg Shotguns page
Is the Miller Decision even correct? See JPFO Summary
|||

Who is watching?

Perhaps this will become a regular feature here...

Who is watching, Department of Justice Edition:




They were here for THIS article on the DC Gun Registration policy.

Welcome to the party!

Pax,

Newbius

Marsh's anti-gun Goon Squad to meet March 4th

The header above is mine, the alert below is from the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. I don't think I have sufficient vocabulary to describe my utter disdain for the cowardly and underhanded way Senator Henry Marsh is handling the gun law reforms.

The citizens of Virginia are clamoring for these common-sense reforms, yet Senator Marsh knows what is best for us (or what is best for keeping his donations flowing). Richmond, you deserve a Senator who will fight for ALL of your civil rights, not just the ones which are "politically correct".

Once upon a time, brave freedom fighters fought "The Man" for their rights. Sadly, now "The Man" is Senator Marsh and his anti-freedom colleagues. Dogmatic adherence to Liberal Orthodoxy seems to be the rule of the day now, instead of continuing the fight to dismantle the remaining restrictions disproportionately affecting minorities in Richmond, Fairfax, and Portsmouth.

From the NRA-ILA:

Virginia: New “Special” Firearm Sub-Committee to Meet on Thursday, March 4!

Please Contact Committee Members!

On Thursday, March 4, the new “special” Senate Sub-Committee created to handle all firearm related bills passed by the House of Delegates, will meet at 2 p.m. in the 4th Floor East Conference Room.

State Senator Toddy Puller (D-36) will Chair this new special Sub-Committee and be joined by her fellow rabid anti-gun colleagues; State Senator Marsh (D-16), State Senator Louise Lucas (D-18), and State Senator Janet Howell (D-32). The sole Republican member of the Sub-Committee will be State Senator Frederick Quayle (R-13). Please contact the members of this sub-committee and urge them to request a fair hearing on firearm bills. Contact information can be found by clicking on their name.

Also, please contact Senate leadership and your State Senator and tell them you oppose the formation of this blatantly anti-gun sub-committee. Urge them to disband this sub-committee and allow these bills to receive fair consideration. You can find contact information for your State Senator by clicking here. Contact information for Senate Leadership can be found below.

Senator Richard Saslaw (D-35), Senate Majority Leader

(804) 698-7535

District35@senate.virginia.gov



Senator Henry Marsh, III (D-16), Courts of Justice Committee Chair

(804) 698-7516

District16@senate.virginia.gov

Listed below are the bills, which the special Senate Sub-Committee is expected to hear:

House Bill 26, authored by Delegate Thomas Wright (R-61), would prohibit the Clerk of the Court from requiring an applicant for a concealed handgun permit to provide any documentation or information not authorized by the law or prescribed by Virginia State Police.

House Bill 52, sponsored by Delegate Mark Cole (R-88), would allow a court to waive a $25 dollar fine upon presentation of the permit to the court, if a person fails to display his concealed carry permit when requested by a law-enforcement officer.

House Bill 79, sponsored by Delegate R. Lee Ware (R-65), would prohibit the Clerk of Court from publicly disclosing concealed handgun permit application information unless the permittee has provided written consent for the release of the application or information. The information would still be available to law-enforcement acting in the performance of their duties.

House Bill 108, also introduced by Delegate Cole (R-88), would prohibit agents of localities or localities themselves from participating in “gun buy-backs” unless the governing body of such a locality authorizes such a program. The locality would then have the option of selling the firearms by auction to a federally licensed dealer (FFL) or disposing of the firearm in any other appropriate manner.

House Bill 109, also sponsored by Delegate Mark Cole (R-88), would repeal the statute which allows the governing body of any county to require the sellers of pistols and revolvers to furnish the Clerk of the Circuit Court with the name and address of the purchaser, date of purchase and the number, make, and caliber of the gun.

House Bill 171, authored by Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-96), would prohibit property owners, employers, or a business entity from establishing or enforcing any policy prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm in a locked motor vehicle in a publicly accessible parking lot.

House Bill 236, sponsored by Delegate Bill Janis (R-56), would remove the prohibition imposed by localities on hunting within a half-mile of subdivisions.

House Bill 854, sponsored by Delegate Will Morefield (R-3), would provide immunity from civil prosecution if someone uses force, including deadly force, to defend themselves and their loved ones if attacked in their home by someone who has entered unlawfully.

House Bill 870, sponsored by Delegate Benjamin Cline (R-24), would repeal the language that allows localities to fingerprint applicants for a concealed handgun permit.

House Bill 885, sponsored by Delegate Cliff Athey (R-18), would allow any person who may lawfully posses a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private vehicle or vessel to keep the firearm secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel.

House Bill 1092, sponsored by Delegate Anne B. Crockett-Stark (R-6), would give retired law-enforcement the ability to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

House Bill 1191, introduced by Delegate H. Morgan Griffith (R-8), would allow a circuit court judge to authorize the Clerk of Court to issue concealed handgun permits in instances where the application is complete, the background check does not indicate that the applicant is disqualified, and, after consulting with the local sheriff or police department, there are no other questions or issues surrounding the application.

House Bill 490, sponsored by Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R-31), would direct the Department of State Police, in cooperation with the Secretary of Public Safety, to develop a plan to allow the State Police to issue lifetime concealed handgun permits to Virginia residents. The Department and the Secretary shall submit the plan, and any recommended legislative changes to implement the plan, to the Chairmen of the House Committee on Militia, Police, and Public Safety and the Senate Committee for Courts of Justice by October 15, 2010.

House Bill 1217, sponsored by Delegate Lynwood Lewis (D-100), would allow local school boards to offer firearm safety education programs in the elementary grades. To assist local school boards opting to provide such instruction, the Board of Education must establish a standardized program of firearm safety education for students in the elementary school grades to promote the protection and safety of children. The bill requires that the program objectives incorporate, among other principles of firearm safety, accident prevention and the rules of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program. Local school boards offering the program must comply with Board curriculum guidelines and integrate the instruction in appropriate subject areas, if feasible, to ensure that every elementary school student receives instruction in firearm safety education.

House Bill 1070, sponsored by Delegate Clay Athey (R-18), would provide that a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit may not be barred from carrying a concealed handgun in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons.

I hope to be able to go to Richmond personally tomorrow. I am already burning up the phones. Virginians, you should do likewise.

Pax,

Newbius

The District of Columbia Gun Labyrinth

Want to lawfully exercise your Second Amendment right to self defense in the District of Columbia? Then be prepared for a lengthy and tortuous trip down the rabbit hole of rules, regulations, and fees.

Read this Examiner article by Kris Hammond and prepare to be amazed at the arrogance of the officials in DC for implementing this sham on their population. Shame on them. The reality is that criminals won't follow this procedure, and only the law-abiding are impacted. Perhaps that is how they want it to be.

Someone please tell me how this process doesn't constitute Infringement of a right? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Newbius
|||

Virginia Legislative update

The Virginia General Assembly is meeting today for the final passage of several pro-gun bills. Today is "Crossover Day" wherein bills are presented in each chamber for final passage before crossing over to the other chamber for final concurrence and passage. The following bills have been passed in the House of Delegates, and will be sent to the Senate for final vote before being sent to the Governor:

HB 52 reduces the penalty for not having your permit on your person and provides an affirmative defense and provision to waive penalty.

HB 26 Amends the documentation requirements for obtaining an permit.

HB 637 Waives the CCW application fee for certain members of the Coast Guard.

HB 854 Castle Doctrine

HB 8 allows renewal of CCW by mail.

HB 49 repeals the "One-Gun-a-Month" law.

HB 69 Virginia Firearms Freedom Act

HB 79 Closes public access to the CCW Permit Database and bars the Clerk of the Court from providing access to the applications.

HB 108 Limits Gun "buy-back" programs, and requires disposition of those firearms through licensed firearms dealers rather than by destruction.

HB 109 Gun dealer privacy and taxation. Repeals local authority to tax gun dealers and mandates destruction of the tax records previously collected.

HB 171 Provides immunity from liability for owners of weapons stolen from locked vehicles.

HB 236 Enforces preemption against localities from enacting anti-hunting regulations, and establishes a uniform penalty for discharging a firearm towards a subdivision that is within range of the firearm.

HB 490 Legislation to develop a plan for lifetime issuance of a concealed weapons permit.

HB 870 removes the option for a locality to require fingerprints on a CCW Permit application.

HB 871 provides for the right to an ore tenus hearing.

HB 885 Creates a new exemption to the general prohibition against carrying concealed weapons by allowing a person who may lawfully possess a firearm to carry a handgun in a private motor vehicle or boat if the handgun is secured in a container or compartment.

HB 1070 Persons with a valid permit may carry into an emergency shelter.

HB 1092 Retired law enforcement may carry anywhere in the state.

HB 1191 allows a Circuit Court judge to authorize issuance by the clerk of the court.

HB 1256 Law enforcement officers who have resigned in good standing may carry, as retired LOE's can.

HB 1379 Provides that certain Northern Virginia localities may adopt local ordinances that regulate the possession and storage of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof at child-care facilities, so long as such regulation is not more extensive in scope than comparable state regulations applicable to family day-care homes.

These bills will now cross over to the state Senate for passage. Although most of these bills have overwhelming support, their prospects in the Senate are less than certain. Please contact your state Senator and express support for these pro-rights bills so that we can continue our common-sense reforms of Virginia's firearms laws.

Pax,

Newbius

Getting it right

The Virginia Assembly is now in session. Several pro-gun bills are pending before the VA legislature this year and there is going to be a rally of gun owners on January 18th. According to a post by Turk, CCW permit holders will be the ones NOT having to suffer the indignity of being poked, prodded, and scanned for weapons...because we will be CARRYING THEM ON OUR PERSONS LEGALLY while visiting our representatives. We will have an express lane!

Yippee!

Seriously folks. This is how it should be.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League has a tracker of pending bills before the Virginia Legislature that they support. These are all "Sensible Gun Laws", in that they remove silly restrictions currently placed upon the law-abiding in the Commonwealth.

To this list, I would like my Delegate to add legislation affirming that state entities (which are NOT the legislature) are prohibited from infringing on our Constitutional (Federal and State) Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Specifically, that the state should preempt any and all laws by any municipality, regulatory agency, or College Board of Regents which usurps the legislature's purview in this area. If we are really trying to prevent another Virginia Tech tragedy, disarming the victims is not the way to achieve it.

When I visit with my delegate on the 18th, I will be bringing this letter as well as this one, and requesting of him that the Legislature extend preemption of ALL gun issues, whether open-carry or concealed-carry to all agencies in the state. Additionally, I want the legislature to work on open reciprocity of all permit holders from other states, to ensure that other gun owners do not run afoul of any patchwork laws which may trip them up.

Sounds ambitious...but the opportunity to act is before us like never before. I hope to see you there.

Pax,

Newbius