Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Post Reply
User avatar
wings
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:24 am
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by wings »

The 2nd is neither more nor less important than the 9th, or 10th, or 4th. There is no "some amendments are more equal than others." It is up to the Supreme Court to interpret conflicts between amendments and the implied limits upon each. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifies a right to live, but we restrict the 1st when it infringes upon that implied right. Shouting "fire" in a theater, or inciting violence are specific exclusions.

Thus far, the Supreme Court has only gone so far as to endorse private ownership of handguns in the home for self defense. That's it. Heller vs. DC. And it's a very recent decision. You all know that. Otherwise the Court has avoided delineating the 2nd, and left limits at local discretion. Since they are the ultimate arbiters of Constitutionality - not the NRA, and certainly not you - these steps remain constitutional until they decide otherwise.

When they overturned Federal Gun-Free Zone restrictions around schools because they didn't see how they affected interstate commerce, Congress turned right around and re-established them by noting that most guns or gun parts have been transported across state lines. The Court hasn't touched that since, and that's as close to spitting in their eye as you get.

Do these address root causes? Certainly not.

Are they good policies? That is, will they have a measurable and positive effect on reducing gun violence? Debatable. We'll see.

Are they annoying inconveniences to law-abiding gun owners? Absolutely. Can they be abused? Probably. But my right to buy multiple guns at a time without the government checking to see if I've been convicted of violent crimes is not more important than the lives of innocents. Even framing it in those terms is why we've been losing the debate.

At the end of the day, any jurisdiction could tax possession and sale of ammunition at $1 million a bullet and be well within their established constitutional rights. That's how I know that disarmament isn't the agenda.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14674
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by sikacz »

featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:24 pm
sig230 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:38 pm
sikacz wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:05 pm
I see a whole bunch of wrong with all of them! They don’t address the root causes of violence.

And just because you, sig, don’t see anything wrong with it doesn’t mean there is not something wrong with it. It’s one of the cornerstones of this group, to address the issue and not the tools. Way too many people lately here are eager to throw the second under a bus for one reason or another. It also stands that judging ones need is individual. It’s not up to me to decide what is appropriate and what you need especially when it relates to rights.
But it is up to local governments to decide what they believe is in the best interests of the people they protect.
No, it is not, specifically to gun control. McDonald incorporated the 2nd against the states. If SCOTUS would ever rule, president is pretty clear that a lot of states are way out of line with gun control.
SCOTUS is doing a bang up job avoiding doing its job. Makes me wonder how solid the republican appointees are when it comes to the second.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14674
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by sikacz »

So how old does a ruling have to be? Or is it that when rulings are not to your liking there is a magical time factor that makes it okay to ignore them?

By the way a million dollar tax on a single bullet is one hundred percent an infringement. It says only rich privileged elites are allowed to protect themselves and the poor can F’off. How would you apply that taxation to other rights?
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11302
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by K9s »

sikacz wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:56 pm
So how old does a ruling have to be? Or is it that when rulings are not to your liking there is a magical time factor that makes it okay to ignore them?

By the way a million dollar tax on a single bullet is one hundred percent an infringement. It says only rich privileged elites are allowed to protect themselves and the poor can F’off. How would you apply that taxation to other rights?
I'm sure "LE and retired LEO" would be exempt from that tax, by the way. That way, they can hire retired LEO for their private security forces. That's what they do now, right?
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
sig230
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:39 pm
Location: Deep South Texas
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by sig230 »

featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:24 pm
sig230 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:38 pm
sikacz wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:05 pm
I see a whole bunch of wrong with all of them! They don’t address the root causes of violence.

And just because you, sig, don’t see anything wrong with it doesn’t mean there is not something wrong with it. It’s one of the cornerstones of this group, to address the issue and not the tools. Way too many people lately here are eager to throw the second under a bus for one reason or another. It also stands that judging ones need is individual. It’s not up to me to decide what is appropriate and what you need especially when it relates to rights.
But it is up to local governments to decide what they believe is in the best interests of the people they protect.
No, it is not, specifically to gun control. McDonald incorporated the 2nd against the states. If SCOTUS would ever rule, president is pretty clear that a lot of states are way out of line with gun control.
But so far SCOTUS has not ruled and in fact recently simply decided not to rule.
To be vintage it must be older than me! Coming to you from Deep South Texas!

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6669
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by featureless »

sig230 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:39 pm
featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:24 pm
sig230 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:38 pm
sikacz wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:05 pm
I see a whole bunch of wrong with all of them! They don’t address the root causes of violence.

And just because you, sig, don’t see anything wrong with it doesn’t mean there is not something wrong with it. It’s one of the cornerstones of this group, to address the issue and not the tools. Way too many people lately here are eager to throw the second under a bus for one reason or another. It also stands that judging ones need is individual. It’s not up to me to decide what is appropriate and what you need especially when it relates to rights.
But it is up to local governments to decide what they believe is in the best interests of the people they protect.
No, it is not, specifically to gun control. McDonald incorporated the 2nd against the states. If SCOTUS would ever rule, president is pretty clear that a lot of states are way out of line with gun control.
But so far SCOTUS has not ruled and in fact recently simply decided not to rule.
Correct, there is no ruling. But there are several descenting opinions that clearly spell out what was intended in Heller. The is also McDonald that affirms Heller. There is also Cateneao where SCOTUS applied Heller. The legal framework is largely settled but circuit courts are not complying. It will take SCOTUS action to force that and they have, so far, neglected to do so.

And, Heller did establish that 2A protects keep and bear, not limited to a revolver in the bedroom, as so many like to parrot. It even defined bear. Lower courts have used all sorts of gymnastics to avoid the clear text of Heller. But, whatever.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14674
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by sikacz »

featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:25 pm
sig230 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:39 pm
featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:24 pm
sig230 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:38 pm


But it is up to local governments to decide what they believe is in the best interests of the people they protect.
No, it is not, specifically to gun control. McDonald incorporated the 2nd against the states. If SCOTUS would ever rule, president is pretty clear that a lot of states are way out of line with gun control.
But so far SCOTUS has not ruled and in fact recently simply decided not to rule.
Correct, there is no ruling. But there are several descenting opinions that clearly spell out what was intended in Heller. The is also McDonald that affirms Heller. There is also Cateneao where SCOTUS applied Heller. The legal framework is largely settled but circuit courts are not complying. It will take SCOTUS action to force that and they have, so far, neglected to do so.

And, Heller did establish that 2A protects keep and bear, not limited to a revolver in the bedroom, as so many like to parrot. It even defined bear. Lower courts have used all sorts of gymnastics to avoid the clear text of Heller. But, whatever.
Exactly featureless.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6669
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by featureless »

sikacz wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:09 pm
featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:25 pm
sig230 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:39 pm
featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:24 pm

No, it is not, specifically to gun control. McDonald incorporated the 2nd against the states. If SCOTUS would ever rule, president is pretty clear that a lot of states are way out of line with gun control.
But so far SCOTUS has not ruled and in fact recently simply decided not to rule.
Correct, there is no ruling. But there are several descenting opinions that clearly spell out what was intended in Heller. The is also McDonald that affirms Heller. There is also Cateneao where SCOTUS applied Heller. The legal framework is largely settled but circuit courts are not complying. It will take SCOTUS action to force that and they have, so far, neglected to do so.

And, Heller did establish that 2A protects keep and bear, not limited to a revolver in the bedroom, as so many like to parrot. It even defined bear. Lower courts have used all sorts of gymnastics to avoid the clear text of Heller. But, whatever.
Exactly featureless.
Just to point out that Caetano used the "in common use by law abiding citizens" standard contained in Heller to determine which arms were protected by 2a and if regulation on those arms constituted a burden. It did not find that the right to stun guns (determined be arms in common use) was limited to the bedroom. That is SCOTUS's application of Heller, for all courts to follow. Why lower courts are confused by this is a mystery. Oh, what's that you say? Only "liberal" majority circuit courts are defying Heller? What a surprise.

(Corollary to how "conservative" courts treat abortion and reason enough for us to not make up what case law says or we're at risk of screwing all our rights.)

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14674
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by sikacz »

featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:38 pm
sikacz wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:09 pm
featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:25 pm
sig230 wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:39 pm


But so far SCOTUS has not ruled and in fact recently simply decided not to rule.
Correct, there is no ruling. But there are several descenting opinions that clearly spell out what was intended in Heller. The is also McDonald that affirms Heller. There is also Cateneao where SCOTUS applied Heller. The legal framework is largely settled but circuit courts are not complying. It will take SCOTUS action to force that and they have, so far, neglected to do so.

And, Heller did establish that 2A protects keep and bear, not limited to a revolver in the bedroom, as so many like to parrot. It even defined bear. Lower courts have used all sorts of gymnastics to avoid the clear text of Heller. But, whatever.
Exactly featureless.
Just to point out that Caetano used the "in common use by law abiding citizens" standard contained in Heller to determine which arms were protected by 2a and if regulation on those arms constituted a burden. It did not find that the right to stun guns (determined be arms in common use) was limited to the bedroom. That is SCOTUS's application of Heller, for all courts to follow. Why lower courts are confused by this is a mystery. Oh, what's that you say? Only "liberal" majority circuit courts are defying Heller? What a surprise.

(Corollary to how "conservative" courts treat abortion and reason enough for us to not make up what case law says or we're at risk of screwing all our rights.)
I refuse to acknowledge those judges as truly liberal. They are anything but liberal.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6669
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by featureless »

Do note the air quotes. :)

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14674
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by sikacz »

featureless wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:44 pm
Do note the air quotes. :)
:roflmao: :roflmao: yes....details.....
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11746
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Elhert v. Settle
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... Settle.pdf

Per Eugene:
18-to-20-Year-Olds Have a Right to Buy Handguns: So holds a Virginia state judge under the Virginia Constitution, concluding that the Virginia background check requirement for private sales therefore can't be applied to 18-to-20-year-olds.
Federal law bans professional gun dealers from selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds, but doesn't ban 18-to-20-year-olds from buying handguns from nonprofessional sellers (so-called "private sales"). That's one effect of Congress's decision not to mandate background checks for private sales. As a result, 18-to-20-year-olds are practically able to buy handguns, though they have fewer choices and have to go through more of a hassle.

Virginia law does mandate that all gun sales go through dealers, and thus be subject to a background check, which 18-to-20-year-olds can't pass; as a result, 18-to-20-year-olds in Virginia can no longer buy handguns. That, Judge F. Patrick Yeatts held today (in Elhert v. Settle), is likely unconstitutional: Though governments has have historically been able to restrict gun sales to minors, the age of majority is now 18 in Virginia (though it was largely 21 throughout the U.S. until about 1970), so 18-to-20-year-olds are fully protected by the Virginia Constitution's right to bear arms provision. Because of this, Judge Yeatts temporarily blocked the enforcement of the law against 18-to-20-year-olds (though I expect the state will appeal).

For more on this question generally, see this post by David Kopel and this post of mine.
Obviously the infringement ultimately will stand, but this is a case of Virginia getting tangled up in its morass of laws.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11746
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Fairfax County Board To Consider Gun Ban On Its Property
The proposed amendments to Chapter 6 of the Fairfax County Code Relating to Weapons would ban the possession, carrying and transportation of firearms, ammunition, or components in county buildings, parks, recreation and community centers and permitted events and areas adjacent to permitted events. This includes authorities created or controlled by the county such as the Fairfax County Park Authority. The ban would only apply at Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority parks if all participating localities would pass a gun ban in parks and the NOVA Parks governing body would pass a resolution.

Under the proposal, a violation would be a Class 1 misdemeanor. This is punishable by up to 12 months in jail, a fine up to $2,500, or both.

Localities have the authority to implement this kind of gun ban under a new state law. In 2020, the Virginia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 35 and House Bill 421, allowing localities to prohibit guns in their buildings, parks, recreation centers, community centers and public spaces used for permitted events. Gov. Ralph Northam signed the legislation, and it took effect on July 1.
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/boardofsu ... om=100,0,0

User avatar
NegativeApproach
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by NegativeApproach »

wings wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:48 pm
The 2nd is neither more nor less important than the 9th, or 10th, or 4th. There is no "some amendments are more equal than others." It is up to the Supreme Court to interpret conflicts between amendments and the implied limits upon each. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifies a right to live, but we restrict the 1st when it infringes upon that implied right. Shouting "fire" in a theater, or inciting violence are specific exclusions.

Thus far, the Supreme Court has only gone so far as to endorse private ownership of handguns in the home for self defense. That's it. Heller vs. DC. And it's a very recent decision. You all know that. Otherwise the Court has avoided delineating the 2nd, and left limits at local discretion. Since they are the ultimate arbiters of Constitutionality - not the NRA, and certainly not you - these steps remain constitutional until they decide otherwise.

When they overturned Federal Gun-Free Zone restrictions around schools because they didn't see how they affected interstate commerce, Congress turned right around and re-established them by noting that most guns or gun parts have been transported across state lines. The Court hasn't touched that since, and that's as close to spitting in their eye as you get.

Do these address root causes? Certainly not.

Are they good policies? That is, will they have a measurable and positive effect on reducing gun violence? Debatable. We'll see.

Are they annoying inconveniences to law-abiding gun owners? Absolutely. Can they be abused? Probably. But my right to buy multiple guns at a time without the government checking to see if I've been convicted of violent crimes is not more important than the lives of innocents. Even framing it in those terms is why we've been losing the debate.

At the end of the day, any jurisdiction could tax possession and sale of ammunition at $1 million a bullet and be well within their established constitutional rights. That's how I know that disarmament isn't the agenda.
The agenda is for the establishment and elite of both parties to make money and pillage the working class.

This is well accomplished through wedge issues like gun control v. gun rights and anti-abortion v. abortion rights. It drums up tons of donations for the donor class and allows them to pretend that they're going to Washington to "work for the people" when all they're really doing is going to Washington to line their pockets.

User avatar
Buck13
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3373
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:21 pm
Location: Puget Sound Convergence Zone
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by Buck13 »

sikacz wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:49 pm
SCOTUS is doing a bang up job avoiding doing its job. Makes me wonder how solid the republican appointees are when it comes to the second.
Not at all. Unsurprisingly, since Scalia was the only one known (to me) to actually like shooting. Gorsuch's mom's family comes from NE Colorado, which I'd guess makes him somewhat familiar with guns, but whether he actually participated, I don't know. Do any of the others have a history with firearms? I suspect most of them view the 2A as anachronistic and/or red-necky.

Same as for media pundits: Even most of the conservatives seem to have little first-hand experience, because the collegiate class isn't the most rich in firearms enthusiasts (particularly the colleges and universities most high-end media people attended).
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

ImageImage

User avatar
VodoundaVinci
Loquacious
Posts: 2123
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by VodoundaVinci »

NegativeApproach wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:21 am

The agenda is for the establishment and elite of both parties to make money and pillage the working class.

This is well accomplished through wedge issues like gun control v. gun rights and anti-abortion v. abortion rights. It drums up tons of donations for the donor class and allows them to pretend that they're going to Washington to "work for the people" when all they're really doing is going to Washington to line their pockets.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :clap:

VooDoo
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11746
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Democratic Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney calls for expansion of carry ban on city property. Surprise.
Stoney introduces ordinance to ban firearms next to permitted events
RICHMOND, Va. (WWBT) - Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney introduced an ordinance to modify the current ban on carrying firearms city-owned and -operated parks and facilities during a council meeting on Aug. 10.

The proposed ordinance would “prohibit the possession, carrying or transportation of any firearms in any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way or any open public space when it is being used by, or is adjacent to, an event that requires a city permit.”

The ordinance does not broadly ban firearms but rather prohibits them when an event that is permitted or should be permitted is nearby, the Stoney administration said.
That didn't take long.

Previously in Richmond:
Armed protest against police violence in Richmond, Virginia on 7/4

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11746
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Falls Church goes ahead with second reading of firearm ban proposal.
https://www.facebook.com/lettyhardifcc/ ... __tn__=K-R

As predicted:
Virginia’s gun-control debate shifts to newly empowered localities
The two contrasting votes show how the next phase of Virginia’s gun-control debate is playing out at the local level, with Democratic-controlled cities starting to pass what they see as common-sense bans on guns in public places and conservative localities declaring they want nothing to do with them.

In addition to Alexandria, Newport News has voted to ban the open carry of firearms in public buildings, parks and at special events. Its ordinance included a concealed carry exemption, a more nuanced approach gun owners say will allow people to continue carrying for self-defense while prohibiting open displays of firearms that can frighten others and cause a public stir.

In Richmond — where police had to physically carry a gun-toting provocateur out of a public meeting in 2014 — a preemptive firearm ban in government buildings and public parks took effect with the new law.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11746
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Virginia’s new handgun law leads to more than 1,000 denials
RICHMOND, Va. — More than 1,000 people have been denied the purchase of a firearm under a new law in Virginia that limits purchases to one handgun a month.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Tuesday that 1,102 people were denied under the law in July.
The fine print:
The high number is partly attributed to confusion about how the monthly restriction period is calculated. Many believed the law would not apply to purchases made the month before the law took effect on July 1. But Virginia State Police say the law prohibits someone from buying a handgun after June 30 if he or she bought one within the previous 30 days.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22529
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by CDFingers »

NegativeApproach wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:21 am
The agenda is for the establishment and elite of both parties to make money and pillage the working class.
So. Much. This. All else is schmutz.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

User avatar
VodoundaVinci
Loquacious
Posts: 2123
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by VodoundaVinci »

Yup. Move those trillions out of working class pockets and into the pockets of the .01%. They want our 401K's and our Savings and Investments. They want our home equity, they want our Pensions, They want yer kids College fund. All else is just bullshit to our Representation - they want our Wealth. And they'll want US disarmed before the Final Solution of Fleecing US.

All of the rest of it is Yadda, Yadda.

VooDoo
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11746
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Impact of loss for firearm ownership in Virginia

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Richmond City Council unanimously passes Stoney’s gun-control measure
The ordinance, which was introduced in August, will “prohibit the possession, carrying or transportation of any firearms in any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way or any open public space when it is being used by, or is adjacent to, an event that requires a city permit.”

The ordinance does not broadly ban firearms but rather prohibits them when an event that is permitted or should be permitted is nearby, the Stoney administration previously said.

“The City of Richmond proudly hosts hundreds of public events each year, but I believe it’s in the interest of everyone’s safety to take guns out of these spaces when neighbors, visitors and families gather,” said Stoney previously said. “Under this proposed change, Richmond residents will be able to attend public events with a greater sense of security, knowing that the city is actively prioritizing their safety.”

In 2019, Stoney proposed the ordinance banning firearms from being carried in city-owned and -operated parks and facilities. When the General Assembly gave localities the power to adopt the legislation, it went into effect.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests