Discussion in 'Legal' started by JellyJar, Feb 26, 2016.
On January 16th, Republicans in the Virginia House Militia, Police and Public Safety subcommittee were able to stop new gun control measures proposed by Democrats after Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) was elected.
As Breitbart News reported on January 15th, these measures included an expansion of background checks and of mental health-related gun ownership bans. Richmond’s Times-Dispatch reports that a requirement that would have shut down private gun sales at gun shows and a ban “on the sale and transfer of ‘high capacity’ magazines” were also defeated.
The ban on “high capacity” magazines was pushed by Delegate Alfonso H. Lopez (D-Arlington), who said no one needs “a hundred-round ‘high capacity’ magazine to kill a deer.”
During the gubernatorial campaign, McAuliffe pledged Colorado-like gun control if elected, so these early gun control measures won’t be the last that Democrats try to push through. The Virginia Senate will consider gun control legislation next month.
That's the same argument some gun owners used against liberalized concealed carry -- it was straight 2nd Amendment or nothing to them.
But look at how far we've come since then. Step by step we will make the 2nd Amendment respected and upheld at all levels of government.
Really RIPS me that government employees are not allowed to keep firearms in their cars, either government issued (aka GOV's) or personal vehicles being used for government business. I would like to say I can see the logic in not allowing them in GOV's, but disallowing them in one's own personal vehicle while on government business is simply just going too far, but I cannot even say that! It is illogical not to allow them in GOV's either! I am sure some government beancounter, anti-firearm, no doubt, came up with this policy.
Well done Virginia! Let's keep a truly GREAT state (or really, a Commonwealth) great! I understand the politics behind it, and Governor McAuliffe is no real friend of gun owners, but at least it is something. Let's hope other states follow suit!
However, I NEVER could really understand why a concealed carry permit is not like a driver's license. If you have one in any given state, you are free to use it in any other state. (Or country, for that matter).
The problem with this analogy is that what people like McAuliffe are doing is about "control", which is more along the line of "dominance" in a dog.
A dog that has a strong dominance trait never loses that, no matter how you train him. The best you can do is mitigate it by letting him know where he lies with the rest of the pack. Give him one bit of leeway and he'll take it all back.
"Correcting" a dog over dominance issues isn't a matter of correcting for a "mistake". There is no mistake with respect to dominance.
Simple really. All of the US states have agreed to recognize driver's licenses of other US states. They have not agreed to recognize carry permits.
Your DL is recognized in SOME other countries that have agreed to do so.
Except...a DL, and other similar things, are not about "rights".
The key word here is "permit". One does not "permit" a right. And therein lies the problem.
While we're indeed making great progress, and have since the 1970's, make no mistake, we would all do well to remember that the key word in the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) is RIGHT. We need to remember that, for all the progress we've made, THIS is our ultimate point and goal.
You are 100 % correct.
The dumbest thing is that the General Assembly passed a law a few years ago disallowing LOCAL Governments from preventing their employees from keeping a firearm in their locked vehicle.
Why would the State Legislature dictate that term to LOCAL Governments...but not the STATE??
But have you ever tried training a snake?
Mallory Archer: "And that's supposed to make it better?!"
Sterling Archer: "Doesn't it?"
Nothing says you can't give the guy credit for saving the baby, before hauling him off to jail for arson. Heck, you can even decide if it constitutes justification for leniency, or is more important than the original crime, while still prosecuting.
"Good on you lad. Now, let's go, shall we?"
I hear the trick is to keep moving; the nasally oboe-thing doesn't actually hypnotize the snake, but its movement does
Interesting observation/metaphor. Normally I hate animal metaphors, but I'm saving this one for, well, 'other discussions' not on topic here. I'd also add that said dog is (as McAulliffe demonstrates) willing to say/do anything to retain that authority. Double-edged blade, without a handle.
The real trick is to use a machete.
Indeed...and it's worth noting that his saying/doing what he has to in order to retain authority is, essentially, "lip service" because he has no choice in the matter. Once he no longer HAS to do this, he'll go right back to exerting his "dominance" as usual.
Watch him...I'm willing to lay a sizable chunk of a paycheck on exactly this happening with him. Or, better yet, a 100 round of CCI Mini-Mags...
I agree completely, however, until every state recognizes Constitutional carry as a right, and not a state granted privilege, I think state by state reciprocity laws are the best that can be hoped for at present. Only the courts can affirm that right on a national level. If it can be confirmed with federal legislation, such as a national reciprocity law, it can also be denied with federal legislation.
Indeed. Which was the point of my closing paragraph.
Separate names with a comma.