Gun Control Breaking it down

[AkPatsFan]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

You know what.....I have watched it a few times now trying to figure out what that clicking noise is....

I think that is actually an Airsoft rifle......

Lol............I have no experience with air soft rifles but you could be right.

[BostonTim]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

Home Invasion Stopped with AR-15 (Ruger AR 556) – VIDEO

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/09/hom...#axzz61Cq2znDD


This is a textbook example of what happens every day in this country, thankfully, but will never get reported on.
No shots fired...nobody hurt, all's well that ends well.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MzaWzWtHlt0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

My only real issue with this is that the gun owner should have announced that he is armed and prepared to defend himself before the door was ever kicked.

Having said that...nobody got shot, and a potential victim was able to defend himself and his property. Outstanding.

[Big/Sky/Fly]

[Dwight Schrute]

Very well spoken.

https://youtu.be/_9AfhdKLNDA

[BostonTim]

Originally Posted by Dwight Schrute

Very well spoken.

https://youtu.be/_9AfhdKLNDA

Indeed, but the left???

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V0ai_TKlFBY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Cheers

[IU_Knightmare]

I saw this on Tosh.0...he called the guy a pillbilly heh

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MbIBSBdGRek" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[AkPatsFan]

Some more good news, this time out of Pittsburgh.

The Allegheny Court of Common Pleas on Monday struck down Pittsburgh’s ban on the use of AR-15s inside city limits.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...l-struck-down/

[IU_Knightmare]

Piss poor gun control...

<iframe allowfullscreen frameborder="0" width="698" height="573" scrolling="no" id="molvideoplayer" title="MailOnline Embed Player" src="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1424257.html"></iframe>

[Baron Samedi]

The Gun Sanctuary Movement Is Exploding

There’s a key legal difference between sanctuaries for immigrants and sanctuaries for guns.

Conservatives have railed for years against so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, criticizing localities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration policies they deem heartless and ineffective. In the past year, however, some conservative lawmakers have taken a page from the progressive playbook, employing sanctuary imagery in opposition to gun safety legislation they deem to be an unconstitutional restriction of their rights under the Second Amendment.

The two approaches are classic cases of false equivalency. Jurisdictions that proclaim themselves sanctuaries for immigrants do not seek to violate the law; they simply refuse to engage local law enforcement in supporting actions that are federal responsibilities. They do not block the law, but simply insist that it should be enforced by those who have the responsibility to do so. For some proponents of so-called gun sanctuaries, however, the goal is to prevent enforcement of state law that the jurisdiction (not a court) deems unconstitutional.

The Tazewell County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors recently jumped aboard the fast-moving Second Amendment sanctuaries train. In doing so, it embraced positions fundamentally at odds with state and federal constitutional law. Passing resolutions opposing certain laws or protesting governmental action is perfectly consistent with our traditions as a democracy, and no one should oppose the rights of citizens and their representatives to speak their minds. But Tazewell and a number of other localities across Virginia want to do much more. As Eric Young, an attorney and the county administrator, put it, “Our position is that Article I, Section 13, of the Constitution of Virginia reserves the right to ‘order’ militia to the localities. Therefore, counties, not the state, determine what types of arms may be carried in their territory and by whom. So, we are ‘ordering’ the militia by making sure everyone can own a weapon.” Other counties are announcing different schemes if gun safety laws are enacted: For example, the Culpeper County sheriff pledged to deputize “thousands of our law-abiding citizens” so they can own firearms.



After Democrats won majorities in both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly, fears of stricter gun regulations have inspired a rise in Second Amendment sanctuary activity in the state. Sanctuary efforts are driven mainly by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a group to the right of the NRA. My office’s analysis of recent news accounts indicates that before Nov. 5, just one county had passed a resolution; since the election, at least 71 localities (counties, cities, or towns) have passed some form of sanctuary resolution, and as many as 35 more are considering their adoption.

Second Amendment sanctuaries exploded onto the national scene in early 2019 after newly elected Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker pledged to pass gun safety measures in Illinois. Within months, 64 of the state’s 102 counties passed sanctuary resolutions. After New Mexico expanded background checks in 2019, 30 of 33 counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. Similar actions have either been taken or are under consideration in Colorado, Oregon, Washington state, and now Virginia.

In some cases, these resolutions simply register an objection to any infringement on gun owners’ rights. But some Virginia localities have gone further, indicating that they will not enforce state law that they deem unconstitutional. Some proponents have even resurrected words like nullification and interposition, terms first used extensively by Southern secessionists prior to the Civil War and more recently during the “massive resistance” to federal laws requiring desegregation in the 1960s. They argue that constitutional officers in Virginia, such as commonwealth’s attorneys and sheriffs, have discretion not to enforce laws that they consider “unconstitutional.” In Virginia, there has always existed some debate about the independence of these officers, but, while they are creations of the Constitution, their duties are nonetheless “prescribed by general law or special act.” In short, sheriffs may be “constitutional officers,” but they are not “constitutional interpreters.”

The emergence of these sanctuaries demonstrates a growing rift in our nation. For residents in many rural areas, guns are viewed as part of a way of life. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens, and any effort to limit anyone’s access to firearms is perceived as a direct attack on many things that they hold dear. During the Obama years, the manufacture and purchase of firearms increased in dramatic numbers in part due to unfounded fears that the government would try to take away guns.

At the same time, the general public is increasingly supportive of certain gun safety measures. An April 2018 poll found that 85 percent of registered voters support laws that would “allow the police to take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others” (71 percent “strongly supported”). These measures, called Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or red flag laws, create judicial procedures by which people with serious mental health challenges deemed a threat to themselves or others can have their weapons removed until their situations are resolved; courts can be engaged to protect the rights of the accused. And a March 2019 Quinnipiac poll reported that 93 percent of American voters support a bill that would require “background checks for all gun buyers.”

Recent polling in Virginia tells us that citizens of the commonwealth are in step with these national trends: Roanoke College’s Institute for Policy and Opinion Research recently released polling results that show that 84 percent of respondents favor universal background checks, and 74 percent support allowing a family member to seek an ERPO from a court. Yet in the very same pool of respondents, 47 percent believe it is more important to protect the right to own guns than to control gun ownership. The only way to make the math add up is to recognize that some people who strongly support Second Amendment rights may also support at least some reasonable gun safety measures—an approach the “sanctuary” advocates would never adopt. But even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might have had problems with some of the arguments being advanced by proponents of sanctuaries. “Like most rights,” he wrote in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

In short, rights under the Second Amendment have never been absolute. And under both the national and state constitutions, our courts are tasked with determining the constitutionality of laws—not local sheriffs.

Proponents of Second Amendment sanctuaries have another problem in Virginia: The commonwealth is what we call a “Dillon’s Rule” state. This means that if a power is not specifically permitted to a locality, state law rules. Progressives have been especially critical of Dillon’s Rule arguments in years past, believing that they have prevented localities from enacting policies—from local minimum wage ordinances to gun prohibitions—that seek to go further than state law. They have rarely been concerned that more conservative localities, if granted greater “home rule,” might enact policies, such as environmental regulations or building codes, that are more lax than state law. The Second Amendment sanctuary rebellion may prompt some to reexamine their views about how much additional power should be granted to localities.

The Virginia state Legislature will soon consider several major gun safety measures, and opponents will likely strongly resist; as one county supervisor has said, “We need to show them a crowd like they have never seen. They need to be afraid and they should be afraid.” Legislators should always be attuned to any unintended consequences of the laws that they pass; that is one reason we have a deliberative process before bills are passed. But to leave the enforcement of duly passed laws totally in the hands of sheriffs and local officials with discretionary power to determine their constitutionality is a direct attack on republican government and the Constitution itself.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...stitution.html

I don't agree with everything stated here, but a good op-ed nonetheless.

To quote TJ, during discussoin of the Bill of Rigths: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

That means that the people themselves are the arbiters of the Bill of Rights, not the courts, or anyone else.

[Baron Samedi]

Virginia: A Sleeping Giant Has Awoken

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnQ7L-2wPf4

[Baron Samedi]

Virginia National Guard responds after Democratic lawmaker suggests it may be needed to enforce gun control measures

The Virginia National Guard on Friday responded to a Democratic lawmaker after he suggested that it may be needed to enforce new gun legislation.

The remarks from Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) suggesting that Gov. Ralph Northam (D) “may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law” comes as dozens of counties across Virginia have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” after Democrats took over the state legislature last election.

"We have received multiple questions regarding proposed legislation for the 2020 General Assembly session and the authority of the Governor of Virginia to employ the Virginia National Guard in a law enforcement role,” the Virginia National Guard wrote in a statement posted on Twitter Friday.

“We understand and respect the passion people feel for the U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment rights. We will not speculate about the possible use of the Virginia National Guard,” it added.

Northam had previously hinted that should the Democratic-controlled state legislature pass stricter gun legislation and law enforcement not follow it, there would be consequences.

"If we have constitutional laws on the books and law enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books, then there are going to be some consequences," Northam said Thursday, according to WSET.

"But I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get to it," he added.

McEachin took it a step further when discussing the rise of such counties in Virginia and Democrats' push to pass gun legislation — primarily universal background checks — when the legislative session begins next year.

"And ultimately, I'm not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law," he said. "That's his call, because I don't know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that's obviously an option he has."

The resolutions passed by more than 50 counties in Virginia are not legally binding and instead serve as declarations of support for citizens to exercise the right to carry weapons.

Northam added that there will be no retaliation for the counties that pass such resolutions, noting that none of his proposed gun measures include taking away people’s guns, according to the news outlet.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ests-it-may-be

[AkPatsFan]

The National Guard cannot enforce any laws that go directly against the Constitution and their gun grabbing laws do. It will be interesting to see if it goes that far.

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by AkPatsFan

The National Guard cannot enforce any laws that go directly against the Constitution and their gun grabbing laws do. It will be interesting to see if it goes that far.

I expect the socialists to blink.

Then, I expect them to pretend that they never intended anything at all, and it's all fake news totally fabricated by crazy right wing nutjobs.

That's the usual play, anyway.

[Baron Samedi]

Uprising: 90% of Virginia counties become gun ‘sanctuaries,' expanding movement to nine states

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...ds-to-9-states

[AkPatsFan]

At least 1 county is stepping up to fight these anti 2nd Amendment Democrats, hopefully more will join in.

Amid dozens of Virginia counties declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries in case the state enacts strict gun-control measures next year, Tazewell County joined in — and took a big extra step.

In addition to passing a resolution declaring the county a Second Amendment sanctuary, the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 3 also passed a resolution underscoring the right to a well-funded and regulated militia as described in the U.S. Constitution and the commonwealth's constitution, WJHL-TV reported.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/virgin...o-fund-militia

And then there's this little tidbit. Could Va be where it all starts?

Democrat politicians in D.C. say that local police who refuse to enforce gun control bills likely to pass in Virginia should be subject to prosecution and even intimidation from the National Guard.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/virgin...rce-gun-grabs/