Va Delegation Gun Law Proposals

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by ShAArk92, Dec 14, 2019.

  1. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    It seems as though the Michael Bloomberg Bots actually ARE seeking to confiscate firearms from The People. Now that the lack of an ECC type apparatus has availed the urbans to outvote the rurals in Va .. .which almost to a man means leftists to conservatives.

    THEY ARE coming to take the guns.

    Then the response in a couple dozen counties ... "nay nay, monsieur"

    Hat Tip to the Virginia Citizens Defense League. They appear to be READY.

    I wonder if the same would happen here in Tejas? Austin is more than ready to start confiscation. Ditto Houston & Dallas.
     
  2. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    IIRC we have 30 second amendment sanctuary counties. I can't see Abott sending the NG anywhere to confiscate guns.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    True ... I suppose our courageous counties are responding ... but not directly to the Texas Legislature.

    We haven't YET had a takeover by leftists in the legislature promising to enact all these unConstitutional laws regarding firearms.
     
  4. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    is the number that high? the most I can find is 8.

    Of course it should be all 256 ... but certainly all but perhaps Travis, Harris and Dallas.
     
  5. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    I thought I remembered an article during the summer that said 27 with more voting for it. Let ne see.
    But you are right it should be all
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    The Va Adjutant General didn't exactly shut-down the speculation to be used as law-enforcement.

    i guess it's still too early ... and that IS, unfortunately, a political position so he has to play his cards right.
     
  7. theiioftx

    theiioftx 2,500+ Posts

    One dem VA lawmaker suggested using the national guard to enforce their gun control measures. They are asking for violence.
     
  8. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    yessir ... this is what the Va Adjutant is addressing.

    if the democrats don't back-off that stump ... it's gonna get violent. Now ... who is going to enforce an unConstitutional law? The Feds? The individuals within the State law enforcement?

    I mean ... why didn't the legislator say the State Police would enforce?
     
  9. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    This is what militias are for fellas. Nullification is helpful too.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    A few points on this. First, the laws under consideration are stupid and bad policy.

    Second, cities and counties are creations of states, have no sovereignty, and have no right to refuse to enforce state laws. This is true with gun control laws just as it was true with gay marriage bans.

    Third, cities and counties do not have the power of judicial review and do not have the power to refuse to enforce a law on the basis that they think that law violates the federal or state constitution. If a city thinks a law it's unconstitutional, its sole remedy is to seek relief in the courts.

    Fourth, I an not a resident or citizen of Virginia, so I have no right to care. If the State of Virginia chooses to take its citizens' guns, those citizens are getting the government they asked for and deserve. It may be moronic, but it isn't my business.
     
  11. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    Deez ... you’re the resident law expert, but AFA the counties ... the sheriff is the final authority.

    now I suppose the Fed could roll in with tanks and impose its will as Clinton did in Waco ... but that doesn’t mean the Fed is “right” ... just a bully.

    I also think there is a lot of presumption ... NOW ... with the history of Waco. Ruby Ridge ... and Cliven Bundy ... and many others of lessor celebrity but equal examples of Fed action against citizens ....

    those agents/soldiers are Americans too with a responsibility to reject unlawful orders.

    but suspect the effort will be made anyway ... and the conflict will facilitate the general theme of chaos imposed ... to seal the one world Govt.
     
  12. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    I would like counties and cities to be ceded some sovereignty where it makes sense.
     
  13. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    The final authority on state laws is the state's highest court as the US Supreme Court is the highest authority on federal law. The Sheriff is a law enforcement officer. It's not his job to sit as a super-court and decide what's constitutional and what isn't. If we run the country that way, then effectively we don't have the rule of law anymore.
     
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Where does it make sense? I'm pretty pro-local government, but they aren't like states who have rights against the federal government. Local governments have the rights and duties given to them or imposed by the state. Those can be taken away or changed by state law. In fact, local governments can be eliminated by state laws. They have no right to even exist.
     
  15. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    So then the question becomes ... a concentrated voter base making law for the rest of the country/county.

    when that law is bad law ... well. Call it whatever ya want ... but the nation was founded on rebelling against bad law.
     
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    No. The voters of Virginia elect representatives who make laws for the state of Virginia.

    No, the nation was founded on rebelling against bad laws (especially bad tax laws) that were enacted without representation. The people of Virginia have representation. They just chose stupidly, and now they're facing the consequences of those stupid decisions. The remedy is to reverse the stupidity in the next election, and if they think one of the laws is unconstitutional, then they can bring suit to bar that law's enforcement. The remedy is not to have local sheriffs playing Supreme Court and unilaterally deciding what laws to enforce based on their personal preferences.
     
  17. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    That is a statement of how it is, and I am talking about how it should be. Is it proper to give ALL the sovereignty to the state? I propose it isn't. You state that is not how the law is today. I am asking about the law itself and what philosophy would guide us to change.
     
  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    It sounds good, but how much would you really want to give them? When you grant sovereignty to something, you make it the supreme authority and give it the power to exclude people. Would you really want to give that kind of power to some of our nutcase cities?

    And I don't think most conservatives would go along. We crapped our pants when the City of Austin passed a single-use plastic bag ban. I'm no fan of bag bans, but they're pretty inconsequential. They're not the end of the world, but we completely set aside our general preference for local control because it pissed us off and took the issue to court just to teach those dope-ridden hippies a lesson. Granting the City real sovereignty would be a much bigger deal.
     
  19. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    I don't know. I'm just raising the question. My thought was give counties and cities more power in certain areas only at first, not make cities the seat of ultimate power.

    I am really attracted to the idea of subsidiarity and how that could apply to smaller and smaller groups. I agree that with the Constitution the States hold that power alone. I would first like to see States practice nullification of laws and become a true balance to Federal power. It is clear to me that the Federal Government is run by the Executive Branch and the bureaucratic State. The Congress doesn't really do much nowadays, except for the Dems pushing for impeachment.

    Then, later, it would be interesting to see how that principle of nullification and more local sovereignty could be applied down in scale. I agree it isn't appropriate in an absolute way.

    Yeah. But once counties' or cities' power grew, there would be more of a distinction between them and there could be more self selection than now. Then the nature of the local government could be shaped more by local culture. I don't know if it would work out that way. Just thinking through some things.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page