Bets on how this turns out?

BernieP

Resident PIA
What a garbage article.

My bet is SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional. Not that it matters, NYC already changed the law but the fact that SCOTUS refused to drop the case as moot after NYC changed the law is a good sign, IMO.

It's a multi-pronged argument (citizens transporting out of the city, nonresidents transporting into the city, in-city gun ranges, Commerce Clause violations, etc.), but in general there's no historical precedent that says its constitutional for a jurisdiction to make it illegal to transport guns outside of that jurisdiction.



There's a chance they can rule it as moot, but they could have done that back in October and not scheduled oral arguments. SCOTUS declined to dismiss the case after NYC changed their law, so hopefully there will be a ruling. We'll find out months from now.
That being said, do you think it will give the chuckle heads in Richmond a reason to stop and think about the bills they are rushing through?
If as alleged, there is no grandfather clause, the bills would give the government the right to confiscate weapons or you would be criminally charged.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
That being said, do you think it will give the chuckle heads in Richmond a reason to stop and think about the bills they are rushing through?
If as alleged, there is no grandfather clause, the bills would give the government the right to confiscate weapons or you would be criminally charged.
In short, no.

From what I can tell, they are mimicking the laws in place in other states (like MD) that have yet to be found unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there's no signs that they'll ever be ruled as such and are the new standard bearer for "we have to do something" gun laws that actually don't accomplish anything relating to the goals the legislature puts forth.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
In short, no.

From what I can tell, they are mimicking the laws in place in other states (like MD) that have yet to be found unconstitutional.
The law proposed in VA goes much farther than the one in MD. Md stopped well short of forfeiture/confiscation. In addition, the scope of the firearms they propose to ban is amazing in it's breadth.

The county where our family properties are is one of those declaring themselves/us a "2A Sanctuary".
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The law proposed in VA goes much farther than the one in MD. Md stopped well short of forfeiture/confiscation. In addition, the scope of the firearms they propose to ban is amazing in it's breadth.

The county where our family properties are is one of those declaring themselves/us a "2A Sanctuary".
As I wrote on another Post, I don't believe the sanctuary will effect the State Police.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
As I wrote on another Post, I don't believe the sanctuary will effect the State Police.
That does not change the fact that things could get ugly though. Some of the local state police troopers are family friends....local boys. (Danville/Brosville area)
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
See post from GregV814, she was in the hospital, again. While I wish her no ill will, hanging on because she doesn't want to give Trump or another conservative the chance to appoint another justice is wrong. RBG should retire with grace.
The chance to retire with Grace passed a long time ago. Now she will have to retire with embarrassment or die in office.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Speaking of slanting the news. Anyone here able to sit through 60 Minutes last night and see the Leslie Stall segment with the CEO of YouTube.
Stall brings up the "social responsibility" of the internet content providers to filter out lies. As an example, she plays the Trump 2020 campaign clip with Joe Biden bragging about getting the Prosecutor fired in the Ukraine. She asked why YouTube still allowed "that lie" to run.

Am I missing something here, am I as dumb as a liberal because I don't see a "lie" when it's a pubic recording (both audio and visual)?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
That does not change the fact that things could get ugly though. Some of the local state police troopers are family friends....local boys. (Danville/Brosville area)
No doubt --and I am certain of one thing.
If they are ordered to go out and do the dirty work for the Democrat sheetheads in the Legislature, they will protect their income--their jobs--by doing it.
It could get worse than ugly. It could get downright dangerous.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Speaking of slanting the news. Anyone here able to sit through 60 Minutes last night and see the Leslie Stall segment with the CEO of YouTube.
Stall brings up the "social responsibility" of the internet content providers to filter out lies. As an example, she plays the Trump 2020 campaign clip with Joe Biden bragging about getting the Prosecutor fired in the Ukraine. She asked why YouTube still allowed "that lie" to run.

Am I missing something here, am I as dumb as a liberal because I don't see a "lie" when it's a pubic recording (both audio and visual)?
I am sorry for the laughing emo, but how is one not supposed to laugh when a person like Leslie Stall says something that stupid?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The law proposed in VA goes much farther than the one in MD. Md stopped well short of forfeiture/confiscation. In addition, the scope of the firearms they propose to ban is amazing in it's breadth.

The county where our family properties are is one of those declaring themselves/us a "2A Sanctuary".
It goes farther, but not much farther.

The proposed VA bill says an assault weapon is a semi-auto gun with a detachable mag and one feature. MD law says the same thing with 10 features. MD sets a OAL limit, VA bill does not.

Both states limit mags to 10 rounds, both states had similar features they consider "assault weapon" features.

MD law cut certain ones out that VA calls for. Front grip, telescoping stock, thumbhole stocks, etc. This is because the VA bill (link below) is still just getting started. MD's initial AWB bill had similar language and widdled out various things when going through the legislature. Va grabbed the initial law from other states as a starting point. I don't agree with it, but it's not surprising and if it does move through the VA legislature, we can bet tit'll be widdled down just like MD's law. This won't be the last gun control bill from VA either.

Nothing in the VA bill says anything about forfeiting or confiscating assault weapons or other firearms that I could see. Pretty sure the state can't make an ex post facto law but if you could point it out, that'd be great.

VA proposed law:
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB16+pdf

MD AWB:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281e.pdf
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
It goes farther, but not much farther.

The proposed VA bill says an assault weapon is a semi-auto gun with a detachable mag and one feature. MD law says the same thing with 10 features. MD sets a OAL limit, VA bill does not.

Both states limit mags to 10 rounds, both states had similar features they consider "assault weapon" features.

MD law cut certain ones out that VA calls for. Front grip, telescoping stock, thumbhole stocks, etc. This is because the VA bill (link below) is still just getting started. MD's initial AWB bill had similar language and widdled out various things when going through the legislature. Va grabbed the initial law from other states as a starting point. I don't agree with it, but it's not surprising and if it does move through the VA legislature, we can bet tit'll be widdled down just like MD's law. This won't be the last gun control bill from VA either.

Nothing in the VA bill says anything about forfeiting or confiscating assault weapons or other firearms that I could see. Pretty sure the state can't make an ex post facto law but if you could point it out, that'd be great.

VA proposed law:
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB16+pdf

MD AWB:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281e.pdf
B.Itshallbeisunlawfulforanypersontoimport,sell,possessortransferthefollowingfirearms
Cut and past from SB16 pdf didn't work well...but the key point is making possession unlawful.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Cut and past from SB16 pdf didn't work well...but the key point is making possession unlawful.
It's unlawful to possess the firearms MD law prohibits also (unless you are grandfathered before October 2013).

I have a feeling that portion of the law will come out or a similar provision as MD will be added. This bill from VA looks like throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Did he answer with a straight face? It's a quote from Biden himself and he owns it publicly.
There's nothing false about it.

Ah, but the liberals would require you to contextualize it, wrap it in the proper exculpatory twaddle.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Did he answer with a straight face? It's a quote from Biden himself and he owns it publicly.
There's nothing false about it.
She only said they would have to review the situation (I was beyond disbelief so who cares what the response was).
I cannot watch the news because of the editorializing by the reader.
As in the major outlets in the US were not mentioning that the knife attack on London bridge was committed by a known Islamic terrorist that was released early and now ISIS has taken credit for the attack.
No, easier to slam Trump for playing golf at his club on Thanksgiving.
Oops, at least Newsweek admitted it was wrong and has since fired the reporter.
All the other outlets that ran with her editorial don't retract, they just keep silent, let the original smear stand.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
She only said they would have to review the situation (I was beyond disbelief so who cares what the response was).
I cannot watch the news because of the editorializing by the reader.
Oh I know. I was watching either CNN or NBC and the interviewer asked if they were trying to impeach him with haste
"to prevent him from breaking even more laws and the Constitution". As if that were some kind of established fact when truthfully,
nothing of the sort has happened.

I just shook my head. It's exactly "have you stopped beating your wife". Assuming guilt before proceeding.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
The honest answer is they can impeach him for whatever they like, but the Senate isn't going to vote to remove him from office unless there is solid evidence of a crime. A few have slipped and let it be know they are impeaching him to keep him from getting re-elected in 2020.
They are going to drag this media circus on until say June, then send it to the Senate.

When convention time comes around it will be another media circus aimed at McConnell and other republican senators up for election. It will be a campaign issue to help democrats hold seats and win others. McConnell being one of those who could be ousted.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
It's unlawful to possess the firearms MD law prohibits also (unless you are grandfathered before October 2013).
Good point. Not that it's enforceable...the state has no clue when any rifle was bought. The VA law does not include any grandfathering clauses that I (or the NRA) can see.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The Oral arguments are a fun read.

JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the -- are people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before?
MR. DEARING: We -- we -- no, I don't think so. We made a judgment expressed by our police commissioner that -- that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it.
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if they're not less safe, then what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned?
MR. DEARING: It was a reasonable -- as we've outlined in our briefs, it was a reasonable implementation of the -- of the state premises license, carry license division. I think -- and we've explained that there was -- was a verification benefit to the way that that rule was set up. That verification benefit perhaps has not played out as much in practice as it had been predicted, and we believe the police can work harder and make sure that the city stays safe.
JUSTICE ALITO: So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_m64o.pdf
 
Top