Virginia Gun Rights Rally

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boy, some of you folks are missing the mark.

Let's break this down, because I'm not sure some of you have any idea what the Constitution even says. Now, let me preface this and tell everyone up front that I spent over 30 years as one of those "shiny badge" sheriff's down in Texas. As such, I've had occasion to read and re-read the Constitution a few times. Furthermore, I've spent more than a hot minute pouring over Supreme Court decisions and how those decisions affected our (LE) enforcement of laws (Precedence).

Let's take "Red Flag" laws. The premise being that someone can swear out an affidavit before a judge that claims another person isn't fit to own guns. The judge then issues a warrant for the police to go into that person's house and seize his guns. On the surface this appears to be a 2A issue, but we're talking about entering a private residence and seizing property, so it's really a 4A issue. But wait, the 4A says that a judge may not issue a warrant but upon proof of Probable Cause that crime has been committed. Huh?

The 4A protects us from the government coming into our homes and seizing our stuff unless the government can show PC that we committed a crime. Red Flag Laws are authorizing the government to come into your home and seize your stuff based solely on the whim of another person, and without any proof or evidence of such.

Finally, the 5th and 15th Amendments are being completely circumvented because the person has been denied "Due Process" as defined by law.

Then to add insult to injury, the Governor and Legislature of VA are threatening to close all but government owned gun ranges, namely the NRA gun range. They propose to take away AR-15's, high capacity magazines and have already ended reciprocity agreements with 20 some-odd states.

Now, if this doesn't raise concern for some of you gun owners, outdoorsmen and hunters there's a serious problem. This is an all out assault on the Bill of Rights and should deeply concern every American. This is precisely the sort of thing that could very well lead to a civil war in this country.

Do these Sheriff's have the right and the duty to interpret the constitutionality of these laws? Damn right they do. They took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Precedence has been set in that arena too. The SCOTUS has resoundingly ruled from the this country's very beginning that unconstitutional laws are, in fact, not laws and there is no duty to enforce them.

Personally, it troubles me and worries me deeply that so many are so willing to go along with this out of control tyranny. I strongly suspect that the founding fathers would already have a body count racking up. We must speak up or start kissing our rights goodbye.
 
As for the Assault type weapons ban , I’m not for that ever , high volume clips and bump stocks are different. I don’t own one but I wouldn’t mind owning an AR 15 someday, I have friends former service members that own them and I enjoy going out and shooting them from time to time with friends. Here’s a pic of my friend Jose a Iraq war vet teaching my son weapon safety the first time my son got to use an AR
View attachment 126009

my concern over an assault rifle ban because a criminal used it to commit an act of violence is after they ban those , Then the criminals will use semi auto 9mm pistols , then they will want to ban them , etc etc . Where would it end , the slippery slope argument
You’re wrong about one thing the criminals won’t switch to 9mm handguns because ar’s are illegal they’ll continue to use ar’s and whoop your and mine law abiding ass with them so I’ll be keeping mine I hope you choose the same.
 
Last edited:
OldTexican,

Thanks for breaking that down for us. Some want to do a lot of handwringing, but right and wrong isn’t that complicated.
 
Boy, some of you folks are missing the mark.

Let's break this down, because I'm not sure some of you have any idea what the Constitution even says. Now, let me preface this and tell everyone up front that I spent over 30 years as one of those "shiny badge" sheriff's down in Texas. As such, I've had occasion to read and re-read the Constitution a few times. Furthermore, I've spent more than a hot minute pouring over Supreme Court decisions and how those decisions affected our (LE) enforcement of laws (Precedence).

Let's take "Red Flag" laws. The premise being that someone can swear out an affidavit before a judge that claims another person isn't fit to own guns. The judge then issues a warrant for the police to go into that person's house and seize his guns. On the surface this appears to be a 2A issue, but we're talking about entering a private residence and seizing property, so it's really a 4A issue. But wait, the 4A says that a judge may not issue a warrant but upon proof of Probable Cause that crime has been committed. Huh?

The 4A protects us from the government coming into our homes and seizing our stuff unless the government can show PC that we committed a crime. Red Flag Laws are authorizing the government to come into your home and seize your stuff based solely on the whim of another person, and without any proof or evidence of such.

Finally, the 5th and 15th Amendments are being completely circumvented because the person has been denied "Due Process" as defined by law.

Then to add insult to injury, the Governor and Legislature of VA are threatening to close all but government owned gun ranges, namely the NRA gun range. They propose to take away AR-15's, high capacity magazines and have already ended reciprocity agreements with 20 some-odd states.

Now, if this doesn't raise concern for some of you gun owners, outdoorsmen and hunters there's a serious problem. This is an all out assault on the Bill of Rights and should deeply concern every American. This is precisely the sort of thing that could very well lead to a civil war in this country.

Do these Sheriff's have the right and the duty to interpret the constitutionality of these laws? Damn right they do. They took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Precedence has been set in that arena too. The SCOTUS has resoundingly ruled from the this country's very beginning that unconstitutional laws are, in fact, not laws and there is no duty to enforce them.

Personally, it troubles me and worries me deeply that so many are so willing to go along with this out of control tyranny. I strongly suspect that the founding fathers would already have a body count racking up. We must speak up or start kissing our rights goodbye.
Well stated
 
You’re wrong about one thing the criminals won’t switch to 9mm handguns because ar’s are illegal they’ll continue to use ar’s and whoop your and mine law abiding ass with them so I’ll be keeping mine I hope you choose the same.

Your right , I was simply trying to say , after taking away people’s right to own an AR-15 they will then move to take the next type of weapon
 
Your right , I was simply trying to say , after taking away people’s right to own an AR-15 they will then move to take the next type of weapon
We’re not gonna let them take that right pard. Glad to see your boy enjoying the sport and having fun life’s short it’s awesome you’re partaking in the best part of it.
 
I have to start by saying I am a 2A proponent, but that doesn't mean I am blind to how politics, public opinion and the legal process works. As such, I often end up disagreeing with the ardent, "out of my cold dead hands" crowd over HOW we maximize our long term 2A rights.

Boy, some of you folks are missing the mark.

Let's break this down, because I'm not sure some of you have any idea what the Constitution even says.

Let's break your post down. Not surprisingly, as a "jailhouse lawyer" your remarks suggest just enough familiarity with the law to convince the others "in with you" that you speak with some authority on the topic, while still being essentially wrong.

Now, let me preface this and tell everyone up front that I spent over 30 years as one of those "shiny badge" sheriff's down in Texas.

I thank you for your service, I had a favorite uncle who was a "shiny badge" in New Mexico - it is not an easy job and I am thankful for all of those who serve in this capacity.

As such, I've had occasion to read and re-read the Constitution a few times. Furthermore, I've spent more than a hot minute pouring over Supreme Court decisions and how those decisions affected our (LE) enforcement of laws (Precedence).

I hate to do the "resume thinig" on Hunttalk, but if we must "preface this", I should "tell everybody" I have been a practicing attorney for over two decades and this practice has include appealate court advocacy including up to the SCOTUS level, so I am fairly comfortable with the topic of the Constitution.

Let's take "Red Flag" laws. The premise being that someone can swear out an affidavit before a judge that claims another person isn't fit to own guns. The judge then issues a warrant for the police to go into that person's house and seize his guns. On the surface this appears to be a 2A issue, but we're talking about entering a private residence and seizing property, so it's really a 4A issue. But wait, the 4A says that a judge may not issue a warrant but upon proof of Probable Cause that crime has been committed. Huh?

The 4A protects us from the government coming into our homes and seizing our stuff unless the government can show PC that we committed a crime. Red Flag Laws are authorizing the government to come into your home and seize your stuff based solely on the whim of another person, and without any proof or evidence of such.

Two problems with your comments here -- first, the 4th amendment does not use the word crime at all; and second, you are mixing up criminal procedure and civil procedure which have different constitutional standards. For example, under civil fortiture the governement can take personal property without winning a criminal conviction. Also, by way of further example, (while not a 4th amendment issue) you can be civilly committed without a jury trial, but not criminaly incarcerated without one (except by defendant waiver).

Finally, the 5th and 15th Amendments are being completely circumvented because the person has been denied "Due Process" as defined by law.

Sorry, but consitiutional due process has been comfortably met in a number of analogous long standing processes such as emergency civil committment, civil forteiture and temporary restraining orders. I am sure some of these red flag laws will over reach and many will be shot down or limited by the courts applying well settled procuderal rules, but the 5th and 15th amendments do not outright prohibit properly structured red flag laws - this is not legal news. In fact, my argument against red flag laws is that we already have civil committment procudures so if this person presents a danger to themselves or others just commit them. Now that is of course a much bigger intrusion on ones rights and liberties than just taking your guns, but that has happened every day for the last 100 years without major public concern.

Then to add insult to injury, the Governor and Legislature of VA are threatening to close all but government owned gun ranges, namely the NRA gun range. They propose to take away AR-15's, high capacity magazines and have already ended reciprocity agreements with 20 some-odd states.

State governments can open and close facilities as they wish - this is not a constitutional issue. States are not required to run gun ranges any more than they are required to operate abortion clinics. Again, I would prefer they not do this, but it is not a constitutional matter. As for inter-state reciprocity, this is something I would like to see universal, but until federal legislation, the states are certainly not required to provide. As for AR15s and magazines, those will be litigated under Heller and we will see where it ends up.

Now, if this doesn't raise concern for some of you gun owners, outdoorsmen and hunters there's a serious problem. This is an all out assault on the Bill of Rights and should deeply concern every American. This is precisely the sort of thing that could very well lead to a civil war in this country.

This issue very much concerns me and that's why I encourage my compatriots not to dress up like GI Joe figurines and run around with 50BMGs in the public square - this is not helping win the day. As for civil war concerns, I reject the "cold dead hands" approach, and I think you would be sorely suprised at how few Americans would actually leave the families, homes and jobs with no guarentee of return to fight for a large capacity magazine. Half the country tried this once and failed, there is no way you get 10% of Americans to do it on this issue in 2020.

Do these Sheriff's have the right and the duty to interpret the constitutionality of these laws? Damn right they do. They took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Precedence has been set in that arena too. The SCOTUS has resoundingly ruled from the this country's very beginning that unconstitutional laws are, in fact, not laws and there is no duty to enforce them.

You are just wrong on this. Defend and protect, NOT interept. This is clear. As for SCOTUS precedent, you get it half right - what you conveniental leave out is that it is SCOTUS that decides which of those laws are unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, NOT the sheriff.


Personally, it troubles me and worries me deeply that so many are so willing to go along with this out of control tyranny. I strongly suspect that the founding fathers would already have a body count racking up.

I belive all posters on this thread believe in 2A rights. But we disagree on the boundaries of those rights and how to best preserve them. As for boundaries, every single constitutional right is subject to government limitations - there is NO absolute right under the Bill of Rights - not 1A, not 4A, not 5A and NOT 2A. As such reasonable people can and should discuss those boundaries - and the slippery slope is not a useful argument, as every principle, value, right an law is somewhere on a slope already, it is just lazy debate practice. Our founding fathers were far more thoughtful and circumspect that many of the modern BMG toting crowd, so I doubt they would be so quick to "go bloody". There are also many strong 2A supporters who reject "cold dead hands" and marching around like toy soldiers as an effective ways of preserving the 2A - this too is a fair topic of discussion that does not imply willingness to surrender the 2A.

We must speak up or start kissing our rights goodbye.

And that's what many are doing, even if you don't agree with their views/approach. And sadly 50BMGs at city hall are not helping them.
 
Compromise.....and that’s how you lose your rights and ultimately your nation! Some people simply prefer to be on their knees! memtb
Our constitution is one of history’s greatest examples of compromise to secure shared liberty. When did Americans replace actual understanding of our history with emotional sound bites?
 
Our constitution is one of history’s greatest examples of compromise to secure shared liberty. When did Americans replace actual understanding of our history with emotional sound bites?

Before the age of 24/7 pol posturing it was every 2 years for some and every 4 for all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
SITKA Gear

Forum statistics

Threads
113,669
Messages
2,029,055
Members
36,277
Latest member
rt3bulldogs
Back
Top