Virginia reenacts one handgun a month law

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Galileo, Aug 10, 2020.

  1. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Totally false, criminals being criminals are prohibited from buying guns through legal channels, they will not be affected by the law.

    This law like so many gun control laws only effects the law abiding.
     
  2. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In most of the US there are no laws prohibiting such.
     
  3. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it should be working.
     
    FatBack likes this.
  4. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Incorrect per the 9th Circuit..

    The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of large-capacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the Second Amendment. The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment:
    (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; and
    (2) if so, what level of scrutiny to apply to the regulation.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  5. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You and other gun apologists have already been proven wrong:

    "Virginia had a one-handgun-a-month law on the books from 1993 to 2012.... The policy was pitched as a way to reduce gun trafficking, preventing straw purchasers from buying large numbers of handguns then distributing them to states with stricter gun laws. A 1995 study by the Virginia State Crime Commission found that the law largely worked as intended, dropping Virginia from first to eighth in federal rankings of East Coast states that export guns used in crimes elsewhere."
    https://www.virginiamercury.com/202...o-block-virginias-new-one-handgun-a-month-law

    Furthermore, how do you explain the low gun crime rates in nations with strict gun control like Australia? Why are so few criminals circumventing the gun laws in such nations?
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
  6. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The state of California possesses firearm rationing, as well as numerous other firearm-related restrictions, and it is doing absolutely no good at preventing the criminal element from acquiring firearms that were sold in the state of California to begin with.
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  7. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your argument has self destructed, the law was no longer in effect after 2012, yet per BATF Virginia is now at the bottom of NE states for trace backs of illegally obtained firearms, without the one gun per month law being in effect.

    As such the law didn't do anything other than interfere with the rights of law abiding gun owners.

    But as usual the anti-gunners will latch onto anything that supports their rights grabbing agenda.

    Very sick, they totally fail to realize guns are not the problem, criminals are the problem.
     
  8. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Guns are trafficked from states with lax gun laws to states with strict gun control. That's a fact. Here's an example:

    "A Jersey City man was sentenced to nearly three years in prison for masterminding a scheme to illegally bring firearms from Virginia to New Jersey, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia said Monday...

    "The scheme began in October 2017, when a convicted felon in Virginia who was an acquaintance of Walston's began buying weapons for New Jersey customers. Over the next several months, the two used a straw buyer to obtain multiple weapons, including a handgun that was recovered during a traffic stop."
    https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/h...tenced-in-virginia-gun-running-scheme/778817/

    So why did they have to get guns from Virginia instead of New Jersey? Because New Jersey's gun laws are very strict and do affect criminals. Thus, criminals there turn to out of state sources. Criminals get guns from states with lax gun control because lax gun control makes it easy for criminals to get guns.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why did the individual, a convicted felon according to the account on the part of yourself, only get three years in prison? The mandatory minimum is five years for each firearm in their possession, and ten years for each count of perjury, that being providing false information on the background check form needed to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

    From the ATF itself: https://www.atf.gov/file/119371/download

    From the most recent year for which data is available, the state of New Jersey asked the ATF to trace some three thousand, nine hundred and eighteen firearms that were found in the possession of criminal individuals.

    Of that amount, approximately five hundred and twenty one were successfully back to the state of New Jersey itself, meaning they were purchased in compliance with the various firearm-related restrictions that are in place to prevent that from occurring.

    The second highest amount, four hundred and twelve, were successfully traced back to the state of Pennsylvania.

    The third highest amount, two hundred and forty seven, were successfully traced back to the state of Virginia. With the number of successful traces continuing to drop steadily with each subsequent state, while simultaneously showing the successful trafficking of firearms from the state of New York of all places.

    What this ultimately shows is the state of Pennsylvania is far more responsible for the state of Virginia for the trafficking of firearms into the state of New Jersey, than the state of Virginia. Yet both states fall far behind the state of New Jersey, which is responsible for far more firearms being acquired by members of the criminal element, than any other individual state.

    In short, simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, the state of New Jersey and its firearm-related restrictions, are no better or more effective than the states that do not have such firearm-related restrictions in place.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
    Rucker61 likes this.
  10. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Pennsylvania shares a border with New Jersey. Virginia does not. Pennsylvania does not have a one handgun a month law. So your ATF data does not prove your point.

    What problems will this law cause gun owners? How are those problems worse than gun trafficking?
     
  11. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does such ultimately serve to change the fact the state of Virginia is not responsible for the majority of firearms being trafficked into the state of New Jersey?

    And yet the number of firearms trafficked into the state of New Jersey, is only slightly lower than the number of firearms trafficked from the state of New Jersey itself. Suggesting the various firearm-related restrictions in the state of New Jersey are not living up to the promises upon which they were sold in the first place to justify their existence. If the anti-trafficking efforts of the state of New Jersey are only slightly more effective than what is in place in the state of Pennsylvania, then those anti-trafficking efforts are not proving themselves useful.

    The abridgement of constitutional rights held by the law-abiding public, in a desperate and futile effort to prevent criminal activities that are occurring unabated regardless, proving that no amount of firearm-related restrictions will ever be enough to achieve the desired goal. Even the state of California is failing miserably at preventing the trafficking of firearms within the state.

    What problems would be caused by drastic limitations applied to the first amendment, that allow a private citizen to have only engage in one online post per week, or per month, to prevent them from spamming certain forums, or otherwise visiting certain sites? A great deal of radicalization would be ended if private individuals could only visit one internet site per day, and then be cut off from all other sites for the next twenty-four hours. Is that acceptable? If not then explain precisely why not. What possible reason could be had on the part of yourself for visiting more than one website a day? What sort of illegal activity is being engaged in on the part of yourself that could possibly require access to multiple internet sites and pages on any given day?
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2020
  12. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    They said that restrictions on the commercial sale of arms are acceptable.

    Furthermore, a federal one handgun a month law would not be unconstitutional. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Guns are being purchased in one state and sold in another state so it's certainly a matter that the federal government can involve itself in.

    It wasn't a failure. The number of crime guns in other states that could be traced to Virginia decreased.

    So you're implying that people with carry permits will cooperate with gun traffickers to circumvent the law? Maybe concealed carry needs to be more strictly regulated.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2020
  13. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,704
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good on em for exempting CCWs. While I don't believe this law is constitutional, I do believe this is actually made in a good faith attempt to reduce criminally intent gun sales by/for prohibited persons and reducing gun involved violence while minimizing restrictions on lawfully intent activity.

    And I agree with previous poster- CCWs are likely to become a lot more common in VA, which is a good thing.

    I also don't think very many lawful gun owners are going to be negatively effected by this... yet.

    Tho I reiterate that I do not believe this is constitutional, and I also believe if 'left alone', it will be slowly expanded to include more types of firearms and longer time periods until it does become more of a burden on the lawfully intent than on the criminally intent.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2020
  14. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except for the fact that such was not actually stated.

    What was stated by the united state supreme court was that certain firearm-related restrictions were presumptively lawful, at the time of the Heller ruling, simply because they did not undertake an exhaustive analysis of every firearm-related restriction in existence, as it was outside of the scope of the question they were asked to answer in the first place.

    The two standards are not even close to being similar to one another.

    It would, as government has no legal authority to dictate how often a private individual may legally exercise their constitutional rights.

    Except for the purchasing and selling of firearms that is being referred to on the part of yourself, with regard to firearms trafficking, is already illegal under federal law for violating interstate commerce, and can already be prosecuted under existing standards.

    By what percentage? Cite such. Why are the firearm-related restrictions of the state of New Jersey failing to prevent firearm trafficking from occurring within the state? Why are the various firearm-related restrictions of the states of California and New York failing to prevent firearm trafficking from occurring within their own borders? Why are their registration and licensing requirements doing nothing to prevent the illegal acquisition and trade of firearms sold in compliance with such mandates?

    Except for the fact that such is not what is being stated. What is being stated is that the state of Virginia has chosen to state that those who possess a concealed carry permit are free to purchase as many firearms as they wish, as often as they wish, without any additional hassle.

    Meaning the state of Virginia is essentially saying that anyone who can pass a background check does not need to be prevented from purchasing more than one firearm in a thirty day period. Which essentially amounts to the state of Virginia openly admitting their their firearm-rationing scheme is neither justified nor necessary, but it is going to continue with it regardless in the name of political spite.

    What such will ultimately do, is lead to even more individuals obtaining concealed carry permits, so they can be exempt from the rationing. Concealed carry will become even more widespread in the state of Virginia, meaning even more individuals will be carrying firearms in public than ever before, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent such.
     
  15. joesnagg

    joesnagg Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well stated, well stated indeed!
     
  16. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe your First Amendment rights should be reduced to one comment per month in the Political Forum.

    It would reduce the amount of drivel being posted.

    It should become a nationwide mandate
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
    James Knapp, FatBack and Well Bonded like this.
  17. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,309
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How?
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  18. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,267
    Likes Received:
    18,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    well it is pointless because you can just go over the state line and buy all the guns you want.
     
  19. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only long guns, not handguns..
     
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1 per month is arbitrary and capricious, and would be immediately ruled unconstitutional if applied to any other enumerated right.
     
  21. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,267
    Likes Received:
    18,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Legally?
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right. Interstate transfer of handguns requires a FFL, long guns do not always.
     
  23. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i agree, that's why i only support one vote per person.
     
  24. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,267
    Likes Received:
    18,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So laws only restrict the most law abiding.
     
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well yes - they rarely affect criminals, before they are caught.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
    Polydectes likes this.

Share This Page