Tazewell County Virginia passes 2A sanctuary status unanimously, and also passes order of militia

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by US Conservative, Dec 4, 2019.

  1. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    5,851
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I always find it interesting that the Dems are continually pursuing strategies that push the boundaries of to find the means to circumvent the Constitution to achieve their objectives, rather than seek to amend the Constitution by the prescribed means.
    The threat of using the National Guard to enforce an unpopular, and likely unconstitutional law, and while doing so violate other civil rights protections is something I find amazing. Interesting too are the other implications, for instance, that the National Guard, itself composed of citizens, would merely follow the orders of the Governor and not take the same position as the majority of Virginia’s Counties. What are the long term implications of a majority of the Counties rejecting the state legislature? What is the long term implication and Constitutionality of using the National Guard for assuming the role for law enforcement?
     
  2. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    13,216
    Likes Received:
    7,583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "I emptied the Glock in his chest." Wonderful story. Older man protects his family and the little which he owns:

     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2019
    william kurps likes this.
  3. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    52,033
    Likes Received:
    49,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dems are going down a dangerous road, imo.
     
    william kurps likes this.
  4. william kurps

    william kurps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,867
    Trophy Points:
    113

    A dangerous road?

    Hell they are going for outright war .

    So they are going to send in kids / national gaurd against people who can shoot straight?

    Who elected these people?

     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2019
    US Conservative likes this.
  5. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WTF? What does this video have to do with the topic of the thread?
     
  6. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    52,033
    Likes Received:
    49,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suspect he's showing the potential danger the national guard, etc could be in.

    Its not to be taken lightly.
     
  7. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    13,216
    Likes Received:
    7,583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In war almost everyone who survives their initial baptism into blood, death, and the smell of decaying corpses learns to shoot straight and gets better eyesight.
     
  8. william kurps

    william kurps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,867
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You miss my point, history is repeating itself, from idiotic people who think socialism/communism is good in this country to this, these children politicians in Virginia forget about Ruby ridge, Wako Texas the Bundy's BLM fiasco?

    To spout off this nonsense that they will send in the National gaurd to take weapons away from law abiding citizens is suicide.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2019
  9. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    13,216
    Likes Received:
    7,583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, they're going to give it the old college try, live or die.
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    33,959
    Likes Received:
    10,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Q: How many people are the Democrats willing to kill to implement their agenda?
    A: As many as it takes.
     
  11. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Since a state senator has suggested it, I took a look at whether the Governor could use the state militia (i.e. National Guard) to enforce a state law (for example, the current pending bill to define and ban “assault firearms”). Please note I am not addressing the practicality or the consequences of an attempt to use the state militia for this purpose. This is merely an analysis of whether the power to do so exists.

    The Virginia Constitution, in Art. 5 § 7, very plainly and broadly defines both the Governor’s obligation to enforce the laws and his power to use the militia for that purpose:

    Section 7. Executive and administrative powers. — The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

    The Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Commonwealth and shall have power to embody such forces to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the execution of the laws.


    No case has ever addressed this language to determine what, if any, limitation exists upon its broadly stated scope. It would therefore appear the Governor has the power to use the state militia to enforce the laws the legislature adopts.

    The Governor has already expressed his support for the “assault firearm” ban. The next question is could he enforce such a law as soon as it becomes effective, or must he wait until a court decides its constitutionality first. In Virginia (as well as in the federal system and—I suspect—every other state system), every law passed by the legislature is presumed constitutional. Here is how Virginia courts deal with this issue:

    We are guided in this review by the fundamental principle that “all actions of the General Assembly are presumed to be constitutional.”…Indeed, there is “no stronger presumption known to the law,” …, and therefore “a heavy burden of proof is thrust upon the party” challenging a statute's constitutionality….

    This strong presumption reflects the breadth of legislative power in Virginia. Unlike the Congress of the United States, the General Assembly of Virginia functions under no grant of power…The General Assembly, in representing the sovereign authority of the people…is restricted only by the Constitution of Virginia in express terms or by strong implication. We look to the Constitution of the State not for grants of power, but for limitations. . . . It is a restraining instrument, and . . . the General Assembly of the State possesses all legislative power not prohibited by the Constitution…In short, unless forbidden by some State or Federal constitutional provision, the General Assembly's powers are plenary….

    In deference to this broad legislative authority, we have repeatedly said that a statute will be upheld as constitutional unless it is plainly repugnant to some provision of the Virginia or Federal Constitutions… In other words, the unconstitutionality of a statute must be clear and palpable.… We are thus compelled to resolve any reasonable doubt regarding a statute's constitutionality in favor of its validity. Old Dominion Committee v. SCC, 294 Va. 168, 177-178, 803 S.E.2d 758, ___ (2017) (long citations to older cases omitted)

    In other words, there is no obligation for the supporters of a statute to first prove it is constitutional. Rather, the mere passage of the law creates a presumption that it is, and the burden lies upon the challenger of the law to show its unconstitutionality.

    So if it came to it, I believe the Governor could legitimately claim the Virginia Constitution does grant him the power to use the state militia to “enforce the laws,” and that cases like the one cited above stand for the position that the law is presumed to be constitutional and that he can immediately “enforce the law” upon its passage and date of effect unless and until a challenge results in a Court order declaring the law violates either the state or federal constitution (or at least grants an injunction against enforcement while a suit is pending).
     
  12. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    56,450
    Likes Received:
    37,501
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Assault Shotgun

    [​IMG]

    Not-Assault Shotgun

    [​IMG]


    Is same shotgun :roll:
     
    jay runner and william kurps like this.
  13. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    52,033
    Likes Received:
    49,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What if upon mobilization of the National Guard, Trump federalizes them and orders them to stand down pending a ruling?
     
    jay runner and vman12 like this.
  14. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Thanks for the post. Well presented.
     
  15. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Ah, but if the bill becomes law, and you replace the pistol grip with the standard stock, then the pistol grip—by itself—becomes an “assault firearm”:

    “Assault firearm" includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify, or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm.

     
    vman12 likes this.
  16. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    See also the Constitution of Virginia…

    Article I. Bill of Rights

    Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    Either way, the law would be presumed constitutional, and the burden falls on the challenger to prove the law is an unconstitutional infringement.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  17. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2019
  18. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    5,851
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s a game Dems and leftist cons have played for decades. Find the loophole language that passes unscrutinized into law that erodes the protections provided by the Constitution with law that is selectively applied, capricious, confusing and holds high potential for partisan abuse.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  19. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    52,033
    Likes Received:
    49,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More here...
     
  20. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think that is an interesting question that presents its own constitutional issues.

    Clearly the President, pursuant to Article Section 2, is the commander-in-chief of the militia when called up for federal service:

    The President shall be the commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States…

    But the power to “federalize” a state militia and transfer command from the state’s Governor to the President lies with Congress in Article 1 Section 8:

    The Congress shall have power…
    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;…and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States…

    It is not practical to force the President to run to Congress for specific approval to call forth the militia in every instance. For example, if we faced a sudden invasion or insurrection during a long summer congressional recess. Therefore, Congress has exercised its power to call forth the militia by giving some of that power directly to immediate discretion of the President.

    However, we have to remember that the federal government is a limited government constrained by the specific grants of power we gave it, and all other power is reserved to the states or the people in the 10th Amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    That would include the power to command the militia. And the Constitution limits federal control over the militia to: “execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

    And so if the scenario was the Governor called out the militia to “execute the laws” in Virginia (laws presumed valid until proven unconstitutional), and the President decided to usurp control of the Virginia militia by “calling forth the militia” for federal service—only to order it to stand down and not “execute the laws” of Virginia—well then I believe Virginia has an argument that this exercise of federal control over the militia is an unconstitutional seizure of the control of the militia since it was not done to ““execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions” but rather to prevent the execution of Virginia law. In short, Virginia would have a claim that the depravation of state control over its militia was a violation of the 10th Amendment’s reservation of power to the state, and any attempt to exercise power not specifically granted to the federal government is null and void.

    The President could possibly cloak his assumption of power with some other legitimate exercise of control (i.e. a sudden decision to send the militia on an overseas peacekeeping mission—like when units of the Virginia militia were sent to the Balkans several years ago)—and argue it is merely coincidence that the timing deprives the governor of his militia.

    OR—Could the President claim that this call up was to “execute the laws of the Union”?

    Consider the following statutes Congress passed as part of its Article I power to call forth the militia:

    10 U.S.C. § 252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

    Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

    10 U.S.C. § 253. Interference with State and Federal law

    The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it —

    (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

    (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

    In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

    This is the recourse if—for example—Chicago officials decided to refuse to accept SCOTUS’ decision in McDonald v. Chicago. If Chicago officials said “so what” and continued enforcing the law which was declared unconstitutional, then the President could use these statutes to intercede.

    Note also that the statute authorizes the use of “the militia or the armed forces, or both.”

    There is precedent for this. Eisenhower took control of the state militia to enforce school desegregation in the face of obstruction by state officials who refused to accept SCOTUS’ decision. And, IMO, the President could use this authority to enforce a ruling that a state law violates a federal constitutional right—assuming the state officials refused to accept the ruling.

    But since 10 U.S.C. § 252 reads “Whenever the President considers”…could the President take action unilaterally—without the backing of the judicial branch first declaring a state statute violates the 2nd Amendment?

    Talk about creating an instant constitutional crisis….
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  21. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    56,450
    Likes Received:
    37,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly.

    The photos I included was of the same shotgun.
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    33,959
    Likes Received:
    10,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes... and the pistol grip needed to make the conversion -- and thus, all pistol grips - are banned by the legislation.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  23. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    56,450
    Likes Received:
    37,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm going to start calling it an assault grip.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  24. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Virginia would call the grip an “assault firearm” (by itself) if SB16 passes as drafted....

    You would be committing a felony offense for owning a pistol-grip-shaped piece of plastic (more likely hardened glass filled nylon)—whether or not you have it on the gun.

    But under this bill the exact same pistol-grip-shaped piece of plastic is not a banned “assault firearm” if it was designed for—and only fits—the Mossberg 500 pump—even though both the 930 semi-auto you picture and the 500 pump (in some models) have the same 7 + 1 capacity.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  25. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    56,450
    Likes Received:
    37,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Time to dust this off.

    [​IMG]
     
    US Conservative likes this.

Share This Page