search
top

Virginia Court Upholds Governor’s Gun Ban

Judge upholds Virginia governor’s Capitol gun ban

The law is no obstacle where the powerful feel threatened. She ruled that there’s no right to carry a firearm on government property per Heller. That’s not a huge reach: Heller says government buildings specifically. But statutorily, Virginia Law limits the Governor’s powers in regards to restricting firearms. That is a reach. But if they find a judge actually willing to apply the law in this case before Monday, I’ll eat my hat.

Remember, when the wealthy and powerful want something, they will usually be successful at getting it. Bloomberg wants your gun rights. The key lesson here for other states is put the hard work Virginians are putting in now before it gets to this. Work to ensure the party doing this pays a price electorally. Sanctuary is a desperation move, and if you live here in Pennsylvania with me, or in Florida, we are not there yet.

30 Responses to “Virginia Court Upholds Governor’s Gun Ban”

  1. The-Jack says:

    They already redrew the districts. The was a main factor in how they won.

    Course now they can do it again and further lock in

    • Alex says:

      The districts were redrawn to remove unconstitutional gerrymandering. Turns out Democrats are more likely to win elections when minority voters aren’t suppressed.

      • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

        LOL yeah none of this is true.

        • 399 says:

          “none of this is true.”

          We’re not all from Virginia, so which part isn’t true? I haven’t followed Virginia politics that much.

      • Alpheus says:

        Or rather, Democrats hate gerrymandering when it’s designed to benefit Republicans, but are happy with it when it benefits Democrats.

        They are especially happy when they can remove “unconstitutional” gerrymandering so that Republicans are caught flat-footed, and thus are more likely to win elections because a lot of ballots don’t have Republican opposition.

        Democrats have used gerrymandering to their benefit for *decades*. The fact that they complain about it when Republicans come to power is *highly* disingenuous, to say the least!

  2. ARL says:

    No it’s not. Take this story down. This happened in December 2015. Read the date in the Fox News story you linked. Since then, VA has recognized all other state permits.

  3. Maine Constitutional Carry says:

    “Remember, when the wealthy and powerful want something, they will usually be successful at getting it”. Not in Maine. We took his money and voted down his UBC Referendum in 2016. It was NOT easy, and you are correct; “The key lesson here for other states is put the hard work Virginians are putting in now before it gets to this”.

  4. You statement is what is most troubling to me about the current state of politics:

    “We won. And we’ll get to redraw the districts. So we can do what we want to you and there’s nothing you can do about it except submission.”

    It used to be that someone elected to government looked at his/her entire constituency and if 49% of the people were against something Then they would respect that. They would still move towards what the majority wants, of course, but the minority who disagreed would still have some influence and it would temper what the rep did.

    Now it’s like if I can get 51 votes “Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn Them All In”

    Just like we used to elect presidents based on what they promised, but then when Congress shut them mostly down we accepted that. Now with Trump he’s going around congress, finding money from wherever, declaring an emergency, and doing things like building a wall anyway (upping Obamas pen and phone strategy). I’m someone who likes the idea of a wall but that outlook is part of the problem.

    Anyway … I imagine the Republic will survive Trump … I’m not so sure about the nanny state democrats who seem poised to assume and exploit power.

    • 399 says:

      “I imagine the Republic will survive Trump”

      But will it survive Trump voters? They will still be there after Trump is gone. That is just the mirror image of your question about surviving nanny state democrats.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        So who is more interested in robbing you of your constitutional rights in Virginia? Trump voters right?

        • Brad says:

          Pay no mind to 399. He’s overtly one of those Antifa types and sees racist bogeymen lurking in every shadow and behind every corner. And he thinks he can police opinion on this blog.

        • 399 says:

          “So who is more interested in robbing you of your constitutional rights in Virginia?”

          TRUMP: “Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

          That is simply wrong, as I hope everyone here knows. It is close to Nixon’s claim that “if the president does it, it’s not illegal.” The courts have called Trump constitutionally wrong, many more times now than they have supported him. That the Trump base is still willing to stand with a president that constitutionally ignorant or disrespectful does not speak well for them as a source of constitutional wisdom or constitutional protection. It is more like, that like their president, they see the constitution as a useful tool to get their way, and if they aren’t getting their way, then fuck the constitution. They will redefine it. Some will call that being robbed of our constitutional rights. Someone is sure to be robbed. Are you sure it won’t be you?

          Regarding racism, I assume many Trump voters are very fine people. However, the only avowed racists in this country who don’t support Trump are the ones who are so extreme that Trump isn’t racist enough for them. Close to 100 percent of avowed racists must hear Trump’s racism pretty clearly. Either Trump voters are too dumb to hear it, or they hear it and don’t mind it, or some personal interest they believe Trump will deliver on makes them willing to play along with it. I don’t know which of those categories is worst.

          • Alpheus says:

            I find it rather disingenuous that you lay all this unConstitutionalism and “If the President does it, it’s not illegal” at the feet of Trump, when to a certain extent, he’s only following in the steps of Obama.

            You are worried about Trump voters destroying the Republic. Why aren’t you worried about Obama voters, who are just as bad?

            Oh, and about Trump’s racism: of *course* he isn’t sufficiently racist, considering that minorities have had better employment in the years that Trump has taken office, than they have in the decades before.

            And when you consider how comfortable Democrats are with having a former KKK member (in leadership, nonetheless) as a sitting Senator, and are comfortable with a Governor who has a picture of himself in either blackface or a KKK costume (he wouldn’t say which he was)…I can’t help but wonder how much the accusation of racism against President Trump is merely projection of the racism of Democrats on those who they don’t like.

          • Alpheus says:

            Oh, and I should add: when President Trump was talking about Article 2 giving the President the right to do whatever he wants, at the time, he wasn’t *literally* talking about doing whatever he wants — he was talking *specifically* about firing people in certain positions.

            As much as I dislike President Trump on many things, I’m also sick and tired of people taking innocent words out of context, and then blowing them up far beyond what the President meant, all in an effort to make him look bad.

  5. Joe_in_Pitt says:

    As someone who lives in PA but has lived in VA and still has property there, I know it is only a matter of time before they go full NJ.

  6. Andy B. says:

    “Bloomberg wants your gun rights.”

    The error you make (IMHO) is in implying they all don’t want your gun rights.

    No one who deigns to rule can tolerate the idea of those ruled having a viable means of saying “no” to their dictates.

    For “conservatives” of the ruling class, the RKBA is just a tiger they grabbed by the tail a few decades ago for election/campaign purposes, and it still has utility for them. As I’ve recited, probably too many times before, even the NRA never had a problem with a gun-grabbing Republican (e.g., Tom Ridge, here in PA) as long as they could provide marginally plausible cover for him/her. And there are always people ready to buy the “political pragmatism” excuses.

    As mentioned recently, I’ll never forget the PA gun control bill they called “The Sportsmens Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill” and claimed as one of their biggest “wins” for 1995. (My apologies. The price of the knife in my back is, I will never forget it or let it drop.)

  7. riverrider says:

    everybody says wait for the courts, but it doesn’t get any more slam dunk than this yet the judge ruled against us. so much for the courts.

    • Andy B. says:

      “it doesn’t get any more slam dunk than this yet the judge ruled against us. so much for the courts.”

      See my “No one who deigns to rule” rant above. Eventually gun rights will only survive by the people asserting them — hopefully non-violently, by non-compliance with the law in sufficient numbers to make Authority think twice — but it will take a sea change in people’s thinking for that to happen.

  8. The_Jack says:

    Sebastian.

    And here’s more evidence with the VA State Supreme Court going “lol nope”

    https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1218330708873269249

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      “Lol nope” to your post maybe…

      Did you read the Cam Edwards article on bearing arms about this? It was dismissed based on a technicality… a paperwork issue. However that was for the injunction. We will have oral arguments soon. What are you doing to help?

  9. Brad says:

    Governor Blackface abusing his power in pursuit of his gun-ban agenda is a very bad omen for the future of Virginia. The lockstep support of that abuse from the larger constellation of the Left, the Democratic Party, and the broadcast Press is an even worse omen for the future of America.

    It is crystal clear that Virginia law does not give Governor Blackface the power to impose the gun-free zone that he did under emergency declaration. But he did it anyway.

    What might he do next?

  10. Brad says:

    This battle in the Virginia Courts over the legality of the Governor Blackface emergency decree is an early test. Should we expect the Virginia Courts will uphold the Virginia Constitution RKBA, when the new gun-control laws will inevitably be challenged?

    So far it is not looking good. The Virginia Court may end up nullifying the Virginia Constitution RKBA, just as the Colorado Supreme Court nullified the Colorado Constitution RKBA.

  11. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    Courts rarely do their jobs. Maybe we can get the federal ones since Trump has flipped a lot, and held on the to the SC.

    I don’t see sanctuary cities as a desperation move. Shooting people is a desperation move. Sanctuary cities are a natural next step.

    • 399 says:

      “Maybe we can get the federal ones since Trump has flipped a lot”

      When one side can always get its way, does that mean the courts are doing their job? There is not a narrow interest in this country that doesn’t have its own definition of “constitutionality.” There has never been a time that wasn’t true.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        Constitutionality in this case = not preventing someone from exercising their constitutional rights. What do you believe that means?

  12. Matt says:

    It has become more and more apparent that the separation of the courts from the other branches, both nationally and the state level is not distinct enough.

    The courts protect the cast they are apart of. The elites in goverment, those we allow to run are corrupt and against the people the are supoosed to represent. They feel themselves leaders not represitives. Judges are if this ilk. The cone from the same feeders and move in the same circles. They want this ruling to temper a response by the people against the next ruling that protects those in goverment from those they want to lord over.

    • Andy B. says:

      Right on!

      But you have to understand that is what “representative government” means. And we have been conditioned to where nothing scares us more than the possibility of “democracy” — unless it’s us imposing it.

      See “This is a Republic not a Yukk-Phooie Democracy.”

    • 432 says:

      You are right. And the law is a fiction.

top