VA Senate passed 3 gun laws today...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All gun laws will fail in the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is clear in the fact that the government is not allowed to restrict citizens' right to bear arms. "Shall NOT be infringed."

Scalia would disagree.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

#themoreyouknow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

One gun a month is meaningless? How so?

I guess it makes you plan your crime a little further in advance or something.

There's also an exception for concealed handgun permit holders. Those aren't too difficult to get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

One gun a month is meaningless? How so?

I guess it makes you plan your crime a little further in advance or something.

There's also an exception for concealed handgun permit holders. Those aren't too difficult to get.

Oh really? Guess we better add that to the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

One gun a month is meaningless? How so?

I guess it makes you plan your crime a little further in advance or something.

There's also an exception for concealed handgun permit holders. Those aren't too difficult to get.

Oh really? Guess we better add that to the list.

They require a criminal background check and require you to take a competency and safety course. They have to be renewed every five years. There is really no reason to make it "more difficult" than this for law-abiding citizens to carry if they want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

Meaningless? There is only one way to find out of new gun restrictions will work, and that is to try them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All gun laws will fail in the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is clear in the fact that the government is not allowed to restrict citizens' right to bear arms. "Shall NOT be infringed."

Scalia would disagree.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

#themoreyouknow

Aren’t you glad you know now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

One gun a month is meaningless? How so?

I guess it makes you plan your crime a little further in advance or something.

There's also an exception for concealed handgun permit holders. Those aren't too difficult to get.

Oh really? Guess we better add that to the list.

They require a criminal background check and require you to take a competency and safety course. They have to be renewed every five years. There is really no reason to make it "more difficult" than this for law-abiding citizens to carry if they want to.

except this course can be completed online in like 10 minutes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Gun nuts be crazy.

Well REGULATED militia. Not private unlimited arsenals. REGULATED.

You're showing your ignorance, I'm afraid. Look up the contextual definition and usage of the term "regulated" for the Colonial-era, and you'll find it has nothing to do with the current interpretation of the word.


#themoreyouknow

So we should abide by rules made for the Colonial era? With time comes progress and with progress comes revision of archaic and outdated rules.

[Anonymous]

A little revolution now and then is a good thing. Infringe upon the greatest governmental document ever written and you may get just that. But, more likely SCOTUS and it’s conservative make up will take care of this without to much furor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little revolution now and then is a good thing. Infringe upon the greatest governmental document ever written and you may get just that. But, more likely SCOTUS and it’s conservative make up will take care of this without to much furor.

Scalia says suck it.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little revolution now and then is a good thing. Infringe upon the greatest governmental document ever written and you may get just that. But, more likely SCOTUS and it’s conservative make up will take care of this without to much furor.

Scalia says suck it.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

That's weird.

Supreme Court Justice Reynolds said in United States vs. Miller "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little revolution now and then is a good thing. Infringe upon the greatest governmental document ever written and you may get just that. But, more likely SCOTUS and it’s conservative make up will take care of this without to much furor.

Scalia says suck it.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

That's weird.

Supreme Court Justice Reynolds said in United States vs. Miller "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Ahhh...such a cute old-timey...

in 2008:
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment...We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

Womp womp

[Anonymous]

^^ such a cute old-timey case.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

One gun a month is meaningless? How so?

I guess it makes you plan your crime a little further in advance or something.

There's also an exception for concealed handgun permit holders. Those aren't too difficult to get.

Oh really? Guess we better add that to the list.

They require a criminal background check and require you to take a competency and safety course. They have to be renewed every five years. There is really no reason to make it "more difficult" than this for law-abiding citizens to carry if they want to.

except this course can be completed online in like 10 minutes

I see you've never taken the course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

One gun a month is meaningless? How so?

I guess it makes you plan your crime a little further in advance or something.

There's also an exception for concealed handgun permit holders. Those aren't too difficult to get.

Oh really? Guess we better add that to the list.

They require a criminal background check and require you to take a competency and safety course. They have to be renewed every five years. There is really no reason to make it "more difficult" than this for law-abiding citizens to carry if they want to.

except this course can be completed online in like 10 minutes

I don't understand your point. It's not that difficult to safely handle a gun. You would get less training with a circular saw or nail gun.