Suppressors VA Governor Reaffirms Silencer Ban

J

jerryrva

Sergeant of the Hide
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 15, 2018
341
304
#1
Richmond news outlets reported yesterday that Northam said banning assault weapons, high capacity mags and silencers will make all Virginians safer and still protect their 2nd ammendment rights.
Two reports had the tv anchors saying the guns would be grandfathered but they did not play the tape.

All that really matters is what gets passed and signed. I don't trust any politicans anymore and edited news stories.

January 13th is when a senate committee takes up SB 16 and then we can see what they actual have in the bill since the draft has been unedited since November.
 
Last edited:
#5
Perhaps I should put a ;) or a ? in the previous post. The south has a long and well documented history with "Separate but (Un)equal." I was born and raised in Texas, and live here now, so I'm not exactly slinging stones from the balcony of my glass house. The university I attended has the dubious distinction of having the last consensus #1 ranked football team that was all white. If you don't like the statement, I am ok with that. But, if you are offended, perhaps it hits too close to home. Maybe not. Perhaps I should have said "The South," as an institution, as opposed to "southerners." Either way, Separate but Equal was a thing, and still is if you look close enough. Every time you see a "We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE" sign, that is an in-your-face reminder of that past.

The above notwithstanding, it was an attempt at humor. And with Northam's history with black-face, it hits especially close to the mark.
 
#11
SO how can a Sate ban something that you have purchased and received paperwork from the Federal Government, that i don't understand. I agree with Snipe if you let them grandfather anything you screwed the next generation.
 
#12
I have less issue with the history as I do with the future. You may have something grandfathered, but what about your grandkid wanting to buy one. Or, his son, and so on.

My meaning is history has already happened and it's not very pretty in a lot of cases. My own attachment to history in my home state of Nevada included as well. But, allowing items to be banned but the ones out there grandfathered is the way they drive a wedge between us, as @pmclaine noted. We need to move forward and correct from happening again, atrocities against any part of our society. That includes losing any part of our 2A rights. Which in itself is an atrocity. Because I believe if that happens, anybody and everybody who is a part of us losing that, needs to lose their 1A, 4A, and 5A rights. See how they like that?
 
#14
Once again last night.
"Every one of these proposals has passed constitutional muster. Other states have passed them into law. They were drafted by your own attorneys at Legislative Services, and teams of lawyers have reviewed them,”
 
#16
The dems pick and chose what laws they want to have and enforce . Democratic Virginia Attorney Generals are notorious for ignoring the will of the people and enter in court suits against the feds. So you won't get the current AG battling constitutional gun rights on behalf of Virginians.
 
#17
I'm starting to think that while the Russians have interfered in our politics, the European Union has pretty much taken control of the Democratic party. I've known Democrats that were pretty reasonable...right up until they get on the national level. Then it seems they start pushing the whole "socialist 'common sense' ( NOT!! ) agenda" that the EU says we all need.
 
#18
Herring has set a land-speed record for ignoring laws he doesn't like and refusing to support those laws when challenged in court. He is by far the worst.
 
#19
SCOTUS back in June refused to take up a lower court case that ruled the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to suppressors since they were not a "bearable" arm.

Really all suppressor owners have their side is that they go through FBI checks and have to wait forever to get the item. I'd like to see the whole General Assembly view a side by side demo with and without a suppressor on a hunting rifle and then decide if its as quiet as many surely think it is.
 
#21
True, but he garnered almost nothing in the way of votes. The Democratic party, on the other hand, has turned more and more "social" since it's inception. All the EU had to do to step in, was provide money, and say, "See, we want all the same government controls that you do." And, voila! The entire Democratic party is dancing the EU tune.
 
#23
As was stated above, suppressors are not protected by the 2A. They have been deemed accessories by the SCOTUS. This is a win in that they should not be regulated by BATFE, but a loss in that they can be regulated at the state level without .gov approval. It's a 2 edged sword and somebody pushed until they got what they didn't want. They fall under a catagory that includes bump stocks, so remember that when pushing to get them legalized. That's pretty much how this whole shit storm started. It was argued that they weren't firearms and eventually the courts said okay. That opened up a whole can of regulation at levels that weren't thought of before.
 
#26
GUN CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT CRIME!!!!!!

like health care isn’t about helping people. It’s about power and control. Why do you think they want to ban body armor, NV, full size rifles etc?

.gov is always about taking more power money and control from its subjects.
 
#28
They are trolling for a reaction for sure.

“Never let a crisis go to waste”



Don’t be surprised when there’s false flags at the rally.
If they will run guns to mexico and machine gun crowds at Vegas they will do anything. (.gov)
 
#29
Was curious about the VA Beach shootings with the suppressor, was there ever any more specific details ever released about it? How and when purchased and what was used? The news cycle down here in FL covered it for like a half a day and maybe I missed the follow up.

Mainly asking because this weekend on an ASA or Silencer Shop post one person said "when has one ever been used in a crime" and people said "VA Beach!" but then some guy chimed in and said "no, they don't want to you to know, but it was only in his backpack in his car" and not used. I searched and never found anything to corroborate that. Sounded like another idiot with misinformation.

Just curious if the VA peeps closer to the story every saw any more facts/details.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
#32
Doesn't matter now as it's just "common sense legislation". Red Flag, Universal Background Checks rolled through committee today in minutes along party lines.
 
#33
There are countless examples of the government having contradictory standards for things like this. The bump stock ban is another example of the executive branch of the government making it up as they go along. Just do as they say, and you wont have anything to worry about.
 
#34
Agreed. As @deersniper pointed out the Las Vegas incident is a bunch of lies. Who amongst them could guess many veterans saying, "No bumpstock, or full auto AR, could fire 100 rounds that slow?" In the video it shows 100 rds. coming out in 12 seconds with no variation in speed whatsoever. Which leads me to believe that was a belt fed weapon, not a bumpstock equipped AR. Also, fiber/wire reinforced glass that can withstand amazingly high winds gets broken by a 2 lb. hammer? A few cases lying around the room after 400 "KNOWN" rounds fired? And of course, the hard dried blood behind the perpetrators head. Blood that would have taken at least 8 hours if not a full day to dry to black crusty condition, found only an hour after the shooting?
 
#36
The bullshit of it is, gun parts are not guns, but they are regulated by BATFE. It's like saying you can have a gun, but the barrel isn't a gun, and the state can pass a law making gun barrels illegal.

A suppressor is a gun part, and that is how SCOTUS saw it back in 1934, and that's why the Gov't couldn't regulate them directly. The Gov't had to take their NFA Act and re-submit it as a tax, not a control act. Because it directly violated the second amendment. That was passed in 1937. Now SCOTUS says they aren't guns? Then they need to stop taxing and regulating them. The "progressive" attitude in Washington, DC is they want it both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts