Virginia to criminalize weapons training

[TheGerman]

Just like the last thread, open offer to VA guys, if you have a squad/smaller group of people you know and shoot/train with and want to get situated with equipment, comms and basic SUT to build off of, get me out there and Ill get you going.

I'm actually certified and insured as an instructor for all firearms disciplines as well as insured for NV shooting instruction (as I needed it for a business venture's insurance requirments) so its on the up and up.

Shit like this just motivates me to do it.

 

[Aries256]

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2019...ll-no-64-declaring-tactical-training-illegal/

What do you think it will take to effectively check this sort of encroachment?

Defy defy defy. Then sue their sorry asses into oblivion and beyond. My 2 cents..... well with a good amount of whiskey for good measure ?

 

[fxdrider]

Another possible player in the mix - Virginia's National Guard Units? Can the commissar, er - I mean "governor" command them to take action in the enforcement of these disarmament decrees? Asking for a friend....

 

[Not a Clue]

I don't think they will ever go for confronting people house to house, they'll end up making it so you can own anything you have, but it can't leave your house. It'll be legal to own it, illegal for anything new to be sold, illegal to transport it, so you can't take it anywhere. It'll just have to sit in your house.

I suspect that's where this is going. There's no way our neighbors who are in the Guard or LEO's are going door to door and asking for your weapons. What does suck is that the red flag laws will pass so anyone that knows you that doesn't like guns is going to call in a red flag law.

 

[SilentStalkr]

I don't think they will ever go for confronting people house to house, they'll end up making it so you can own anything you have, but it can't leave your house. It'll be legal to own it, illegal for anything new to be sold, illegal to transport it, so you can't take it anywhere. It'll just have to sit in your house.

I suspect that's where this is going. There's no way our neighbors who are in the Guard or LEO's are going door to door and asking for your weapons. What does suck is that the red flag laws will pass so anyone that knows you that doesn't like guns is going to call in a red flag law.

I believe you are right and if that is the case then it’s time to mount up and use them. Not point in owning anything you can’t use!

 

[Tactmedic]

The fact that this is even being debated by the Virginia legislatives is CRAZY. Who votes these people in???

 

[candyx]

Meanwhile, Kids are being taught how to dismantle rifle in Russia, Might not be a new video but its real.

A armed citizenry is for a defense of its Nation against invasion basic 101 warfare . The reasons democrats don't want that security is one so they can't be removed from power and two if we were invaded the democrats plan on joining the invading force.

As to that Russian video I'll bet none of the males know how to apply mother's makeup and walk in heels like our genderless raised children are taught.........

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

The fact that this is even being debated by the Virginia legislatives is CRAZY. Who votes these people in???

Well liberals and nobody, so nobody that matters. Lots of the new dems ran completely unopposed, republicans didn't even have enough fucking men on the field.

 

[Tactmedic]

Virginia is going to shit and no one wants to run against the Dems? Sad

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

I mean there are shitty people here who don't give a fuck about their neighbors and would have them shot down like animals for simply owning guns. There's one in every fucking town now. They are not in the majority and are hardly true Virginians.

 

[Jack Crab]

Va. Code 18.2-433.2, para. 1 and 2, has been the law since 1987. One cannot teach/demonstrate if one knows, has reason to know, or intends what they teach/demonstrate will be used to further civil disorder. There are also a whole list of enumerated exceptions at Va. Code 18.2-433.3. There are no reported cases in Fastcase regarding anyone being prosecuted for this statute.

The removal of "shall be" comes from a recent Boyd-Graves conference. BG is an annual conference of judges and lawyers to discuss changes to the law. The use of the word "shall" is to be eschewed in contemporary drafting. No devious intent here. Bryan Garner, clerk to Scalia, has a easily found article on the interwebs that discusses the problems with "shall."

Para. 3 is the key change to the statute. One cannot use firearms, explosives, or incendiaries to intimidate people. This amendment is in response to the jackassery in Charlottesville.

SB 64 has received way more attention than it deserves. SB 16 and "assault firearms" is the 900 pound elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

 

[fxdrider]

SB 64 has received way more attention than it deserves. SB 16 and "assault firearms" is the 900 pound elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

Oh, IT'S being talked about...
Virginia Democrats pre-file assault weapons ban SB-16. Line in the sand has been drawn.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

Whale cum to the hide, Jack Crab.

 

[Switchblade]

These laws are repugnant to the constitution. 1A allows peaceable assembly, and does not dictate the limits of what is and what is not peaceful. Peaceful training of militia is within the preview of the 2A, where all men(and women) are encouraged to use their right as the people and keep and bear arms. Training must be given so as to not have a bunch of ignorant folks with guns.
This corruption must be dealt with peacefully. If it will not go away peacefully, then fire and blood will remove corruption, and feed teh tree of liberty.

 

[Zoomie]

Welcome to what de Tocqueville called the "tyranny of a majority". They will now strip you of every right within the state not because they should, but because they can.

You will need to be in this for the long slog. The game is to force every single encroachment on your individual liberty through the courts. It will end at SCOTUS, which was never meant to be an arbiter of your constitutional rights.

Where it ends, only time will tell.

 

[WaltHer]

Va. Code 18.2-433.2, para. 1 and 2, has been the law since 1987. One cannot teach/demonstrate if one knows, has reason to know, or intends what they teach/demonstrate will be used to further civil disorder. There are also a whole list of enumerated exceptions at Va. Code 18.2-433.3. There are no reported cases in Fastcase regarding anyone being prosecuted for this statute.

The removal of "shall be" comes from a recent Boyd-Graves conference. BG is an annual conference of judges and lawyers to discuss changes to the law. The use of the word "shall" is to be eschewed in contemporary drafting. No devious intent here. Bryan Garner, clerk to Scalia, has a easily found article on the interwebs that discusses the problems with "shall."

Para. 3 is the key change to the statute. One cannot use firearms, explosives, or incendiaries to intimidate people. This amendment is in response to the jackassery in Charlottesville.

SB 64 has received way more attention than it deserves. SB 16 and "assault firearms" is the 900 pound elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

I respectfully disagree, sir. SB16 is focused on what items an individual may, or may not own, whereas SB64 is focused on alleged purpose or intent of people's actions. Most people here are aware that previous attempts to impose supply side restrictions on items from alcohol, narcotics, to firearms have all ended in dismal failure. SB64 is, in effect, an attempt to legalize "thought policing" and behavior modification in a supposedly "free" country. This type of legislation is much more ominous than an attempt to ban material items as it tries to legislate how people think and act-not just what they own. After all, you are the weapon, your firearm is just a tool.

 

[Jack Crab]

I respectfully disagree, sir. SB16 is focused on what items an individual may, or may not own, whereas SB64 is focused on alleged purpose or intent of people's actions. Most people here are aware that previous attempts to impose supply side restrictions on items from alcohol, narcotics, to firearms have all ended in dismal failure. SB64 is, in effect, an attempt to legalize "thought policing" and behavior modification in a supposedly "free" country. This type of legislation is much more ominous than an attempt to ban material items as it tries to legislate how people think and act-not just what they own. After all, you are the weapon, your firearm is just a tool.

How is prohibiting a person with a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device from intimidating another person "thought policing"? Are you arguing that we need to preserve the option to intimidate others with a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device to be free?

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

Because the law will tie them together under the same statute, all predicated on the impression of safety another party maintains themselves. It will be abused, though in spirit there is nothing disagreeable with it. The reality of it in the hands of people with a staunch gun grabbing agenda is not fucking good.

 

[DOA]

How is prohibiting a person with a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device from intimidating another person "thought policing"? Are you arguing that we need to preserve the option to intimidate others with a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device to be free?

One can purchase these items legally with no intent to use it to intimidate another person, while banning the items is "assuming" intent which is thought policing.

 

[Jack Crab]

One can purchase these items legally with no intent to use it to intimidate another person, while banning the items is "assuming" intent which is thought policing.

No items are banned in SB64, only the act of intimidating.

 

[rtB]

Who decides what "intimidating" is?

 

[alpine44]

Who decides what "intimidating" is?

This is going the same way than "hate speech" or " violating safe spaces".
Rest assured, they will prove intent to intimidate by expecting you to know and respect the hoplophobia of some people.
We already live in a world where children get disciplined for displaying a pop tart 'gun'.

 

[Jack Crab]

Who decides what "intimidating" is?

That's easy.

In Virginia, intimidation has been defined as "putting a victim in fear of bodily harm by exercising such domination and control . . . as to . . . overbear her will." Sutton v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 654, 663, 324 S.E.2d 665, 670 (1985). Intimidation is distinct from threats in that it can occur without an overt "expression of an intention to do bodily harm." Id. Rather, the fear of bodily harm can arise from "the imposition of psychological pressure on one who, under the circumstances, is vulnerable and susceptible to such pressure." Id. Lunceford v. Commonwealth (Va. App., 2016)

 

[Aries256]

That's easy.

In Virginia, intimidation has been defined as "putting a victim in fear of bodily harm by exercising such domination and control . . . as to . . . overbear her will." Sutton v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 654, 663, 324 S.E.2d 665, 670 (1985). Intimidation is distinct from threats in that it can occur without an overt "expression of an intention to do bodily harm." Id. Rather, the fear of bodily harm can arise from "the imposition of psychological pressure on one who, under the circumstances, is vulnerable and susceptible to such pressure." Id. Lunceford v. Commonwealth (Va. App., 2016)

So in other words, libtards, and gun control traitors are pussies. Of course we knew that already.

 

[Jack Crab]

This is going the same way than "hate speech" or " violating safe spaces".
Rest assured, they will prove intent to intimidate by expecting you to know and respect the hoplophobia of some people.
We already live in a world where children get disciplined for displaying a pop tart 'gun'.

Not really. Intimidating in some form is used 27 times in Title 18.2, the Va. criminal code. One cannot use a noose to intimidate, burn a cross, leave a swastika, etc., etc.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

Who decides what "intimidating" is?

That's easy.

A judge.