Virginia's proposed gun laws
|
antithesis
|
Posted 1:37 pm, 01/14/2020
|
JT, this is the closest I could find:
Some top Virginia Democratic senators are expressing reservations about plans to ban assault weapons - a key part of the new Democratic majority's gun-control proposals and one that's drawn fierce resistance from gun-rights advocates. "A lot of people don't really understand assault weapons and how complicated the issue really is," said Democratic Sen. John Edwards. "It's going to be very difficult to figure out a way to do it. But we're studying it, that's all I can say." He's one of at least four moderate senators - the others are Sens. Chap Petersen, Creigh Deeds and Lynwood Lewis - who are skeptical of plans to ban assault weapons. None of them has ruled out voting for an assault weapon ban, but all have said they aren't impressed with any of the drafts of proposed bans they've seen. "I've not seen an enforceable bill that makes sense yet," Deeds said.
The Democrats have a slim 21-19 majority, so losing 4 votes would be a lot.
But I'm fine with this, extremism on either side doesn't do any good for anyone.
|
|
1048andonehalf
|
Posted 1:25 pm, 01/14/2020
|
I wonder, do you have any idea what a criminal is? A criminal is a person who is genetically programed to resist authority. They don't accept the concept that others have the right to control them. The truth is, they are correct. A person has a natural right to plot their own path. When there is a conflict, the most powerful individuals over rules the others by force. That is why we have dictatorships all over the world. The criminals over power the non-criminals by force.
|
|
Joseph T.
|
Posted 1:24 pm, 01/14/2020
|
And just where did you see that
|
|
1048andonehalf
|
Posted 1:16 pm, 01/14/2020
|
Japan is a produce of thousands of years of culture brainwashing. They don't think the way we do. We are wild west gun slingers and they are enslaved souls. Enslaved by a thousand years of social conditioning. Except for certain elite groups, they would be happy totally unarmed.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 1:11 pm, 01/14/2020
|
I've given a lot of thought to it over the years, and Japan's policy seems to make the most sense. Anyone can own a gun, they just have to be licensed and prove that they are capable. With these seemingly minor restrictions, they have the lowest homicide rate in the world.
But of course, as an island they can more easily control illegal smuggling, where we don't have that ability.So we'll obviously never be able to stop ALL crime, but that doesn't mean that we should give up and just let criminals have easy access to guns, either.
|
|
1048andonehalf
|
Posted 1:04 pm, 01/14/2020
|
The truth is, if individuals are allowed to own guns then it is impossible to control who has guns. Criminals can get guns from friends or they can just steal them. You can't stop them from getting guns. The only way to stop them from getting guns is to get rid of all guns. However, if we get rid of all guns that leaves us unprotected from any fascist who wants to control us. I don't like innocents being killed but it is acceptable in order to maintain our freedom.
|
|
CONRAD
|
Posted 1:03 pm, 01/14/2020
|
Virginia dims cave on AR confiscation after NRA pressure.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 12:42 pm, 01/14/2020
|
I think I've said that several times, 168. Like when I said this at 10:13pm:
3 Once again their is no gun show loophole private sales can and do happen everywhere so calling it a gun show loophole is being dishonest.
I think you're getting caught up in semantics here, JT. "Gun show loophole" is just a common phrase that people recognize, but obviously we're talking about non-licensed sellers. I think that's obvious throughout the thread.
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 12:26 am, 01/14/2020
|
How about dropping the mythical gun show loop hole mantra and just come out and say all private sales instead. Because that's what you mean.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 10:19 pm, 01/13/2020
|
Anti Why would any one want to haul guns all the way to from Wilkes to Chicago. Every time I something about the shootings there you post stats saying how low the crime rates are in Illinois' are compared to the dirty south.
Don't mislead people here, 168, I've only posted facts. And facts show that Illinois is the 9th most dangerous state in the US. I don't deny that Chicago is dangerous, just that you're cherry picking data to support what you want to believe while ignoring other data.
And I've used that to show that gun control in a single city is irrelevant when someone can just mosey on over to the next city and buy a gun. So you can't fairly use it as an example.
And you are the one that says harsher sentence's doesn't deter crime so how in the blazes will more gun control laws help?
I didn't say that, I showed you numerous studies that proved that. There's a difference.
As I've pointed out before, the wide majority of sellers are probably normal, law abiding people that wouldn't intentionally sell to a criminal if they did a background check. So these restrictions make it more difficult for the illegal buyer to find an illegal seller. And, of course, it gives more opportunities for the police to catch the illegal seller and illegal buyer. Right now it's just a matter of going to a website and picking whatever they want.
No one has said that it would end all crime, but it would certainly be a monkey wrench in the gear. And I honestly can't understand the opposition to making it harder for criminals to buy guns.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 10:13 pm, 01/13/2020
|
No that's not how the law reads the law says the buyer has to have a PPP or a valid NC CHP both of which are issued by the sheriffs dept. and are standardize documents.
I've already pasted the law from the ATF, so federal law is what refers to a "reasonable doubt." The NC law states:
It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation in this State to sell, give away, or transfer, or to purchase or receive, at any place within this State from any other place within or without the State any pistol unless: (i) a license or permit is first obtained under this Article by the purchaser or receiver from the sheriff of the county in which the purchaser or receiver resides; or (ii) a valid North Carolina concealed handgun permit is held under Article 54B of this Chapter by the purchaser or receiver who must be a resident of the State at the time of the purchase. https://www.ncleg.net/enact...4-402.html
So while I agree that the law says you have to have a license or permit, my point is that the law doesn't seem to say anything about how the seller is to verify it or hold any record of it. So unless there's another law that I'm missing, the federal law would take precedent and mean that the seller has no such obligation.
If there's another law on this, I would be very interested to read it.
1 Why should anyone be limited to one handgun a month?
Yeah, I don't get that one, either. Unless they're trying to prevent people from buying to resell?
2 No one should lose their rights based on an accusation until they have had their day in court which is what red flags law do.
I agree, but the red flag laws (that have passed in multiple other states) don't do that... the judge has the right to temporarily restrict you until you do have your day in court.
I'm not sure if this is any different from involuntary commitment, which has a similar legal process:
3 Once again their is no gun show loophole private sales can and do happen everywhere so calling it a gun show loophole is being dishonest.
I think you're getting caught up in semantics here, JT. "Gun show loophole" is just a common phrase that people recognize, but obviously we're talking about non-licensed sellers. I think that's obvious throughout the thread.
Just imagine how you and everyone on the left would act if if we applied the same restrictions to the rest of the bill of rights. You don't even want to show an ID to vote but your ok if its a firearm I was actually OK with the latest revision of the voter ID law that gave an option for people that were unable to obtain a legal ID.
Interesting side note... since you believe that the Bill of Rights gives me the right to own guns without restriction, shouldn't they be free? Clearly I have the Constitutional right, so why should I lose that right just because I don't have money?
How is the capitalistic concept of selling guns any different from requiring someone to pay money or own land before they can vote?
I might make a new thread on that tomorrow if you guys want to discuss it, I think it's an interesting analogy...
|
|
Joseph T.
|
Posted 8:11 pm, 01/13/2020
|
All of this reminded me of a quote from a founding father that sums up the way I feel.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
"� Thomas Jefferson
|
|
1048andonehalf
|
Posted 8:06 pm, 01/13/2020
|
Maybe If the sister and the wife had a gun, things might have gone differently.
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 8:01 pm, 01/13/2020
|
A restraining order is worth a pinch of piss when the bad guy is at your door and the LEOs are ten minutes out
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 7:59 pm, 01/13/2020
|
Anti Why would any one want to haul guns all the way to from Wilkes to Chicago. Every time I something about the shootings there you post stats saying how low the crime rates are in Illinois' are compared to the dirty south. PS they had another big week end there in the bastion of gun control. Proof that that criminals ignore gun control laws maybe? And you are the one that says harsher sentence's doesn't deter crime so how in the blazes will more gun control laws help?
|
|
Joseph T.
|
Posted 7:51 pm, 01/13/2020
|
MichSt66 (view profile) | Posted 7:35 pm, 01/13/2020 | Sheriff arrest him. His mother bails him out. He goes and finds his wife at her sisters house and shoots both of them. You can't win this one. Some people simply do not need a gun just because it's their right.
|
But once he is arrested and goes before the magistrate he could then issued a temp. order to take any firearms before the husband can bail out.
|
|
Joseph T.
|
Posted 7:43 pm, 01/13/2020
|
And I'm not saying that non responsible people should have them either all I am saying people should get their day in court before losing any rights. If its an emergency the magistrate should hear the facts from both parties and then issue a temp. order if needed. But I am not for one sided unproven claims being used to take some one's gun.
|
|
Hepsibah
|
Posted 7:41 pm, 01/13/2020
|
Mich makes a good point.
A person's right to own a gun shouldn't supercede other people's right not to be shot by him.
|
|
MichSt66
|
Posted 7:35 pm, 01/13/2020
|
Sheriff arrest him. His mother bails him out. He goes and finds his wife at her sisters house and shoots both of them. You can't win this one. Some people simply do not need a gun just because it's their right.
|
|
|
