Virginia residents who cherish their Second Amendment rights had better get on the ball and start organizing recalls of radical Democrats, otherwise, they will see those rights fast disappear.
The latest comes from the Washington Free Beacon:
Virginia Democrats on Friday pushed a bill through the state house of delegates' Public Safety Committee that would ban the sale of "assault weapons" and confiscate certain ammunition magazines.
The bill, HB961, is the most controversial advanced by Democratic lawmakers and Governor Ralph Northam (D.) since they took control of both houses of the state legislature in November. It would outlaw new sales of some of the country's most popular firearms, including the AR-15, and make it illegal to possess ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 12 rounds, even if they were previously legally purchased. Friday's vote was along party lines, with one Democrat abstaining.
The proposal could affect millions of Virginia gun owners, according to the firearms industry's trade group.To read more, go here.
"This bill would affect more than just your modern sporting rifles like the AR-15," Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told the Washington Free Beacon. "It would affect the vast majority of handguns."
1 comment:
Regarding the Red Flag gun confiscation bills/laws: Copied from another post’s comments by Lance Sager:
WE WILL NOT COMPLY!!
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” –Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
“An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but isillegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.” – Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” –Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 177
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, in legal contemplation, IS AS INOPERATIVE AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED.“ – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 256
Post a Comment