Virginia to ban all forms of self defense

[jobo]

Disagree...militias are composed of armed citizens that can be called up to fight and are separate from military or official bodies. Historically, militias were self armed.

are they citizen that can be called up to fight and be armed or armed citizens. as the citizen who are armed don't take their own guns when volunteering or being conscripted to the army, it seem the first.

who is going to call them if not a government of some description, armed militia called by a private citizens to fight is likely to lead to you being gunned down by the state or its agents

have you another example since the war of independence of them being required to take their own muskets ?

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is a excert from the handgunlaw.us site:
Virginia is a "stand-your-ground" state. That means AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT PART OF "THE PROBLEM" and are innocent, you can stand your ground and use force to defend yourself wherever you may be. This applies whether weaponized or empty handed.
There is a proposes bill (SB64) trying to outlaw teaching self defense, firearms training, and carrying concealed.
Virginia has become a radical liberal state and it really reaching on this one. I doubt it even makes it to the floor. In typical fashion to most bills, I expect it will get modified a couple of times, waste a lot of time and money and quietly go away.

lol.. Nothing like that is ever going to get passed. This isn't a liberal issue and I always chuckle when someone says "anti-gun, anti-weapon" laws is a liberal thing. If people think democrats don't own guns or won't shot anyone, then they are sadly mistaken There could be numerous reasons for having bills that are crazy sounding like this. I may be for political reasons as in. "I supported a bill that...." and the politician knows very well that it won't go anywhere, but the bill gives them a talking point and that's all they need.

The US. is so focused on "us vs them" mentality that people can't see straight. Too many people listening to toxic radio and news talk shows. If the radio or news station spends most of it's time complaining about stuff, every single day. Then you are probably being systematically brain washed. I had a Republican co-worker call say that democrats are evil. So I asked him if I was evil. lol. All this time he must have thought I was republican because he didn't have an answer for it. The reason he didn't have an answer for it is because we get along well. So I don't match the image he's made in his mind.

When you see stuff like this, then the best thing to do is to step back, not react and take a few moments to think and asking some simple questions like.

1. Does this make sense?
2. Is it real? Can I find this on an official government website?
3. Who is presenting, shared, or created the information? What is their agenda?
4. Has the news outlets gone crazy or do they not mention it? I'm talking about Real News and not Talk News. Talk News is toxic.
5. What are the facts? vs What are the Talking Points

So to help with this. Let's take a look at the bill as it's posted on a U.S. government website. Because it's definitely not what was posted on that martial arts website
Bill Tracking - 2020 session > Legislation

Because I know some of you won't go there and read it.
SENATE BILL NO. 64 Offered January 8, 2020 Prefiled November 21, 2019 A BILL to amend and reenact § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to paramilitary activities; penalty. ---------- Patron-- Lucas ---------- Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice ----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited; penalty.

A person shall be is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.

2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities; therefore, Chapter 854 of the Acts of Assembly of 2019 requires the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.


#1. You can only be guilty if you knowingly trained someone that you knew was was going to to harm someone. For example, I can't teach Jow Ga double daggers to someone that I know intends to use that skill set to intentionally cause harm in others as in an attack. If I know that a person wants to go shoot up a building then I can't and shouldn't be selling a gun to that person.

#2 I can't start a hate group and have the hate group meet with the purpose and intent to use the firearm training specifically against the group that I hate. So if my group is called "The He-Man Woman Haters Club" and we specifically train to do violence on Women, then I would be in legal trouble for doing so, as the training of violence isn't for protection.

#3. Assembles with one or more person with the intent of intimidating any person. Ole time favorite. KKK gathering together to burn a cross on someone's yard. Or a group of people getting together to intimidate anti-gun rights supporters. Such as being all for guns, then have a group of you and your friends go to the protest with your gun your back and in your holster. Protests usually get heated so as a safety concern it's better if no one is packing at this event. Because once that genie comes out of the bottle it's going to be a mess.

This doesn't make Law enforcement feel safer. So what happens if one or more person figure that they are going to "solve the problem today". Just saying, If gun right supporters can carry guns then so can everyone else.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Considering that then cited source it the Natural News, run by known crank Mike Adams, I would think that it is likely to be complete BS. It is a site that considers Chemotherapy to be a 'crime against humanity' so it is not likely to be particularly credible. If that were in fact the law then it would be the stupidest law to come out since it would give criminals complete freedom to attack anyone they want without the victim being able to legally defend themselves.

 

[JowGaWolf]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is outdated. This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause. Different time and place and totally irrelevant in the days of a professionally trained military with helicopters, tanks, and plans and advanced infrastructure. The concept that a Militia will "protect against government" is just nuts. Citizens would get better results from voting, so long as they take their voting seriously.

 

[pdg]

lol.. Nothing like that is ever going to get passed. This isn't a liberal issue and I always chuckle when someone says "anti-gun, anti-weapon" laws is a liberal thing. If people think democrats don't own guns or won't shot anyone, then they are sadly mistaken There could be numerous reasons for having bills that are crazy sounding like this. I may be for political reasons as in. "I supported a bill that...." and the politician knows very well that it won't go anywhere, but the bill gives them a talking point and that's all they need.

The US. is so focused on "us vs them" mentality that people can't see straight. Too many people listening to toxic radio and news talk shows. If the radio or news station spends most of it's time complaining about stuff, every single day. Then you are probably being systematically brain washed. I had a Republican co-worker call say that democrats are evil. So I asked him if I was evil. lol. All this time he must have thought I was republican because he didn't have an answer for it. The reason he didn't have an answer for it is because we get along well. So I don't match the image he's made in his mind.

When you see stuff like this, then the best thing to do is to step back, not react and take a few moments to think and asking some simple questions like.

1. Does this make sense?
2. Is it real? Can I find this on an official government website?
3. Who is presenting, shared, or created the information? What is their agenda?
4. Has the news outlets gone crazy or do they not mention it? I'm talking about Real News and not Talk News. Talk News is toxic.
5. What are the facts? vs What are the Talking Points

So to help with this. Let's take a look at the bill as it's posted on a U.S. government website. Because it's definitely not what was posted on that martial arts website
Bill Tracking - 2020 session > Legislation

Because I know some of you won't go there and read it.
SENATE BILL NO. 64 Offered January 8, 2020 Prefiled November 21, 2019 A BILL to amend and reenact § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to paramilitary activities; penalty. ---------- Patron-- Lucas ---------- Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice ----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited; penalty.

A person shall be is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.

2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities; therefore, Chapter 854 of the Acts of Assembly of 2019 requires the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.


#1. You can only be guilty if you knowingly trained someone that you knew was was going to to harm someone. For example, I can't teach Jow Ga double daggers to someone that I know intends to use that skill set to intentionally cause harm in others as in an attack. If I know that a person wants to go shoot up a building then I can't and shouldn't be selling a gun to that person.

#2 I can't start a hate group and have the hate group meet with the purpose and intent to use the firearm training specifically against the group that I hate. So if my group is called "The He-Man Woman Haters Club" and we specifically train to do violence on Women, then I would be in legal trouble for doing so, as the training of violence isn't for protection.

#3. Assembles with one or more person with the intent of intimidating any person. Ole time favorite. KKK gathering together to burn a cross on someone's yard. Or a group of people getting together to intimidate anti-gun rights supporters. Such as being all for guns, then have a group of you and your friends go to the protest with your gun your back and in your holster. Protests usually get heated so as a safety concern it's better if no one is packing at this event. Because once that genie comes out of the bottle it's going to be a mess.

This doesn't make Law enforcement feel safer. So what happens if one or more person figure that they are going to "solve the problem today". Just saying, If gun right supporters can carry guns then so can everyone else.

So here's a question.

Aren't all those kinds of activities already illegal?

 

[CB Jones]

are they citizen that can be called up to fight and be armed or armed citizens. as the citizen who are armed don't take their own guns when volunteering or being conscripted to the army, it seem the first.

who is going to call them if not a government of some description, armed militia called by a private citizens to fight is likely to lead to you being gunned down by the state or its agents

have you another example since the war of independence of them being required to take their own muskets ?

When the constitution was written most militias were self armed and composed of volunteers...to balance having a large standing federal army the framers created a checks and balance of power with the 2nd amendment.

The War of 1812 was fought using a large portion of voluntary militia that was self and privately armed.

 

[Flying Crane]

So here's a question.

Aren't all those kinds of activities already illegal?

They may be otherwise protected under freedom of assembly and freedom of speech laws. So passing a law specifically against the activity gives law enforcement something to grip onto if they need to prosecute.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is outdated. This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause. Different time and place and totally irrelevant in the days of a professionally trained military with helicopters, tanks, and plans and advanced infrastructure. The concept that a Militia will "protect against government" is just nuts. Citizens would get better results from voting, so long as they take their voting seriously.

And I believe the original language defined what it meant to keep and bear arms. It was something like “a musket and fifty lead balls and sufficient powder.”

 

[Deleted member 39746]

that would be the job of the supreme court to determine what is and is not correct interpretation. and congress has the power to alter the constitution. As stated i was keeping that A-political and just posting the constitutions for what is written in it.

 

[jobo]

When the constitution was written most militias were self armed and composed of volunteers...to balance having a large standing federal army the framers created a checks and balance of power with the 2nd amendment.

The War of 1812 was fought using a large portion of voluntary militia that was self and privately armed.

yes but you started that war, by trying to invade canada, so not really in defence of the state, it was just naked aggression and opportunism whilst we were busy dealing with the threat to world peace that was napoleon and whilst is hard to say you lost, you mostly lost, in that you didn't get canada

so clearly they decided to have a professional army rather than rag tag of farmers with shot guns and yet still they were called up and/or operating with the authority of the the state, so an official army abet a rather badly trained one

im surprised you didn't go for the alamo, yet another disaster

have you any examples since the invention of the steam train ?
and do you belive it still necessary when you have the largest standing army on earth ?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Aren't all those kinds of activities already illegal?

I think some of them can generally fall under certain laws but not specifically. If it's specifically then all you have to do is show how it breaks a specific law. If the action generally fits under a different law then you will have to show how the action can be interpreted under various other laws. These amendments seem to make it more specific. By saying that "These specific actions" fall under this "specific law". The effects of this is that it would close any loop holes that may have existed in the other laws that didn't specifically address this issue.

 

[pdg]

Because their is no federal law that legalizes vaping for the state law to oppose.

Generally, if something isn't legislated as illegal, it's taken that it's status is one of being legal.

Otherwise it would be on the statute that you're allowed to eat carrots.

So a state can oppose the unspoken (but very literal) legality of something and make it illegal. A person can do something perfectly legal, but be prosecuted for it if they cross the street.

I'm quite sure that with a little digging I can find specific examples of something being declared legal (and hence effectively passed into law) that a state has deemed to be illegal within it's bounds.

Probably something to do with the 21st amendment

Conversely, an individual state can take something that is federally illegal and decide to legalise it locally, introduce taxes on said things, legislate and license as it sees fit and allow it's citizens to indulge in these activities. That's far more involved than simply choosing not to enforce a federal law.

 

[CB Jones]

This should be taken within the historical context in which it was made, during the days of musket rifles and the fact that in the revolutionary war there wasn't a well organized army so you had to call upon citizens to suit up for the cause

If you are giving to take historical context then....

After the Revolutionary War and the writing of the constitution, many of the leaders were opposed to allowing the federal government to have a large standing army.

To balance the power of the federal govt the 2nd amendment was put in place.

 

[pdg]

So anyway, following my previous post I'm going to bow out before this thread strays into the zone that I would consider political.

(I have to use my own boundaries here, because despite asking multiple mods on multiple occasions I've never received clarification of where the site boundary lies)

Have fun all

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you are giving to take historical context then....

After the Revolutionary War and the writing of the constitution, many of the leaders were opposed to allowing the federal government to have a large standing army.

To balance the power of the federal govt the 2nd amendment was put in place.

That's still outdated and based on a time of musket guns. Many of the problems that they had in the revolutionary war was due to not having a large standing army. Ironically colonies and territories don't get the same treatment as states of the government So it only makes sense for that perception to exist. But this is not the same reality of states of the Government, because the states actually make the Federal or Ruling national government. The same isn't true for colonies and territories. So much of what was written in the Constitution is based on the perception of being a Colony or Territory of a larger government and not actually from the perception of being the make up of the larger government. This is Hong Kong is going through the issues that they are going through now.

So to base U.S. statehood and Citizenship from the perspective of being a colony or territory is just not accurate. There is no federal government without State Government. The collection of State Government is the federal government. State Government technically make Federal Law. This was not the case with the colonies and Britain

 

[jobo]

Generally, if something isn't legislated as illegal, it's taken that it's status is one of being legal.

Otherwise it would be on the statute that you're allowed to eat carrots.

So a state can oppose the unspoken (but very literal) legality of something and make it illegal. A person can do something perfectly legal, but be prosecuted for it if they cross the street.

I'm quite sure that with a little digging I can find specific examples of something being declared legal (and hence effectively passed into law) that a state has deemed to be illegal within it's bounds.

Probably something to do with the 21st amendment

Conversely, an individual state can take something that is federally illegal and decide to legalise it locally, introduce taxes on said things, legislate and license as it sees fit and allow it's citizens to indulge in these activities. That's far more involved than simply choosing not to enforce a federal law.

your still mixing things up,

it is indeed a tenant of english common law( and by extension american law) that everything that isn't specifically banned is legal, the continent is subtly different, where everything is illegal unless passed into law ( well not exactly but in that vein as it large based on napoleonic civil law and neopian wasn't big on civil liberties, just as innocent till proved guilty isn't a big thing in europe

if your talking about cannabis law, the individual states were given '' permission'' to legalise it by the attorney general, in telling them that the federal govement would make no attempts to enforce the law, except for special circumstances, so not at all a contradiction between state and federal law.

England has lot and lots of laws it doesn't enforce, if its not being enforce is only a law in the strictest interpretation of the word

 

[JowGaWolf]

So anyway, following my previous post I'm going to bow out before this thread strays into the zone that I would consider political.

(I have to use my own boundaries here, because despite asking multiple mods on multiple occasions I've never received clarification of where the site boundary lies)

Have fun all

I could be wrong but I think the safe zone is anything but politically bashing the mess out of each other. For me personally, I like to get things to the historical root as fast as possible, lol.

 

[jobo]

I could be wrong but I think the safe zone is anything but politically bashing the mess out of each other. For me personally, I like to get things to the historical root as fast as possible, lol.

i've found the safe zone to be not saying anything bad about america its laws, foreign policy or history.

as long as everyone agrees that america is the best country on earth, everyone should have a gun and just forget about historical facts and use Hollywood history the thread will keep going

 

[JowGaWolf]

i've found the safe zone to be not saying anything bad about america its laws, foreign policy or history.

as long as everyone agrees that america is the best country on earth, everyone should have a gun and just forget about historical facts and use Hollywood history the thread will keep going

lol.. Don't worry.. I have some choice words to say about my country lol. Never been a fan of the "Perfect Country" or even the "Best Country" attitude of my fellow Americans. It's just not the Worst Place to live lol.

 

[Buka]

The latest, breaking news....

Wow. Who knew?