Virginia to ban all forms of self defense

[Gweilo]

Just read this on FB, so dont know if its true, I thought the right to bear arms, and protect oneself and family was part of the American constitution?.
Can one of our American collegues confirm if this is true, or just a load of FB trash.
Virginia to Outlaw All forms of Self Defense - The Self Defense Company

 

[pdg]

I'm not American, but I can find proposed bills

Virginia SB64 | 2020 | Regular Session


Individual states have the legal capacity to locally override federal law (marijuana is federally illegal, but decriminalised and legalised in some states - vaping is federally legal, but has varying degrees of local illegality in some states) so it stands to reason they can have local interpretation of the constitution.

Reading the proposed bill, they're not on about banning guns or even banning defending yourself - they're on about criminalising the training of such activities on potential paramilitary grounds.

So, you can still shoot, blow up, punch or kick someone in self defence, you're just not going to be allowed to practice doing it...

 

[jobo]

I'm not American, but I can find proposed bills

Virginia SB64 | 2020 | Regular Session


Individual states have the legal capacity to locally override federal law (marijuana is federally illegal, but decriminalised and legalised in some states - vaping is federally legal, but has varying degrees of local illegality in some states) so it stands to reason they can have local interpretation of the constitution.

Reading the proposed bill, they're not on about banning guns or even banning defending yourself - they're on about criminalising the training of such activities on potential paramilitary grounds.

So, you can still shoot, blow up, punch or kick someone in self defence, you're just not going to be allowed to practice doing it...

it doesn't say that, what it says is,, your not allowed to practice hurting people with the INTENT of using it in civil disorder, even then the paragraph needs to be read in the context of what goes before,, so,,, guns, bombs incendiary and (any similar) techniques designed to hurt,

so context is everything as to if a techniques is illegal.

id be more worried it outlaws airsoft to be honest, dressing up in camouflage and running around practising shooting people is impossible to tell apart from paramilitary training

 

[pdg]

it doesn't say that, what it says is,, your not allowed to practice hurting people with the INTENT of using it in civil disorder

I did see that, but there's the issue of interpretation.

How does one PROVE that they're NOT training with intent?

If it's deemed by the administration that this style of training has paramilitary or civil disorder applications, the onus shifts onto the practitioner to prove otherwise.

It's possible to draw a parallel with knife law here - if I'm carrying an 8" blade I have to be able to demonstrate I have good reason to carry it. If I can't prove such reason, then I'm breaking the law. The onus is on me to prove I'm not intending to stab someone.

 

[jobo]

I did see that, but there's the issue of interpretation.

How does one PROVE that they're NOT training with intent?

If it's deemed by the administration that this style of training has paramilitary or civil disorder applications, the onus shifts onto the practitioner to prove otherwise.

It's possible to draw a parallel with knife law here - if I'm carrying an 8" blade I have to be able to demonstrate I have good reason to carry it. If I can't prove such reason, then I'm breaking the law. The onus is on me to prove I'm not intending to stab someone.

well so much as the american system is based on the english system, the burden of proof is with the accuser , not the accused, so the state have to prove the intent.

context is everything, boxing gym, ok making pipe bombs in your backyard doesn't seem to have any other elements but to hurt people and cause civil disorder, a jury could reasonably conclude intent from the complete absence of any peaceful justification at all for that.

the gun element is far more difficult, as there american all over the shop practising shooting people, dress up in camouflage and crawl around in the undergrowth practising ambushes and it seem potentially illegal

 

[jobo]

I did see that, but there's the issue of interpretation.

How does one PROVE that they're NOT training with intent?

If it's deemed by the administration that this style of training has paramilitary or civil disorder applications, the onus shifts onto the practitioner to prove otherwise.

It's possible to draw a parallel with knife law here - if I'm carrying an 8" blade I have to be able to demonstrate I have good reason to carry it. If I can't prove such reason, then I'm breaking the law. The onus is on me to prove I'm not intending to stab someone.

the last one isnt factual. big knives are banned outright unless you have a good reason to carry it, so yes the burden is on the accused, but there is no question of intent to be proved, mere possession is the offence, it matter not if you intend to stab someone or not

walking about with a baseball bat is completely different, for that to be illegal the prosecution most certainly has to prove intent, as BBB are not specifically banned in public places

 

[pdg]

well so much as the american system is based on the english system, the burden of proof is with the accuser , not the accused, so the state have to prove the intent.

But the point is that they don't, if they word it right.

Again, knife law. Without good reason, carrying a knife is illegal. It's automatically taken that carrying a knife is "with intent" and it's up to the accused to give good reason. Then it's up to the state (or it's representatives) whether they accept any reason as "good".

A guy was arrested up the road from me for carrying a knife - the reason he gave was that it was something he'd always done since being in the boy scouts, that maybe his shoelaces might knot and he'd have to cut them or something. He was initially reported by an old woman who didn't recognise him and thought a stranger walking around in the village was suspicious, the knife was only discovered upon a search.

The arresting officer, the CPS, the court - none had to prove that he was carrying with intent, the jury didn't accept that his reason was good enough, so he was successfully prosecuted on the basis of not being able to prove lack of intent.

The mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies if the law is written as such - as it is, carrying a knife here makes you automatically guilty (because it's illegal) unless you can prove innocence.

 

[pdg]

the last one isnt factual. big knives are banned outright unless you have a good reason to carry it, so yes the burden is on the accused, but there is no question of intent to be proved, mere possession is the offence, it matter not if you intend to stab someone or not

walking about with a baseball bat is completely different, for that to be illegal the prosecution most certainly has to prove intent, as BBB are not specifically banned in public places

So, the bill isn't the wording of the enacted law.

If they word the actual law to be that group fight training is paramilitary activity unless good reason can be shown to the contrary then the situation is parallel.

Oh, and try wandering around the city centre on a Saturday night carrying a baseball bat - it's perfectly legal to do so which means there's no reason for you to be questioned about it, right?

 

[jobo]

your mixing up legal concepts, there are some laws that have a reverse burden of proof, carrying a big knife is one of them. there called strict liability laws

Thing that include mens rea, guilty mind, ie intent put the burden squarely on the prosecution

I have had the BBB conversation a few times,

I started carrying one after my little dog was mauled by some devil dog, My intent as given to the police was to beat a killer dog to death with it if it attacked mine, which is perfectly legal reason for carry, but i didn't have to give any justification, i just didn't fancy spending the rest of the day down the police station, whilst a thick copper came to the realisation it wasn't illegal, in the end i replaced it with a telescopic walking pole, that when collapsed making an extremely effective batton, nobody ever asked me about that

 

[dvcochran]

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.

 

[CB Jones]

Individual states have the legal capacity to locally override federal law

Incorrect....states can add to federal law...they can not override it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Just read this on FB, so dont know if its true, I thought the right to bear arms, and protect oneself and family was part of the American constitution?.
Can one of our American collegues confirm if this is true, or just a load of FB trash.
Virginia to Outlaw All forms of Self Defense - The Self Defense Company

It's trash. I literally don't have to read in order to know that it's trash. One of the big issues in the U.S. is the "right to defend yourself". If there was anything close to that then the news outlets would be all over this. You would see gun right's protests and a bunch of other noise. If if someone tried to pass a bill like this No one would agree to it.

 

[CB Jones]

doubt it even makes it to the floor.

If it does get passed it will be struck down in court

 

[Deleted member 39746]

for the record and to avoid politics and i am going to mainly joke from this point, the second amendment is as follows: "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." That was from the senates website that has the constitution posted on it. its damn hard to find that as well. (apologies if someone else posted it, but i saw it be asked so i just copy pasted it word for word)

Now for the joke, if it did happen they would probably repeal it within a year as lots of people in Gi's protest in government buildings. and you would have a repeat of the gym bros vs TKD practitioners video from china.

 

[pdg]

Incorrect....states can add to federal law...they can not override it.

They can choose to locally ignore it though.

 

[CB Jones]

They can choose to locally ignore it though.

Typically Federal Agencies enforce federal law....state and local agencies enforce state law.

 

[jobo]

for the record and to avoid politics and i am going to mainly joke from this point, the second amendment is as follows: "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." That was from the senates website that has the constitution posted on it. its damn hard to find that as well. (apologies if someone else posted it, but i saw it be asked so i just copy pasted it word for word)

Now for the joke, if it did happen they would probably repeal it within a year as lots of people in Gi's protest in government buildings. and you would have a repeat of the gym bros vs TKD practitioners video from china.

its long been argued that the right to bear arms, as defined in the constitution has been misapplied to include private citizens, when it clearly relates to the military or other official bodies.

ive alway found the argument that you cant alter the constitution particularly the 2nd AMENDMENT to the constitution rather contradictory

to p

They can choose to locally ignore it though.

only to the extent they can fail to enforce a law or fail to assist in policing that law, they cant enforce a (federal) law that doesn't exist or create one that is indirect opersistion of federal law, and certainly not the constitution, that's what started the american civil war.

 

[pdg]

only to the extent they can fail to enforce a law or fail to assist in policing that law, they cant enforce a (federal) law that doesn't exist or create one that is indirect opersistion of federal law,

That's not true though.

Federally, vaping, vape products etc. are fully legal.

Locally, there are laws that criminalise various aspects of that practice - from bans on the sale of flavours through to all out bans on possession.

So, federal can say "yes, it's legal" - a state can say "no, it's illegal and if you do it we can put you in jail and confiscate your house".

How is that not in opposition?

 

[CB Jones]

as defined in the constitution has been misapplied to include private citizens, when it clearly relates to the military or other official bodies.

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

 

[CB Jones]

That's not true though.

Federally, vaping, vape products etc. are fully legal.

Locally, there are laws that criminalise various aspects of that practice - from bans on the sale of flavours through to all out bans on possession.

So, federal can say "yes, it's legal" - a state can say "no, it's illegal and if you do it we can put you in jail and confiscate your house".

How is that not in opposition?

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