Virginia Approves Bill To Undermine Obama Gun Control

Aug 20, 2009
12,824
7,899
New Hampshire
Detector(s) used
Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
Primary Interest:
Other
Virginia Approves Bill To Undermine Obama Gun Control

Gun owners say legislation doesn’t have any teeth

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Jan 28, 2013

The Virginia House of Delegates approved a bill Friday that would see state agencies and employees forbidden from helping to enforce Federal gun control measures in the state.

The Virginian-Pilot reports that the Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee of the House approved House Bill 2340, which will now proceed to a vote on the House floor.

The measure’s official summary states that the bill would “Prevent any agency, political subdivision, or employee of Virginia from assisting the Federal government of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, detention, arrest, search, or seizure, under the authority of any federal statute enacted, or Executive Order or regulation issued, after December 31, 2012, infringing the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms by imposing new restrictions on private ownership or private transfer of firearms, firearm magazines, ammunition, or components thereof.”

Republican state delegate Todd Gilbert told the Pilot that the bill will ensure that “no employee of the commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions should help the federal government tread upon our long-held belief that Second Amendment rights are highly individualized and very important.”

The legislation was introduced by Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William County, and was approved by the Republican-controlled Delegates’ Committee by 15-7 votes, following a short debate.

“This is really an assault on second amendment rights and it has nothing to do with gun safety,” Marshall said in regards to the federal legislation.

Another measure introduced by Marshall, now under review, would also allow teachers or others to be trained and carry a concealed weapon in public schools. Under current law schools in the state are currently designated gun free zones.

Though gun owners see these moves as positive, some have warned that the legislation is merely posturing and does not constitute any real opposition to the federal gun control proposals.

“If we don’t put some teeth into it, it’ll be useless,” Mike McHugh of the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition told the committee. “I think we’re coming to a point in this country where the states are going to have to finally decide – and I hope it doesn’t end up like years ago – that we’re going to have to face down Barack Obama’s federal plantation.”

The bill also does not include any mention of what punishments would be handed out to any state or local employees who did enforce federal measures.

Obama is pushing for universal background checks for all private gun sales, as well as the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. However, the measures are expected to be defeated in the U.S. Senate.

The president outlined 23 gun control executive orders earlier this month.

Virginia is one of the states that has seen an exponential surge in gun sales following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and the resulting Obama push for draconian gun control laws.

In the days immediately following the Newtown shooting, gun dealers requested nearly 5,150 background checks on purchasers in Virginia. That figure amounted to the largest number ever in a single day, according to Virginia State Police.

Since that time, the number of background checks requested per day has frequently been double 2012 figures.

Virginia law allows anyone who is 18+ to carry a firearm openly. Anyone over 21 can apply for a concealed carry permit.

Several other states including Wyoming, Texas, Mississippi, and Tennessee have already introduced legislation to make it illegal for local and state police to enforce federal gun control measures.
 

Several other states including Wyoming, Texas, Mississippi, and Tennessee have already introduced legislation to make it illegal for local and state police to enforce federal gun control measures.

Corect me if I'm wrong but doesn't Federal law override State law?
 

Nullification was resolved about 175 years ago. It seems interesting to me that many of the places that want to use Pre-civil war discredited legal maneuvers are in fact those states that were in Rebellion...
 

Many people around the country are fed up with the feds.Including politicians.
 

Corect me if I'm wrong but doesn't Federal law override State law?


Same thing will happen as the States that voted in Marijuana Legal,the Feds will try something to stop it,only thing is pot ain't lead,what do you think the outcome will be?
 

Law had to be constitutional or it is not a law......Senator Rand Paul is introducing legislation in Senate to repeal any executive orders king obama tries to use to bypass congress on gun control.....
 

Law had to be constitutional or it is not a law......Senator Rand Paul is introducing legislation in Senate to repeal any executive orders king obama tries to use to bypass congress on gun control.....

Laws cannot simply be ignored. One cannot choose to simply "not recognize a law" just because one doesn't agree with it.

King Obama? He is our President. USA doesn't have kings, queens, or other royalty.
 

Does that give them the right to break the law? Pass laws that are illegal on their face? Waste the time and money of the taxpayers of their state and the nation? Stupid is as stupid does?
Many people around the country are fed up with the feds.Including politicians.
 

Uh, Exactly what do you think these executive orders were? What do you think they did? Please answer honestly and do not go out searching to find out now what they were...

Law had to be constitutional or it is not a law......Senator Rand Paul is introducing legislation in Senate to repeal any executive orders king obama tries to use to bypass congress on gun control.....
 

Jersey, a law that violates constitution is invalid and not a legal law from the day it is passed... I can refused to follow any law that violates the constitution. I have no problem hiring an attorney.

I swore oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic long before you were born, that oath is valid till the day i die no matter what king charles obama says...
 

King Obama? He is our President. USA doesn't have kings, queens, or other royalty.

Your right,Der Fuhrer,fits so much better.Thats one of your problems jersey,youre following a corrupt socalled man, not the constitution.Now does a real American follow a man or follow the law of the land which is the constitution?
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Jersey, a law that violates constitution is invalid and not a legal law from the day it is passed... I can refused to follow any law that violates the constitution. I have no problem hiring an attorney.

I swore oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic long before you were born, that oath is valid till the day i die no matter what king charles obama says...

That is incorrect. When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law that is declared void is considered to be struck down, or the entire statute is considered to be struck from the statute books. Best
 

My attorney will handle that, i will not recognize a law that violates the constitution....
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
My attorney will handle that, i will not recognize a law that violates the constitution....

Than I guess using that logic you would recognize yourself as a violator of the constitution as you would be violating the constitution by not recognizing the constitutional law process proscribe by the constitution. I guess it's just up to you to determine what is and what isn't constitutional - isn't that what you accuse Obama of doing?
 

Your right,Der Fuhrer,fits so much better.Thats one of your problems jersey,youre following a corrupt socalled man, not the constitution.Now does a real American follow a man or follow the law of the land which is the constitution?

Ok, so now I am not a real American? I have 2 US Passports and a birth certificate that says otherwise.

Also, you said problems, plural. So, what are my OTHER problems?
 

That is incorrect. When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law that is declared void is considered to be struck down, or the entire statute is considered to be struck from the statute books. Best
Stockpicker, where is your law degree from??? Since your giving free legal advice and quick to point out where everyone is wrong and your right, please tell us where you got your law degree from and when........

Now read below and please be so kind as to explain to us how your vast legal training over rules this..............


[SIZE=+1]16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: (16 American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition Section 177)

[/SIZE]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 statute, 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 it's 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 principles 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 lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
 

Last edited:
Treasure_Hunter said:
Stockpicker, where is your law degree from??? Since your giving free legal advice please tell us where you got your law degree from and when........

Now read below and please be so kind as to explain to us how you over rule that..........

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
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 statute, 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 it's 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 principles 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 lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Easily explained. It's the courts that decide what is unconstitutional and then everything you copied follows from that. It's not joe individual who says something is unconstitutional and decides all of a sudden not to follow that law correct? Just think if every individual in this country could choose to decide what laws were constitutional and what laws were not - crazy right. So who has that power to decide - yes it's the courts - with the Supreme Court having the final say.

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand our constitution. I think it is every citizen and patriots duty to understand the laws of our land. Or do you think only lawyers should know the constitution - not in my world. No way I'm giving up my rights to understand the laws that govern me. I would have thought someone like you would have agreed with this? Best.
 

Jersey, a law that violates constitution is invalid and not a legal law from the day it is passed... I can refused to follow any law that violates the constitution. I have no problem hiring an attorney.

I swore oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic long before you were born, that oath is valid till the day i die no matter what king charles obama says...

King Charles Obama...?
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top