Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Shades of Charlottesville?

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Peaceful rallies, please

by James A. Bacon

Gun rights advocates and militia members from around the country are planning to descend on Richmond later this month to protest the enactment of gun-control bills in the General Assembly. As the Washington Post reports, the Second Amendment sanctuary movement has jumped Virginia’s borders. “Far-right websites and commentators are declaring that Virginia is the place to take a stand against what they see as a national trend of weakening gun rights.”

If you think this sounds like Charlottesville redux — a replay of the violent far-right Unite the Right rally of three years ago — you’re not the only one. Law-enforcement officials say they are monitoring the situation. Even Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said he is keeping lines of communications open so all sides are prepared. “Hopefully it’ll not be another Charlottesville,” he said.

There are a couple of important differences this time. First, the Second Amendment movement in Virginia reflects a widespread popular sentiment, not the fringe views of mostly out-of-state Klansmen, neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Second, there is no indication yet that Antifa or other ultra-leftists are mobilizing to counter the gun-rights crowd. Third, there is always the possibility that law-enforcement authorities learned from their mistakes in Charlottesville and will be better prepared this time. And fourth, whether you agree with his politics or not, Van Cleave seems to have his head screwed on tight. Reports the WaPo:

Van Cleave has appealed to his supporters not to come bristling with intimidating long guns — including assault-style rifles such as the AR-15 — and politely suggested that militia members are welcome but do not need to provide security. Police will take care of that, he said, “not to mention enough citizens armed with handguns to take over a modern midsized country.”

But anything is possible. The Post cites wild rumors circulating on social media, such as one that United Nations “disarmanent officers” have descended on Virginia. Moreover, you never know when right-wing crazies have their wildest fears confirmed by reckless comments from the left, like those of U.S. Rep. Donald McEachin, D-Richmond, who suggested that Governor Ralph Northam might have to call out the National Guard to enforce the gun laws.

Bacon’s bottom line: I’m not invested in the gun-rights debate. I don’t own guns, never have. The last time I shot a gun, using a 22-caliber for target practice, was when I was 12 years old. I don’t find Governor Northam’s gun-control proposals to be unreasonable, although I acknowledge the complexities of the issues involved and am willing to entertain the counter-arguments of gun-rights advocates. I also sympathize with those who say a well-armed (but law-abiding) citizenry is the nation’s greatest defense against a tyrannical government.

Both sides of the gun-rights debate share one common goal — not to have another Charlottesville. While most of the violence was instigated by out-of-zealots, the international headlines from that confrontation gave Charlottesville and Virginia a black eye. Virginians are not a violent people. We are a low-crime, low-violence state. Regardless, as fate would have it, the next phase of the national gun-control debate will be fought out in the Old Dominion, and lots of outsiders have an interest in the outcome. Let all people of good will do everything within their power to ensure that the debate is conducted in a way that reflects well on the Commonwealth.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

40 responses to “Shades of Charlottesville?”

  1. djrippert Avatar
    djrippert

    This will be a fail for the guns’ rights activists. Maybe they’ll listen to Van Cleave, maybe not. But there will be lots of pistols on hips. Now, think about three groups of people – gun lovers, gun grabbers and the rest. The lovers and grabbers won’t care what they see. The “rest” will see thousands of people – many overtly armed – screaming at each other (let’s hope that’s all). Many among “the rest” will think that confrontation looks like a catastrophe waiting to happen. Will the backlash be enough to embolden a member of emergent Democratic Party to propose a ban on “open carry”? Will scenes of hundreds / thousands of armed belligerents in Richmond be enough to provide cover to enough GA members to vote for a no open carry law?

    Hard to see how this helps the guns rights advocates.

  2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    This will be the big test. The one that tells us what sort of nation we have left. The gun rights people have every right to protest and they will win if they remain totally peaceful per the philosophy and methods of Martin Luther King. The burden of proof then will be totally on the State, who failed miserably in Charlottesville, I believe by intention on the part of some state leaders. And, here again, expect the counter-protestors to do all they can to disrupt a peaceful demonstration just as they did in Charlottesville. They will be eager for a fight, like they were in Charlottesville.

    As to last sentence, I hope I am wrong. If I am right, expect big long term trouble ahead for our country.

    1. djrippert Avatar
      djrippert

      Even Northam isn’t daft enough to repeat the mistakes of McAuliffe in Charlottesville. Bring out the mounted police, the riot cops, etc. Call Chicago for help understanding how to do this. They’ve been handling regular Nazi marches for decades.

    2. virginiagal2 Avatar
      virginiagal2

      Charlottesville was not a peaceful demonstration at any point. The white supremacists were aggressive and instigating at the WalMart the day before, and the march on the Lawn the night before was violent, with students, faculty, and staff injured. One staff member wound up with a minor stroke from a head injury. Allen Groves was injured. Larry Sabato hid a group of students in his Lawn pavilion to keep them safe.

      The marchers in Charlottesville were violent, racist kooks. They represented notorious, violent white supremacist groups. Let’s not lipstick that pig.

      1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
        Reed Fawell 3rd

        Sorry, you are misinformed. Most of the thugs and rioters were counter-protesters aided and abetted by faculty at Uva.

        1. virginiagal2 Avatar
          virginiagal2

          That’s factually incorrect. Try not to believe propaganda.

          The speakers at Unite the Right were a who’s who of violent, looney white supremacists. Many have violent felony charges or records. One was recently in the news after being arrested for kidnapping and domestic assault.

          They were aggressive and instigating at the WalMart on Route 29 the day before. They instigated a March on the Lawn, which is student housing as well as a historic site, the night before, with racist chants, violent confrontations, and multiple injuries. Allen Groves is not Antifa. Neither is Larry Sabato.

          The faculty was not a major source of counter protest. People in Charlottesville actually don’t much care for Nazis. They don’t need aiding or abetting to object to literal fascists.

          The violence the next day targeted multiple residents, including peaceful protesters and local people who live in the area. The crowd that lunatic drove into included multiple children, and local people going about their lives.

          1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
            Reed Fawell 3rd

            You are the one that is the victim of propaganda, not I.

          2. virginiagal2 Avatar
            virginiagal2

            Hon, I am quite familiar with the incidents, the social media lead up to it, local newspaper coverage, courtroom testimony, reports from people who were there, and who the players were. Most of my family and friends live in the greater Charlottesville area.

            I spent most of that day worrying about a teenage relative I could not account for. She was not there. One of her friends was. That friend was injured there, too.

            This was not a peaceful protest. It was a neo Nazi white supremacist rally. The flyers had Nazi eagles on them. The speakers were literally white supremacists and neo Nazis.

            The counter protesters were largely local people, with many local activists and a smattering of high school kids. I heard of zero organizing by faculty, which is unsurprising as school was not in session.

            You are buying in to a completely false narrative. There were some out of town counter protesters, but the violence is on the Nazis.

          3. James A. Bacon Avatar
            James A. Bacon

            Virginiagal2, Everything you say above about Charlottesville is true, but it reflects only part of what happened. There is a larger story, and Reed also is correct in what he says. He draws from the definitive account, Timothy J. Heaphy’s exhaustive report on the Unite the Right rally and events leading up to it, “Independent Review of the 2017 Protest Events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

          4. virginiagal2 Avatar
            virginiagal2

            Jim, I am quite familiar with the report, and I would have to disagree. It supports my points, not Reeds.

            The report indicates that counter protesters were largely from the local activist and faith communities, accompanied by many other locals. It does not claim that UVA faculty was a major source of counter protest. In fact, I only recall one faculty member noted, a law professor.

            Dozens of organizers of counter protest were mentioned. Not faculty. Reverends and ministers and local activists.

            The report notes multiple acts of violence and aggression by the protesters, and relatively few by the counter protesters. The WalMart incident is noted in the report, as is the violence on the Lawn.

            Claiming that most of the violence came from counter protesters and faculty is simply untrue and grossly misleading.

          5. James A. Bacon Avatar
            James A. Bacon

            Claiming that most of the violence came from counter protesters and faculty is simply untrue and grossly misleading.

            I can’t speak for Reed, but in my recollection, the report makes clear that (a) there was a rhetorical tit-for-tat of increasing nastiness between left and right leading up to the United the Right rally, (b) the Left came to the rally loaded for bear, and (c) some of the violence came at the initiative of the Left.

            UVa faculty members were not mixing it up in the streets, but a number of them did engage in inflammatory rhetoric during the run-up to the event.

          6. virginiagal2 Avatar
            virginiagal2

            I just reread the report, and that’s not remotely close to what I got out of it. I’m not at all sure what you mean by tit for tat nastiness, particularly re outside groups and speakers who were coming in for the event, there was no indication at all that the “Left” came in loaded for bear since the very large majority of counter protesters were local, and very little of the mentioned violence came from counter protesters, who btw were not necessarily left.

            Could you quote the portion of the report that you feel indicates this? Page numbers are fine. There are pages and pages discussing counter protesters as the faith community and local activists.

            And I have no recollection at all of any inflammatory rhetoric coming from faculty in the lead up to the event, unless you count one or two accurately identifying neo Nazis as such. I may have forgotten something, but this sounds incorrect.

          7. James A. Bacon Avatar
            James A. Bacon

            You can start with Reed’s digest of pertinent facts written a year-and-a-half ago, covering the run-up through May 2017: https://www.baconsrebellion.com/charlottesvilles-path-to-polarization/

            I also wrote this: https://www.baconsrebellion.com/41457-2/

            We had planned to carry the narrative through the Unite the Right rally itself, but ran out of steam. We’ll see… we might finish the project.

          8. virginiagal2 Avatar
            virginiagal2

            I went back and read the articles. I think you’re misreading the report on at least a couple of different points.

            While there was violence from both sides, there was more violence, not less, from the white supremacists. That’s noted multiple places. If you need me to list them, with page numbers, I will.

            There were some organized anti fascist counter protesters, but most counter protesters were local. That’s extensively documented in the report. Again, I’m happy to provide page numbers. It’s also quite clearly documented in the trial, which had testimony from many victims and witnesses who were ordinary people, including children.

            I don’t, at all, feel that Charlottesville progressive groups are uniquely liberal. They’re pretty well within the spectrum that you see in most cities. They do enjoy a decent amount of support from the larger community for specific initiatives, but less for others. I suspect part of the perception is that you don’t agree with those initiatives, but in fairness you don’t live there.

            I also don’t think Perreillo was an exceptionally leftist candidate. He was very well liked locally, but his issues, of a higher minimum wage, free community college, more renewable energy, and reigning in Vepco, are quite common and relatively popular. See the composition of the current general assembly and the bills they’ve introduced. Those are relatively common positions.

            In general, what makes me extremely uncomfortable is the energetic effort to discredit people who were protesting a vile and violent ideology that was a direct attack on those people’s personal safety. Not liking literal white supremacists is not a fringe position.

            I may take a minute and post some information on exactly who they were protesting.

  3. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
    vaconsumeradvocate

    Guns are the only consumer product in our market that have no safety regulations. For many years, government wasn’t even allowed to compile the data showing damage caused by guns. Any mention of any limitation on anything even vaguely related to guns brings howls of “taking my guns from me” and “unconstitutional.”

    There are rules around just about everything we do. I cannot remember any time that there’s been serious discussion of eliminating all guns owned by folks in the US. I truly do not understand the extreme and widespread reactions. Why do people put such emphasis on guns while ignoring bedrock issues like the threat each of us is exposed to related to most people’s single largest asset?

    Today none of us have rights as landowners. Big companies can decide they have better use for our land than we do and impose their “rights” on us. All we are guaranteed is some money. Nothing makes the companies consider our use of our land, our safety, our financial risk. The only thing that matters, according to our law, is the company. In today’s deregulatory environment, we are practically limited to company self-regulation for our environment and safety. Every week protections we’ve depended upon are taken away and big business gets more authority over us.

    This means that in a country built on people setting their own goals and developing things to meet them, no one currently has any motivation to build anything. A big company can come along and effectively take over what you’ve built.

    Private property rights are bedrock to the US economic and political systems. There is example after example of property rights taken from individuals like us. Yet, no one seems to care. In Buckingham county where hundreds showed up on short notice for sanctuary status, few who are not directly affected have bothered to speak up about pipeline issues. The process has been handled so that few citizens even know the impending impact of the pipeline.

    This time, my property is affected. I never expected it. I have not even found effective ways to stand up for my property rights. The system is set against landowners. Will most people wait until their rights are affected to pay attention? This risk is real and present for every one of us. The gun risk is hypothetical and future. Why do so many respond so strongly to even the hint of something possibly affecting guns while not even acknowledging that which will increase pollution and risk of physical harm and permanently decrease property value and options for using our private property? Those doing this promise fictitious jobs and declining tax contributions but provide no compensation for most of the takings since it has been decreed that “the air and water are so clean that Buckingham can afford pollution this will bring?” Further those doing this reason that there are so few people in Buckingham that any losses will be negligible to society? Decisions about risks are based on those to the company, not ours. We have no way to protect ourselves or our property. But almost no one cares or recognizes their potential to lose their property in the future. Instead they stand up for guns. Why?

  4. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
    vaconsumeradvocate

    P.S. I am usually at the General Assembly on Lobby Day. Year after year I’ve been sickened by the display of guns – the people with multiple guns hanging on themselves, often guns that have no practical use. Everyone else attending that day must stand in line while the security folks check us – delayed by the many guns that must be individually inspected. Once inside the building, you can hardly move around and someone may smack you with their huge backpack strung with guns.

    This year, these folks will keep me away. I won’t fight for my place at Lobby Day. I won’t counter protest. I will simply use my time away from the spectacle and safety risk I expect from thousands of gun toting fanatics. In my experience, these folks care about nothing but themselves and their guns.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      The irony is that you are likely to be pretty safe in a crowd of gun-toting Second Amendment advocates, whose rallies in Virginia have been universally peaceful.

      1. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
        Jane Twitmyer

        Not what the WashPost wrote …
        “The Virginia Citizens Defense League, the grass-roots organization planning the rally, said it has told the state to prepare for as many as 50,000 or even 100,000 people showing up.”

        “a Nevada-based group called the Oath Keepers said it’s sending training teams to help form posses and militia in Virginia. The leader of a Georgia militia called Three Percent Security Force has posted videos and calls to arms on Facebook, urging “patriots” to converge on Richmond. The right-wing YouTuber “American Joe Show” warned without evidence that Virginia will cut the power grid to stop the army of protesters — one of a host of false and exaggerated rumors spreading online.”

        “Law enforcement and public safety officials say they are monitoring the situation, including several instances of threats toward Gov. Ralph Northam (D plans to lead an all-staff meeting this week to go over increased security procedures….
        One white supremacist blogger wrote a widely disseminated post claiming that Northam planned to call out the Guard and cut power and Internet service to thwart gun supporters.
        That led to a meme with a fabricated quote in which Northam is made to say, “if you still refuse to comply I’ll have you killed.”

        So much for Lobby Day …

        1. djrippert Avatar
          djrippert

          Nothing the Washington Post wrote contradicts Jim Bacon’s point that Virginia gun support rallies have been universally well armed and universally peaceful.

          1. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
            Jane Twitmyer

            Oh for Heavens sake …the article is entitled “Shades of Charlottesville” and that sure as anything was not peaceful.

  5. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
    Jane Twitmyer

    The Second Amendment movement in Virginia may reflect “a widespread popular sentiment,” but in the judgment of most of the state more gun control laws are needed. No gunowner restrictions is not the popular view. In fact, the majority in VA has supported some gun laws for several years.

    Here is one VA poll, done last fall …
    Universal background checks …88%
    Allow police to remove guns from people a judge finds dangerous … 82%
    Statewide ban on assault weapons … 57%
    Statewide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips … 56%

    In another VA poll … “Voters strongly support requiring background checks on all gun sales, 86% to 13%, and passing a ‘red flag’ law to remove guns from someone who may harm someone, 73% to 23%, according to the poll results. A slight majority, 54% to 44%, support banning assault-style weapons.”

    AND from CNBC … “Gun-control was a massive issue in the race for Virginia’s statehouse.
    Democrats will now control the legislature for the first time since 1994, as Mike Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety overwhelmed the NRA in spending during the election campaign.
    Everytown spent $2.5 million to support the Virginia elections, easily outpacing the approximately $300,000 spent by the NRA, which has its headquarters in the state.”

    So … Bloomberg funds galvanized the yes to gun laws turnout. New laws will be the outcome … as it should be. That is the majority opinion.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      And it was only a few decades ago when a large majority Virginia voters supported segregated schools. What’s the difference? The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect minorities against tyranny of majorities and to protect the public against the tyranny of the government itself.

      One cannot buy a post 1986 fully automatic firearm but can buy a pre-1986 fully automatic firearm but only after compliance with the current requirements of the National Firearms Act. Semi-automatic firearms are not so prohibited. Square a prohibition against semi-automatics with Miller & Heller.

      I don’t own any modern firearms and don’t really like guns. But I stand behind the Constitution.

      As far as Bloomberg is concerned, the day he goes around without armed bodyguards, he has a right to oppose gun ownership by others. It should be a felony to hire an armed bodyguard.

      The Post has the integrity of Pravda. It regularly suppresses news and op-eds contrary to its political agenda.

      1. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
        Jane Twitmyer

        First … a little ironic to say Bloomberg shouldn’t have armed guards but everyone else can be one. Public figures have security and Bloomberg is after all a Jew, one of the people those torches in CVille reviled.

        Second, the Constitutional rights are subject to some restrictions … the old saw about yelling fire in a movie theater. You say so yourself when you argue that some automatic weapons are off the market. I cannot see how the right to bear a weapon is meant to protect against the tyranny of the majority. That is a whole other discussion.

        Third, I posted the other poll because I assumed someone would say the Post lies. What about those lies saying Northam is threatening to kill protesters? Sounds like inciting violence to me. And, me, I think the Times Dispatch suppresses information on Climate Change …

        The majority is in favor of those laws. They do not take away the right to bear arms, just make a few sensible limits on gun ownership and military weapons. There is no reason that they should not be enacted.

        1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
          TooManyTaxes

          In response to the shooting of a would-be mass murderer in a Texas church, Bloomberg stated that only cops should be able to decide to fire a gun in such a situation. Only cops should have access to firearms in crowded places, he says. If he effectively wants to disarm every American (and that’s what his statement meant), he should lead by giving up any protection by an armed guard. He should rely only on the police. He religious preference has nothing to do with it.

          Michael Bloomberg is a hypocrite. He wants others to rely on the police while he is protected by armed guards. Shades of Animal Farm. Some pigs are more equal than others. Do you think that only rich and important people should be able to have protection? Should my son have to give up his semi-automatic pistol because he works as a diesel mechanic? Do you support conditioning constitutional rights based on income? Mike Bloomberg sure does.

          I have never said there can be no regulation of guns. Regulations must be reasonable and cannot effectively prohibit the right to personal ownership. I think it’s reasonable to conduct background checks to determine whether a person has a felony record or has mental/emotional problems that make him dangerous. And with a proper showing of facts, temporarily remove guns, pending a timely full hearing, from people deemed to be a danger to themselves or to others. I think the regulatory distinction between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons is reasonable. I think the distinction between fireworks and explosive devices is reasonable.

          I think both the Miller and Heller cases establish the basic rules. The right to bear arms is personal. And what a person can own is related to the arms used by a militia. Just as search and seizure jurisprudence did not stop with 1700’s technology but has advanced to cover cellphones, so to does 2nd Amendment jurisprudence advance to cover today’s weapons. I don’t see any justification for banning semi-automatic weapons because the Army used flintlocks during the Revolution.

          Sensible Limits is a meaningless term. It’s being used because the left’s lawyers cannot address the details of the law. They cannot address centuries of jurisprudence. How about “sensible limits” on abortion? Most of the state would go crazy. I’d object because it’s another meaningless term. It’s just as meaningless as sensible regulations on firearms.

          Northam’s attempt to ban certain semi-automatic firearms is unconstitutional.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: ” One cannot buy a post 1986 fully automatic firearm but can buy a pre-1986 fully automatic firearm but only after compliance with the current requirements of the National Firearms Act. Semi-automatic firearms are not so prohibited. Square a prohibition against semi-automatics with Miller & Heller.”

    Aren’t these restrictions ? Don’t they violate the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it say you can restrict automatic weapons?

  7. Acbar Avatar
    Acbar

    So “Bloomberg funds galvanized the yes to gun laws turnout”? Maybe so, even though there was strong (even majority) support for it, waiting to be galvanized, despite the Republican lid clamped down tight on that ferment for years. Yet now it is argued, “it was only a few decades ago when a large majority Virginia voters supported segregated schools. What’s the difference?” Well, one big difference is, this turnaround is happening within Virginia, brought about by Virginians themselves disgusted with the total obstruction tactics of the Republicans on this subject, especially by their “in-your-face” adjournment of the Governor’s special-session effort to defuse the situation on a bipartisan basis last summer. The difference is that Massive Resistance was just that, resistance to an outside force, the federal authorities, and that pesky federal Constitution that Virginia signed onto in 1787. Ironic that it’s the same Constitution all these marchers-on-Richmond are invoking as the basis for their inviolable right to — offend ordinary citizens and defy the majority of their own State.

    What this does have in common with the segregated school era is that Virginians are deeply divided over it. Massive Resistance was not supported by the majority of urban and suburban white families with school-children whose education was interrupted (it went down very poorly, for example, in Charlottesville and in Arlington); but it was a different story in Southside. Today, the heartland of Gun-Restriction Resistance is in some of those same areas that defied the inevitable when de-segregation came. That is the ugly memory that comes to mind when I see all these “2d Amendment Sanctuaries” springing up, when I see the photos of 1500 Bubbas with their sidearms in view packing overflow “Sanctuary” hearings at County board meetings around the State. They are ceasing to be the majority, they are losing the demographic war, they are a culture in deep social and economic retreat, they know this and hate the “elites” for it — but they elected a President who talks their language of defiance, who encourages them to give one more rebel yell, and they are gathering in Richmond to return the favor.

    I will not be in Richmond on January 20. I will not be alone in staying away. And in dreading what I will read in the papers the next morning.

    1. johnrandolphofroanoke Avatar
      johnrandolphofroanoke

      Ease up on Bubba. He works hard, pays taxes, pulls the wagon, attends church, and is the first guy to pull off and help you change your flat tire on busy highways when nobody else is even going to slow down to assist.

    2. Acbar Avatar
      Acbar

      I’d really, really like to agree with you. If he read the same media as me I would trust his basic judgment and good nature; we’d have our disagreements and still help one another in need. But there’s a parallel universe out there, inhabited by ‘good’ folks that show up with an assault rifle at a pizza parlor in my neighborhood looking for sex slaves confined in a non-existent basement. If someone armed like the guy in this photo (taken in downtown Richmond) stopped to help change my tire, he might intend the best but it would scare the hell out of me (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-reality-vs-gun-fantasy-in-virginia/2020/01/06/767d6c0e-30b1-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html):
      https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/PG7VTYVCMYI6TPKW5LDLWAWQDU.jpg

      1. johnrandolphofroanoke Avatar
        johnrandolphofroanoke

        Two different worlds in the same state. You live in yours and Bubba lives in his. It has been this way for some time now.

  8. johnrandolphofroanoke Avatar
    johnrandolphofroanoke

    HB567 has slipped under the radar. If it passes only Uncle Ralph can run an indoor shooting range. State maintained indoor shooting ranges will keep a log and I suppose track users? Oh my! What a hornet’s nest!

    HOUSE BILL NO. 567
    Offered January 8, 2020
    Prefiled January 6, 2020
    A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2, relating to indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government; exceptions; civil penalty.

    Patron– Helmer

    Committee Referral Pending

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
    1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2 a section numbered 18.2-511.2 as follows:
    § 18.2-511.2. Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in private buildings; exceptions; penalty.
    A. As used in this section, “indoor shooting range” means any fully enclosed or indoor area or facility designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, or black powder or any other similar sport shooting.
    B. It is unlawful to operate an indoor shooting range in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or the federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers, as defined in § 9.1-101, or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user’s name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user’s identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card.
    C. Any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      yeah, that’s gonna be a fail…

      but a counter proposal would be for such facilities to be regulated
      and required to have logs and cameras like most gun stores are.

      I don’t have and have never had a problem with “Buba” and his hunting guns and hand guns for personal protection.

      What I have a problem with is ANY weaponry that can be used to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time.

      We already have a law that prevents one type of weapon that can do this – automatic weapons but technology has advanced so that some kinds of semi-auto weapons end up just as potent.

      We don’t allow RPGs, grenades, howitzers, and other deadly weaponry even though they are also called “ARMS”… so I end up not understanding what distinctions are being made with respect to what “ARMS” the Constitution “guarantees” and which ones it apparently does not guarantee and those are already restricted.

      Where do we draw that line?

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        Explain this one. A Virginian who qualifies under the National Firearms Act, can buy a fully-automatic weapon (if made before 1986) or even an RPG. But, under some proposed bills, that same person could not buy a semi-automatic firearm. A totally irrational result.

        In terms of registration lists, suppose a state passed legislation that required women who had an abortion to be listed on a state registry? Any judge would quickly strike that down as an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion at least as it is chilling to the free exercise thereof. So why is it OK to chill someone’s right to own a firearm? Doesn’t such as list also set up the possibility for house invasions and burglaries to steal the guns? But the left might like that as then only criminals would have firearms and we can wait for the police to come, as suggested by Michael Bloomberg.

  9. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
    Jane Twitmyer

    Maybe the Founders just didn’t think it was necessary to make the distinctions many of us want to make now … guess there wasn’t any expectation that the individual was going to carry a cannon around or set it up in the front yard.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      So if voters or legislators can override established law in a constitutional manner for firearms, why can’t the Louisiana legislature do that for abortion (which it has purported to do)? The Second Amendment is not different from any other constitutional provision.

      1. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
        Jane Twitmyer

        Back to the yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Not many of us believe some restrictions on who can own a firearm … not citizens who have committed violent crimes or are unstable … and what kind of firearm … the ability to shoot 30 shots per minute … is over riding the Constitution.

        Abortion is a bit different. Roe decreed that a viable fetus could not be aborted, except to save the life of the Mother. Considering as fetus of undifferentiated cells a life protected by the Constitution is a religious belief. You are welcome to yours but can’t force it on everyone without majority approval, something neither the gun rights and ‘life’ protestors simply don’t have.

        1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
          TooManyTaxes

          While I often disagree with court orders and opinions, I follow them. I support a woman’s right to choose as set forth in Roe. The opinion itself was poorly written and weakly justified but it is the law of the land. And while I think the opinion is extremely weak and poorly decided, I would not vote to overturn if I were on the Supreme Court. It would be too disruptive to society.

          The right to bear arms is in specific language of the Constitution and is backed by centuries of English law, upon which our Constitution and legal system is built. And in Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that a weapon that had a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is protected by the Second Amendment. Stated otherwise, any firearm that is “any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense” is protected by the Second Amendment.

          In Miller, militia was understood to be the opposite of a standing army, ordinary people who were also required to have access to the appropriate weapons. The Court quotes an 1785 Virginia statute as including “If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.” The state would arm poor males.

          As technology changed, so does the protection of the Second Amendment. A semi-automatic firearm is fully consistent with the use by a militia.

          Virginia Code Section 44-1 reads: “Composition of militia. The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.”

          Section 44-4 provides: “44-4. Composition of unorganized militia.
          The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied persons as set out in § 44-1, except such as may be included in §§ 44-2 [National Guard] and 44-54.6 [Virginia Defense Force] and except such as may be exempted as hereinafter provided.”

          Unless found to have a felony record or a mental/physical/emotional disability, every citizen of Virginia has the right to own a firearm. And a semi-automatic firearm is consistent with militia use and, as such, can be owned based on the Second Amendment. This right is equal to any other constitutional right.

          I always liked the statement “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” Equally sound is “If you don’t like guns, don’t own one.” I don’t particularly like them and, as such, don’t own. Why isn’t that good enough for everyone else?

          P.S. Fairfax County, especially places like Great Falls, McLean, Falls Church, Oakton, is one of the most heavily armed communities in the United States. I suspect that despite voting for Democratic representatives, it would be politically impossible to disarm Fairfax County residents.

          1. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
            Jane Twitmyer

            “As technology changed, so does the protection of the Second Amendment. A semi-automatic firearm is fully consistent with the use by a militia.”

            I think you missed my point about the cannon. You say as technology changed so did what was reasonable for the militia to carry. My point was that extra violent weapons used by an army now are very different from what the Founders were describing as reasonable to own in order for the divided structure of our divided levels of government to protect against the federal government. They were not talking about individuals or guns that can shoot 30 shots in a minute. WIKI says that the PA convention actually argued for an individual right and it was discarded.

            I am not a lawyer and it has been awhile since I read these things but as I look it over now …
            Heller in 2008 and was the first time that the Right was defined as an individual right … and you could say it actually goes against Scalia and ‘original intent’.

            Even if you accept the right as an individual right, that does not mean we cannot make some restrictions on that Right … as in the ‘fire’ issue.

          2. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            I get your argument but I don’t think you get mine. Heller makes it very clear that the right to bear arms was a personal right in England at the time the U.S. was formed and that such right was incorporated into the Second Amendment. The dissents were effectively, oh that can’t be true. They could not address the fundamental principles of English law and history. Nor could they address the multiple sources showing that early American law recognized the right to bear arms as personal. Multiple state constitutions also recognize a personal right to bear arms.

            Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state …” “The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.” Commonwealth v. Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 313–314. “A Report of the Commission of the Freedmen’s Bureau in 1866 stated plainly: “[T]he civil law [of Kentucky] prohibits the colored man from bearing arms. . . . Their arms are taken from them by the civil authorities… . Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as provided in the Constitution is infringed.” H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 233, 236. Each discussed in Heller. There are many other such references.

            Does this mean there can be no regulation of firearms? No. Reasonable regulations that don’t have the effect of denying a person’s right to bear arms will stand. We all listed them many times. I won’t belabor the discussion revisiting them.

            But I find no support for your statement that the Second Amendment will permit the outlawing of guns that can shoot 30 shots in a minute. Where is the intention expressed in old court cases or histories of those times? Miller upheld the protection of weapons used and useful to a militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

            The majority opinion in Heller includes: “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” And if one argues to discount this majority opinion, so too can anyone else disregard other majority opinions.”

            Semi-automatic firearms are in common use today. Thousands of people use them for lawful purposes every single day. The fact that some people are criminals cannot be allowed to infringe on the rights of the rest. If someone is removed from a public meeting for disrupting it, should other residents be forbidden to speak?

            Speculating, I could see a state coming up with a requirement for the purchaser of a semi-automatic to firearm to take a gun-safety class unless she or he already was skilled in guns and gun safety. Indeed, why not make the cost of such a course a dollar-for-dollar tax credit on the state income tax return?

  10. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
    Jane Twitmyer

    Jim, I think you are right to say that the VA group is not intending to incite violence. However, the call has gone out and the others who are coming to Richmond may not be so amenable to the non-violence of Dr. King.

    “Oath keepers is sending a leadership and training team to Virginia to assist in organizing resistance to unconstitutional acts and to organize and train armed posses and militia.”
    At the end of the call they say they will respect the restrictions the VA Group is calling for and detail those restrictions.
    The Georgia Group is in crisis and their violence prone original leader has lost some of his following who have formed a second GA group.
    The third group listed by the WashPost as calling for participation in VA is on Utube ….
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRi-fxxV6c
    America Joe Show says stuff like … “a new Civil War may be right around the corner … and …confiscate weapons … Democrats have become rabidly tyrannical … we will fight”

    So that leaves us with ‘crowd psychology’, the unclear theories about how people can act in crowds in ways they would not act individually. Those guys with torches in CVille scared the bejesus out of me, but then I remember the news reels of the real Nazis. I am NOT planning to go to Lobby Day this year!

  11. Jane Twitmyer Avatar
    Jane Twitmyer

    TMT … I get your argument but I disagree and I am not alone. You say ..
    “The majority opinion in Heller includes: “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.” …. and…. “Where is the intention expressed in old court cases or histories of those times?”

    That is a misreading of my ironic ‘canon’ quip, as is the idea that only old muscuts are protected by the 2nd Amendment. I am sure there aren’t any old cases because we are objecting to particularly lethal weapons being available to the public even if there are lots of goofy guys who just love to shot them cause they are fun, ie “in general use”. I want to see the sale of high capacity magazines and rifles not sold to the public and there are lots of judges and others out there who agree with me.

    In 1989 George H.W. Bush permanently banned the import of semi-automatic rifles. Then in 1994 a law called the Assault Weapons Ban was enacted with a 10-year sunset. It prohibited new magazines over 10 rounds in the United States. The law was not renewed in 2004, but in 2014 another law was introduced in the House with 123 sponsors.

    There is a case in CA where a town ban was challenged and the 9th Circuit upheld the ban for the time being but ruled against the ban. In Sept 2019 more gun owners filed against CA’s ‘assault weapons’ ban and the Attorney General of CA is defending the ban in the 9th Circuit. Not sure what the 9th was up to. In 2017 the Supremes, with no public decent, refused to hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to a Md. high capacity magazine law.

    In Sept. 2019 the Keep America Safe Act, a law to regulate “large capacity feeding devices” was reported out of committee in the House. Also by 2019 “nine states and the District of Columbia set a maximum limit on the capacity of magazines for at least some firearms. The nine states with high-capacity-magazine limitations are California (Proposition 63, passed in 2016), Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont.

    So, there seem to be lots of us that do not think that banning some forms of high-tech weapons abrogates the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Leave a Reply

Read More