Virginia’s Plan to Attack Gun Violence — Will It Survive?

by David Toscano

It has been [a month] since the shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, took 31 lives and once again crystallized the need for more effective measures to combat these outrages. It is not clear whether Congress can summon the will for even the most minor of reforms, but our leaders need to transition from “thoughts and prayers” to real policy change if we are ever to combat the scourge of gun violence in this nation. Virginia Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner recently called on Congress to enact the “Virginia Plan” of gun violence reforms, based on major changes made in the Commonwealth in the 2020 and 2021 legislative sessions.

Virginia Has Seen Its Share

Virginia has neither escaped the carnage of mass shootings nor the heated debates about what to do about gun violence. The 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech left 32 dead, and another 12 were killed during the 2019 shooting in Virginia Beach. Neither involved AR-15 style weapons (the killers used semiautomatics, but they were pistols). The Virginia Tech tragedy prompted creation of a government commission that brought only minor change. But Virginia remained a strong gun-rights state into the 2010s.

The school shootings at Parkland drew further attention to the issue. The Republican Speaker of the Virginia House grudgingly convened a special committee to address school safety, but then prohibited it from discussing guns. Following the Virginia Beach shootings in 2019, Governor Northam called a special session on gun violence; Republicans adjourned it in 30 minutes with no action.
The public clearly wanted change, but the legislature refused to act. A major reason is that, in years past, Republicans were more effective in mobilizing their voters around gun issues. As Bellwether describes it:

Republicans, especially in rural areas, never had much difficulty in touting their strong support for “the right to keep and bear arms,” and actively sought the endorsement of the National Rifle Association (NRA); it would often be the defining issue that would get their voters to the polls. Democrats used to walk a finer line. Gun safety advocates tended not to be single issue voters, and guns ranked lower in their hierarchy of concerns. Consequently, even if candidates strongly supported gun safety initiatives, they usually wrapped their positions in Second Amendment and stated they would never “take your guns away.” This nuanced position began to change in the 2010s! Democrats, especially in the suburbs, began to campaign vigorously on gun safety issues. With Northern Virginia (NoVa) and suburbia in the political ascendency, the hold of the NRA loosened. With each successive mass shooting, gun safety activists had become increasingly energized, and some voters had now made gun safety a priority issue that determined their vote.

Polls showed this movement

. In 2018, only 9% of Virginia respondents ranked “gun policy” as the most important issue facing the country. By 2019, three of four voters rated gun policy as a “very important” issue in determining their vote, and the vast majority supported statewide bans on assault weapons as well as limiting gun purchases to one a month.

The 2019 election in Virginia brought the state a Democratic majority clearly committed to gun safety measures, and they moved quickly in 2020 to enact new policies reflecting that view. In a series of party-line votes, the legislature reinstituted the “one-handgun-a-month” law passed during the Wilder administration, adopted measures for universal background checks, passed a law to require stolen guns to be reported, and became the 19th state to enact Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) designed to keep guns away from individuals with acute mental health problems. They even made good on their pledge to prohibit the carrying of firearms into the House gallery and onto the House floor….

Gun Violence Is More Than Mass Shootings

While mass shootings justifiably capture our attention, especially when children are involved, the majority of U.S. gun deaths occur as the result of suicide. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 54% of all U.S. gun-related deaths in 2020 were suicides while 43% were murders. While the numbers of mass shootings have risen over the last decade, FBI data indicate that your chances of being killed in one of these incidents remain relatively low. In 2020, rifles accounted for 3% of firearm homicides in the U.S. That, of course, is small consolation to the families who lost their loved ones in recent horrific events and should not diminish the fact that the U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence in the world. Gun deaths per capita, while still well below their peak in 1974, are now higher than at any time since the mid-90s. Perhaps Buffalo and Uvalde can alter the political calculus to allow for real change to occur.

The Problem with Semiautomatic Rifles

Both Buffalo and Ulvade involved use of semiautomatic rifles. The AR-15 used in Texas is the bestselling long rifle in the United States, and it has been used in countless mass shootings in the last decade. Shooters using AR-15s and its semiautomatic siblings gunned down 44 defenseless students and teachers at Sandy Hook elementary and Parkland high school, 58 concertgoers in Las Vegas, 23 Walmart shoppers in El Paso, and 36 churchgoers in Pittsburgh and Sutherland Springs, Texas. And while some may consider it a stretch to consider this rifle a “weapon of war,” its character is more consistent with killing many people in a short period of time than it is with shooting a deer in the woods. What makes it especially lethal is the size of its magazines, some of which can hold 100 bullets. Some hunters who favor reasonable gun safety measures are even beginning to apply the word “snowflake” to those who mindlessly link the 2nd amendment to the ability to own one or several of the 15 million AR-15s now in circulation; hunting game has traditionally involved skill and patience, not the discharge of a semiautomatic that can expel its typical clip of 30 rounds as fast as 30 clicks of a computer mouse. This is not your granddad’s hunting rifle.

Can Virginia Be a Model?

If we take what some leaders in both parties have been saying, several simple reforms could be enacted by Washington in 2022, much like those passed in Virginia in 2020. Certainly, part of the solution involves more support for mental health. The Republican mantra has stressed this. So why not dramatically increase funding for school counselors? And pass legislation that has proven effective in 19 states, including Virginia, where courts can issue Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) to remove firearms from persons found to be a risk to self or others? Many mass shooters give advance signals that they intend to act. These “Red Flag” laws can remove the firearm until the potential shooter has addressed his or her emotional challenge.

Criminals will always try to skirt the law and acquire illegal firearms, but why not make this more difficult by adopting tough universal background checks and increasing police presence to remove illegal weapons from circulation? Virginia recently reinstituted its “one-handgun-per-month” law originally passed in the 1990s, a measure that correlated with a reduction of illegal guns flowing into cities in the northeast. And while troubled individuals can find various ways to take their own lives, why not make this more difficult by passing “gun storage” measures to prevent young people from gaining easy access to these firearms? Young people must wait until a certain age and then pass a test before getting behind the wheel of a vehicle where a mistake could mean death or serious injury. Perhaps we should adopt waiting periods between the purchase of a firearm and its possession. After the Parkland shooting, Florida now requires this for rifles. Should people under 21 even be allowed to own semiautomatic weapons? The New York legislature just passed a measure requiring this. Oh, yes, and more funds for mental health treatment!

Reduce Magazine Size

Finally, reduce risks of the carnage in mass shootings by reducing the size of magazines that can be attached to either rifles or pistols. Washington state recently joined California in limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. The NRA is both screaming and suing, but such a plan neither “takes away our guns nor prevents self-defense”;  it only makes rifles less conducive to inflicting mass casualties. Uvalde showed that many police are scared to confront a shooter who can discharge so many bullets so quickly. A retired police officer guarding the Buffalo, New York, supermarket where 10 died was outgunned by an 18-year-old with semiautomatic Bushmaster XM-15 E2S. And an armed deputy sheriff at Parkland was not enough to stave off the massacre of 17 students and school staff. A school resource officer with a pistol, while valuable for other reasons, is totally outgunned in these situations, as would be any armed teacher. Forcing the shooter to reload because a clip is exhausted gives law enforcement a better chance at taking out a killer.

States Increasingly Matter

Perhaps recent massacres will prompt Congress to act. A more likely scenario, however, is for the United States to continue to divide itself between states where gun safety advocates have achieved some modicum of success and states where the NRA and gun rights proponents are having their way. Places like California, Massachusetts, and New York will likely further improve their gun safety pedigree. But Texas now allows residents to carry a firearm openly in public without either a permit or training, much less a background check. Iowa, Tennessee, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming recently passed legislation allowing similar forms of permitless carry. To make matters worse, some 40 states prohibit their cities from adopting more gun safety regulations, even if they are massively supported by their citizens. As is the case with many other issues, the United States is increasingly breaking apart in the absence of strong federal direction.

Virginia will be a significant signpost for the rest of the nation. Its population is increasingly suburban, and the rural localities that used to dominate decision-making in Richmond have lost some of their clout. This has made the Commonwealth more hospitable to gun safety measures. Although the newly passed state budget failed to fund former Gov. Northam’s initiative to create a Center for Firearm Violence Intervention and Prevention, it nonetheless made $4 million available in each of two years to localities for “evidence-informed” gun violence reduction efforts through the Firearm Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund and another $2.5 million per year for law enforcement through a program pushed by the new Speaker, Operation Cease Fire. Now, we will see if this funding will escape the new Governor’s veto pen.

Maintaining the Progress

While the Commonwealth has made progress, it can be reversed in a heartbeat if the state Senate is flipped to Republican control in 2023. In 2021, Republicans won the Governorship and regained control of House of Delegates. With a Democratic Senate standing in the way, the GOP could do little to repeal the previous gains. Bills to eviscerate the ERPO law, prevent localities from enacting ordinances on guns, and eliminate the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth, were supported in the House but defeated in the Senate, often by slim margins. In the 2023 election, gun safety victories will be on the ballot. If the Republicans flip one seat in the Virginia Senate, there will be no stopping repeal of gun reform measures. And unlike the mid-2010s, when Democratic Governor McAuliffe freely used his veto pen to prevent legislation that would make it easier to obtain more powerful firearms, a Republican will be sitting in the Governor’s Mansion in 2024 who has consistently proclaimed his aversion to gun control.

The change of one seat in the state Senate could make Virginia policies look like Texas. Elections matter!

David Toscano, author of “Fighting Political Gridlock: How States Shape Our Nation and Our Lives,” published this column on his website. It has been republished on Bacon’s Rebellion with his permission.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

100 responses to “Virginia’s Plan to Attack Gun Violence — Will It Survive?”

  1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Why isn’t bring back Project Exile part of state and federal gun legislation? Five years in prison for any felon caught carrying a firearm. Both the NRA and the Brady Project praised it. I guess keeping George Soros happy is more important than reducing gun violence.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Project Exile was started in Richmond as a partnership between local and federal authorities. The idea was that felons caught carrying firearms would get a mandatory sentence in federal court of five years and be housed in a federal prison far away (the “exile” part). It never really went away, but fewer gun cases are being accepted by the feds.

      https://richmond.com/news/local/richmond-commonwealths-attorney-hints-project-exile-may-return-to-richmond-calls-on-city-to-study/article_b9623515-17da-5000-ae97-b580f01b12c2.html

      Virginia law does have a similar provision, Sec. 18.2-308.2 makes it illegal for a convicted felon to possess or transport a firearm. Punishment upon conviction is a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, to be served consecutively with any other sentence.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Thanks, Dick. But why are there fewer prosecutions? The President is on his soapbox daily talking about gun safety. Why doesn’t he push for this nationwide? What benefit do laws do if they are not enforced? And if a law is not going to be enforced, repeal it.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          If you want to see if they care about firearms and rights. Ask them if they can pass this new one, which one are they willing to repeal.

          That will indicate exactly where they stand and I assure you, they are unwilling to repeal any they have passed before.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      They actual care as much about firearm crime as they do abortion. Which is none what so ever unless it’s being used as a fundraising e-mail headline.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Wasted money for the feds. Oooh they get to house the guy on state charges? Yeah, that’s bound to be worthwhile.

  2. Thomas Dixon Avatar
    Thomas Dixon

    The gun isn’t the problem. Why is it so hard to understand that?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      He is not proposing to take away the guns. He is proposing to decrease the amount of damage someone with a gun could inflict. A person intent on hurting or killing people can kill a lot of people in a short period of time with a weapon that can hold up to 100 rounds. Why not restrict the number of rounds a weapon can hold at a time? Why not have a waiting period for the purchase of certain types of weapons?

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “Dick Hall-Sizemore Thomas Dixon • 4 hours ago
        He is not proposing to take away the guns. He is proposing to decrease the amount of damage someone with a gun could inflict. A person intent on hurting or killing people can kill a lot of people in a short period of time with a weapon that can hold up to 100 rounds. Why not restrict the number of rounds a weapon can hold at a time? Why not have a waiting period for the purchase of certain types of weapons?”

        Because it’s irrelevant and against the Law.

      2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        I see the logic to your position, but it doesn’t address the somewhat common situation where criminals have access to and use large capacity magazines, as well as the desire of many to protect common criminals for “social justice” reasons. It is not hard to draw the conclusion that many on the left want gun control to apply to otherwise law-abiding citizens while closing their eyes to illegal use by criminals.

        There is huge inconsistency between those who want strong gun control while insisting that abortion be unrestricted to the point of live birth abortion and vice versa.

        Congress should be forced to be locked up until they can pass legislation that addresses both abortion access and regulations and firearm access and regulation. We’d likely wind up with legislation that the fringes would hate but that most people could live with.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          confusion here. Advocacy for restrictions is not for handguns or even rifles but for weapons capable of killing a large number of people in a short amount of time when given to someone who should not have access to such deadly weapons – let them have a handgun but not an AR with 100 round magazines, and the like.

          An AR with a 100-round magazine is tantamount to a full automatic weapon in terms of the number of rounds a killer can get off and kill people with – compared to a handgun – semi auto or full auto.

          but I ask again – why do we have more restrictions on full auto weapons? what justifies the laws that do that? And why can’t those same laws restrict 100 round magazines?

      3. WayneS Avatar

        A law restricting magazine size will keep me from owning/using “large capacity” magazines, but it will most certainly not stop a criminal from owning/using them.

        By definition, outlaws do not pay attention to laws, and an outlaw who is willing to ignore the laws proscribing murder is, quite simply, not going to give a damn whether or not the law says he can’t have a 30 round magazine in his murder weapon.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Yes, we do say that but let anyone own a full automatic weapon or a grenade launcher or mortar or stinger missile and then make that statement.

      It does matter much what kind of weapon anyone can own.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Larry, how many times have people corrected you on the issue of the ability of an American to own a fully automatic weapon, a flamethrower or even a cannon? There are ATF regulations that allow, under special circumstances and rules, private individuals to own these devices.

        There was a cable TV show on Discovery called Sons of Guns. It was about a gun store and gunsmiths in Baton Rouge. The show regularly featured legal purchases of fully automatic and things like cannons and flamethrowers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sons_of_Guns_episodes

        The principles had some serious legal problems that resulted in a loss of licenses, shutting down the show and putting the key personality in prison for a horrible crime. But the fact remains, one can purchase a machine gun.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          You, as well as others are missing the point, I’m NOT saying they are banned, I’m saying they have RESTRICTIONS on them – and really no different than other restrictions on guns – existing and potential.

          So I’m asking YOU would YOU support removing all restrictions on automatic weapons just like we have done for AR15s and open carry?

          Would you support removing those restrictions?

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You’re correct. People are. Which is why people should not have guns. Now, dogs? Dogs should have guns.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Students, too, and teachers.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Some students shouldn’t have Erector Sets…
          https://crackedrearviewer.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/gw2.jpg

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Having an Erector set is not a god-given right comparable to having a firearm. Some commenters on this page should have their keyboards impounded but that’s another matter.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            JFC, it’s God-given, capitalize God. You have zero knowledge of the law, you’ve established that over and over.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You do realize that’s how THEY feel about ME.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            If you capitalized god, THEY might relent.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            That would be a lie, and “I don’t lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do.”

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        And magazines too, hi capacity magazines with pics of fifi the poodle pinups, articles on the bloodhound that just won the national kennel club dog show and the pros & cons of bullpups. Dog porn for the pups!

    4. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      This illustrates the difference in viewpoints.

      For myself, someone with a 6 or 10 shot handgun is not the same as someone with a Mac 10 or Uzi.

      same person – very different potential if that person decides to break the law and become a killer.

      so, continuing to say it’s not the gun is really a myopic view given the vast difference in weapons capabilities.

      If you really want to get silly, consider someone who could own “arms’ like a mortar that fits the Constitutional definition of “arms”. The guy with the AR is going to look like a mnor threat compared to that same guy raining down motar rounds on a school.

      Again – if one disputes this as possible – I ask – what does ‘arms” actually mean in the Constitution.. and WHO gets to decide it?

  3. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Another take the guns away from legitimate gun owners to de arm the good, that is another cause of high Democrat ruled crime areas.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Do you oppose the ERPO laws, which would take guns away from individuals who have been found by a court to pose a substantial risk to others? Do you consider such persons “legitimate gun owners”?

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Unless they have had Due Process the SCOTUS says they don’t count.

        You should try and read the law with all the time you have on your hands.

      2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        The law has always recognized emergency relief even on an ex parte basis. But the courts need to provide the person whose rights have been restricted with notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Was curious about the just-passed legislation that addressed the “boyfriend loophole”.

          Is that “due process” ?

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Well stated which is why Red Flag Laws were found unconstitutional at SCOTUS in a 9-0 ruling.

          Caniglia v Strom

        3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          The Virginia law (Sec. 19.2-152.14 et al) provides for substantial due process. A judge must find probable cause before issuing an emergency order. The emergency order expires at the end of 14 days. Within that 14-day period, a court can issue a substantial risk order if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that a person poses a substantial risk to himself or others. A substantial risk order expires at the end of 180 days, but can be extended for additional 180-day periods. A person subject to an emergency substantial risk order or a substantial risk order is forbidden to purchase any firearm and must relinquish any firearms he owns to law-enforcement or to someone 21 years old or older, who does not reside with the person subject to the order and who is approved by the court. The person subject to the orders may petition the court at any time to dissolve the orders and may appear at any hearing, along with his attorney.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Does the accused have the opportunity to a hearing and the right to confront the accuser before forfeiture? That is basic due process.

            None of us wants to enable crazy people to go armed after people they are in close relationships with. Nor do we want search and seizure without due process.

            It seems that is a difficult balance to strike.

  4. looking like Texas as far as the 2A would be a good thing, vigorously enforce existing laws, prosecute juvenile offenders so they may not purchase firearms, do not plea out firearm offenses for violent offenders, use the tools that are there

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Why should we believe that Texas is more aggressive than Virginia in the areas your mention, such as enforcing existing laws or not entering into plea deals with violent offenders? Here is a recent example of a plea deal with a violent offender in Texas: https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/plea-deal-takes-capital-murder-off-the-table-for-lubbock-man/

      In fact, one defense attorney asserts that 95 percent of criminal cases in Texas result in a plea deal. https://www.planyourdefense.com/plea-bargaining-in-texas-a-guide/#:~:text=In%20Texas%2C%20roughly%2095%20percent%20of%20criminal%20trials,plead%20%E2%80%98nolo%20contendere%E2%80%99%20or%20give%20an%20Alford%20plea.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      uh yeah.

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Thanks, Jim, for posting a rational argument for reasonable limits on guns.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “Thanks, Jim, for posting a rational argument for reasonable limits on guns.”

      Those weren’t rational arguments, they were emotional appeals from someone who shouldn’t be near a firearm.

      Much like yourself, you shouldn’t be near a firearm. You don’t respect it enough to learn anything about it.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Given SCOTUS attitude towards “arms” and their availability to virtually anyone , I do wonder if a court case challenging the restrictions on automatic weapons makes it way to SCOTUS if they won’t again agree that such restrictions are Unconstitutional and let that take effect.

    At some point , we’re going to realize that one’s definition of “arms” is exceptionally important when it comes to an individuals ability to kill large numbers of people in very short amounts of time.

    You can have dozens of “good guys with guns” and they will all be mowed down by a bad guy with an automatic weapon – unless of course we’re all allowed to have and carry automatic weapons which will then make us more like Somalia than any developed country.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      SCOTUS has proven to be useless with respect to gun safety and controls. I am convinced that Scalia had his tongue in cheek when he wrote Heller. It is a masterfully silly with respect to history as Alito’s folly this past week.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        the ‘arms’ thing is central to the inability of SCOTUS to deal with realities.

        Some wackadoodles BELIEVE that “arms” was explicitly intended for civilians to have arms “parity” with the military so that “patriots” could overturn a despotic government using the same weapons the military has.

        But even those with less wacko thinking – don’t seem to differentiate between “arms” that are handguns/AR15s and fully automatic weapons, 30 cal machine guns, bazookas, grenades, mortars, stingers, weaponized drones, etc.

        They just basically pretend there is some boundary not enumerated in the Constitution between an AR15 with 100 round magazines and a full auto with 100 round magazines…

        Imagine what it would be like if anyone or virtually anyone could own AND carry a Mac 10.

        It’s Alice in Wonderland.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “James McCarthy LarrytheG • 16 hours ago
        SCOTUS has proven to be useless with respect to gun safety and controls. I am convinced that Scalia had his tongue in cheek when he wrote Heller. It is a masterfully silly with respect to history as Alito’s folly this past week.”

        Your opinion of useless is just that, your opinion. That is rooted in significantly less education than those Justice’s who have adjudicated longer than you.

        You’ve illustrated a lack of knowledge on Law, which you claimed to be a professional society member.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          I don’t have an opinion on where Scalia’s tongue was, but it was absolutely clear from the day it was enacted that D.C.s gun laws were unconstitutional.

          It just took 30+ years for someone to be angry enough about it and with the time and money to pursue it to the Supreme Court to get it thrown out.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            That’s the problem with the notion that a Law is Constitution because it was enacted. That along with the judicial challenges being so expensive to fight them.

            Instead of working for us Politicians work for themselves and to pit it’s citizens against one another.

      3. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        one does wonder what the SCOTUS approach is to things the govt now does that are not articulated as a govt power in the Constitution – as well as “rights’ that derive from fuzzy words like “arms” that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people including SCOTUS members now, in the past and in the future.

      4. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        The Assize of Arms (c. 1181) required all Englishmen except for Jews to have arms suitable for their station in life in order to be able to protect king and country in a militia. Jews were not so required or permitted to have arms.

        The fact that the law prohibited Jews from possessing arms clearly implies non-Jews could. Moreover, there were no armories at that time and non-Jews regularly possessed and used their arms.

        There is well more than 900 years of legal precedent recognizing a legal right for non-Jewish Englishmen to own and use arms.

        Why not concede the point and then see where common ground might exist?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          that’s not the same premise behind the US second amendment is it?

          … a well-regulated militia ( organized by the govt?)

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Yes, there was a militia back in late 1100s but the assize goes further. It required every Englishman, except for Jews, to possess arms. They didn’t lock them up between times when the King may have called up the local militia. There has been a 900 year plus history of a personal right to bear arms.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            some of this is more myth than reality and some of it is from a time and place that is not our time and place.

            We have the National Guard and weapons and training and command are centralized and standardized – for good reasons.

            Personal ownership of a weapon for personal use is different today because there is no intent to be part of a “militia” for most and for the ones that do, they’re often in cahoots with Ruby Ridge type folk.

  7. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Gun violence crimes and accidents also produce costly side effects involving medical care, lost time from work, property damage, and, sometimes, funeral expenses. Mandatory liability insurance for guns and ammo, like all insurance schemes, could spread the cost and bolster existing government funded programs. Liability insurance also responds to the standard protest that it’s the users not the thing that is dangerous. Pretty much why auto liability insurance exists.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      ugh… no-fault.. everyone pays for it and the irresponsible evade …. bad for vehicles, worse for guns.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Which other right are you required to carry insurance for?

      Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Right to property including auto and home ownership. Owning an auto is not a privilege and some has been used as weapons.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Clara Harris… ran over hubby multiple times, caught on security video… around and around and around she goes…

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Can you get insurance for that? Does it take a special endorsement for lawyers that lets you back up over them too?

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          According to our buddy here: “The Constitution doesn’t establish a right to property.”

          I thought our rights flow from our nature as free humans (inalienable) or in some people’s mind are God-given. As such the Constitution does not establish these rights… surprised he doesn’t get that. Further, what “just compensation” do we receive when the state restricts our use of property by requiring us to register and insure our vehicles if we want to operate them on public roadways…??

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Yes, there is much dissociation in the response buttressed by legal gobbledygook. In essence, he admits that rights are not immutable and subject to regulation including taxation and insurance requirements. If the Constitution, in his statement, does not confer a right to property, it also does not confer a right to bear arms, only that it ought not be infringed. It is not god-given.

            He also acknowledges that a personal interest in private property may be lost for failure of financial responsibility.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            You have zero understanding of Constitution law, like none. I have no idea how you passed a bar exam let alone practiced law. You don’t even understand my comment which are practical legal theory. You generate strawmen like the day is long.

            Breach of contract and asset forfeiture is Law you f’n moron. Is that why you bar admittance was suspended for disciplinary action?

        3. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          The Constitution doesn’t establish a right to property.

          Owing a home and automobile is a privilege that can be removed if you fail to pay the money you owe for them. For an Automobile fail to register it within the state you reside and fail to adhere to any of the civil restrictions on it’s operation. For a Home fail to pay your mortgage and fail to pay your taxes, you’ll loose your home.

          You may own both of those items they are not given rights. One isn’t born with the right to own property.

          Locke’s statement of “life, liberty and property” referred to the individual not any tangible items.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Thanks for attempting to answer a question to which you clearly do not know the answer. If your home is seized for failure to pay taxes, can the sheriff sell the weapons there? The weapons in your repossessed auto? After all, they are Constitutionally protected and god-given rights.

            When you are capable of offering discussion without ad hominem attacks, you may qualify to receive responses.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I did answer your question, I find it highly suspect that a “alleged” attorney is implying their is a Constitutional right to property in the sense of a tangible object. There is not, there also is no other defined “right” from the Constitution that requires “insurance”.

            You’ve created a false dilemma. If you fail to pay for your home and or car any and all possessions contained within are fair to for the owner to sell to be compensated for your breach of contract. You have the right to keep and bear arms, if your assets are seized (forfeited) from breach of contract that right hasn’t been removed. That’s actually, Law. Which ironically you again as an alleged Lawyer should be aware of.

            “After all, they are Constitutionally protected and [sic] god-given rights.”

            Actually that’s not the premise of the Constitution more specifically the Bill of Rights at all. The Bill of Rights explicitly outlines the guidelines for our Government and how they behave in regard to the defined rights of its citizenry, who have given consent to be Governed.

            You should spend less time spouting your opinion and more time reading John Locke and the influencers of our Founders.

            “When you are capable of offering discussion without ad hominem attacks, you may qualify to receive responses.”

            You should take your own advise and actually learn what an ad hom attack is, because you wrote entire articles employing them against those whom you don’t agree with you. In fact 3/4 of your comments area ad hom attacks against those you don’t agree with.

            Your legal reasoning isn’t even in existence, I have no idea how you practiced law given the absolute ignaonce you’ve shown regarding the most basic concepts of it.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Ad Hominems is what Matt does…

  8. The write knows very little about firearms.

    Regarding “Gun Violence Is More Than Mass Shootings’ – he is CORRECT! It’s mostly a gang problem. Jail them!

    Regarding AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles, he writes, “this rifle [is] a “weapon of war,” its character is more consistent with killing many people in a short period of time than it is with shooting a deer in the woods.”

    First, if such are designed to only kill many people quickly – WHY DO POLICE HAVE THEM?

    Second, there are many legitimate shooting competitions which use just such firearms… not just hunting. Look them up. You also use the AR-15 platform for many other hunting endeavors.

    Regarding ‘magazines’ – he uses the term ‘clip’; thus showing is ignorance. Also regarding magazines; does anyone know the time difference between shooting 30 rounds from a single magazine compared to shooting 30 from two 15-round magazines or three 10-round magazines?
    I’ve tested such – about 5 seconds.

    Most gun grabbers want to institute a 1o-round maximum on magazines like the Clinton law. Please explain in precise terms why ten is good and 11 is evil? Please show me facts.

    How about we do a test for three-four years then do a study similar to the post 1994 Clinton Gun Ban which found that law did very little to stop crime?

    There are somewhere between 9,000 and 20,ooo gun laws on the books in the US today according to several sources. The BATF rule book for firearms dealers alone runs for nearly 600 pages and only covers the violations that agency enforces.

    For three to four years prosecute every gun crime to the fullest and see what happen…..

    If a criminal violates a local ordinance which calls for a year in jail — sentence him for that. If that same act can be prosecuted as a state crime which calls for five years — sentence him for that as well to run consecutively. Then add the Federal violation which mirrors the act, adding another five years. So for a single illegal act with a gun that criminal will go to jail for 11 years….. then see what such full and vigorous prosecutions of ALL gun laws does to the FBI crime statistics.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It’s not that 10 is good and 11 is bad. It’s 10 is acceptable and 300 is not.
      Start at 1:00 to skip all that Libtard Hollywood stuff. https://vimeo.com/236473235

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      What evidence do you have that gun crimes are not prosecuted to their fullest in Virginia?

      You are correct. One can change out 10 round magazines quickly. The solution: ban all firearms other than single shot ones.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        a few seconds between magazines does not sound like much, but it’s time for people to run or to charge the killer – both of which have been done when guns jiammed.

        For some reason, few folks worry that the SCOTUS could rule un-constitutional the restrictions on other arms like automatic weapons. All it would take is a legal challenge that works it’s way up to SCOTUS and in particular THIS SCOTUS which may well agree such restrictions _are_ unconstitutional.

        Imagine one of these killers with a weapon like this:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0b817eb64d494339ea13453622b35e75b6be6300e2c740271399c654a686fb70.jpg

        Don’t think SCOTUS is unlikely to do this, worry than they can… and might….

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      This is a +10 magazine…
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JxQwJEB1W6g

      And a bigger magazine… (BTW, creepy garb)
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0W_ZvuoP4

      Now, imagine this with a large drum magazine.
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vQcE6CW91UU

    4. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Aw Hell, why should you have to imagine…
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k0VpPAFxD48

      That’s enough to give pause to a Uvalde School District PD Resource Officer with body armor AND a ballistic shield.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        You do know don’t you that what those are good for is exactly what you have used them for, photo ops?

        If they actually worked well don’t you think our armed forces would be using them rather than making troops carry and change multiple magazines?

        It is also worth noting that the full auto guns shown in the video are very heavily regulated and are almost never used in crimes.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Facts seldom trump opinion on the topic, which is exactly why there is so much misinformation on the topic. Especially with individuals who have zero knowledge of the topic.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          It’s the linguistically challenged Bubba in the cap and gown who’s worrisome.

        3. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          They don’t have work well always, just once.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Failure to do even that is what stopped the Aurora Colorado movie shooting.

      2. WayneS Avatar

        Only an idiot would try to use one of those as anything other than an entertaining diversion at the rifle range. They are not reliable and they fail to feed or misfeed on a regular basis.

        I would never stake my life on whether or not one of those things will properly operate

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          “I would never stake my life on whether or not one of those things will properly operate”

          Uvalde could use a man like Wayne. Yes, one can die laughing.

          Where you been? Hope it was fun.

          1. WayneS Avatar

            I would stake my life on the standard-issue 15-round magazines manufactured by FN for their FNX-45.

            RE: Where I’ve been:

            I’ve been out of circulation off-and-on for e few weeks, and it wasn’t exactly fun – an injured MCL, storm/tornado clean-up, illness that acted like Covid but wasn’t, wife sick from allergic reaction to food – it was one thing after another for a while.

            Things are looking up, though. We’re both feeling better, and this weekend I’ll be helping a buddy of mine and his sons resurrect one of my old race bikes (1990 Yamaha FZR-400) so the older of the two boys can [economically] try his hand at road-racing. The bike’s an antique, and will be down on power compared to it’s competition, but the FZR-400 remains one of the best handling street-going motorcycles ever built, and the young man is an outstanding rider so I think he will do okay with it.

            If he falls in love with racing (which both his father and I think will happen) we’ll work towards getting him set up with something newer and more competitive.
            It’s new territory for my friend and me – a second generation racer.

            So, are you interested in sponsoring a young up-and-coming road-racer? We’ll put your emoji and screen-name on the bike.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Geez, who’d you piss off? Egypt and the pharaoh had it easier. As to Covid-like, both of us came down with some weirdness in March. Both sick, both tested negative twice from two different kits, and yet another couple who rode with us to a wedding came down with Covid. It weren’t me! I swear to God! We recovered in 4 days.

          3. WayneS Avatar

            Geez, who’d you piss off?

            I’d sure like to know.

            Fortunately, our only outstanding issue is that I’ve still got a couple more weeks in a large leg brace before I find out whether I’m going to need [another] surgery on my knee.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Demand Physical Therapy! Squeeze every fricking dime for it out of whatever insurance company you can. PT makes a vast difference in outcomes.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            If I had it to do over, I’d have bought my daughter a 125cc rather than a horse. I did not know at the time the harm’s way into which she went. Being somewhat sexist, but borne out by numbers, our girls on horses are orders of magnitude more likely to suffer permanent debilitating injury than boys on motor cross.

          6. WayneS Avatar

            girls on horses are orders of magnitude more likely to suffer permanent debilitating injury than boys on motor cross.

            Yes. Yes they are. And, road racing is even a little less dangerous than motocross, and much safer than riding on the street.

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Two things contribute to the hazardous conditions, immunity, and traditionalism.

            Liveries and event sponsors are virtually immune from lawsuits in some 20 States. So jumps don’t really need to be made from safer materials, “Why hell, an old split rail resting on rusty spike is okay.”

            And traditional safety gear is highly praised by judges. You know, styrofoam pot covered in velvetine, leather boots, and a blazer for chest protection.

          8. WayneS Avatar

            girls on horses are orders of magnitude more likely to suffer permanent debilitating injury than boys on motor cross.

            Yes. Yes they are. And, road racing is even a little less dangerous than motocross, and much safer than riding on the street.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Btw, they were indeed idiots, but they laid down suppressing fire like pros…

          “Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried Norinco Type 56 rifles (a Chinese AK-47 variant), a Bushmaster XM-15 Dissipator with a 100-round drum magazine, and a Heckler & Koch HK91 rifle, all of which had been illegally modified to be select-fire capable, as well as a Beretta 92FS pistol.”

          1. WayneS Avatar

            Yup. And they are both dead.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            The fact they will die doesn’t stop them. I can still remember the one guy unloading through the police car. That was a 100-round magazine working perfectly.

  9. Matt Adams Avatar
    Matt Adams

    Lets unpack shall we, this article.

    1) “In 2020, rifles accounted for 3% of firearm homicides in the U.S. That, of course, is small consolation to the families who lost their loved ones in recent horrific events and should not diminish the fact that the U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence in the world” That is an emotional appeal and should be disregarded, if you are unable to invoke facts to make a coherent and rational argument, you have no business making an argument to begin with.

    2) No, firearm violence is not anywhere near it’s rate in the 90’s. Hyperbole is just that, an appeal to emotion and should be disregarded.

    3) An AR-15 is a platform, it is not a specific firearm. The continued denotation that is it a specific rifle just means you’re ignorant of the topic you speak. Which also means you shouldn’t speak on it, most politicians think they know things, but frankly they don’t and just had enough money to get elected and fool low IQ voters.

    4) Semi-auto firearms have been around since the 1800’s. The care about them now is that they are as popular now as a colt peacemaker was in the 1800’s.

    5) 100 rnd magazines are a novelty, they don’t work. The spring tension required for the drum doesn’t exist and you’ll spend more time conducting S.P.O.R.T.S than anything else.

    6) It’s a magazine not a clip, a clip was used on an M1 Garand and that is significantly more lethal than a 5.56 semi auto rifle.

    7) Background checks are already universal, you are just unware of the law. You also use the buzzword of “universal” because frankly you’re again ignorant.

    8) It’s already against VA law to not store your firearms properly. VA 18.2-56.2

    9) Magazine capacity has nothin to do with how lethal a firearm is

    10) A semi-auto firearm discharges as many bullets as you can pull a trigger.

    11) A slam fire shotgun will cause significantly more damage than a 5.56 a close range as well as a lever action 30-30 and those can be fire as fast if not faster than an AR-15 platform rifle.

    12) In case you weren’t aware the SCOTUS just made making a reason to carry a firearm illegal, just because NY’s law stood for 100+ years didn’t make it Constitutional.

    13) Governor Terry McAuliffe was a POS who only sought to enrich himself, you’re lauding of him means you’re a worthless F’with.

    14) Finally, as per standard a Politician doesn’t understand the Constitution. Which means you shouldn’t be a Politician to begin with. You shouldn’t be near anything that has to do with individuals rights, because you’re a f’wtih.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Why do you find it necessary to personally insult people with whom you disagree?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        You really don’t know, do you?

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        So ignoring all those facts and going for the “insults”.

        Let’s be clear, insults are the trade of a good number of posters here, it’s even done in articles. They only time you complain about it, is when it’s against you. So that’s makes you a hypocrite.

        Furthermore, what really insults me is when people write articles and don’t spend anytime research them, which is evident when they invoke logical fallacies.

      3. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        It’s his god-given right!!! Do unto others because you think everyone else does it to you even if only contained in a published article.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          “James McCarthy Dick Hall-Sizemore
          10 minutes ago
          It’s his god-given right!!! Do unto others because you think everyone else does it to you even if only contained in a published article.”

          False, you’ve written articles that are nothing more than run in ad him attacks and 3/4 of your comments are the same. You have zero moral authority to make any statements contrary as neither does DHS, as he condoned y’all for doing the same.

          PS:. You just made an ad hom attack in your comment.

  10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    When I grew up, my state had a requirement that if you wanted to use your firearm to hunt deer, you had to have your license displayed on your person. My view point is if you want to hunt humans (i.e., carry in public) you should at least have and display a license to do so.

    1. Remember this fact…..more Fairfax police officers have committed bank robbery than county CCP holders

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Agreed. I believe the best way to stem the misuse of guns is to permit them for public carry (both concealed and open). How else do we ID the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns? Permit holder rarely commit crimes with their guns just like licensed hunters rarely poach game.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          If people would actually wear their guns, it would affect others.

          I know when I see someone with a gun, I leave the area.

          If I was in a restaurant or bar and in comes a group wearing guns, I’m outta there….

          I’m not alone and I notice that judges and courtrooms and airlines also don’t like folks with guns… sure 999 of them are upright citizens, but then the 1000th one comes along… and kaflooey.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Wilson was brutal, you can mine his stuff for a long time. Booth and his crazed cats would provide material too.:)

  11. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    There was some good in the Virginia law changes in 20/21, it was reinstating the one handgun a month limit. The prior iteration of that restriction moved Virginia from the top of the crime handguns recovered on the east coast to near the bottom. Since hand guns are used in around 97% of murders by criminals it was very tightly targeted at the problem and had minimal impact on honest people.

    Project Exile also seemed a positive effort and again tightly targeted at criminal use of guns.

    Those two pieces of the “Virginia Plan” would seem to be useful to the nation.

    One of the changes that was less useful was the definition of an “assault weapon” as a rifle with a magazine that holds more than 20 rounds. It did not appear that “assault weapons” were otherwise referenced or larger magazines regulated in the legislation. I do not know the legislative history, but it smells like that was a compromise between 10 round advocates and the very common 30 round magazines and a precursor for subsequent legislation.

    We can be glad Toscano is no longer in the GA. Most of what he writes on guns is ill-informed nonsense. His proposition that the failure of police at Parkland and Uvalde to do their jobs is a reason to deprive 300+ million honest Americans of Constitutional rights is bizarre. We can also thank the Court for its reaffirmation of the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment.

Leave a Reply