VA Democrats Drop AR-15 Confiscation After 1000s of NRA Members Storm the Senate

Virginia Democrats caved. Angry NRA members showed up at the Virginia Senate meeting yesterday, to protest Virginia's new gun laws, including an AR-15 confiscation bill.



Link to Video clip: twitter.com... edupree.com%2Fvirginia-ar15-nra%2F

The NRA asked members to flood the January 13, 2020, Virginia Senate meetings and ensure pro-Second Amendment voices drowned out those calling for gun control.

The Washington Free Beacon reports the presence of thousands of NRA members “appeared to have an impact.” Democrats withdrew a bill aimed at AR-15 confiscation and moderated other gun control proposals.

But NRA-ILA Virginia state director Daniel Spiker made clear the changes, though good, were not enough.

He said, “While there were some improvements to some of these bills, overall, it’s still bad legislation. Putting in more regulations and making it more onerous on the law-abiding citizens of Virginia is not something we stand for.”

LINK

I'm sure Democrats were also nervous about the tens of thousands of protesters (including militia members from other states) that were coming to Richmond to attend the 2nd Amendment rally on January 20.

If a state were to ban AR15s and planned on confiscating them, they should be forced to pay fair market value for the guns. That means if the gun is like new, they pay what was paid for the gun. If they were worn out, maybe a hundred bucks to three hundred bucks based on what the blue book is. Remember, the guns were bought when they were legal, if they change the law the state has to pay for them, not confiscate them. We never gave the government the right to rob the citizens, yes, they can tax us because we gave them that ability....although, I doubt if anyone actually voted to have our government tax us.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I don't believe those VA democrats felt intimidated by them. They just tried to save their jobs, and I think it's too late for them.

a reply to: Trueman

the govenors seat in va is limited to one term so does not apply to him in this case i am unsure how many terms state senators get though all i can find right now is west virginia trying to pass a term limits bill

originally posted by: rickymouse
If a state were to ban AR15s and planned on confiscating them, they should be forced to pay fair market value for the guns. That means if the gun is like new, they pay what was paid for the gun. If they were worn out, maybe a hundred bucks to three hundred bucks based on what the blue book is. Remember, the guns were bought when they were legal, if they change the law the state has to pay for them, not confiscate them. We never gave the government the right to rob the citizens, yes, they can tax us because we gave them that ability....although, I doubt if anyone actually voted to have our government tax us.

When you want something thats not for sale, you pay dearly for it. If the dems want them so bad, they should pay 5 times over cost. Put their money where their mouth is.
I have a PSA id gladly sell them for 2 grand.

originally posted by: rickymouse
If a state were to ban AR15s and planned on confiscating them, they should be forced to pay fair market value for the guns. That means if the gun is like new, they pay what was paid for the gun. If they were worn out, maybe a hundred bucks to three hundred bucks based on what the blue book is. Remember, the guns were bought when they were legal, if they change the law the state has to pay for them, not confiscate them. We never gave the government the right to rob the citizens, yes, they can tax us because we gave them that ability....although, I doubt if anyone actually voted to have our government tax us.

Sc**w that.

No gun confinscation, or onerous laws period. I have no problem with background checks, and a fee comesurate with the cost of that administration, but beyond that, a repeal of the second amendment would be required. It is called "The Bill of Rights" for a reason. It expressly insures American's right to bear arms. "Right" being the operative word.

Anyone who disagrees is free to try and change the Contitution. There is a built in mechanism to do that very thing. Any other way is inherently illegal, and should be summarily struck down by the SCOTUS, without debate.

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: rickymouse
If a state were to ban AR15s and planned on confiscating them, they should be forced to pay fair market value for the guns. That means if the gun is like new, they pay what was paid for the gun. If they were worn out, maybe a hundred bucks to three hundred bucks based on what the blue book is. Remember, the guns were bought when they were legal, if they change the law the state has to pay for them, not confiscate them. We never gave the government the right to rob the citizens, yes, they can tax us because we gave them that ability....although, I doubt if anyone actually voted to have our government tax us.

When you want something thats not for sale, you pay dearly for it. If the dems want them so bad, they should pay 5 times over cost. Put their money where their mouth is.
I have a PSA id gladly sell them for 2 grand.

If states start banning guns, guns will become an investment and the price will skyrocket. So, maybe the price will double from what you payed for it. My pistol cost five hundred bucks when I bought it new, it is slill like new and even used it is worth a grand right now, sixteen hundred bucks buys a new similar version.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: rickymouse
If a state were to ban AR15s and planned on confiscating them, they should be forced to pay fair market value for the guns. That means if the gun is like new, they pay what was paid for the gun. If they were worn out, maybe a hundred bucks to three hundred bucks based on what the blue book is. Remember, the guns were bought when they were legal, if they change the law the state has to pay for them, not confiscate them. We never gave the government the right to rob the citizens, yes, they can tax us because we gave them that ability....although, I doubt if anyone actually voted to have our government tax us.

Sc**w that.

No gun confinscation, or onerous laws period. I have no problem with background checks, and a fee comesurate with the cost of that administration, but beyond that, a repeal of the second amendment would be required. It is called "The Bill of Rights" for a reason. It expressly insures American's right to bear arms. "Right" being the operative word.

Anyone who disagrees is free to try and change the Contitution. There is a built in mechanism to do that very thing. Any other way is inherently illegal, and should be summarily struck down by the SCOTUS, without debate.

Here is the thing, the Feds cannot ban guns, but communities can say you cannot have them out unless you are going hunting or to a range, and there are rules that apply. The states have similar powers. But the states cannot actually confiscate your guns unless they somehow make you a criminal or you are using drugs that are considered illegal. They made cannabis legal here now but it is not legal at the federal level. Think about that. I do not use drugs anymore and have never been charged with using them in the past, but it would be easy for someone to plant it in my porch or in my car. They can make up something against anyone, plant something that is similar to a stolen item, there are lots of ways they can say someone lost their rights.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Trueman

the govenors seat in va is limited to one term so does not apply to him in this case i am unsure how many terms state senators get though all i can find right now is west virginia trying to pass a term limits bill

Its not limited to one term in Virgina, its no consecutive terms since 1830.
Can run again, after a term with another admin

a reply to: rickymouse

That might work on a targeted individual, or individuals, but en masse?

If a municipality, or even county tried that, they would, in most cases, suffer the consequences of a fleeing tax base at best, and end up incarcerating or even having to kill otherwise law abiding citizens at worst. Do you think that will fly?

Not only that, it wouldnt be long before only the criminal element would be armed, resulting in a huge increase in crime rates. Do you think other places would follow that example?

Look no further than Chigago to see how ineffective gun restrictions really are.

I don't know where you reside, but I would bet in most areas of the country, elected officials would quickly be replaced.

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: rickymouse

That might work on a targeted individual, or individuals, but en masse?

If a municipality, or even county tried that, they would, in most cases, suffer the consequences of a fleeing tax base at best, and end up incarcerating or even having to kill otherwise law abiding citizens at worst. Do you think that will fly?

Not only that, it wouldnt be long before only the criminal element would be armed, resulting in a huge increase in crime rates. Do you think other places would follow that example?

Look no further than Chigago to see how ineffective gun restrictions really are.

I don't know where you reside, but I would bet in most areas of the country, elected officials would quickly be replaced.

They only have to do it to maybe ten people in a town or area and thousands of people will see they cannot fight city hall and will hand in their guns. That is how it works. They find someone with a good reputation to set up, someone everyone knows would not do what they said he/she did.

a reply to: rickymouse

Rule is only be consent of the governed. If the people hold firm en masse, it will not work. VA was/is resisting en masse or signalling intent of same.

I see a sneaky post on twitter saying that the NRA gets no government funding... of course it doesn't, it funds government candidates though FFS, not that it is high in the government candidates funding pecking order though, that probably comes from foreign entities.

a reply to: Mach2
100% correct

a reply to: rickymouse

Nope there should just be no violation of the Constitution and no confiscation how about that instead.

Jaden

originally posted by: rickymouse
If a state were to ban AR15s and planned on confiscating them, they should be forced to pay fair market value for the guns. That means if the gun is like new, they pay what was paid for the gun. If they were worn out, maybe a hundred bucks to three hundred bucks based on what the blue book is. Remember, the guns were bought when they were legal, if they change the law the state has to pay for them, not confiscate them. We never gave the government the right to rob the citizens, yes, they can tax us because we gave them that ability....although, I doubt if anyone actually voted to have our government tax us.


My post is not directed at you.😊

If a state were to ban AR15s and planned on confiscating them, they should be forced to pay fair market value for the guns. 

1: they should never have challenged the 2'd amendment.
2: seems cyclical, you give up your AR-15, they'll use the tax money you paid to the state. Actually if the rifle was $1200.00, and you turn it in... you technically paid twice for the AR-15.

edit on 14-1-2020 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2020 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)

This was their plan all along...they came out with some over the top bills knowing they wouldn't fly. Now they take the most ridiculous stuff out and they encroach a little more. I'm sure the registrations are what they really wanted. Making it easier to target those guns next time. I hope VA doesn't give in one inch on this...guess we will see on the 20th and beyond if anyone even enforces anything.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Here is the thing, the Feds cannot ban guns, but communities can say you cannot have them out unless you are going hunting or to a range, and there are rules that apply.

That completely depends on the State Constitution wherein said community exists.

Gotta nip this crap in the bud. Next they'll be coming for our hand grenades and plastic explosives.

a reply to: rickymouse

Fair Market Value on a highly restricted gun is going to be WAY more than the original price. A pre-1986 transferable full autos usually start around $26,000. So an AR-15 in Virginia would probably start around $1500, maybe $2500 for extra bling like a forward grip and red dot sights.

Oh and good luck on regulating AR-15s brought in across state lines purchased in neighboring states legally. Which is exactly what would happen. Oh and there is a simple piece of plastic that can be added that can be printed on any 3D printer in about 20-30 minutes that converts any AR-15 to full auto. Expect to see those by the bucketload free with purchase of a magazine or ammo. I have even seen them as a keychain.