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

a reply to: Riffrafter

You didn’t fill out a questionnaire that is Form 4473 so the salesman could sell you the S&W? In either paper or electronic format?

A private person to person sale, the form isn’t required in some states. But at a gun store, always.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Fyi - they haven't dropped the bans on "assault weapons" or high cap mags - there is still an active house bill they are pushing that bans all of the above plus any semi auto firearm that can accept mags that hold more than 10 rounds. The house bill also has grandfathering but only if you apply for a permit and fully register your banned items.

The fight is far from over and many eyes are on what happens on Monday Jan 20th.

I just moved to VA from TN and it saddens me the disregard that some elected officials show for the Constitution and citizens of this state.

Ironically, the state flag bears the motto "Sic Semper Tyrannis"

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Riffrafter

You didn’t fill out a questionnaire that is Form 4473 so the salesman could sell you the S&W? In either paper or electronic format?

A private person to person sale, the form isn’t required in some states. But at a gun store, always.

I didn't fill out a thing. He may have, as I do remember him asking me some basic questions and then I did have to sign 1 or 2 forms before completing the purchase, but I expected there to be something that would have to be signed anyway so it barely registered with me. I do remember that it definitely wasn't onerous by any means.

I'm sure it may even be easier to purchase a handgun in some other states, but I honestly can't imagine how. Either way - the purchase was quick, painless and pleasant. The way it should be for law abiding citizens of the USA.

I know the mere thought of the ease of that handgun transaction probably makes certain people apoplectic - but hey, that's their problem - not mine.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: rickymouse

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.

It was harder to get a gun in Michigan, you need to go to the police department and get checked out. The cop who met with you could deny your ability to purchase the gun if you acted like someone who might be a problem. Criminals didn't even bother, they paid the extra money and bought them on the blackmarket. I knew someone who sold those illegal guns years ago, he asked me if I wanted to buy one. I asked how much and he told me, I told him I could buy one brand new at the gunstore for half the price. He said these guns are for people who cannot get a legal gun so they are way more expensive.

Think about that, the Criminals can get guns if they have the money, the money comes from robbing others or doing illegal things sometimes.

Now, you can buy a gun from a FFL dealer without getting a permit to purchase, so you never actually meet the cop who can assess you now in michigan, unless you are buying it from someone who is not a licensed dealer. I am not fond of that, some of the people working in the Firearms stores are out there to make a sale, someone can come in with someone else's ID and get a gun. The gun needs to be registered at the police station but that is after the person has possession of it and I would bet that there are people out there that never follow through since they are not the person they are supposed to be.

I remember when we used to have to sign to buy bullets from the stores, shotgun shells did not require a signiture. I saw no problem with signing for bullets, but some people did. I bought my first gun when I was thirteen, a shotgun from an old guy I worked with cleaning a business with my parents. It was a family job, same with the farm. I had three guns by the time I was eighteen, my father would pay half if I paid half. An incentive to work. But if I were careless with a gun I got it taken away, my father was very particular about safety and responsibility with guns. I am the same way. Most of my friends were a little careless with guns, but then again I was shooting a shotgun and twenty two rifle when they were shooting bb guns.

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.

I recently (until June of 2108) lived in VA for a period of about 5 years. For a number of reasons, I decided to buy a handgun. Here's how hard it was:

I walked into a local pawn shop and saw a really nice Smith & Wesson 9mm for sale at a great price - $350.

I decided to buy it.

The clerk took my ID and asked me to wait a few minutes so I browsed around the store for a short while. After about 10 minutes, he came back handed me back my ID and said - "You're all set. Cash or charge and would you like a holster with that". VA's background check is simply to ensure you've never been convicted of a felony.

I bought a comfortable nylon holster for it for $29. I paid, put the holster on my hip and the gun in the holster and walked a few stores down to a sporting goods store and bought 100 rounds of 9mm ammunition. I loaded the clip (and put one in the chamber) put the gun back in the holster and walked out. VA is an open carry state. Total time from first walking into the pawn shop to walking down the street with the loaded gun on my hip - 30 minutes. It was the first and only gun I've ever purchased. God bless the great state of VA. It took far longer to get NY/NJ to process the paperwork so that I could bring it with me when I came to visit.

a reply to: Riffrafter

In states that are not trying to turn their citizens into serfs, it is an easy process. But that can change quickly after an election as is happening in Virginia now and coming soon in Ohio, just not as draconian laws are proposed. And to be fair, Virginia has backed down a little.

Yeah I plan on doing a thread about it sooner or later. Just have to do it in such a way as to not be an endorsement due to the T&C’s and waiting on a certain milestone as well.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Come back to Tennessee. You're always welcome!

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.

Hoc ergo est.

'First this, then that.'

How about, 'No, Scott'?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Hoc ergo est.

'First this, then that.'

How about, 'No, Scott'?

Are you talking about precedence being set? I don't know those foreign words.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Definitely in the cards - family is up here so will see how things pan out first.

I saw VCDL just got their lawsuit filed regarding the Governors recent emergency action...

originally posted by: rickymouse

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.

The FED can, and has, banned several types of guns and the list will continue to grow.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed a tax on the sale and manufacture of NFA firearms as well as on persons who engaged in importing/exporting/sales/manufacture of those weapons. Though primarily a tax overseen by the Treasury department, the legislative history of the act shows its purpose was to limit, if not prohibit, the manufacture and transfer of firearms named in the act.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 redefined "firearms" by adding "destructive devices", and also expanded the definition of "machine gun", and included various suppressors and silencers.

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to prohibit the transfer or possession of machine guns - as defined by the amended legislation, and amended the definition of a silencer to include any parts that are part of a silencer, can be used as part of a silencer, or used to manufacture part of a silencer.

These are all federal laws limiting or prohibiting various types of firearms.

a reply to: Ahabstar

No it was NOT about gun confiscation. Tombstones ordinance did NOT confiscate guns - not even close. It was an ANTI OPEN CARRY that applied to the city limits ONLY.

To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons

Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance.
— Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 Effective April 19, 1881,

Notice that Tombstone was in the Arizona Territory at the time - under the control of the Federal Government - not a State. At the time the Bill of Rights was considered to not apply to the States, only the Federal Government (see Barron v Baltimore 1833).

SO, Tombstone was controlled by the Feds who were absolutely constrained by the 2nd Amendment, yet in the 'Wild West' of the American frontier there was NO concept of the unlimited 'right' to bear arms where ever and when ever.

Tombstone was being held to ransom by the outlaws - the Clantons were cattle rustlers and smugglers - and the Earps while no angels when it came to trying to bring them under control were at least on the side of the legitimate civilians in Tombstone.

Yes it was personal between the Clantons and the Earps, and both the Clantons and the Earps knew there would be a confrontation. The Clantons challenged the above quoted law specifically to bring on that confrontation.

At the end of the day, the OK Corral shootout was about ending the scourge of rustling, thievery, smuggling and general intimidation by the gang of 'cowboys' headed by the Clantons.

Note: 'cowboys' was the pejorative term for cattle rustlers at the time. Legitimate cattle industry workers were called 'cow punchers' or 'ranchers' at the time. 'Cowboys' came to mean something entirely different later.

a reply to: rnaa

They claimed that they put up their hands and didn’t fire on the Earps as well, with witnesses. Which of course was proven false. But the Earps were enforcing the Tombstone ordinance by confiscating their guns that they had on them. That was the confrontation, to remove and hold their guns.

Make them pay for the guns?
so a nice new shiny gun! $5000 ?
not a bad price to give UP the 2nd amendment.
how much for the rest? $10,000 for the first?

for them dumb! this is sarcasum.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Riffrafter

In states that are not trying to turn their citizens into serfs, it is an easy process. But that can change quickly after an election as is happening in Virginia now and coming soon in Ohio, just not as draconian laws are proposed. And to be fair, Virginia has backed down a little.

Yeah I plan on doing a thread about it sooner or later. Just have to do it in such a way as to not be an endorsement due to the T&C’s and waiting on a certain milestone as well.

I look forward to that thread..And again I'm not some "bang the drum loudly" NRA supporter, I just wanted to share my one & only experience with my purchase of a handgun in VA.

With said, I should also have mentioned there are some limits and caveats to VA's Open Carry law/policy in that there are municipalities and places that have denied and/or banned open carry - most for the right reasons based on the location, venue or event. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

Common sense and a modicum of safety should always rule the day.

The problem is, as many have pointed out - those kinds of "restrictions" are often seized upon by the anti-gun lobby which then tries to use them as a wedge or starting point, for far more permanent draconian restrictions thus setting up the inevitable conflict with the pro-gun lobby.

The biggest problem we have in America on many issues - not just this one - is that we allow the fringe elements on both sides of these issues to take over and dictate the terms of the discussion of that issue, so all the average person is left with is a lot of noise - not substance, not facts, not intelligent dialogue - just f#cking noise.

I for one, am sick & tired of it.

Sorry for the rant. We now return you to your regularly scheduled whatever...

Of the original five bills, three have passed the Virginia Senate and are on the way to the House. The three are:

1. Only one hand gun purchase per 30 days. (Hampers purchase of private property)
2. Localities can ban guns from public events (which overturns a current law)
3. A background check is required on all private transfers. (No more person to person sales of private property without a licensed mediator to perform the background check)

Northam also has a host over other bills for the future including:

No indoor gun ranges in businesses with more than 50 employees (NRA Headquarters as an example)
What appears to be a variation of Ohio’s “Pink Slip” and “Red Flag” proposals. (Similar language, same effects)
A 24 hour window to report lost or stolen firearms. (no more losing them all in a strange boating accident)


I would not doubt for a second there isn’t a “stockpile” law in there limiting amount of ammo by caliber somewhere. Or a strict classification as to what is a legal firearm by make and model. To eliminate future models like the 1986 gun control law did.

So have we talked about the fact that Antifa is going to turning out in support of the 2nd Amendment advocates?

What about the fact that Democratic Socialist who is opposed to the proposed laws will not be present to vote because of credible threats on his life from the Right?

a reply to: Ahabstar

Disgusting. I don't even live in Virginia anymore, and I'm still frustrated by this. If this all passes in Virginia, it won't be long until other states follow.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm worried Antifa is going to cause a scene that's going to make the 2A supporters look bad. The media is alreading churning out stories that 2A supporters are mentally ill and racist.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I thought I read they still have an ammunition tax going through as well which, if high enough, is tantamount to a ban in its own way.