Virginia AG to end reciprocity with all other states.

[Knuckle Dragger]

So, Virginia can also refuse to recognize driver's and marriage licenses from other states as well?

Nope, different issues. Driver's licenses are recognized in all states because all states and Canadian provinces have signed on to Drivers License Compact, passing legislation to that effect. Marriages (of all types) are recognized, in part, under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause which applies to "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Driver's licenses, firearms licenses, electrician licenses, etc. are not generally considered to be "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings..."

Virginia is shaping up to be an interesting 'battleground' state. You have a generally pro-2A population with the two most important constitutional offices held by anti-2A politicians. This a great example of how the concept of fundamental rights do not (and should not) track to political ideology. Although Governor McAuliffe ran on a gun control platform, I don't believe that his election hinged on this issue. Don't be surprised if either, or both, of these folks are turned out of office when Virginian's realize that their reciprocity has been extinguished.

Vermont is an interesting model here. An uber liberal state (which I sometimes call my second home) with a near perfect record on gun control. Vermonters like things they way they are. They can stay liberal because most of the politicians know not to F with people's guns.

 

[Nickle]

Vermont is an interesting model here. An uber liberal state (which I sometimes call my second home) with a near perfect record on gun control. Vermonters like things they way they are. They can stay liberal because most of the politicians know not to F with people's guns.

It's easy to keep in place.

Gun laws are preempted by state law, even though the moonbats in Burlington have tried otherwise. They have to recharter to even try to change them, and the state isn't having it.

Even many of our liberals are armed here. Except Burlington of course.

Kowtowing to out of state political interests is pretty much political suicide here too.

Nicest thing about Burlington? It's so close to Vermont.

We've actually gotten BETTER on 2A rights. Suppressors are legal here now.

 

[timbo]

Nicest thing about Burlington? It's so close to Vermont.

 

[Dadstoys]

Nope, different issues. Driver's licenses are recognized in all states because all states and Canadian provinces have signed on to Drivers License Compact, passing legislation to that effect. Marriages (of all types) are recognized, in part, under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause which applies to "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Driver's licenses, firearms licenses, electrician licenses, etc. are not generally considered to be "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings..."

Virginia is shaping up to be an interesting 'battleground' state. You have a generally pro-2A population with the two most important constitutional offices held by anti-2A politicians. This a great example of how the concept of fundamental rights do not (and should not) track to political ideology. Although Governor McAuliffe ran on a gun control platform, I don't believe that his election hinged on this issue. Don't be surprised if either, or both, of these folks are turned out of office when Virginian's realize that their reciprocity has been extinguished.

Vermont is an interesting model here. An uber liberal state (which I sometimes call my second home) with a near perfect record on gun control. Vermonters like things they way they are. They can stay liberal because most of the politicians know not to F with people's guns.

I think Bernie missed that memo.
He blames any pro gun votes on having to represent a "Rural" (Translate, hicks) population.

 

[wmass]

Nicest thing about Burlington? It's so close to Vermont..

this line is perfect! Eventually I plan to make my way back to the Bristol area.

 

[Nickle]

this line is perfect! Eventually I plan to make my way back to the Bristol area.

Bristol? Dwarven1 and Luv2BFree are both in Starksboro (specifically Jerusalem) and I'm in Bristol myself, about 4 miles south of town. I'm thinking you already knew that.

I may have posted that one, but I can't take credit for it. I got it from an Ed Bigelow.

 

[Coyote33]

So, Virginia can also refuse to recognize driver's and marriage licenses from other states as well?

Great point.

One license to drive in all the states one to carry.... One can always dream!

Change it to "One license to drive in all the states one to carry.... One can always dream!", and see what happens.

If we agree that the 2nd Amendment gives me a constitutional right to bear arms, why is that right any different when I go from one state to another?

Would you grant me free speech in MA, but then deny that right in NH or CT? Hey, if I want free speech, I don't have to travel to NH or CT, right?

Nope. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Nor do they license speech.

The right to bear arms is not a state's right. It is an individual right enumerated in the Constitution, one that neither the federal government nor state governments has any authority over. I feel like people who champion states rights don't even understand it.

The federal government has certain powers granted to it in the Constitution. The Constitution also list certain things no government has the power to do. All OTHER things that don't fall in these categories (bearing arms DOES fall in one), are delegated to the states or the people. It is not simply that the states have the right to do whatever they want.

So, how does this get made clear to them, in a legal manner?

Yes, that's why it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" instead of the right of the state to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately we have allowed our public servants to become our masters instead of keeping them within the constitutional limits they are supposed to abide by.

So, how do you propose to legally fix this?

I do tend to agree that the RKBA should not be infringed. If states require licenses to carry a firearm, however, it is well within their rights to not recognize licenses issued by other states. Push toward constitutional carry, not toward forcing states to recognize licenses issued by other states.

Good point there. Remove the ability to do what they do.

I think it's high time a reciprocity case is filed in Federal Court on the same basis as interstate gay marriage licenses. Use their own logic against them.

Wouldn't it be cool, if a gay person filed this firearms reciprocity case?

It's not well within their right. They have no right whatsoever to require a license in the first place.

So then what?

So let me get this straight, your position is that states are not granted the constitutional ability to infringe on the RKBA? But once they unconstitutionally do so they can then project that onto the citizens of other states who happen to travel within that state's borders? Seriously? You wrote that? Sober?

It may or may not be his "position", but it seems to be reality. What is your position?

Wow an AG trying to impose his view of gun control on his commonwealth's citizens regardless of the laws. Where does he think he is .... MA?

Ha. We can't even follow our own state Constitution here.

The solution is to vacation elsewhere. If everyone that cares about keeping their gun rights chose to go some place else for vacation, a number of local business would feel the pain and that would change the AG's mind quickly. Vote with your wallet

Yeah, you'll get what, 2 out of 400,000 people to do this?

My hope is that in my lifetime I get to see the day when I can carry anywhere in this country without needing special permission. Not going to hold my breath.

Again, change carry to marry, and see what happens? (Hint: It is happening.)

Nope, different issues. Driver's licenses are recognized in all states because all states and Canadian provinces have signed on to Drivers License Compact, passing legislation to that effect. Marriages (of all types) are recognized, in part, under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause which applies to "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Driver's licenses, firearms licenses, electrician licenses, etc. are not generally considered to be "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings..."
...

Why WOULDN'T firearms licenses fall into this realm?

 

[thorin]

Don't be surprised if either, or both, of these folks are turned out of office when Virginian's realize that their reciprocity has been extinguished. QUOTE]

I think the gov of VA is term limited to one 4 year term so McAuliffe doesn't have to worry about reelection; his term is up in 2018. It was an extremely close race last time and the R's had an unpopular candidate tainted with corruption, so the next election should be interesting. The AG however is not term limited and I would assume is running again in 2017.

 

[MachineHead]

I wonder how NRA HQ feels about the little slice of MA the Virginia AG has just served.

 

[rkwjunior]

If we agree that the 2nd Amendment gives me a constitutional right to bear arms, why is that right any different when I go from one state to another?

Would you grant me free speech in MA, but then deny that right in NH or CT? Hey, if I want free speech, I don't have to travel to NH or CT, right?

Nope. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Well that's the reality in todays world, certain politicians dont give a rats ass about our rights, Isnt that obvious by now?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Reversed !!!!

Va. will once again recognize concealed carry permits from other states

RICHMOND — Gov. Terry McAuliffe plans to announce Friday that Virginia will restore handgun reciprocity agreements with nearly all states, in a stunning reversal of a firearms policy that had angered Republicans and gun rights advocates across the nation.

McAuliffe ran on a gun control platform and had a strong endorsement from most gun control groups who tried to make the Virginia Governor's race about gun.

My favorite part:

In a Facebook message, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said McAuliffe has bragged about “his administration’s aggressive new approach to confronting the National Rifle Association.”

“Now he’s preparing to cave to them,” the message says. “As far as we are aware, there is not a single gun violence prevention advocate in Virginia who was informed about this deal before it was done. We all stand in opposition to it.”

CSGV is a truly evil organization.

 

[MachineHead]

Va. will once again recognize concealed carry permits from other states

McAuliffe ran on a gun control platform and had a strong endorsement from most gun control groups who tried to make the Virginia Governor's race about gun.

My favorite part:CSGV is a truly evil organization.

Good! I hope no one forgets any of this nonsense when the upcoming elections are upon us.

 

[loneranger]

Gov McAulliffe (D) compromised with state Republicans. From the Washington Post link

In exchange, Republicans will agree to a major concession: Anyone subject to a permanent protective order for a domestic violence offense will be prohibited from carrying a firearm for the two-year life of the order. The issue had been a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled General Assembly.

The agreement marks the first break in a logjam in the state over gun rights and gun control marked by heated rhetoric on both sides.

“Bipartisanship requires give and take by both sides,” said Matt Moran, a spokesman for House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford). “This agreement restores reciprocity for law-abiding Virginians while sending a clear signal about domestic violence. There’s a lot to like here.”

 

[minininjer]

Good! I hope no one forgets any of this nonsense when the upcoming elections are upon us.

Don't worry, we won't forget...

 

[bluedog-46]

That really surprised me of McCaullife. When I saw the post that he got republicans to cave on something it makes sense that he would have done it.

 

[Whutmeworry]

In exchange, Republicans will agree to a major concession: Anyone subject to a permanent protective order for a domestic violence offense will be prohibited from carrying a firearm for the two-year life of the order. The issue had been a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled General Assembly.

So, in one sentence they go from calling a domestic restraining order "permanent" to saying it is only temporary (2 years). Sounds about right for the Washington Compost...

 

[Nickle]

If folks would slow down and think about this for more than minute, You would see that it actually is a win for gun owners as anyone with a RO for Domestic violence or has been convicted of violating that order is a prohibited person federally.

Yup, in other words, they only conceded what was already Federally illegal.

It just allows Virginia to prosecute violations of this, in case the Feds won't.

Kind of like our new restriction law last year. State LEO's couldn't go after Federal violations via the state system. So, a law got passed that mirrored the same restrictions as Federal. No new criminals, as anybody subject to it is already subject to the Federal law. But, if the Feds decline to prosecute (and in VT, ATF has declined to go after prohibited possessors), now the state can go after them.

I figure that's a winning situation.

 

[Garys]

The Republicans gave very minor concession to get a very big one from McAulliffe. Especially since he is a Clinton crony and benefited from a lot of anti 2A money.

If folks would slow down and think about this for more than minute, You would see that it actually is a win for gun owners as anyone with a RO for Domestic violence or has been convicted of violating that order is a prohibited person federally.

 

[Nickle]

Based on that a person can be charged in state court for state violations and be charged in Federal court for the federal violations of the same nature and not be double jeopardy.

I think you'll find they can't charge twice over the same offense.

But, considering the people involved in this one, I really don't care if they get nailed twice. There are NO innocent people that fall under this.

 

[Bonesinium]

Based on that a person can be charged in state court for state violations and be charged in Federal court for the federal violations of the same nature and not be double jeopardy.

Yep. That is also total bullshit.

 

[Garys]

Tell that to the cops from the Rodney King case. They were charged (and convicted) by the Feds after the state jury acquitted them.

I think you'll find they can't charge twice over the same offense.

But, considering the people involved in this one, I really don't care if they get nailed twice. There are NO innocent people that fall under this.

 

[Bonesinium]

I'm not saying it can't happen, or that it hasn't been deemed legal. I'm saying that it is bullshit that it can. It's absolutely double jeopardy and the "different jurisdictions" is a bullshit excuse. You can disagree. I personally don't think expanding government power in contrast to the Constitution is a good thing no matter what the excuse given is.

 

[Lip]

I'm not saying it can't happen, or that it hasn't been deemed legal. I'm saying that it is bullshit that it can. It's absolutely double jeopardy and the "different jurisdictions" is a bullshit excuse. You can disagree. I personally don't think expanding government power in contrast to the Constitution is a good thing no matter what the excuse given is.

I agree.

 

[Bonesinium]

Who's arguing law?

But if I wanted to, I'd start here.

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; "

I fail to see the part that says "unless two different jurisdictions both claim authority".

 

[M1911]

I think you'll find they can't charge twice over the same offense.

But, considering the people involved in this one, I really don't care if they get nailed twice. There are NO innocent people that fall under this.

That's not my understanding. If the same action violates both state and federal laws, you can be charged in state court and also in federal court.

 

[namedpipes]

Based on that a person can be charged in state court for state violations and be charged in Federal court for the federal violations of the same nature and not be double jeopardy.

This is one of those areas where what you're saying is technically/legally correct but just isn't right.

It's not that I or anyone want truly guilty people to go free, but we also want to make it difficult for government to make life difficult for people it just doesn't "like".

 

[Whutmeworry]

"Anyone subject to a permanent protective order for a domestic violence offense will be prohibited from carrying a firearm for the two-year life of the order."

Ok. I guess I'm the only one confused about this. I can't figure out whether they're talking about a DRO or an actual misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction. there's a huge difference. If it's a DV Conviction then yes, it is permanent and they're simply codifying the federal law into state law. If it's just a DRO, then it shouldn't be "permanent".

 

[M1911]

This is one of those areas where what you're saying is technically/legally correct but just isn't right.

It's not that I or anyone want truly guilty people to go free, but we also want to make it difficult for government to make life difficult for people it just doesn't "like".

From one of my favorite TV movies:

Michelle Genest: You said stuff was legal or illegal. Well, what about it being right or wrong?
Jesse Stone: I'm not in the right and wrong business. I'm in the legal and illegal business.

 

[Bonesinium]

Sadly, not surprised. Gross though.

 

[Nickle]

Oh, I know that you will find that I am right as it is two different jurisdictions.

You might not be right, in detail.

Do I really like it? No, it's way too easy to abuse.

Does it serve a distinct and valid purpose? Sadly, yes, it does.

Because time and time again, the ATF has refused to investigate and prosecute prohibited possessors that were in possession of firearms. Not stupid BS "mala prohibita" things, but "mala per se" criminals, like rape, murder and child molestation. I know quite well of 1 case where a child molester and his accomplice committed perjury and lied to law enforcement, causing a decent guy to get convicted for a felony he really didn't commit (plea bargain involving no confinement or take a big risk of 15 years). It's an even longer story than this and the two criminals even tried to violate another person's rights (law enforcement got real smart and refused that one).

If the ATF were willing to do their job and prosecute real criminals, instead of making new ones, this kind of laws and prosecutions wouldn't be needed.

Tell that to the cops from the Rodney King case. They were charged (and convicted) by the Feds after the state jury acquitted them.

Tried and convicted for violating King's civil rights. Acquitted for 4 different charges by the state court. Not double jeopardy, as the charges were very different even if it was the same incident. So, this isn't the case here.

"Anyone subject to a permanent protective order for a domestic violence offense will be prohibited from carrying a firearm for the two-year life of the order."

And are therefore prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm for the duration of the protective order.

That is all that I was bringing out, It can happen, I have seen it happen, And on some real total arseholes I have done it.

Yup, I agree, on some people, it's just the right thing to do.

Seeing that ANYBODY subject to it has to have already been convicted of a crime to prohibit firearms possession already (GCA '68), I see no problem. Oh yeah, also those people that have restraining orders against them. I know, RO's get way overused, even when unnecessary. But, that's a separate issue.

All they really did was make people already Federally prohibited also state prohibited too. No new criminals can be made from it.

As to the double jeopardy part, well that also can be kept under control by honest judges and prosecutors (if you can find them).