VA AWB thoughts (Page 11 of 11)
You Must Be Logged In To Vote
|
Originally Posted By carmodyh: Would you be able to reference or elaborate on why they would be contraband? I don’t understand why this would be the case. Not a pointed question I’d just like to read more where I can. Thanks! It is pretty simple. There is a duly enacted law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that became part of the Code of Virginia on July 1. The only way that isn't an enforceable law is if it is ultimately declared to violate the federal or state constitution. If the litigation ultimately fails and the law is upheld, then it was always a valid law from 7/1 on, and firearms transferred in violation of it after 7/1 are illegal. Temporary injunctions don't really enter into the final analysis of whether the challenge succeeds or not. If the Supreme Court of Virginia ultimately concludes that the law is allowable under the state constitution, then that settles that issue. Such an outcome is likely, because by the time any of the litigation reaches the SCV, the democrats will have had the opportunity to replace at at least one of the conservative justices with someone they like better. The best chance of ultimate success is for the Supreme Court of the United States to favorably decide Viramontes, but it that goes the wrong way, I think the Virginia ban will ultimately be upheld. 
|
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 (ESV)
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: It is pretty simple. There is a duly enacted law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that became part of the Code of Virginia on July 1. The only way that isn't an enforceable law is if it is ultimately declared to violate the federal or state constitution. If the litigation ultimately fails and the law is upheld, then it was always a valid law from 7/1 on, and firearms transferred in violation of it after 7/1 are illegal. Temporary injunctions don't really enter into the final analysis of whether the challenge succeeds or not. If the Supreme Court of Virginia ultimately concludes that the law is allowable under the state constitution, then that settles that issue. Such an outcome is likely, because by the time any of the litigation reaches the SCV, the democrats will have had the opportunity to replace at at least one of the conservative justices with someone they like better. The best chance of ultimate success is for the Supreme Court of the United States to favorably decide Viramontes, but it that goes the wrong way, I think the Virginia ban will ultimately be upheld. Are you sure this is correct? I thought that Ex-Post Facto clauses prevent considering actions that were taken during an injunction providing relief illegal? |
Having a bayonet is the very definition of bringing a knife to a gun fight
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: It is pretty simple. There is a duly enacted law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that became part of the Code of Virginia on July 1. The only way that isn't an enforceable law is if it is ultimately declared to violate the federal or state constitution. If the litigation ultimately fails and the law is upheld, then it was always a valid law from 7/1 on, and firearms transferred in violation of it after 7/1 are illegal. Temporary injunctions don't really enter into the final analysis of whether the challenge succeeds or not. If the Supreme Court of Virginia ultimately concludes that the law is allowable under the state constitution, then that settles that issue. Such an outcome is likely, because by the time any of the litigation reaches the SCV, the democrats will have had the opportunity to replace at at least one of the conservative justices with someone they like better. The best chance of ultimate success is for the Supreme Court of the United States to favorably decide Viramontes, but it that goes the wrong way, I think the Virginia ban will ultimately be upheld. Well keep in mind next year the scotus will rule on an AWB and write an opinion on it. There’s a good chance the AWB will be ruled in violation of an earlier opinion that commonly available firearms can’t be restricted. |
|
Originally Posted By sydney7629: Are you sure this is correct? I thought that Ex-Post Facto clauses prevent considering actions that were taken during an injunction providing relief illegal? I know of no authority for the proposition you state. The prohibition on ex post facto laws means the government can't criminalize something you did before the law was passed. A temporary injunction does not implicate an ex post facto law. If you have a case that states otherwise, please post the citation, and I'll review it. |
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 (ESV)
|
Originally Posted By dalle0001: Well keep in mind next year the scotus will rule on an AWB and write an opinion on it. There’s a good chance the AWB will be ruled in violation of an earlier opinion that commonly available firearms can’t be restricted. Originally Posted By dalle0001: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: It is pretty simple. There is a duly enacted law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that became part of the Code of Virginia on July 1. The only way that isn't an enforceable law is if it is ultimately declared to violate the federal or state constitution. If the litigation ultimately fails and the law is upheld, then it was always a valid law from 7/1 on, and firearms transferred in violation of it after 7/1 are illegal. Temporary injunctions don't really enter into the final analysis of whether the challenge succeeds or not. If the Supreme Court of Virginia ultimately concludes that the law is allowable under the state constitution, then that settles that issue. Such an outcome is likely, because by the time any of the litigation reaches the SCV, the democrats will have had the opportunity to replace at at least one of the conservative justices with someone they like better. The best chance of ultimate success is for the Supreme Court of the United States to favorably decide Viramontes, but it that goes the wrong way, I think the Virginia ban will ultimately be upheld. Well keep in mind next year the scotus will rule on an AWB and write an opinion on it. There’s a good chance the AWB will be ruled in violation of an earlier opinion that commonly available firearms can’t be restricted. Yes. I acknowledged that in the final paragraph of my post. But the outcome is not certain. Let's say there is a 70-30 chance that SCOTUS gives a favorable ruling in Viramontes. Obviously a win would be awesome. But what if they don't? It is a real possibility, so I urge caution, or at least understanding the risk you are taking. |
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 (ESV)
|
I finally managed to hit the range today at Freedom Outdoors and did noticed they re-stocked the big magazine stand and are still selling ARs and AKs. I doubt VA will do anything in regards to people buying during the inunction period regardless of the outcome. If you buy it from the store legally and transfer it, they can't come back and say it's illegal now and take it. That would violate a lot of constitutional rights of self-incrimination, taking of property without just compensation, and illegal search and seizure. |
|
Originally Posted By dalle0001: I finally managed to hit the range today at Freedom Outdoors and did noticed they re-stocked the big magazine stand and are still selling ARs and AKs. I doubt VA will do anything in regards to people buying during the inunction period regardless of the outcome. If you buy it from the store legally and transfer it, they can't come back and say it's illegal now and take it. That would violate a lot of constitutional rights of self-incrimination, taking of property without just compensation, and illegal search and seizure. In the cases where injunctions were overturned like AWB or Mag bans in CA or IL they haven’t done shit to anyone that bought or sold restricted items while the injunctions were in place. IL state police have said that stuff is contraband but haven’t done shit and have no way to do shit. |
Be a hard-ass. Every day should be like his first day in prison, and he's all alone in the yard without a shiv.
|
Originally Posted By dalle0001:.....If you buy it from the store legally and transfer it, they can't come back and say it's illegal now and take it. That would violate a lot of constitutional rights of self-incrimination, taking of property without just compensation, and illegal search and seizure. Please tell me you're joking? Granted not VA, but the ATF has come after countless people for stuff they purchased legally, only to be declared illegal at a later date, bump stocks, Akins Accelerator, DIAS (questionable) and others. Again, not VA, but since the ATF has done it in the past and NOTHING was done about it, it isn't a far stretch for the VASP to do the same thing, could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it. |
|
Originally Posted By GE-Mini-Gun: Please tell me you're joking? Granted not VA, but the ATF has come after countless people for stuff they purchased legally, only to be declared illegal at a later date, bump stocks, Akins Accelerator, DIAS (questionable) and others. Again, not VA, but since the ATF has done it in the past and NOTHING was done about it, it isn't a far stretch for the VASP to do the same thing, could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it. You're talking about the ATF and their ability to interpretate the NFA by enacting what is essentially their own law in regard to whether something violates the NFA or not. Most courts already ruled that they cannot make their own laws without laws being passed. However, the courts ruling is a bit vague because it still allows them to use intention to violate as a way to make a charge rather than purely from simply owning it. In other words, there's a good chance you will have many other charges on top of the NFA violation for you to get charged. However, I have seen people get the police called on them for having FRT at my local range. I have witnessed it myself at least once where someone at the range was using it, and as I was checking out, I noticed the police arrived and was talking to the person. I'm not sure if they get charged or not. |
|
Originally Posted By GE-Mini-Gun: Please tell me you're joking? Granted not VA, but the ATF has come after countless people for stuff they purchased legally, only to be declared illegal at a later date, bump stocks, Akins Accelerator, DIAS (questionable) and others. Again, not VA, but since the ATF has done it in the past and NOTHING was done about it, it isn't a far stretch for the VASP to do the same thing, could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it. Actually reading into the AWB law, it is hard to tell exactly what one would "violate" in terms of post injunction. So the thing is that it doesn't say possession is illegal, so merely having what is defined as an AW is not enough for the police or VSP to actually make an arrest. If anything, the stores themselves would be more in violation of the AWB because it doesn't actually say the person who GOT the AW is the one in trouble but rather the person who made the sale or transfer of it would be in violation of it. On top of that, any sort of attempt to collect the firearm would be strictly voluntarily made because you are in POSSESSION of an AW, but until you actually attempt to make a sale or transfer of it, that is when you violate it. In all since you legally bought it from the person, it is not on you to determine if the sale of it is illegal or not since you are filling out both federal and state forms which would in theory determine if you are eligible to actually make the transfer and that any laws are not violated during that transfer. So like if Joe had an AR15 with all the scary stuff on it, and sold it to Bob, Joe is the one who is in violation of it because no where in the bill it says receiving or possession of it are illegal. Only way for Bob to get into trouble is if he admit to the fact he knew it was an illegal purchase but was doing so anyway. At least that's the way I'm reading it. |
|
Originally Posted By dalle0001: So like if Joe had an AR15 with all the scary stuff on it, and sold it to Bob, Joe is the one who is in violation of it because no where in the bill it says receiving or possession of it are illegal. Only way for Bob to get into trouble is if he admit to the fact he knew it was an illegal purchase but was doing so anyway. At least that's the way I'm reading it. You may want to re-read the bill. 18.2-287.4:1- "B. Any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor." Setting aside any uncertainty regarding the long term impact of the temporary injunction, if the law is found to be constitutional and in effect (which it should not be, but things certainly get twisted) the purchaser can be subject to the same criminal liability as the seller. If there's evidence to support going after the seller, there is likely the same evidence to go after the buyer. Again, hopefully this will all be rendered moot by SCOTUS, but it's by no means a done deal. Either way, Thomas and/or Alito's opinions will be awesome, be it as the opinion of the court or a dissent. |
Where There Are Sheep, Wolves Will Always Thrive
Joined:
Jan 2008
Posts:
10254
EE: 100% (38)
VA, USA
|
Granted not VA, but the ATF has come after countless people for stuff they purchased legally, only to be declared illegal at a later date, bump stocks, Akins Accelerator, DIAS (questionable) and others. Again, not VA, but since the ATF has done it in the past and NOTHING was done about it, it isn't a far stretch for the VASP to do the same thing, could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it. You should add the MKS M14s to that list as well- which is doubly interesting given the new CMP's M14 program. |
|
My opinion. The counter argument is that the firearm was purchased while the law was legally prevented from being enforced. The state of Virginia has to approve the sale via the VSP. If the injunction gets lifted and the ban goes back into effect, you have not purchased anything while the ban was in legally effect and possession is allowed under the ban. There are still a lot of purchases being made. Mass prosecution of the populace for these actions during an injunction is highly unlikely. I could see it being tacked onto something onesy twosy but then if the original charges are legit then they would be adding risk to the case by over prosecuting on less than solid grounds. In the end though the process is the punishment. As far as lawyers, I just went through a federal civil case. I consulted 4 different attorneys as consulting multiple lawyers was recommended and I got 4 different takes on my case. My divorce lawyer was wrong as well that I wouldn't get full custody and not pay alimony. |
|
Originally Posted By 1AEGW: My opinion. The counter argument is that the firearm was purchased while the law was legally prevented from being enforced. The state of Virginia has to approve the sale via the VSP. If the injunction gets lifted and the ban goes back into effect, you have not purchased anything while the ban was in legally effect and possession is allowed under the ban. There are still a lot of purchases being made. Mass prosecution of the populace for these actions during an injunction is highly unlikely. I could see it being tacked onto something onesy twosy but then if the original charges are legit then they would be adding risk to the case by over prosecuting on less than solid grounds. In the end though the process is the punishment. As far as lawyers, I just went through a federal civil case. I consulted 4 different attorneys as consulting multiple lawyers was recommended and I got 4 different takes on my case. My divorce lawyer was wrong as well that I wouldn't get full custody and not pay alimony. Ha finding a honest lawyer is hard because generally speaking they already know what will likely happen but they’ll try to make it scary sounding so you’ll hire them. It’s like those insurance accident lawyers… they know insurance will pay and will pay some cash to you but what better way than to make you thinking you’re getting way less than your worth by making you think you’ll get more with them not knowing they’re going to get a cut of the money. They also make it sound harmless and no risks using them with sayings like “no fees unless you win!” |
|
Originally Posted By bad2006z71: Google AI was interesting when I asked how Va's government will fuck over gun owners if SCOTUS strikes down AWB's. Basically it came up with what everyone already knows. Permitting, taxes, fees, mandatory insurance, mandatory training. You forgot banning suppressors. Banning SBR's, banning anything and everything they can. Banning guns by name. Liberals will find a way. I am OUT of this shithole in 30 days. And it cannot come sooner. Its not even the guns, I refuse to live alongside trash that vote for people like spanberger jones, lucas, salim saddam what the fuck ever his face is etc. I will not share a state with NoVa types. Done. 30 days. TN bound. |