Home Virginia Politics “A Victory for Gun Rights.” Really? Let’s Look at Some of Those...

“A Victory for Gun Rights.” Really? Let’s Look at Some of Those “Rights.”

251
4
SHARE

( – promoted by lowkell)

Many recent news reports have trumpeted the dismissal of a raft of gun violence prevention legislation as a “Victory for Gun Rights.”  Despite the fact that gun’s don’t actually have any rights, I would like to enumerate, for those not present at the General Assembly, a representative sample of exactly which “rights” were victorious as a result of these actions. Taking just the 12 bills that were dismissed last night, in House Militia, Police and Public Safety, as an example,

The following “rights” remain intact – with the demise of the bill attempting to repeal those “rights” listed, along with the Patron’s name:

HB2085 (Murphy) – Addressed the “right” of convicted violent abusers to maintain access to the very firearms that they may have been using to terrorize or dominate their family members.  This bill would have temporarily removed that right and subsequently allowed the abuser to restore their rights – even to remove the current lifetime prohibition imposed by Federal Law!  (Another case of, Fire, Ready, Aim, by the gun lobby working against their own interests – however, that is their “right”.)  In a surprise move, the subcommittee failed to accept a proposed substitute bill from the patron, due to the lack of a second. This was the first time I had seen that delicate maneuver in 8 years of watching sausage made!

HB2232 (Surovell) – Attempted to restrict the “right” for people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms, due to serious mental illness (think Cho), to be able to purchase, transport and possess ammunition. Presumably for the firearms that they are prevented from purchasing, transporting or possessing. (“Bullets don’t kill people, empty firearms kill people”)

HB1548 (Hope) – Attempted to rein in the “right” of deadbeat parents, who are delinquent on child support payments, to maintain, not just their firearms, but also their ability to carry one concealed in public. In order (we are told) to allow them to protect the lives of the children they are not supporting, despite the fact that they are most likely not living in the same home as those children.

HB1604 (Plum) – Attempted to roll back the “right” for people who have been legally stripped of their right to purchase, possess or transport firearms, to be able to purchase them anonymously from unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

HB1671 (Simon) – Attempted to revisit the “right” of firearms traffickers to forego the tedious process of taking straw buyers to various dealer locations and buying their “supplies” just one at a time, allowing them the unfettered ability to buy in bulk at one location. They can even forego a background check, should they choose to purchase large quantities from an unlicensed seller.

HB1801 Spruill – Attempted to ditch the “right” of unlicensed sellers at firearms shows to buy and sell firearms, in any quantity, while remaining totally anonymous and the “right” to display a sign indicating to potential purchasers that their particular weapons are being sold “No questions asked”.

HB 1864 (Rasoul) – Attempted to deep-six the “right” of unlicensed sellers at gun shows to remain anonymous, in order to conceal the fact that, despite many of them routinely buying and selling guns in large quantities, they are not “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms.

HB1904 (Lopez) – Attempted to repeal the right to allow an infant, or child up to the age of 4, to handle a loaded gun as long as a parent is present.  We are told that this is an essential part of firearms safety training.  (Perhaps as essential as the fire safety training that hands toddlers a can of gasoline and a box of matches).

HB 1909 (Lopez) – Attempted to ditch the “right” of individuals to sell, trade or possess any quantity of  large capacity magazines.  Apparently the limitation of just 3 such magazines per individual would inhibit their ability to fend off a large scale attack by multiple assailants – such as:  (sorry there have been no reports of such attacks on US soil).

HB1923 (Murphy) – This bill was tabled in response to the patron’s request for the bill to go by for the day. An unheard of display of breach of protocol (sarcasm)! The bill’s demise preserved the “right” of law abiding gun sellers to not have access to a background check on a prospective buyer, even if both parties wanted such a check.

HB1548 (Hope) – Got rid of the “right” of deadbeat parents, who are delinquent on child support payments, to maintain, not just their firearms, but also their ability to carry one concealed in public, in order (we are told) to allow them to protect the lives of the children they are not supporting, despite the fact that they are most likely not living in the same home as the children.

HB1997 (Morrissey) – Similar to HB1671 above, but the bill was dismissed without any public comment being allowed, because —– Morrissey!

In summary, you now know the type of “rights” that are being given precedence over the rights of ordinary citizens to go about their daily lives without fear. I assume that everyone reading this list will immediately see how,  “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, applies so obviously to the “rights” enumerated above. We can surely all image that those “rights” are exactly what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned those immortal words – or were they?

  • AndyG

    I meant no disrespect to Delegate Morrissey by my comment above.  In fact I was pointing out the disrespect shown to him by his peers.  I am not in that esteemed group of “sinless individuals” that feel so justified in “casting the first stone”. Delegate Morrissey earned the right to be a delegate in an open and fair election, however, it seems that some people do not recognize that he deserves the respect of his position, in which he continues to fight passionately for his constituents.

  • Del. Scott Surovell (D-Mt. Vernon) has a short comment:

    My supervisor since I was an Junior at West Potomac announced his retirement today. A dedicated public servant who really loved his job, put funding education above all, and leaves on his own terms. More later, but I am really going to miss working with Supervisor Gerry Hyland.

    I’d guess there will be a large field of Democrats vying for this seat. Hyland has represented the Mount Vernon District since 1988.

  • Quizzical

    not counting suicides.  Right on schedule.

    http://www.gunviolencearchive….