Name: Gun rights activists sue to block Virginia's universal background checks law
Brand: richmond.com
SKU: richmond-com-23
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Gun rights activists sue to block Virginia's universal background checks law

preview

Your sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsSALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsYour sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsSALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsYour sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsYour current subscription does not provide access to this content.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsPlease to continue reading.×We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.You are the owner of this article.© 2020 Lee BHM Corp.|Gun rights activists have filed another lawsuit challenging Virginia’s soon-to-become-law gun control measures, this time challenging expanded background checks.The lawsuit from the Virginia Citizens Defense League and five other plaintiffs was filed late Monday afternoon in Lynchburg Circuit Court. It argues that the law, which is set to take effect July 1, violates residents’ constitutional rights by making them subject to background checks.The measure, one of seven big-ticket gun control laws the General Assembly passed this year, had some bipartisan support in the legislature.“The restriction that would be imposed by [the background checks law] is not just any type of infringement of a right that ‘shall not be infringed,’ but it is also a grossly overreaching infringement on the right of Virginians to keep and bear arms,” the lawsuit says.“In effect, it tells law-abiding Virginians that they cannot exercise their right to keep and bear arms until both the commonwealth of Virginia and the federal government first have actively interceded and decided that it is permissible for them to do so.”The lawsuit seeks an injunction and a ruling that the new law is unconstitutional.“Background checks are critical to ensuring that firearms stay out of the hands of dangerous individuals,” said Charlotte Gomer, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Mark Herring. “Similar laws have been continuously upheld in court and Attorney General Herring looks forward to defending Virginia’s new expanded background checks law against the gun lobby’s attacks.”Gomer added: “This and other gun safety measures were put in place to keep Virginians and their communities and loved ones safe, and that remains Attorney General Herring’s top priority.”The VCDL, the group behind January’s gun rights protest in Richmond that drew more than 20,000 people, also filed a lawsuit this month challenging the legislature-approved law that limits people to buying one handgun per month.A hearing in that case is scheduled for Thursday.(804) 649-6012Twitter: @jmattingly306×××The problem with our back-ground check system is two fold... First, there is a matter of the gun show loophole which NRA PROPAGANDIZED morons say doesn't exist... It does exist... That's why governor's of northeastern states have repeatedly written our governor's over the years to close the loophole... Second, we used to give the feds more time to conduct the checks... If I recall it was 7 days... The NRA had that provision destroyed so that no matter who wants to buy whatever WMD they want if the feds don't complete their end in 24 hours then the sale goes thru... Of course, the problems with data bases falls on states but that is no excuse... If the data base is not up to snuff all the more reason to restore the 7 day provision.... And, of course, there is also the matter of arming people with military style weaponry... But that's another subject not related to this piece... ~~~ BobBob, there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". That is ahti-RKBA rhetoric that has *ZERO* basis in reality. As private citizens, we are able to transact sales of firearms wherever it is legal to possess them - including gun shows.With the NICS background checks being a computerized system, there is no valid reason for delaying a transaction. There is a three day hold, if the electronic system finds multiple matches to the information provided in the system, allowing time for an actual LEO to review the data. The reason for this is if John Smith in Richmond, VA, is purchasing a firearm and there is a prohibited person with a similar name in Richmond, VA, it will kick out as a match, furthering review. That is not to say that John Smith is a prohibited person, just that there is a prohibited person with that same name. There are other issues related to the data queried, too, but none that makes an innocent person not legally able to purchase and possess a firearm."[A]rming people with military style weaponry". The muskets used by the colonists during and after the Revolution were actual military weapons. The Garand, used during WWII and the Korean War is also a military weapon. Civilians can and do own them today. Same with the 1911 pistol, and numerous other actual military weaponry. However, the AR-15 and its variants has *NEVER* been a military weapon. It was specifically sold as a civilian sporting rifle beginning in 1963. Comparing power, the AR-15 is a medium-powered rifle, whereas many hunting rifles are *HIGH-powered*. Looking like a military weapon does not make it such. If that were true, then many Airsoft rifles could also be claimed to be military weapons, as well as many bb and pellet guns.Now, back to the "Universal" Background Checks (UBC). It is already illegal for prohibited persons to even attempt to obtain a forearm - by *ANY* means. As they already do not obey that law, how is it that you believe they would obey a law requiring they get a UBC before illegally obtaining a firearm? Will they leave the completed form in your home after they have stolen your firearms? Or call it in before they leave your home?There is one other issue with UBCs and prohibited persons that I explained in my original post about prohibited persons not being required to self-incriminate under the 5th amendment.“Background checks are critical to ensuring that firearms stay out of the hands of dangerous individuals,” said Charlotte Gomer, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Mark Herring. - Total non-sense.So, as I already own firearms, have had innumerable backgrounds checks, and have a CHP, but somehow my purchasing another firearm is just to ensure I am legally "allowed" to own *another* firearm?These people are so far removed from reality. Prohibited persons cannot legally obtain, possess, nor use firearms, but these anti-rights politicians believe they will go through a process that requires they get a background check? I don't recall the law that was passed stated that these prohibited persons are required obtain a background check before they illegally obtain firearms. These prohibited persons, too, have a 5th amendment right not to self-incriminate, which means that even if they were required to obtain a background check before/during illegally obtaining a firearm, their 5th amendment right would absolve them of that requirement. What this laws does do is put one more impediment, time and money, on those that follow these laws, and those that are lawless will continue being so.Because every lunatic and criminal deserves his or her own AR 15.Adrian, I will assume, based on your ignorant, snide remark, that you are unaware of current firearms laws, specifically the one that bars prohibited persons from obtaining, possessing and using firearms. Those same individuals that do illegally obtain, possess, and use firearms, are breaking existing firearms laws in doing such. Requiring that they get a background check when they are already not getting their firearms through legal means is not going to change that. Even if they were *required* by law to obtain a background check before illegally obtaining a firearm, that would be against their 5th amendment right to not self-incriminate. The SCOTUS made a similar ruling years ago regarding a state law requiring registration of firearms, ruling that a prohibited person, due to their 5th amendment right to not self-incriminate, was not required to register their firearms, but law-abiding citizens still were required. If that makes sense to you, then I can understand why you posted what you did.Criminals do not legally buy their firearms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is wrong with the background checks already in place???Jeffery, obviously to the sentient, nothing, except that those, too, infringe on our rights by requiring government pre-approval of our exercising a Constitutionally-protected right, one in which it is clearly stated "shall not be infringed." They fact that the government has been infringing on our inalienable RKBA since the 1934 NFA does not make further infringements acceptable.It wasn't until the 1938 FFA that felons were prohibited from their RKBA. Since then, many more categories of people have been added to that list, and more firearms, parts, and accessories, have also been added to the list of controlled or banned items. That is the so-called slippery slope we are fighting an uphill battle against.The issue with them is that they aren't universal. Sure, maybe in your hypothetical instance, a criminal cannot legally buy a gun but in Virginia all it takes is one stop at the Dixie Classic Gun Show when it comes to town and they not only have access to the wide range of guns there but can purchase them legally. The gun show loophole is real and should be closed. And that's coming from a former card carrying NRA member and the owner of numerous firearms.Jeff, no, that is not true. All FFL dealers are required by law - anywhere they sell firearms - to conduct background checks. Private sales, until the law comes into effect, could be conducted at gun shows. However, I have yet to see a private sale at a gun show. I do see people carry around their favorite old rifle, as a means of getting into conversations with people. Also, LE data has shown that very few prohibited persons illegally obtain firearms at gun shows, likely due to the fact there are many LEOs and ATF agents at them."[...] but can purchase them legally." No, prohibited persons are not able to *legally* purchase firearms *ANYWHERE*. By law, they are disbarred their RKBA; they cannot legally obtain firearms - by any means, nor possess, nor use firearms - all is illegal for prohibited persons."[C]oming from a former card carrying NRA member and the owner of numerous firearms." If that statement were true, you would know the first part of your post was pure bs.If they are buying a gun at a gun show and not filling out background paperwork, it's because they are in the parking lot buying a gun out of the guys trunk.Jeffrey, I have already addressed the legality of purchasing firearms. It is legal wherever one is *legally* allowed to possess a firearm. Prohibited persons are not *legally* allowed to obtain firearms - by any means, anywhere. Kind of like passing a law requiring a background check to purchase any drug. I suspect those illegally buying drugs would not get the required background check, but is certainly would inconvenience those that buy legal drugs.Please keep it clean, turn off CAPS LOCK and don't threatenanyone. Be truthful, nice and proactive. Comments cannot be editedor deleted once posted. To flag a comment to the pageadministrator, click “report” next to that comment.Your sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsSALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsYour sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsSALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsYour sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsYour current subscription does not provide access to this content.SALE!Only $3 for 3 Months{{title}}{{summary}}You don't have any notifications.Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.Topics

Your sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsSALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsYour sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsSALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsYour sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsYour current subscription does not provide access to this content.SALE!Only $3 for 3 MonthsPlease to continue reading.×We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.You are the owner of this article.© 2020 Lee BHM Corp.|Gun rights...

Gun rights activists sue to block Virginia's universal background checks law

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS