Virginia battles ahead...

A different approach?

The Culpepper County, Virginia Board of Supervisors has stated that it intends to declare the county a Second Amendment Sanctuary.

To further reinforce that concept, Culpepper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins has said that he will deputize "thousands of people" if the Virginia legislature enacts more and stronger anti-gun laws.

Quoting the sheriff:

"Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms."

Oh, and the sheriff has already been offering free concealed carry classes.

Interested forum members may read about this by clicking here.

sheriff%20jenkins.webp
 
I hear Hanover votes tomorrow, should go through without issue

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Bedford county had 1000 people at their meeting last night. Resolution was passed uncontested. Brothers in arms!!!!!
 
Declaring a county (or city) to be a Second Amendment Sanctuary in any state isn't anything other than a feel good action. Residents don't vote on them. County officials (most of whom are elected) pass these "resolutions" and "ordinances" in an attempt to convince their gun-owning constituents that they're doing something positive for them instead of wasting the county's tax dollars.

County prosecutors saying they won't prosecute gun law violations? They're employees, hired by the district attorney. They can be fired for failing to do their job. And the district attorneys themselves can be fired by the Attorney General.

County sheriffs saying they won't enforce gun laws? They're elected to office and can be removed from office by a state's governor for refusing to fulfill their duties. Just ask Broward County, Florida ex-sheriff Scott Israel about how that works. Speaking of Virginia, it wouldn't surprise me at all for Ralph Northam to fire any sheriff who won't do his job. A sheriff's job is to enforce the law, and 2A sanctuary city/county resolutions are not laws.

As others have said, and as even county officials and their legal advisors admit, these sanctuary resolutions hold no force of law. They sound great as pro-2A publicity gimmicks, but they wouldn't even come close to holding up in a court of law.


I agree.
Way too early to be optimistic.

It's all about changing demographics.
Even if we win this one, the Left will get most of what they want in the end.
 
Bedford county had 1000 people at their meeting last night. Resolution was passed uncontested. Brothers in arms!!!!!

For forum members interested in reading a story about the Bedford County resolution, click here.
 
Virginia now has 77 Sanctuary Counties out of 95.
Allowing the grandfathering of the proposed banned guns means we are giving away the rights of future generations. None of the proposals will impact crime in a positive sense. Politicians talk about common sense gun laws, but I haven't heard any yet.
 
Virginia now has 77 Sanctuary Counties out of 95.
Allowing the grandfathering of the proposed banned guns means we are giving away the rights of future generations. None of the proposals will impact crime in a positive sense. Politicians talk about common sense gun laws, but I haven't heard any yet.
Agreed!

The majority of counties, and I'm sure more will be added, have stated their opposition to further infringement. I really wish all this sentiment had been expressed on election day and I also hope that the Democrats are paying attention. Well, that last part might be a real stretch! The 1994 AWB failed to make any change in crime, but it gets trotted out time and time again. It is futile and only the law-abiding will abide and that is what makes it a fool's errand.
 
Democrat leadership is now saying that there will be grandfathering of existing, legally owned firearms. Sounds like they are now planning to resurrect the 1994 federal assault weapons ban.

It is not the 1994 federal ban:

"In this case, the governor's assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period," Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said in a statement Monday evening. "Additional details on this and all other bills will be announced prior to the start of the upcoming session."

This is what dems refer to as a "reasonable start".
 
Last edited:
It is not the 1994 federal ban:

"In this case, the governor's assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period," Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said in a statement Monday evening. "Additional details on this and all other bills will be announced prior to the start of the upcoming session."

This is what dems refer to as a "reasonable start".


So it's also a registration scheme. I also saw where Gov. Northam threatened consequences for any locality refusing to enforce any legislation that gets signed into law.


Chesterfield County board of supervisors refused to take a vote on this issue last night. The new board will be seated in January, perhaps they will have a little more spine.
 
Last edited:
Hanover voted yesterday to support the second amendment but they did not include the word sanctuary.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
It is not the 1994 federal ban:

"In this case, the governor's assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period," Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said in a statement Monday evening. "Additional details on this and all other bills will be announced prior to the start of the upcoming session."

This is what dems refer to as a "reasonable start".

This is not the 1994 AWB in more ways that one. The 1994 AWB grandfathered the weapons themselves, which meant that there was no prohibition from selling them to other parties. That ultimately does not take them out of circulation.

Registration is a means to potentially address that. Registration can have two very different meanings and outcomes. It can require the weapons to be registered, but still transferable - such as the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986.

However, more often than not "registration" in this context means that the grandfathered firearms are not grandfathered as a class, but rather grandfathered only to the registered owner. This means that while the government does not deprive you of your property, that property is no longer transferable, or at best is only transferable as part of an estate to direct descendants.

That's just a work around to avoid the appearance of a "taking" of private property that would require monetary compensation. None the less, registration used in that context does deprive you of the value of your property by preventing you from ever selling it.

The fact that the "details" will be provided later is a clear indication that the registration requirement will in all likelihood ban any transfer of the weapons, which then are effectively worthless as they cannot be converted to cash.

----

As an aside, from time to time I hear Reagan trotted out as some sort of ideal by pro gun folks. He was not. Not even close. He implemented the handgun restrictions in CA as governor, and he was complicit in the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986. That amendment banned new full auto weapons, and it was introduced at the 11th hour with almost no opportunity for debate - yet Reagan signed the bill anyway. He also lobbied hard for the AWB of 1994 after his presidency.

Reagan was pro law enforcement, not pro gun. His administration led the charge to militarize police forces due to his ramping up of the "war on drugs" and worse, the divisive nature of his media messaging on that war. We're still reaping the consequences of those actions in very negative ways.

Reagan was a classic example of a politician who said one thing to appeal to his base and then did another - repeatedly. It's never a good idea to judge a politician on what he says, instead we need to judge them on their actions. That's even more important now than it was in 1986.
 
Democrat leadership is now saying that there will be grandfathering of existing, legally owned firearms. Sounds like they are now planning to resurrect the 1994 federal assault weapons ban.


Northam-backed assault weapon bill will include 'grandfather clause' for existing guns - Virginia Mercury


NY style. They, the gun grabbers, not so effectively banned any new AR purchases and required registration of existing AR's after Newtown.

The compliance rate on registration is reportedly somewhere around 4-5%. :) The Gov will never talk about that.

New "featureless" rifles continue to be sold in NY.
 
Back
Top