Chesapeake becomes first HR City to protect 2nd Amendment & Constitutional Rights from Northam and Bloomberg



The language is not exactly what I would have liked, but Chesapeake is committed to going to court to oppose unconstitutional gun control laws, and under the VA Constitution, pretty much all of the prefiled bills are invalid before they are signed.

27 thoughts on “Chesapeake becomes first HR City to protect 2nd Amendment & Constitutional Rights from Northam and Bloomberg

  1. …”under the VA Constitution, pretty much all of the prefiled bills are invalid before they are signed.”

    So now the good dentist is a Constitutional scholar with such foresight he can predict what will pass even before the first bill is debated.

    The move by Chesapeake and the other counties that have passed such resolutions, will have zero meaning in the grand scheme of things. This is a Dillon rule state and the cities and counties can’t do squat without permission from Richmond. And if LE does not enforce the bills that are passed, they will be rightly removed form office and lose their pensions.

    VCDL has scared the gun owners into believing that the laws that may come out of the GA this year will take away their rights. It is the same scare tactic the NRA uses on a national level whenever a Democrat is about to be elected president. For those who donated money to the cause of VDCL, you have wasted your dollars. -IMHO.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This is an effort to fire up Trump support. I imagine that more than a few 2016 Trump voters (those with IQs >90) realize that he is damaging the country. Even if they thought the Executive should have less oversight, they can’t be happy with Trump’s abuses.

      The next 10 months are going to be abortion, guns, and god. Of course, they had SIX years controlling the executive and both houses since 2003, and they did squat about abortion, guns, or god.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I thought it used to be “gays, guns and God”.

        But, you are right. State control of the uterus is a number one issue among conservatives.

        “Fetus Uber Alice”.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Gay? What’s that? Nah, that issue needs to stew awhile before they kiss that rail again.
          The GOP discovered that by embracing Gay Rights, they became a little less self-loathing.

          Liked by 2 people

      1. Art I, Sec 13 is a recap of the 2nd Amendment enshrined in the Constitution. Your interpretation of what infringement means is different from mine. The key words, once again, are WELL REGULATED. If the 2020 GA decides to regulate things, then they are within their Constitutional rights and DUTIES to do so.

        As far as the prefiled bills go, some will pass and some will not. That is what is great about our system of government. When exercised properly, the power of compromise is a grand thing.

        Too bad not enough of our representatives remember that word.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Article I section 23 differs from the 2nd in that it explicitly separates the prefatory and active clause with the word “therefore” which make undeniable Scalia’s interpretation of the 2nd in Heller. In VA, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is explicitly not related to militia service. It stands alone and separate.

          Compromise is not a virtue when we are dealing with rights.


          1. “Compromise” ??

            In this context “compromise” is related to limiting “arms” relative to the public good (safety).

            For example, I’m sure your anti-tank weapons are registered…

            Liked by 1 person

          2. If I had anti-tank weapons, they most certainly WOULD NOT be registered.

            “Shall not be infringed” in both the US and VA Constitutions are the most clear and direct wording anywhere in the documents. There is no passive voice, it is direct and unequivocal.

            In Heller, Scalia allowed that there are some limits to where and what kind of weapons are covered.

            You can’t carry a handgun into a prison, or a courtroom, because of the danger the weapon might fall into the hands of a dangerous criminal.

            “Dangerous or unusual’ weapons can be regulated, but not weapons in general use for lawful purposes, including self defense. For example, we can limit the availability of land mines, as they pose a danger to unintended individuals who may not be a threat, and we can limit the availability of indirect fire artillery as you can’t choose your targets and they are too far away to be imposing a credible threat.

            However, SB16 would ban nearly all modern firearms as nearly any handgun or rifle can accept a magazine of over 10 round.s A Glock, for example, with a 10 round magazine would still be unlawful because larger magazines can be accommodated.


          3. If it is not related to militia service, then why use something explicitly about militia to make your point?

            And which section of Article 1 are you looking at now, 13 or 23? Talk about goal post moving. (OK, double checked and it is a typo on your part.) However, the word therefore does nothing to change the fact that there is no active militia under civilian control. There is the VANG and the weapons used by individuals that have volunteered for that service are controlled by the state. Ya know “well regulated”?

            And when was Art 13 written? Same time as the 2nd? Or at least in the same time frame? Again, an archaic law that requires updating to meet the needs of an ever-changing populace. It certainly was not written in July of 1971.

            Interesting how originalists, such as yourself, only like parts of the Constitution that don’t interfere with their mind sets. The Founders were adamant about the idea of impeachment and would, according to presidential and other historians, be building the gallows themselves if alive today, for Mr. Trump.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Yes that was a typo Article I section 13 was intended.

            Just because a ready militia was desired, that does not change the meaning of the operative phrase.

            ‘Fires on a boat at sea can be catastrophic, therefore, the right of the people to own fire extinguishers shall not be infringed.’

            Just because the writer is particularly concerned with boat fires does not mean you can’t have a fire extinguisher in your truck or home.


          5. As usual, you completely ignore the more important phrase, especially in the context of some of the proposed laws wrt public safety: WELL REGULATED.

            Your comparison to safety equipment is idiotic and baseless. Yeah, I know. You think guns are safety equipment. Not everyone feels that way. And no one wants to take away your legal guns and no one wants to criminalize gun ownership. Overstating what MIGHT happen does not help your argument.

            The complete and total overreaction of 2A zealots continues to fuel fires that need not be fueled. Let the GA do its job, debate the bills on their merits and constitutionality and go from there. The preemptive fear mongering is stupid.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. What you are ignoring is that the prefatory phrase justifies, but does not limit, the operative phrase.

            Just as the danger of boat fires alone is justification for owning fire extinguishers, but not the only reason, the militia is one reason, but not the only reason, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is inviolate.

            The Constitution is about government, and the militia is the GOVERNMENT reason for us to be armed. But there are others, primarily the right to effective self defense, our right to life mentioned in the Declaration as the purpose for government.


          7. State regulated militias do not exists in 2019. What is the point?

            Oh yeah. Foment more violence so you can justify the need for your anti-tank weapons.

            Overstating what MIGHT happen is fear mongering at its finest. And you do it every time. You and Trump, purveyors of FEAR.


          8. Just so we know hat is actually in the Va State Constitituion:

            “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

            Now let us, for the sake of clarity, substitute airplanes for arms.

            Clearly, there is a public interest to make sure that the people flying airplanes are regulated and well trained. That does not prevent anyone from owning an airplane, but they cannot fly it without proper vetting and training. Yet just owning an airplane doesn’t do a bit of good in the defense of a free state.

            What is interesting is that the VA version adds that the standing army is dangerous, giving even more credence to a regulated and trained militia.

            In modern times, however, a standing army is necessary for liberty since the weapons of war are infinitely more complex and expensive. In addition, raising an army may not be timely enough to defend the nation.

            Thus we have already outgrown the second clause about the standing army.

            It would indicate that a timely change would be prudent. The death toll from guns is almost all domestic violence of various form and far outpaces any war totals in our history.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. …”Chesapeake is committed to going to court “… Hmmm. Wonder who’s gonna pay for that? And where will they take the money from? Did council consider that before making such a commitment? And I wonder which law firm is going to see the big benefit?
    Oh, wait. The gun manufacturer sponsored VCDL (with a big boost from the NRA as well) is gonna cover the legal fees. Just a supposition.


      1. Not at all. I just question where the money is going to come from to pay the lawyers the very large retainer and fees to defend the sanctuaries. If it were MY tax dollars, I would have an issue with it. The same way I did with the VA GOP fighting, repeatedly to defend their gerrymandered districts in court. If it is from the gun manufacturers, NRA, or VCDL (who may get money from those entities), then have at it. I think it is a waste of money regardless of who is paying.

        And I notice you did not question the point about WHO is gonna pay.


  3. Meanwhile, in the real world, this happened:

    I’m starting a pool: when will we be reading about this kid finding a loaded weapon and shooting a family member with it? Or one of these women blowing the baby’s head off through improper handling of a gun. I have set the over/under at 2 years; it would be much sooner except the kid is only about 10 months old now.

    Common sense gun reform would deny a loaded weapon to these 2 women for their gross irresponsibility, but no, we can’t have that, can we.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. What if she decided to hunt her baby daddy? Someone that is that irresponsible with a child should have their gun ownership questioned.

        I mean seriously. Of the two customers, who appear to be together, one of them couldn’t hold the child?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s