Universal Background Check law challenged

Lynchburg court suit against UBC Law

The recently passed UBC act violated Article I section 13 of the Virginia Constitution by depriving 18-20 year olds of their means to buy a handgun through private sales and gives firearms dealers the choice of refusing to conduct the checks, thus making private sales unlawful.

See the complaint at

Complaint and injuntive relief sought

24 thoughts on “Universal Background Check law challenged

  1. Nothing in the law infringes on legal gun owners from owning or bearing arms. Inconvenience does not equal infringement.

    More proof that the phrase “well regulated” is ALWAYS ignored.

    Like

    1. That would be because in the VA Constitution Article I section 13 it is not relevant. The VA Constitution has the ‘Therefore’ between the prefatory and active phrase.

      Like

  2. RE: “Inconvenience does not equal infringement.”

    The complaint argues that it does. It makes the point that the legal concept of a right implies free exercise, since it makes no sense to recognize a right while at the same time limiting or regulating it.

    RE: “More proof that the phrase ‘well regulated’ is ALWAYS ignored.”

    The complaint addresses the phrase directly by arguing that the right to keep and bear arms is independent from the existence of any militia. The Virginia Constitution makes this independence more explicit than the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does.

    But the point you raise is a semantic one. To evaluate it we need to know the meaning of “well regulated.”

    Like

      1. RE: “Yet the words are still there.”

        The sky is still there, too. Should it be included in our understanding of the law?

        Like

    1. “… it makes no sense to recognize a right while at the same time limiting or regulating it.”

      We recognize free speech but that does not mean you can stand naked on Main and Granby at noon and give political speeches about the benefits of nudism. Or than you can run a media business without licenses for both business and broadcasting. Or that you can practice female genital mutilation no matter how devout or conservative your religious beliefs are.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “We recognize free speech but that does not mean you can stand naked on Main and Granby at noon and give political speeches about the benefits of nudism.”

        In this and similar cases the question is whether the act in question can be defined as speech. Public nudity may be speech in the case of theatrical performances, for example, but it might also be mere lewdness or obscenity on a street corner. In other words, the right to free speech doesn’t imply the right to public nudity.

        Such questions don’t arise in the current case, because the right to purchase is implicit in the right to keep and bear.

        Like

        1. RE: “For that matter, without a permit, your speech may be curtailed whether you are dressed or not.”

          You are confused.

          Again, the right to purchase guns is an extension of the right to “keep and bear arms.” That right cannot be infringed because the law says so in exactly those words.

          Like

      2. No. but a requirement that you can only exercise free speech by going in person the the newspaper office and handwriting a letter there.

        Odd that you find having a picture ID in order to vote, or even to go to the polls in person, too burdensome in exercising the right to vote, yet you don’t see it as infringement of the right to obtain a firearm that one would have to seek out a licensed firearms dealer willing to do the paperwork for less than the market cost of handling it, which may not even be possible

        Like

        1. Speaking of odd, you have no problem registering your name, DOB, address, swear an oath on paper to your citizenship, and in some states your party affiliation. Then leaving that on file for years as proof of your legal eligibility to vote.

          Then you move and have to notify the new local board all over again.

          So the government knows who you are, where you are and in many cases how you vote.

          Yet, you can own a collection of guns anonymously regardless if you even know which end is the muzzle. Or if you are so mentally disabled that you are getting SS disability payments from the Feds.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. There are no politicians seeking to confiscate my voter ID card.

            But the moment the government knows where all the guns are, confiscation becomes possible.

            At least in theory.

            Like

          2. There are plenty of politicians trying to infringe on the right to vote among minorities and the poor.

            But that’s fine because that is acceptable to many Republicans who know that if too many citizens vote, they lose.

            Our president has said so in no uncertain terms.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. “The complaint argues that it does. ”

    And on it’s face, it is moot. The M-W definition of infringe is “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another”. But the UBC law does not encroach or violates the spirit of the law, be in the 2A or the VA Constitution. It comes off to me as whiny people who don’t want to go through the necessary steps. There has been more infringements on the right to vote than to own a firearm.

    Like

    1. RE: “the UBC law does not encroach or violates the spirit of the law”

      You keep saying so, but why should anyone believe it? What is your explanation?

      The complaint argues that the right to “keep and bear” implies the right to purchase, but that regulation of the sale is an infringement. It points out that restrictions on the ability to purchase pen and paper would similarly infringe the right of free speech.

      Like

          1. None needed. Common sense and reading comprehension are skills most adults have. You have not explained how it DOES infringe. As I have stated, inconvenience does not equal infringement. Show me otherwise, but you can’t.

            Like

          2. Of course imposing an inconvenience is an infringement. Pretty much by definition.

            If, in order to engage in free speech, you were required to first obtain a permit from a private publicity company that is not required to issue the permit, or might only issue them to regular customers. or not be open at times you can get there, or not even available in your city, would you not see that as an infringement on your right to express your opinion?

            Like

      1. “ The complaint argues that the right to “keep and bear” implies the right to purchase, but that regulation of the sale is an infringement.”

        The right to keep and bear is not unrestricted. Felons, even after completing sentences, can’t. Nor can those committed to mental health facilities. Automatic weapons require expensive background checks. Most states require a special permit to carry a. concealed weapon.

        These are all infringements.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “The right to keep and bear is not unrestricted.”

          That’s not the point. The law merely recognizes rights, it does not create them. The law may also allow for rights not to be recognized, as it does in the case of felony convictions or where persons are incompetent.

          The rights themselves remain “unalienable,” which is why it is important that the right to purchase is an extention of the right to keep and bear. The law states that the right to bear “shall not be infringed.” This means that the right to purchase shall not be infringed.

          Like

          1. The Bill of Rights are not addressed in the Preamble, which Mr. Roberts seemed to be referring to.

            And again, inconvenience does not equal infringement and no one has explained how it could be. Just saying an inconvenience is and infringement does not make it so. You can still buy and bear arms. That right is not restricted by the new law.

            And once again, ignoring “well regulated” regardless of what you THINK they meant is, IMO, is the issue you all seem to have.

            Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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