Virginia Republicans Push Bill to Permit Bazookas, Hand Grenades, Anti-Tank Weapons, etc. by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Virginia Republicans Push Bill to Permit Bazookas, Hand Grenades, Anti-Tank Weapons, etc.

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, January 24, 2014 04:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1950
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:29 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
More Teapublican lunacy, this time courtesy of far-far-far-right-wingnut Del. David LaRock. What next, should the "right to bear arms" include F-16 fighters, M-1 Abrams tanks, nuclear weapons...anything? Remember, when the 2nd Amendment was written, it was in the context of: a) citizen militias; b) no standing army; c) a largely agrarian nation; and d) inaccurate guns like muskets. Do you think a few things might have changed since then? Duhhhhh...

Richmond, VA—Delegate Eileen Filler-Corn (D-41st) rose on the floor of the House of Delegates yesterday afternoon and spoke against HB 878, a bill sponsored by Delegate David La Rock (R-33rd) that would force local law enforcement to approve applications for dangerous, class 3 firearms. Class 3 firearms are military-grade weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, including fully automatic machine guns, hand grenades, bazookas, anti-tank weapons, molotov cocktails, and silencers.

In her speech, Delegate Filler-Corn pointed out the danger that HB 878 would pose to public safety by forcing law enforcement to make military hardware and ordnance available in Virginia’s neighborhoods. For nearly a century, class 3 firearms have been tightly regulated by federal and state governments alike because of the unique threat they pose to civilians. By totally removing the discretion that law enforcement has in evaluating class 3 applications, HB 878 would significantly enhance the danger these weapons pose to Virginia families.

Both the Virginia State Police and the Virginia Sheriffs' Association spoke in opposition to HB878 when the bill was heard is subcommittee. HB 878 is scheduled for a final vote in the House of Delegates this afternoon. http://bluevirginia.us/diary/10912/csgv-applauds-del-fillercorn-for-le
ading-opposition-to-radical-bazooka-bill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:17 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

You should do a bit of research before posting stuff like this, since the bill has absolutely nothing to do with permitting folks to have weapons they can't legally receive, or that aren't allowed by federal law.

Here's the bill in it's entirety.

Quote:
14102846D

HOUSE BILL NO. 878

Offered January 8, 2014

Prefiled January 8, 2014
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-295.1, relating to law-enforcement certification of certain firearms.
----------

Patron-- LaRock

----------

Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety

----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-295.1 as follows:

§ 18.2-295.1. Chief law-enforcement officer certification; certain firearms.

When a chief law-enforcement officer's certification is required by federal law or regulation for the transfer of a firearm, the chief of police or the sheriff shall, within 15 days of receipt of the request for certification, provide such certification if the applicant is not prohibited by law from receiving the firearm.

For purposes of this section, "firearm" shall have the same meaning as provided in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (a).

Basically, what it's saying is that when a person requests certification to transfer a firearm legally under 26 U.S.C 5845, the chief law enforcement officer who receives the request must provide certification within 15 days, rather than sitting on the request.

It does not, as your cite incorrectly states, force law enforcement to "approve" anything. It merely requires them to expedite the certification. If someone can't legally receive the firearm, the certification can still be denied.

Wish you'd quit posting these lies.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:29 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Why, when talking about changing gun laws, do the anti-gun crowd like to trot out the old slippery slope argument. You know, the whole what's next? Tanks? F-16's? RPG's? Drones?

Why, when talking about changing marriage laws, do the defense of marriage crowd like to trot out the old slippery slope argument. You know, the whole what's next? Minors? Family members? Animals? Polygamy?

And both sides mock each others arguments.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:54 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Department of Legislative Services' analysis of the measure is that it merely requires local authorities to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to the feds. Right now, he added, they often ignore requests for approval/disapproval. However, when you look at the text of the bill, that interpretation seems to depend upon the definition of the term "certification" -- which the bill does not define.

If "certification" always is affirmative, then the measure effectively would do what the CSGV says. If "certification" mean either thumbs up or a thumbs down, then legislative services is correct.

Note the further definition for "destructive device" includes bazookas. http://www.roanoke.com/news/columns_and_blogs/blogs/dan_casey/article_
3eeb5186-838b-11e3-81cd-001a4bcf6878.html

It's something which could be debated.

Additionally, La Rock also has sponsored another bill, which would allow a trust in Virginia to own machine guns. Trusts are often used by persons to hide ownership of real property and other assets.

The Bill:

Quote:
HB1266: Machine guns; owned by a trust

BILL to amend and reenact § 18.2-288 of the Code of Virginia, and to amend § 18.2-294 to add a section numbered 18.2-295(b), relating to the machine guns being owned by a trust.
----------

Patron-- LaRock

----------

Committee Referral Pending

----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 18.2-288 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 18.2-288. Definitions.

When used in this article:

(1) "Machine gun" applies to any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

.....

(3) "Person" applies to and includes firm, partnership, association, trust, or corporation. http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2014/hb1266/fulltext/

In my opinion, both are highly questionable, totally unnecessary bills with an agenda to making dangerous weapons more available with less oversight.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:58 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Why, when talking about changing marriage laws, do the defense of marriage crowd like to trot out the old slippery slope argument. You know, the whole what's next? Minors? Family members? Animals? Polygamy?

You forgot robots and aliens. Technophobic specieist!

Also I think you CAN technically privately own a fighter planes and bombers on the up and up, sort of like how you can actually buy and own a retrofitted decommissioned submarine, but few people are insane or awesome enough to do it.

It would take kind of a shit ton of maintenance, and also you'd have to deal with air traffic controllers and the military if you ever actually tried to fly it. Also they would remove the weapons, navigation, and defense systems first, so flying it would be less like flying a fast aircraft, and more like strapping yourself blindfolded to a mach plus jet engine with a pilot seat, windshield, and a pair of wings.

Or, more accurately, flying it would be more like taxiing it around on some runway because the legal hassle of actually flying it would be a massive pain in the ass.

You can definitely own tanks. Though you'll have trouble getting it licensed for the road and you'd have to have it retreaded with some sort of rubber so your don't tear up the asphalt, but it's doable. The same restrictions that apply to heavy machinery like a backhoe would basically apply here.

Drones are pretty easy.

You can also legally purchase an RPG as a Destructive Device (not a firearm) under the National Firearms Act following a background check and after paying a $200 tax, and ammunition for it following the same procedure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 4:35 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
If "certification" mean either thumbs up or a thumbs down, then legislative services is correct.

It's something which could be debated.

No.

It says right in the legislation... "...provide such certification if the applicant is not prohibited by law from receiving the firearm.

So if the applicant is prohibited by law from receiving the firearm, certification does not need to be provided.

Besides that, to own a National Firearms Act weapon, you also have to pass a background check by the BATFE, so it's not like there aren't several levels of review going on.

Quote:
Additionally, La Rock also has sponsored another bill, which would allow a trust in Virginia to own machine guns. Trusts are often used by persons to hide ownership of real property and other assets.

Yep. And a trust (as well as a firm, partnership, association, or corporation - also included in the bill) may be a security company which provides, for example, bodyguards for U.S. government personnel overseas. If the company can't own the weapons, then individual employees have to purchase them, making for a real logistics problem if they need to deploy security quickly and don't have enough gun-owning folks on hand.

Quote:
In my opinion, both are highly questionable, totally unnecessary bills with an agenda to making dangerous weapons more available with less oversight.

And that makes posting lies about them all right, then?

HB878 is about not allowing local anti-gun sheriffs to make an end-run around Federal provisions for legally owning National Firearms Act weapons by delaying certification. So suddenly you're all for local government preempting Federal law?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:18 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Why, when talking about changing gun laws, do the anti-gun crowd like to trot out the old slippery slope argument. You know, the whole what's next? Tanks? F-16's? RPG's? Drones?

Ive never heard anyone make that argument.

I have heard others saying that the right to bear arms has restrictions and limits, and noting that you can't own a bazooka (or such) as example.

But that's not remotely the same thing as claiming slippery slope.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:01 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:

Ive never heard anyone make that argument.

Really? The one I hear is "if people are allowed to have X, should they be allowed to have nukes?"

Even though we trust energy corporations with nuclear reactors.

We're wise and responsible. :D

The problem with slippery slope arguments, some of which are actually not fallacious, is that you can expect that the worst case scenario has actually happened somewhere. And the world still hasn't imploded from the terribleness. Because most people are sane, or pretend to be, or something.

In other words, rules make sense, except when they don't. Which is all the time, if you're me. That's why I never try to recommend any, nor attempt to form an opinion about how to fix the rules.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:06 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Why, when talking about changing gun laws, do the anti-gun crowd like to trot out the old slippery slope argument. You know, the whole what's next? Tanks? F-16's? RPG's? Drones?

Ive never heard anyone make that argument.

You not read the blog posted by Niki?

And before you can say anyone on this site, I remember your old buddy Kwicko mentioning something along those lines.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:29 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
I was hoping that the title of your thread Niki was anything but serious. After reading the article you posted, I see that it is real.

That whole situation in Virginia is insane. Those weapons are under government control for good reason.

But the Federal government will allow you to own them, anywhere in the country, if you pass a rigorous background check and pay a $200 license fee per weapon.

Obviously this is the cause of the thousands killed every year with bazookas, hand grenades, and anti-tank weapons.

Oh, wait a sec. That'd be pretty much no one.

Quote:
There is NO NEED for that kind of military grade hardware to be in civillian hands.

Ah, yes.

And if people don't NEED stuff, there's no reason for them to have it.

Here's all you NEED to eat for the rest of your life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumford%27s_Soup

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:12 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Yes, food is a NEED but eat too much and you can kill yourself, drink too much and you can kill yourself.

Missing the point.

You could live on Runsford's soup for the rest of your life and stay healthy. You don't NEED a salad, or a burger every once in a while, and some things you like to eat (but don't NEED to) are harmful to you.

Quote:
A hand grenade in the hands of someone who is suffering from a mental disorder or someone who just happens to be really pissed off on a particular day is a dangerous thing.

So is a car, or a gallon of gasoline. Plenty of stories of disturbed or just pissed off folks using them as weapons.

Then again, find a list of hand grenade, bazooka, or anti-tank gun attacks in the U.S.

Quote:
And by all means label me a left wing from Canada, I'll answer but in this area you and I are not going to agree on.

Where did I label you as anything?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:30 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
People, ie. the general public do not need military grade hardware for anything.

Lets not be hasty. Some people think women with cysts that are controllable with hormone pills don't need those pills, and other people think people with mental illnesses are faking and don't need medication, they just need to "snap out of it."

It is impossible for any of us to say what another person may view as a worthwhile purchase and whether that purchase was valid or not. That's up to them and what they do with it, really.

If I had grenades, they wouldn't make it through an entire day, too busy sticking them in watermelons in an empty field and filming the resulting mess. Or... I guess they'd probably just sit in a box in a closet somewhere like the old fireworks I still haven't used and which will probably degrade and explode any day now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 4:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Why, when talking about changing gun laws, do the anti-gun crowd like to trot out the old slippery slope argument. You know, the whole what's next? Tanks? F-16's? RPG's? Drones?

Why, when talking about changing marriage laws, do the defense of marriage crowd like to trot out the old slippery slope argument. You know, the whole what's next? Minors? Family members? Animals? Polygamy?

And both sides mock each others arguments.

Or voting rights/restrictions, or medical consent and procedures, yadda yadda, well aware...

And there's me mocking both sides mocking each others arguments cause they're both making the same one and too goddamn blind to see it.

For mine own I've already made point of the fact I think anyone should be able to possess anything man-portable no-questions-asked, but whenever I offer reasonable compact that meets all the *admitted* requirements of both sides, which I have several times before, they'll have none of it - primarily cause "reasonable restrictions" is BOTH sides conditioning-trigger word for "ban entirely", be it minorities in the voting booth, women in control of their own body, or folks packing heat...

Which is why the only "side" I've ever been on is my own.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 4:59 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Also I think you CAN technically privately own a fighter planes and bombers on the up and up, sort of like how you can actually buy and own a retrofitted decommissioned submarine, but few people are insane or awesome enough to do it.

It would take kind of a shit ton of maintenance, and also you'd have to deal with air traffic controllers and the military if you ever actually tried to fly it. Also they would remove the weapons, navigation, and defense systems first, so flying it would be less like flying a fast aircraft, and more like strapping yourself blindfolded to a mach plus jet engine with a pilot seat, windshield, and a pair of wings.

Or, more accurately, flying it would be more like taxiing it around on some runway because the legal hassle of actually flying it would be a massive pain in the ass.

Actually it's not quite THAT bad, especially when you have a pack of old codgers who *really* know their stuff and rather enjoy the work...
See, some of the locals up the road a ways own a B17G called the Yankee Lady, it's a pretty sweet ride, and of course there's a whole bunch of smaller stuff and the local airshow crowd.

Mind you, I would oh-so-totally *NOT* reccommend taking a long-distance flight in a WWII trainer aircraft, that was pretty brutal.

Anyways, yer welcome to ride our bomber, if ya like.
http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org/book-a-flight-experience/b-17-reservati
on/

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE