Jim0001 Loc: originally from Tennessee, now Virginia, USA

The elected anti-freedom crowd are out right liars. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Yet they feel no compunction to do so. Article 1, Section 13 of Virginia's Constitution is precise and clear.
And the pseudo victim David Hogg is not a Virginian. So, who cares what the troll says? He is a grifter anyway.

"Shall Not Be infringed." I understand it perfectly.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gun-reform-bills-up-for-debate-in-virginia-general-assembly-the-first-of-many-to-come/ar-BB1hDzLu

Kevyn

It is the “well regulated” part you fail to take into account.

Liberty Tree

"Right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed"

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

Jim, The courts have outlawed machine guns for sale to civilians. The legal precedent has been made by the courts. The reason for this action is clear. It is just too dangerous to society to have maniacs and felons running around
murdering innocents by the score. The same can be said about AR type assault rifles. They have been the preferred instrument of death for crazies, and felons.
There are exceptions for many of the rights listed in the first amendment. Free speech has limits. A person may not yell fire in a crowded movie, unless there is an actual fire. A person may not use free speech to disrupt an educational environment. Slander is not protected either. If the First Amendment of the US Constitution has exceptions, why not the second amendment?
The federal government is supreme to state governments. This is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. In other words, the states may not have laws that go against federal law, so it doesn't really matter what laws Virginia
passes if it goes against federal law.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Guns and deaths of American Citizens at all costs !!
Rights come with an unwritten cost ;
Maintaining rights requires
Respect
Responsibility
And
Discipline!
To ignore these and only favor the gun rights is ridiculous.
These rights should never override the rights Citizens to feel safe where they live.
To live with a constant threat of Taliban terrorism is totally Un American .
I do not favor being shot by some toothless , babbling halfwit with a 3rd grade education claiming it’s entirely his right , at all costs .
It is not .
If you point a gun at fellow citizens in my opinion you lose your rights to the 2ndA .
If you show up in public with a long gun , you are a terrorist and should be Shot on Sight !
Simple as that .

Jim0001 Loc: originally from Tennessee, now Virginia, USA

You are incorrect again. You keep posting falsehoods. Civilians can own machine guns. They have to go through a background check and pay the treasury department to obtain a tax stamp. They are called class three items. Just because congress passed the Firearms act of 1934 does not make it completely constitutional. Most politicians have never read the constitution that they swore to uphold. If you can define an "assault rifle" you are doing better than the BATFE because they cannot. They refer to cosmetics and not function. Since you appear to like to throw crap on the wall to se what sticks, kindly tell me what law will stop the lawless and I would support it. Then tell me what I can use to defend my family against these predators.

EmilyD

Well said, Jim! 👍👍👍

Keep posting the truth...maybe it will sink in to those who don't understand it....or don't want to....

...

Justice101

Saltwind- is it possible for you to look up things before you post because machine guns are legal to own in several states, but are highly regulated and are VERY Expensive to own!
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/yes-machine-guns-are-legal-here-comes-all-catches-163921
In 37 states it is possible to buy a machine gun today. However, it isn't as easy as going to a local gun shop or even a gun show. Machine guns are legal at the federal level but highly regulated.

Yes, you may yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if there isn't one, but you can be held responsible for the injuries and chaos that ensues. The phrase, though an oft-repeated axiom in debates about the First Amendment, is simply not the law of the land now, nor has it ever been—something made all the more apparent when Schenk v. United States was largely overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana

I carry every day, and I've never shot anyone I didn't mean to. When I unholster my Glock, it gets serious real quick.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

1 hollywood.

BREAKING NEWS: NO ONE IS FREE ON THIS PLANET. THIS IS A PRISON PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim0001 Loc: originally from Tennessee, now Virginia, USA

Kevyn is too stupid to comprehend Mason's statement. which finished with "save a few public officials".

Jim0001 Loc: originally from Tennessee, now Virginia, USA

Maybe this explanation will help you Kevyn and your anti-freedom flock of sheep.

"The best way to interpret the Constitution begins with actually reading it. The next best thing is to read what the Constitution’s chief drafter, James Madison, had to say about America’s founding document. Madison was the chief author of the Federalist Papers, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Papers offer great insight into the political theories of the day that led to our system of government.

Students of the second amendment should be familiar with both Federalist 29 and 46, which discuss the role of an armed populace in protecting the precious freedom which had so recently been won. It was that thinking that led to the adoption of the second amendment.

Madison was also the original drafter of the Bill of Rights, including what would become the second amendment. The anti-gun crowd regularly accuse second amendment supporters of only focusing on what Justice Scalia called the operative clause of the second amendment, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They assert that we ignore the prefatory clause that reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” To them the prefatory clause confirms that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the right of the states to have militias or as they sometimes phrase it, the right to bear arms when in militia service.

However, beyond that, they never exactly explain what is meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The anti-gun crowd cling to the so-called collective rights view of the amendment that held sway with a number of federal circuit courts pre-Heller. However, beyond denying an individual right to keep and bear arms, those courts said precious little on exactly what the amendment actually protected.

It was commonly stated outside the court room that the operative clause meant that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. But that is not what the amendment says, and no federal circuit court actually provided any reasoned discussion supporting such an interpretation. In any event, if that were what the amendment was meant to accomplish, one would think the amendment would have been written in some way like “A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state, Congress shall not infringe the right of the states to arm the militia.” However, this interpretation of the amendment would have worked a radical transformation of Congress’s power over the militia. The Constitution addresses the militia in Article I, Section 8. It states “The Congress shall have the power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

REMEMBER that the founders were opposed to a fulltime STANDING ARMY.

Thus, it was Congress’s responsibility, not the states, to organize and arm the militia, with the states having only the responsibility to appoint officers and train the militia as Congress mandates. The militia is not treated by the Constitution as a creature of the several states, but of the nation as a whole to be organized, armed and disciplined by Congress, while being trained by the states as Congress directs.

Congress has in fact exercised this authority.

Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 311 defines the militia of the United States with certain exceptions as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and … female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” The National Guard is the organized militia and the unorganized militia consists of those militia members not in the Guard. In the Second Militia Act, passed in 1792, Congress specified the arms militia members were to have. It was incumbent on militia members to report for training and duty with their own arms. The second amendment did not change Congress’s authority over the militia, nor was that the intent of the amendment. Most notably, the second amendment did not provide that the states would or could arm the militia. If that were the meaning of the second amendment, then states could be free to arm the militia in any way they saw fit. States could for instance under the collective rights view of the second amendment, authorize each member of the unorganized militia to own a fully automatic weapon such as the M-16. That would raise issues with respect to the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which greatly restricts the ownership and transfer of automatic weapons. States could also abrogate many other federal firearm restrictions. It is certainly the case that some founders, such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, feared that Congress would neglect its responsibility to arm the militia. And so, it is not an unreasonable view that a primary purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the militia would not be disarmed by taking guns away from the people who constituted the militia.

However, that view is perfectly consistent with the wording of the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment thus ensured that there could be a body of the people armed and available to serve in the militia. It had nothing to do, however, with transferring to the states the right to arm or specify the arming of the militia. That remains the prerogative of Congress. Review of the legislative history of the second amendment confirms that it was designed to protect an individual right of the people generally to possess and carry arms.

When Madison initially introduced the various proposed amendments that would later become the Bill of Rights, he proposed to insert the bulk of them, including what would later become amendments one through five, part of the sixth amendment, and amendments eight and nine, into Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4. His speech to Congress can be found here.

This is the portion of the Constitution which limits Congressional power over individuals. Clause 3 is the prohibition on Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.

Clause 4 is the limitation on the imposition of taxes directly on individuals as opposed to excise taxes on economic transactions. This clause has been substantially abrogated by the sixteenth amendment, authorizing the federal government to tax incomes. In other words, Madison proposed to put these amendments into that part of the Constitution that protected individual rights of the people from the federal government. The context of Madison’s original introduction to Congress of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, is powerful evidence supporting the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to confirm an individual right of the people to arms.

Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states."

GOT IT NOW KEVYN?

Jim0001 Loc: originally from Tennessee, now Virginia, USA

I have four of those tax stamps and understand how the system works. The Government knows I have those four items as does my sheriff. There are numerous restrictions on those items. And they are expensive thanks to the gun control act of 1986. None of my firearms have ever harmed anyone since I've owned them. I cannot speak about their past.

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

Well regulated , healthy, able bodied, experienced with firearms . Loyal
Not a soy boy. Pansy.