HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Assault weapons bill dies...

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 10:39 AM

Assault weapons bill dies in Virginia, giving gun-rights groups a rare victory.

Source: Washington Post

RICHMOND — A Virginia Senate committee killed a bill on Monday that would have banned the sale of assault-style weapons and possession of high-capacity magazines, handing gun-rights activists a rare win in a Capitol that Democrats won last year on the promise of sweeping gun control.

Gov. Ralph Northam (D) backed the legislation, part of a package of eight gun-control measures he advanced after a shooter killed 12 people at a Virginia Beach municipal building on May 31. Republicans’ refusal to act on those bills in a special session last summer that they gaveled out in 90 minutes became a rallying cry for Democrats in November elections. They flipped the state House and Senate blue for the first time in a generation.

The House has passed all eight of Northam's bills. But three Democrats — Sens. Creigh Deeds (Bath), John Edwards (Roanoke) and Chap Petersen (Fairfax) — sided with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the assault-weapons bill for the year. On a 10-5 vote, the committee sent the measure to the state's Crime Commission for study.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/ban-on-assault-weapon-sales-dies-in-va-senate-committee/2020/02/17/d85cdb82-5189-11ea-9e47-59804be1dcfb_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&utm_medium=email&utm_source=alert&wpisrc=al_news__alert-local--alert-national&wpmk=1

41 replies, 3083 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Assault weapons bill dies in Virginia, giving gun-rights groups a rare victory. (Original post)
former9thward Feb 17 OP
Pachamama Feb 17 #1
lagomorph777 Feb 19 #21
greymattermom Feb 17 #2
oldsoftie Feb 17 #4
hack89 Feb 17 #6
Igel Feb 17 #9
rickford66 Feb 17 #15
former9thward Feb 17 #17
oldsoftie Feb 17 #3
catrose Feb 17 #5
Midnight Writer Feb 17 #16
lagomorph777 Feb 19 #22
Devil Child Feb 17 #7
lagomorph777 Feb 19 #23
Devil Child Feb 19 #24
lagomorph777 Feb 19 #26
ManiacJoe Feb 20 #27
lagomorph777 Feb 20 #28
Devil Child Feb 20 #30
lagomorph777 Feb 21 #31
Devil Child Feb 21 #32
EX500rider Feb 21 #34
EX500rider Feb 21 #35
Devil Child Feb 21 #36
Archae Feb 17 #8
moniss Feb 17 #12
AtheistCrusader Feb 17 #13
moniss Feb 20 #29
AtheistCrusader Feb 21 #33
moniss Feb 23 #38
turbinetree Feb 17 #10
hack89 Feb 17 #11
AtheistCrusader Feb 17 #14
NickB79 Feb 17 #18
Devil Child Feb 19 #25
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 19 #19
jcmaine72 Feb 19 #20
Blue_Tires Feb 21 #37
Aussie105 Feb 24 #39
former9thward Feb 24 #40
hack89 Feb 24 #41

Response to former9thward (Original post)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 10:42 AM

1. How sad....

This....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pachamama (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 10:54 AM

21. Damn it. Why would a Fairfax rep do this?

Fairfax is pretty blue!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 10:59 AM

2. Smaller steps may be needed.

Insurance for guns, just like cars? You'd need a separate policy for each gun. Start with assault rifles. Uninsured guns would go the same way as uninsured cars. They'd be rusting on the front lawns of their owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 11:13 AM

4. What company do you think would actually sell a policy that would cover a criminal shooting?

You can already buy a policy to provide you legal assistance, etc, through gun ownership groups.
You cant compare to a car, because operating a car isnt a constitutional right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 12:20 PM

6. The NRA is the largest seller of gun insurance by far

you will make them a fortune. And if they bundle low rates with NRA membership then their membership will grow by orders of magnitude.

The NRA is presently on the ropes - this would be a massive lifeline.

And lets lot forget that no insurance company will pay for criminal acts, only true accidents. With such a massive risk pool, the cost of insurance will be negligible which makes it highly likely that insurance companies will not be interested in offering gun insurance because they can't make money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 12:40 PM

9. "Undue burden" lawsuits would blossom.

Remember that argument? You can make the enjoyment of a right so onerous that it amounts to denying the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 02:43 PM

15. Like abortion ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 05:09 PM

17. Exactly like abortion.

Which is why courts have struck down most anti-abortion restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 11:07 AM

3. Not surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 12:09 PM

5. A RARE victory?

Don't they win all the damn time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catrose (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 04:08 PM

16. That word struck me, as well. They seem to pretty much get their way every time.

From a citizen living in a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Zone, where local authorities have passed a law that stipulates law enforcement will not enforce State or Federal gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catrose (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 10:55 AM

22. Yeah WTF?

That jumped out at me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 12:22 PM

7. Fantastic!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Devil Child (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 10:55 AM

23. You forgot the :sarcasm: emoji

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 11:01 AM

24. No. This bill was an assault on 2nd amendment civil liberties

I celebrate its end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Devil Child (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 11:05 AM

26. Do you draw any line? OK to own an RPG launcher? An ICBM?

I consider this to be a fundamental moral and (literally) existential issue.

Do you consider gun worship to be a religious liberty? Are guns more important than human beings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 20, 2020, 06:23 AM

27. Comments like this suggest

you do not understand why civilians are not allowed to own bombs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 20, 2020, 11:28 AM

28. You're responding to the post celebrating the defeat, correct?

I certainly understand why civilians aren't allowed to own bombs, and shouldn't be allowed to own assault weapons.

I was very disappointed that a Dem debate in Vegas didn't bring up guns - right there where a huge assault-weapon-enabled massacre recently took place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 20, 2020, 09:41 PM

30. I'd have to draw the line with a MIRV cabable ICBM

I mean, no one needs a MIRV capable ICBM to hunt deer...

If one worships guns then it might be a religious liberty to them. I see the right to keep and bear arms as an individual liberty protected and enshrined in our Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Devil Child (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 21, 2020, 10:18 AM

31. I see life as an individual liberty protected and enshrined in our Constitution.

My right to live takes precedence over your right to carry an AK-47.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #31)

Fri Feb 21, 2020, 11:00 AM

32. Don't worry lagomorph777! Your life is quite safe from my AK-47

It only comes out for duck hunting and I never carry it. I prefer open carrying the small yield tactical nuclear weapon when I do my Chipotle or Wal-Mart runs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Devil Child (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 21, 2020, 12:06 PM

34. I don't know, I find my B-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition a little heavy for Chipotle runs..

....although I can rest it in the cart at Wally World.

?quality=85&strip=info&w=600

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 21, 2020, 12:17 PM

35. I think the B-54 Backpack Nuke Program was the only time i know of...

.....when the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for US forces was to blow yourself up to achieve mission success. The Green Berets were suppose to jump into E Germany etc and blow up dams and important transport nodes by setting off their nuke while guarding it until detonation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 21, 2020, 01:14 PM

36. You made me smile, I like you EX500rider!

Thanks for the post, I wasn’t aware of this system. You have sent me on a fact finding mission to learn more! Cold War brought some crazy ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 12:25 PM

8. I'm going to get some flack for this...

But in this case good going, this bill was too vague.

Back in the 1990's, the Clinton assault weapons ban didn't stop assault weapons from being sold.
The gun makers just made a couple cosmetic changes to their weapons and poof.
Instant non-assault weapon.

Besides, most murders are committed with HANDGUNS, no assault weapons.

I don't want an AR-15, never would want one.
They are expensive useless toys, that in the wrong hands are terrible weapons.

But how would such a "ban" be enforced?
The ATF going door-to-door ransacking houses and businesses looking for assault weapons, based on an anonymous tip?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 02:24 PM

12. This is not

flack. You have mixed a couple of things that are not related. The bill in question may have been vague and I can't speak to that but the subject of handguns has nothing to do with this bill. It was intended to address reduction in the damage caused by mass shooting attempts. The handgun issue and reduction of their damage would be a subject for other bills. As far as enforcement the sale or possession of these specific items would be illegal with certain penalties as prescribed in the bill. Nobody is going door to door. If you have one and bring it out in public it would be subject to the penalties prescribed since you would be showing possession. I do not know if there were any requirements regarding existing registrations. I would advise you not to fall into the trap that anti-regulation folks spout all the time by accepting their line about "won't stop all the gun deaths or nutjobs". Certain legislation can reduce the frequency of shootings and bills like this can reduce the damage inflicted by a shooter when they do occur. It is not a situation where a bill must "eliminate all" as the NRA and others like to frame it. People in opposition to bills do this same thing with other legislation meant to protect/help people such as environmental, health, labor etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moniss (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 02:37 PM

13. Mass shootings can be conducted with handguns, and some states certainly define certain handgun

configurations as 'assault weapons'.

So yes, a bill like this 'could reduce the damage' but you're talking about 3% of the cases, rather than the 70% that would be a lot more meaningful to tackle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 20, 2020, 08:44 PM

29. Certainly

individual shootings with handguns are the bulk of the murders and should be addressed. The point is that the mass shootings are something that can be addressed in a bill separate from a handgun bill and as a result we make some progress while we continue to work on the rest. It's not an all or nothing proposition and every bill doesn't need to try to tackle an entire problem and then some good that could happen doesn't because of arguing over other matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moniss (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 21, 2020, 11:30 AM

33. Ordinarily I'd agree wholeheartedly.

Statistics (low impact) aren't a reason not to try doing the right thing whenever possible.

But this specific issue is a 3rd rail for an enormous number of americans, and the potential gain is small. That 3% is ALL murders with ALL rifles, and mass shootings are even a tiny, tiny subset of that already small 3%.

You're right that all aspects of a problem deserve attention, but it the gain should be balanced against the political cost. This issue is part of how we got a solidly republican congress in the late 90's. And the government itself still isn't sure if the Comprehensive Assault Weapons Ban that resulted in that, had any efficacy at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 23, 2020, 10:06 PM

38. I hear what you're saying

and I agree to some extent. Although the mass shootings make up a small percentage of total deaths they receive the bulk of media attention because they are mainly taking place in schools and places of worship etc. Now I agree that media attention should not be the thing which drives policy but as you've pointed out the media on the conservative side has been able to use 2nd A fears in order to drive elections. But I think we are in an emerging new time in this country and the continued success of Sanders (I support nobody at this point) that is defying the negative media drumbeat against him is proof that wheels are turning out there. When I speak to people under 45 they keep telling me the same thing. They don't believe that the same old Dem/GOP crowd is going to do any bold moves to tackle the issues they see as critically important. They want bold efforts on climate, health care and tuition. They have watched as their parents and grandparents have struggled decade after decade to try and advance some of these concerns but the stale political slate of leaders gives little improvement if any. So I think that we can advance some gun control legislation without the same level of push-back that we had in the '90's. In any event let's hope we can get back to more of where we were on forming policy when legislators talked about goals, pluses and minuses of proposals to meet those goals and then came to an understanding and passed legislation that while not always the best it was better than we had. The younger folks today are not going to wait for decades more and they are demonstrating that they want to try bold social and economic changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 12:44 PM

10. Tax the bullets................................end of story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 02:16 PM

11. They are.

not familiar withe the Federal excise tax on arms and ammo?

Research poll tax - the true end of the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 02:41 PM

14. There are a variety of excise taxes on said ammo, actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Mon Feb 17, 2020, 07:00 PM

18. The universal background check and red flag law were the meat of the legislation

And both those bills passed. Those two will do far more to save lives than an AWB would, and are widely supported by most gun owners as well as non-gun owners.

This was a good legislative session overall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 11:03 AM

25. Correct, universal background checks and red flag laws

Actually address gun violence and represent “common sense” legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 08:23 AM

19. OT but related: Please define the term "right"...

...as used in the "Bill of" sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 10:15 AM

20. Horrible news for the decent citizens of Virginia.

Mega props to Gov. Ralph Northam for fighting the good fight and trying to save the lives of his fellow Virginians. Hopefully, this is just the first battle in what will prove to be a victorious war against the criminal NRA and their brainless stooges in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Fri Feb 21, 2020, 02:36 PM

37. "...giving gun-rights groups a RARE victory."

Fuck that headline writer for pretending that gun rights groups never win anything after 99 victories in a row... Seriously

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2020, 02:57 AM

39. I don't mind people owning guns

as long as they are the ones in vogue when the second amendment was written.

Percussion caps or flintlock? Forgot which were the weapons in the minds of the writers of that amendment.

But those were Weapons of Mass Destruction! A good operator could get off maybe 3 shots per minute, with guaranteed accuracy over 50 yards. Not like the wannabe toy assault rifles of today.

A quick Google tells me flintlocks were the weapon of choice in 1770.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aussie105 (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 24, 2020, 09:29 AM

40. Would you apply that standard to the 1st amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aussie105 (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 24, 2020, 12:53 PM

41. Shall we also adopt the founding fathers views on women, gays and slavery while we are at it?

you are talking about a group of people that routinely exterminated Indian tribes - don't you think that they would have loved serious fire power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread