Another
While I admire the sentiment, I think these kinds of laws are 1) generally pointless and 2) can’t win a lawsuit.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 13th, 2010 at 11:21 am
I have to disagree:
1) If enough states pass these laws, that can make them a strong persuasive argument in the courts, even if SCOTUS declares them unconstitutional. Even without that, the symbolism by itself may be useful right now.
2) You’re most likely right, but all it takes is one, and, again, if enough states adopt these laws, that fact can be a strongly persuasive argument when one goes to SCOTUS.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:53 am
I’m with Jake. What these laws do is lay a foundation upon which the (probably necessary) lawsuits are going to require to be justiciable. It may also be the case that if enough states do this they’ll eventually look and see that an actual amendment to the Constitution through state legislatures is a workable option. It’s also proactive: when they find that they like the federal law, some states will simply provide by statute that the state law is the same as the federal law. That’s great if it stays the same, but if the federal law changes then so does the state law. By specifying what you want, even if it happens to be identical to the federal law, you protect yourself in case of change.
From a political (not governmental) perspective, they’re an easy bone to throw to the base, as the other side doesn’t really lose anything by letting it go through.
And, for you TEOTWAWKI types, this helps ensure that when America falls into warring factions, the Commonwealth of Greater Virginia (claiming its historic lands of pretty much everything north of its southern border and west of Pennsylvania, plus Bermuda) has an excellent code of laws to rely upon.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Such bills also serve as strong messages to Representatives and Senators from the affected state.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
On Saturday, Bob McDonnell will be sworn into the office once held by Thomas Jefferson.
The first elected Governor of my illustrious Commonwealth was one Patrick Henry, and part of the inaugural events is a reenactment of his famous speech, given March 23 1775, at St. Johns Church, Richmond Virginia.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
It will be nice to again have someone worthy in the mansion Mr. Jefferson designed. The current occupant is a loathsome creature, half lizard and half toad. The best I can say for him is that, having spent the last year running the DNC, he has not caused grevious injury to Virginia.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
This bill may or may not pass US constitutional muster, but there have been a slew of other pro-gun bills thrown in the hopper – e.g.: the end of one-gun-a-month; concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol; and prohibiting employers from forbidding employees from having a gun locked up in their cars.
With Governor McDonnell in the executive mansion, when these bills pass, they won’t be vetoed.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Of course, they have to pass first. I suspect we’ll be finding that a lot of our past allies are no longer such when they don’t have a guaranteed veto down the line.
Plus it’s 22-18 in the Senate now. Not an unambiguously rosy picture there.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
In VA not all Dems are anti-2A.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:57 am
…….”2) can’t win a lawsuit.”
Don’t have to if we win the gunfight.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:08 am
I think Jake has the right idea; these “laws” send a strong message to Washington as to what it should and should not do, whether or not the Constitution actually compels it. Further, given the loopy logic the USSC has employed in determining such “constitutional” issues as sodomy and the death penalty, often by counting the number of states that have moved in a particular direction as evidence that an unamended constitutional provision now means something different than it used to mean, I can’t completely rule out the possibility that enough states passing “laws” like this would turn these empty “laws” into actual law someday. And as others have noted, even if it doesn’t do that (which it probably won’t) it may lay the political groundwork for an actual amendment that would.