RESPONSE TO VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY OPINION REGARDING SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY RESOLUTIONS
AW1 Rod sends us the Gun Owners of America’s reply to Virginia’s Attorney General Mark Herring’s opinion regarding the Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions being adopted across the state. Surprising exactly no one, and reminiscent of Maryland’s AG Brian Frosh, he is of the opinion the Resolutions aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, local government officials must comply, and the same officials and constitutional officers have no authority in the matter.
The GAO disagrees.
Executive Summary
Virginia Attorney General (“AG”) Mark Herring was asked to issue a formal legal opinion regarding Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions being adopted by counties, cities, and towns across Virginia. AG Herring’s official advisory opinion (“Herring AO”) was issued on December 20, 2019. In it, AG Herring argues that Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions (i) have “no legal effect,” (ii) local government officials “must comply with gun violence prevention measures that the General Assembly may enact,” and (iii) “neither local governments nor local constitutional officers have the authority to declare state statutes unconstitutional or decline to follow them on that basis.” Each of these contentions is untrue.
Based on the Herring AO, and various statements reported in the press, it is apparent that AG Herring and Governor Ralph Northam believe that Virginia localities have a duty to actively assist the Commonwealth in the enforcement of any law enacted by the General Assembly. These officials appear to believe that such blind obedience is required irrespective of whether a law violates the U.S. Constitution, the Virginia Constitution, or is manifestly destructive of the preexisting rights of the People of Virginia. This radical view is demonstrably false, and ignores the significance of the fact that local officials are required by law to take an oath to support the federal and state constitutions above the laws enacted by the General Assembly.
Moreover, neither Attorney General Herring nor Governor Northam can credibly demand that local governments must implement every Act of the General Assembly, because that view directly contradicts the positions they have taken in the past. Indeed, on three recent occasions, AG Herring and Governor Northam have taken exactly the opposite legal position, with respect to: (i) the defense of the Virginia Marriage Amendment to the Virginia Constitution; (ii) the General Assembly’s refusal to assist the federal government with the arrest and detention of civilians as authorized by the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012; and (iii) the right of localities in Virginia to become sanctuary cities with respect to the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Finally, the assertion that lesser magistrates owe slavish obedience to abusive higher authorities was never the view of the Founding Fathers, particularly those from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Had the English barons embraced this view, there might never have been a confrontation with King John at Runnymede, leading to the protections provided by Magna Carta. Had our nation’s founders embraced this view, Virginia might still be a colony of England. Truly, this view is contrary to the most basic principles which underlay our form of government, is anti-Biblical, and is profoundly abusive of the pre-existing and inalienable rights of the People of Virginia.
As mentioned in a previous post, the estimated compliance with New York State’s so called Safe Act, is around 4%, not even qualifying as a dismal failure. I would not be surprised if Maryland’s numbers were similar. Even Second Amendment-less New Zealand is unsure of the success of their Australia-like buy-back program, as no one really knows how many banned firearms there were to start with.
So the Liberals pass these unconstitutional laws based on appearances with little or no knowledge of how firearms operate, and no plans on how to enforce them. The old adage “Fail to plan, plan to fail” is very appropriate.
Read the entire document here: GAO Response to VAs’ AG Link
Category: Guest Link, Gun Grabbing Fascists, Second Amendment
Short answer reply to the AG “LOLGF”.
Or local officials could give the Spaceballs response when asked if they’ve found any illegal “assault weapons” to wit, “We ain’t found $hit!”
Stacy, you triggered my acronym OCD. You’re in good company, as Hondo does this to me on a regular basis, on purpose I’m sure. So, WTF is “LOLGF?”
Thanks bunches.
*grin*
Think he’s expressing mirth at a higher decibel level and offering them an opportunity to for a type of romantic encounter.
Laughing Out Loud, Get F#cked
This concludes this period of instruction. Any questions? No? Good.
TL:DR
(Grin)
Better to talk over your head than behind your back.
On this, the 75th anniversary of the siege of Bastogne, my reply to the Virginia governor and AG would be: “Nuts!”
Patrick Henry wept.
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here.”
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Not exactly quotes that are often paired, but in this case, it’s a very nice matched set.
“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Democrats think so.
Bingo.
They may be in for a very rude surprise.
The rot that is the swamp of DC had already spread into Maryland. Pouring more into Virginia. These people have lost their everloving minds. The elected officials of Virginia need to read and understand their own State Motto. Be AWARE BE VERY AWARE…Coming to the State that you live in…soon. They WANT Civil Unrest. More reason to declare martial law. I’ll leave this little gem right here…
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/democrats-seek-to-outlaw-suburban-single-family-house-zoning-calling-it-racist-and-bad-for-the-environment/?fbclid=IwAR15SazbeYR_-nOtNvMfcKKXFnAcFoZ_YS-Km5ZYlPGlXb1gOolYMz1cZnA
Yet another reason I’m going to GTFO of this worthless state!
As the founding fathers intended (prior to the Incorporation Doctrine).
Leave a note on your door, “Gone to Texas”.
Yup… leftists gonna leftist (Democrats prove it).
Nobody point out how racist it is to assume that black people can’t afford a house and/or require public housing.
That link is not mobile friendly. How am I supposed to read it?
Tech up or shut up.
You can’t defeat the Democrats with last century technology.
It will boil down to this.
Gun owners will refuse to comply hoping for the day saner folks come to power and repeal these gun laws.
The socialists will use this as an “opportunity enforcement” law when and where needed. Or by accident if it happens. Or put into place “turn in your neighbor” bounty.
The status quo could go on for generations until there comes a day when the socialists get serious about enforcing these gun laws.
Then the questions will be:
1. Who is going to be first in the stack?
2. Are there enough state government body guards to go around?
In a day and age when good progressive folk inform on their neighbors for letting their kids play outside by themselves, you can bet it’ll get Stalinism ugly.
Okay Ralph Northam and Mark Herring. If that’s how you want to play it then that’s how we’re going to play it. You better not complain when it’s you and your cronies that get hung out to dry. I guess you have chosen your path. As this article concludes, fail to plan, plan to fail. Molon labe.
If they continue in their blind arrogance, then it’s Bastille Day.
We all gotta die somewhere, sometime.
Then Judgement.
The short answer is “NO”.
Your move.
(can’t remember where I heard it, or who said it)
“the pope has made his decision. where are his battalions to enforce it?”
Dear Gov N,
What are you holding in you hand?
All I can see is deuces and treys.
Seems a bit more like the old “Aces and Eights” hand to me…..
Fill your hand, you sonofabitch!
When it was suggested to Stalin that the Pope might appreciate his ceasing to oppress Catholics in Russia, Stalin scoffed, “The Pope? How many divisions has he got?” implying that the Vatican’s army of zero could hardly stand up to his army of millions.
https://www.shmoop.com/quotes/how-many-divisions-has-the-pope.html
And we have far more armed Americans than Stalin had troops…
You’re right,Poe. Folks have been reminded that the type of overreach displayed by Richmond will probably not fare very well with members of the state guard. It affects them too (in their civilian status). It seems apparent that Northampton and his ilk haven’t thought this through very well.
And then, John Paul II happened…
His cabal of idiots apparently think he can “nationalize” the National Guard.
The hands-free types can and will make examples of those who refuse.
This one is going to be systematic, they will not take “no” for an example, and they are counting on a few long-sentence examples to goad meek submission. SWAT raids will also be used as showboat examples.
Gird your loins.
Gah. “Anti-free” types.
“Hands-free” works. They have staff.
True enough. Then something needs to be done to the hands free criminal types starting this shit. Something kinetic. This is the first of the Bloomberg antigun money bought and paid for politicians to get into office, he needs to be made an example of.
True, Nanny Bloomers spent multiple millions on that election and unfortunately, I think it’s a sign of things to come from him and Soros. Here’s hoping that the anti-gun City-Boy candyassed pricks get their asses handed to them at the ballot box!!!
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.”
Frank Lloyd Wright
I wonder if he and Mencken ever drank a beer together.
Then there’s this take on the klowne car blackface KKK governor and his larsy-boi klone klowne !!!!!
I like this much better than the tripe that moron put out !!!
Shit, forgot the link….
Sucks to get old, BUT…
It still beats the alternative !!!
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/12/26/second-amendment-sanctuary-cities-for-the-win-n2558531
Stand steeled my Brothers and Sisters. This Nutmegger will answer the call if the Richmond Snake bears its fangs.
We are all Virginians.
Forward the Colors…Close Ranks and March to the sound of the guns. If we are to die today, then let us die as Patriots.
*fixes bayonet*
“Ready to storm the parapets, Sir!
Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee…”
Amen, 5th/77th.
All men die. I prefer to die peacefully at a good old age, but I would rather die defending freedom than sell my childrens’ future for the illusion of longer life.
Agree 100%.. am looking at my current AR’s (before they were lost in that tragic boating accident), and considering re-barreling them to include bayonet mounts… Or at least one of them….
How can they be for sanctuary immigration policies and against gun sanctuaries? At least the gun sanctuaries actually have a Constitutional Amendment to point to. All the immigration sanctuaries point to are the feels.
The AG’s opinion is that the state can ignore and outright obstruct federal law, but that cities and counties cannot ignore state law.
It’s apparent that the liberal TARDOs are FOR sanctuary policies for illegal aliens to include voting rights for them because they WANT foreign interference in our elections as long as it goes their way, THEY WANT quid pro quo as long as it goes their way, further proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.
And they WANT the hard working American taxpayers to foot the bill.
Free everything for someone who can’t follow immigration law but Joe 6-pack, f**k that guy!
There’s got to be a portmanteau for this whole situation: shamruption (shame/corruption), vileasonousrection (vile/treasonous/insurrection), comfucbelli…
Criminal Douchebaggery.
My town has a sign as you enter the city limits:
“No Engine Brakes”
I’m tempted to add:
“Muzzle Brakes Welcome”
Opinions are worth just about nothing, but that doesn’t stop any of us from expressing them.
Of course, I would agree with him that “neither local governments nor local constitutional officers have the authority to declare state statutes unconstitutional…” Only courts can do that. That said, it really doesn’t matter much. Locals will either enforce or not, they will either be sued or not, and the courts will ether rule or not. In the meanwhile, it is far from unheard of that jurisdictions fail to enforce that which they believe to be unenforceable, unconstitutional, or just plain irritating. All day every day, law enforcement types make judgement calls about which laws to actually enforce. If they did otherwise, nobody would be going anywhere or doing anything.
AW1ED – just trying to be helpful…your introductory paragraph could use an edit. Either that, or I need more covfefe.
I’m just wording…WHY IS HE YELLING AT US?!?!?!?!
😀 😀 😀
I read a lot of comments here about what our founding fathers intended and VOV has done a very fine job over the past few months analyzing the Bill of Rights. And, intuitively, I want to agree…yet, interpreting that the Bill of Rights should apply to States’ laws and enforcement (or lack thereof) requires an embrace of the Incorporation Doctrine (which I consider quite vile) and the 14th Amendment (which our founding fathers did not author) . I’m conflicted. Perhaps someone smarter than me, ie. any of you (except commiezar), can resolve my confliction. I’m all ears.
Clarification: I consider Gitlow v New York to be a vile decision; upon which, the Incorporation Doctrine was born.
I’m not a lawer, hell, I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn. What’s wrong with incorporating our rights? Isn’t telling the states they can’t trample our rights a god thing?
It might be a good thing. In some cases, it might not. But, it is NOT something that our “founding fathers” intended.
When pinning the argument to the Constitution and the founding fathers (as the GOA) has done, they are condoning the Incorporation Doctrine, which had nothing to do with our founding fathers and is actually antithetical to the Federal System as proscribed in the Constitution by…our founding fathers.
As the preamble to the Bill of Rights states, Amendments to the Constitution were made to protect the States from the Fed. The Bill of Rights wasn’t written and ratified to protect the citizens from the State Governments. 8 suppose, no one at the time thought that people would be so stupid as to put their own heads in a noose. But, the times, they are a changin.
I understand. The Founders expected state Constitutions to protect the rights of citizens. Problem is, those protections aren’t written into all the Constitution of the various states. For example, there are 6 states – New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Minnesota, and Iowa – that have no right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions. We can see how well that’s worked for the citizens of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, and to a lesser extent Minnesota. Incorporation, such as McDonald v Chicago, allows the citizens in those states to fight to keep their rights as Americans.
Not a lawyer, and a bit late to the conversation, but the way it makes sense to me:
I agree that the Incorporation Doctrine runs counter to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
I disagree with the idea that the BoR wasn’t written to “protect the citizens from the State Governments.” The language of the actual amendments suggest otherwise.
The preamble states the reason for the amendments as being “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” It doesn’t specify a need to protect the State Government from the Federal, but a general need to check government overreach.
This is further shown within specific amendments, such as the 1st specifically declaring that “Congress shall make no law.”
The second amendment does not, however, limit the powers of any specific portion of government and should, thus, apply to all government that is a part of these United States. The Incorporation Doctrine does not apply in this case, as the law was already applicable to the whole of government.
Nice reply, thank you. I would only reply that the BIR was a necessary requirement *by the States* in order for them to ratify the Constitution. It was the assurance that they (the States) required to ensure that the Fed would not assume too much power relative to their own (10th Amendment is a major clue).
In any event, I don’t think it matters much anymore. The cat is out of the bag. I just think it’s important to have our guard up and to understand the foundations of the arguments we might make, or read. What is “discovered” can be lost. What is given, can be taken away.
*BOR, not “BIR
Fair, though I would counter that “the States,” in the context of demanding the restrictions within the BoR before ratifying the constitution, refers to state representatives of the populace rather than state government. The Tenth is a good example of this as it speaks directly to “powers… prohibited by it to the States” (though, here referring to state government)…
Either way, I concur… too little, too late.
From Wikipedia article on Incorporation Doctrine:
Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, see McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as “the central component” of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra., and upheld District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S (2008) concluding the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010). “The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner,” McDonald, supra..
And tell me when our esteemed founders wrote the 14th Amendment.
The Incorporation Doctrine sprang, as if by magic, from a bad Supreme Court Decision.
What do you think of this, Poe?
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/03/22/giving-federalism-the-middle-finger/
“And tell me when our esteemed founders wrote the 14th Amendment.”
I’m trying to understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying that only the first ten amendments, the ones the Founders wrote are “real” amendments and that any that came after aren’t “real?” What does that say about the provision to amend the Constitution?
I think Suzanne Sherman says it a lot better than I could. But what I am saying is, asserting the meaning of the 2nd amendment “as the founders intended” and ascribing it to put limits on State Governments “as the founders intended” is just plain wrong…and, in my view, makes it a flawed argument. One cannot have it both ways.
Read this.
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/03/22/giving-federalism-the-middle-finger/
GDC, you’re not the only one conflicted on this issue. I’m a believer in a minimal federal presence, but my own life experiences have shown me that state legislatures can be the sources of, and the protectors of, vile treatment of their citizens if left fully to their own devices.
I grew up in a small southern town where Yankees (I was born one) and Negroes were equally reviled even in mid-20th century. I spent most of my military time in southern states, and following college in far West Texas, lived many years in the old Deep South and weekly traveled by both air and car throughout that region on business. Those travels were primarily to military installations so I spent a good bit of time in smaller southern cities where many bases were located.
While I then loved the South and still deeply do, I witnessed firsthand why the 14th Amendment was necessary, even a century later. Today, I still live in the Old South and gladly will die here, knowing that provisions of the 14th Amendment made our region a better place for all citizens. Without it, and federal influence on southern legislatures, who knows what it might now be.
Now I see the same sort of elitism and intolerance that once ruled the Old South taking hold in the so-called Blue States and I fear, without the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine, many citizens of those states will be deprived of their natural rights, subject to the determined far-leftist goals of out-of-control state legislatures dominated by a singular political party, just as they were in old Dixie.
In my eighth decade now, I’ve come to better realize Benjamin Franklin’s admonition about being able to keep what we’d been handed. To me, it’s a matter of our having to dance with two devils without favoring either one overmuch and always being watchful lest one or both slip their hands under our collective petticoats.
That’s what I think, GDC.
I appreciate your reply. And I agree with your observations. And, I think we’ve traveled too far down the road we’re on to ever put the genie back in the bottle and revert to the type of Federalism our founders intended. I ~want~ the 2nd Amendment to guarantee our right to keep and bear arms, per the founders. Unfortunately, it only does so due to relatively modern SCOTUS “magic”, that sprang from a case restricting political speech (oh the irony). Political winds shift and are subject to blowing in the opposite direction. As such, I think its best for us to understand exactly how guaranteed our rights actually are (not by much, IMHO). I’m a child of the south, born in 1963. In my 20’s I went up to Maine. Although the folks up there weren’t racist, they were skeptical of outsiders and clannish. The whole 18 months I lived there, I only saw one black person, and he was a tourist. That’s just one of my observations. 😉
Good commo. Thanks Poetrooper.
Check this out – came across it this morning:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/24/virginia-governor-northam-increases-corrections-budget-in-anticipation-of-jailing-gun-owners/
Looks like Gov Blackface is anticipating an increase in people headed to prison.
Tom Kratman lives in VA. Investing in jail space is a bit presumptive I think.
Can’t he be recalled from office? Hold another general election and send him packing. He’s really pushing it.
Governor Ralph “Coon Man” Northam, the one who either wears blackface or Klan robes (he can’t remember which) and who supports infanticide of unwanted children, has gone for another bright idea. He’s about as bright as AOC and Bernie, isn’t he?
Those upset about REX 84 and FEMA camps were afraid of the wrong folk.
Here’s something: These officials appear to believe that such blind obedience is required irrespective of whether a law violates the U.S. Constitution, the Virginia Constitution, or is manifestly destructive of the preexisting rights of the People of Virginia. – article
In a few words, they are dictators and you WILL obey them. I believe that is what the Prince Regent (later George IV) thought would happen when he okayed the Stamp Tax Act and housing British troops without paying the homeowners.
It did not go well for him then, and will not go well for Northam and his AttyGenl in this century. Their contemptuous disregard for the general population started the day Northam was sworn in.
Are they going to officially secede from the Union like last time? (Democrats should stick to precedent.)
Democrats don’t obey laws (like the Constitution), they just make them (their own) for others to obey.