# Fellow Virginian's write/call your delegates & state senators



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Quite frightening to criminalize owning an "assault weapon"..as they define it:

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+SB16


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Pretty interesting that they didn't really define "assault weapons". Very restrictive also, way too restrictive. I hope it fails.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

It wouldn't take much more than a barely qualified judge to see this wouldn't pass the "in common use" smell test. This should never have to see SCOTUS, but with so many enept and biased courts who don't care to use their law degree properly, the people of Virginia will have to speak first.
Below are a few of what would get swept into the ideological dumpster of this law.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Anytime a piece of legislation comes down the road bearing the term "Assault" I pretty much get a handle on those sponsoring it.

You know, they can't propose and pass legislation if they are unemployed.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

A lot of those unemployed bureaucrats become lobbyists and talking heads after they are pulled from the teet. 
There is still good money and with the same or even better influence.
Politicians as a whole have lost the ability to think for themselves.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

the people are speaking and the stage is being set.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/...afPLOcUva10zQzrM-ueJH7rePtPa72QNGHN6Dwgu6Z-9I


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Pretty interesting that they didn't really define "assault weapons". Very restrictive also, way too restrictive. I hope it fails.


The term is defined in the full text of the bill.

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB16



> § 18.2-308.8. Importation, sale, possession, etc., of assault firearms prohibited; penalty.
> 
> _A. For the purposes of this section:_
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> It wouldn't take much more than a barely qualified judge to see this wouldn't pass the "in common use" smell test. This should never have to see SCOTUS, but with so many enept and biased courts who don't care to use their law degree properly, the people of Virginia will have to speak first.
> Below are a few of what would get swept into the ideological dumpster of this law.


The bolt action Ruger wouldn't be included under the definition in the bill's text.

The shotguns would be fine as long as they don't have magazine extensions.

I don't think there are any hi capacity magazines for the BAR's.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Way way down at the bottom. Thanks for the link to the actual definition in the bill. Stupid legislation, probably will pass though. Same kind of unconstitutional garbage being passed in many places.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

The Democrats are selling our rights to the highest donor.
I hope Virginia starts impeachment or a recall vote.


----------

