Virginia: DOJ Files Suit

[John Kloehr]

My guess will be a push to strengthen and expand the current injunction and then the state will want to stay proceedings pending Viramontes. As long as the problems with the current injunction get corrected, I'm OK with that.

 

 

 

Edited July 1 by John Kloehr

[John Kloehr]

One problem with the current injunction is the reach is not clear. Some local agencies may still be able to enforce the ban as they were not included in the court order. As a result:

 

 

[John Kloehr]

Court injunction is now state-wide. Palmetto opens ordering for delivery after July 21st:

 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

SO! The actual ban may never see the light of day!!  I’m still hoping that Viramontes will result in a broad prohibition of ANY infringement on these 2A protected firearms and related accessories!! 
 

It would not hurt my feelings if SCOTUS were to put some actual teeth in any judgement handed down in prohibiting this breach of Constitutional law!!

[John Kloehr]

2 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

SO! The actual ban may never see the light of day!!  I’m still hoping that Viramontes will result in a broad prohibition of ANY infringement on these 2A protected firearms and related accessories!! 
 

It would not hurt my feelings if SCOTUS were to put some actual teeth in any judgement handed down in prohibiting this breach of Constitutional law!!

 

Currently 4 suits by various individuals and groups under varying theories, plus the DOJ bringing its own suit. Still have to remember Virginia passed a smorgasbord of restrictions. The state may be holding off on implementing one or more of them separate from any court actions (I saw a report of something tucked into an unrelated bill, maybe storage requirements). From AI:

• Minimum Age Requirements: Raises the legal age to purchase handguns and covered assault firearms from 18 to 21.
• Mandatory Secure Storage: Requires firearms to be secured with a lock or stored in a locked container in residences where minors or legally prohibited individuals are present.
• Vehicle Storage: Makes it a crime to leave a handgun unattended in a vehicle unless it is completely out of plain sight in a locked container.
• "Ghost Gun" Ban: Prohibits the sale, manufacture, possession, or transfer of unserialized or undetectable firearms and their components.
• Firearm Industry Liability: Establishes standards of responsible conduct for the gun industry and permits civil lawsuits against companies that contribute to illegal trafficking or public nuisances.

 

Edited July 8 by John Kloehr

[Blackwater 53393]

I hope SCOTUS strikes down every letter and punctuation mark!!

[John Kloehr]

2 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

I hope SCOTUS strikes down every letter and punctuation mark!!

 

Do hope so, and it will be about a year until the opinion comes out.

 

One of the four suits in Virginia lower courts is a state-only constitutional challenge. Compare:

 

"

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

"

To:

 

"

Virginia Article 13: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

"

The state is arguing the word "therefore" changes the meaning and there is no individual right under the state constitution. Along with the the second bolded part only being added in the 1970s means there is not longstanding history and tradition in Virginia... Someone actually came up with this argument. In Virginia.

 

[Blackwater 53393]

29 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

 

Do hope so, and it will be about a year until the opinion comes out.

 

One of the four suits in Virginia lower courts is a state-only constitutional challenge. Compare:

 

"

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

"

To:

 

"

Virginia Article 13: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

"

The state is arguing the word "therefore" changes the meaning and there is no individual right under the state constitution. Along with the the second bolded part only being added in the 1970s means there is not longstanding history and tradition in Virginia... Someone actually came up with this argument. In Virginia.

 

That makes me think that those judges that are in the pocket of and the ones sucking up to the current administration will probably attempt to tap dance around the Virginia Constitution and particularly the amended portion!!

 

It may be up to the higher courts to make this happen!

[John Kloehr]

44 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

That makes me think that those judges that are in the pocket of and the ones sucking up to the current administration will probably attempt to tap dance around the Virginia Constitution and particularly the amended portion!!

 

It may be up to the higher courts to make this happen!

I am trusting SCOTUS will put at least the made up term AWB to bed, will probably GVR the magazine cases to see how lower courts try to wiggle around clear guidance.

 

Virginia did lose its attempt to consolidate all the new cases as one. The court said no, the suits all bring different claims and it would be a hardship on multiple claimants to travel to another court.