re: Northam & his NOVA cohorts overruled by a judge

quote:

---

I can see instances where it would be necessary. Suspending sales does not equate disarmament of those already in possession

---

Bummer. I must have misread the part of 2A that says it only applies to people who already own a firearm.

quote:

---

You have a less-explicit constitutional right to an abortion.

Courts during this ordeal have held that abortion clinics can be closed as non-essential

---

Because its an elective (read: non-essential) procedure in the vast majority of situations. In an emergency health situation, it would be provided.

quote:

---

Target practice is an elective procedure.

In an emergency situation, you would still have your legally possessed firearm to defend yourself.

---

Well thankfully the constitution and court disagrees with you.

The constitution says nothing about target practice, and neither does the Virginia emergency statute, which stated in its explicitly allowed gun-related activities as “including” but not “included but not limited to.”

The judge decided to add it.

If target practice is a constitutionally guaranteed right, then laws against discharging a firearm in a city limits are automatically unconstitutional.

Now, I’m sure someone will come back and say that this interest in government limitation is to keep from endangering lives, yet the Virginia governor believes that deeming an indoor gun range as nonessential activity also serves a government interest in keeping from endangering lives during a viral pandemic.

quote:

---

means that during a disaster or violent criminal uprising in Virginia, the governor could not suspend gun sales, either (a common feature of state and local emergency laws).

---

Are violent criminals normally allowed to buy guns in Virginia? In an uprising, why would the suspension of gun sales even be considered? What would it accomplish?

Why can’t you anti-gun people realize that no law is going to keep these people from getting guns? They will buy them illegally or steal them, if they need them.

quote:

---

I’m sorry you have such a poor grasp on 2a rights. It doesn’t guarantee you to be able to dangerously wield and discharge your weapon...Shooting ranges are clearly not that, they are well regulated and part of maintaining ‘the militia’.

---

Using the term “well-regulated” in this context is actually the politically liberal Supreme Court viewpoint that opened the door even more for banning handguns in D.C. v. Heller.

In that decision, Justice Scalia, in writing the majority opinion in 2008 that laid the groundwork to later incorporate the individual right to own guns for all Americans, stated that well-regulated in the constitutional context meant “well-trained.”

Now, your argument that gun ranges further an interest of a well-trained populace in gun use. But Scalia also wrote this:

quote:

---

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

---

In short, I’m not sure whether even Antonin Scalia would buy your argument.

If the Virginia Assembly had wanted to include use of gun ranges in its list of protected gun-related activities that a governor could not usurp during times of publicly declared emergencies, then they clearly would’ve done so. And if they wanted to leave the door open to other gun-related activities, the Assembly would’ve used “including but not limited to” in its statutory language, instead of simply “including.”

quote:

---

In that decision, Justice Scalia, in writing the majority opinion in 2008 that laid the groundwork to later incorporate the individual right to own guns for all Americans, stated that well-regulated in the constitutional context meant “well-trained.”

---

Interesting that you seem to be arguing against shootings ranges, against the Supreme Court interpretation considering the fact that people train in firearm skills at a shooting range.

Again I agree it’s not all encompassing Ive stated it doesn’t guarantee dangerous wielding and usage which a shooting range clearly is not. It seems my position is in line with historical and current interpretation.

The Virginia assembly doesn’t super-cede the constitution. a shooting range is not a sensitive place like a school or gov building, and is not immediately related to conditions/qualifications for sale of firearms. It seems in line with limitations from the quotes you have supplied and misinterpreted.

In short my position is in line with multiple sc rulings, and Scalia opinion, I highly doubt he would buy your argument.

quote:

---

I can see where it can be abused, too.

---

If, once abused, what could one do about that "new normal"?

Be specific.

quote:

---

If target practice is a constitutionally guaranteed right, then laws against discharging a firearm in a city limits are automatically unconstitutional.

---

Your tiny brain can't fathom the extreme distinction between target practice and randomly discharging a firearm within city limits (such laws don't apply to defensive usage either). Texas education at its finest, you and FaggyHank are morons indeed.