December 23, 2019
Supervisors OK resolution backing 2nd Amendment
Audience members react to the Fauquier board of supervisors’ 5-0 vote Monday.
What you saw here is the Fauquier board of supervisors responding to an overwhelming plea of support from our citizens. I always say we work best when we get input from them.
— Supervisor Holder Trumbo
As expected, Fauquier’s board of supervisors Monday night unanimously approved a resolution that firmly expresses its support of the Second Amendment.
The supervisors’ special 5 p.m. meeting on the matter in the Warren Green Building in Warrenton lasted about five minutes.
Board Chairman Chris Butler read into the record a three-page resolution that designates Fauquier a “constitutional county.” Without comment, the board voted, 5-0, to adopt the document.
About 50 gun rights’ advocates in the audience who wore orange “Guns Save Lives” stickers clapped, whistled and shouted their approval.
“All five supervisors worked on this,” Supervisor Mary Leigh McDaniel (Marshall District) said of the resolution in interview moments after the vote. “We were trying to strike a balance for what we heard from all of our citizens.”
“What you saw here is the Fauquier board of supervisors responding to an overwhelming plea of support” for gun rights “from our citizens,” Supervisor Holder Trumbo (Scott) said in interview. “I always say we work best when we get input from them.”
In sometimes blunt language, the resolution states that the board:
• “Reaffirms its Oath of Office to support and defend the United States and Virginia Constitutions and stands as a Constitutional County with the overwhelming number of Constitutional and Sanctuary Counties” across Virginia.
• “Condemns threatened actions by state officials that would place the National Guard or other state agencies and officials in opposition to local law enforcement and citizens of the Commonwealth.”
• “Strongly condemns statements of the Governor and members of the General Assembly threatening to withhold funds to localities that support the constitutional rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms.”
The resolution also recommends that state lawmakers approve various gun safety measures and more state funds “for mental health screening and services” throughout Virginia.
More than 90 Virginia counties, cities and towns have adopted similar resolutions, according to published reports.
They have done so because Gov. Ralph Northam (D) and many Democratic legislators will push for stricter gun laws during the 2020 General Assembly’s 60-day session, which will convene Jan. 8.
On Nov. 5, Democrats won majorities in both the 100-member Virginia House of Delegates and 40-member Senate. Not since 1993 has the party controlled state government.
In response to gun rights’ advocates who wanted tougher language, the supervisors twice revised a Second Amendment resolution before adopting Tuesday’s document.
About 2,000 people on Dec. 12 gathered at the Warren Green to demonstrate their support for board action to affirm the right keep and bear arms.
For more than four hours that night, 74 people testified before the board and urged it to designate Fauquier a “Second Amendment sanctuary” or “constitutional county.” No speakers backed gun-law restrictions.
Some critics called the Dec. 12 draft resolution “watered down.”
If the board designated Fauquier a sanctuary county, Sheriff Bob Mosier wouldn’t “enforce unconstitutional laws” and Commonwealth’s Attorney Scott C. Hook wouldn’t prosecute people in violation of such laws, according to one speaker.
The supervisors also wouldn’t appropriate county funds to enforce them, he told the board.
Fauquier’s resolution doesn’t include those provisions.
No legal definition exists of a constitutional county, according to County Attorney Kevin Burke.
“But, I believe it is fair to say that the board’s intent and presumably the intent of the many other jurisdictions in Virginia, which have made similar declarations, is to affirm that they will support the Constitution,” Mr. Burke said in an email. “The same is true of the term Second Amendment sanctuary. There is similarly no legal definition for that term.”
Such resolutions have no “legal effect,” Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) stated in a Dec. 20 “advisory opinion.”
“It is my further opinion that localities and local constitutional officers cannot nullify state laws and must comply with gun violence prevention measures that the General Assembly may enact,” Mr. Herring wrote in the four-page document (below).
Contact Don Del Rosso at Don@FauquierNow.com or 540-270-0300.
Fauquier BoS Resolution on ... by Fauquier Now on Scribd
Va. Attorney General Herrin... by Fauquier Now on Scribd
Please, be polite. Avoid name-calling and profanity.
For credibility, sign your real name; stand behind your comments. Readers will give less credence to anonymous posts.
DonkeyFarmer · December 31, 2019 at 3:48 pm
Linda- So your law would have an exception for members of the military under 21? I see. What about for an 18 year old that wants to go hunting? What about a 17 year old hunting with his dad? What about a 20 year old woman living alone in a sketchy town? Will you make exceptions for them in your law? And before you pass your law you know you will need to amend the Constitution right? You have 2/3 of Congress and 38 States that are on board with Linda's Law?
And instead of slamming the NRA, which does not make or sell firearms, and simply protects the Constitutional rights of millions, including you, you should be thanking them because they promote gun safety and train in the safe use of firearms. They even have a program that trains kids in gun safety called Eddie Eagle.
And I won't address your Bible verses, it does not belong in a political debate. We live under the laws and freedoms of the Constitution here not the Bible.
Constitutional Insurgent · December 31, 2019 at 10:59 am
Linda - You can't even post in clear English.
Linda Ward · December 31, 2019 at 8:23 am
DF- The military teaches responsible firearm ownership and handling, this incident was not responsible firearm handling by civilians. I do like your thinking, yes let's try out your idea of preventing firearm ownership to anyone who can not pass a test, with a proper firearm handling training period, as the military performs, irregardless of age. Once a person can show they can handle a firearm responsibly then they will be given a license and can buy and own a firearm.
Sometimes children think clearer then adults, they don't complicate things with their overblown egos as some adults do.
The only thing the Bible says about weapons is that in the Kingdom Age nations will no longer need them (Isaiah 2:4) The Lord knows better than to think that keeping weapons away from people will cause them to be more peaceful. He knows that violence is not the fault of a weapon, but of the person holding it, and that violent people will always find a way to get one. That’s why the Bible favors tough penalties for misusing weapons.
Romans 12:18-19 says that if it is possible, as far as it depends upon us, to live at peace with everyone, and to leave revenge to God.
CI - You are being ridiculous with your Bills of Rights comment. It is not I but you that can't handle the truth.
DonkeyFarmer · December 30, 2019 at 7:43 pm
Why not a law that prevents anyone under 40 from owning or possessing a firearm? Or 50? Wouldn't that prevent even more deaths?
DonkeyFarmer · December 30, 2019 at 7:40 pm
Linda, a significant portion of our military is under 21. Would they have to bring baseball bats into combat?
You have the reasoning of a child.
Constitutional Insurgent · December 30, 2019 at 7:32 pm
And you would restrict the Rights of a Citizen only to those who are 21? Cool. I hope your ready to restrict the rest of the Bill of Rights to 21 and older as well.
Constitutional Insurgent · December 30, 2019 at 7:26 pm
The study is only flawed in your mind. It was commissioned by a gun controlling Statist. Don’t hate the truth, embrace it.
Linda Ward · December 30, 2019 at 7:24 pm
CDC study? That study is flawed and you know it.
Linda Ward · December 30, 2019 at 7:22 pm
OK, you want a law that would have prevented this, well a law was just passed that cigarettes can not be sold to anyone under 21. If there can be a law that stops anyone under 21 from buying cigarettes then why not one that prevents anyone under the age of 21 from buying, owning, or having in their possession a firearm. Both are deadly in their own way. Or are you going to tell me that firearms are safer then cigarettes?
Constitutional Insurgent · December 30, 2019 at 6:12 pm
"Cage" should be "vague".
Constitutional Insurgent · December 30, 2019 at 5:43 pm
Linda won’t answer, because she can’t. I don’t think it was funny Linda, but I think your fetish for cage and undefined “control” is clownish.
And I’ll take that bet any day. Every single assessment of defensive gun use statistics, even the Obama commissioned CDC study bears that out.
DonkeyFarmer · December 30, 2019 at 4:46 pm
What law Linda? You are one of those people that shout "We have to dooooooo something!" But you never say what.
Let me be clear WHAT LAW DO YOU WANT PASSED THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE CHRISTMAS TREE SHOOTING?
Linda Ward · December 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm
CI - You think what happened is funny? May you or one of yours never be assaulted by some idiot with a firearm, by someone that doesn't know enough not to shoot in a residential area. Goes out to you too DonkeyFarmer.
Tell you what. Why don't we keep count on how many lives guns save versus how many they kill in 2020. Any bets on who will win?
DonkeyFarmer · December 30, 2019 at 4:18 pm
Linda- Seems like there was already a law prohibiting what these guys did. They broke the law and were charged, so what are you going on about?
Constitutional Insurgent · December 30, 2019 at 3:48 pm
@Linda - The firearm in question is referred to as a “hunting rifle” (presumably a bolt action, possibly semi). Instead of knee-jerking for “control”, what legislation exactly would you propose that would have prevented this horrific Christmas tree assault?
Linda Ward · December 30, 2019 at 3:40 pm
Stray bullet hits Christmas tree in Brookside home.
The deputies filed the misdemeanor charge against:
• Robert Lee Barr, 19, of Warrenton.
• Robert Lee Culler III, 19, of Warrenton.
• Travis Joseph Brown, 19, of Nokesville.
• Isaac Justin Brooks, 19, of The Plains.
• Trevor Joseph Dezutti, 20, of Sanford, N.C.
They are lucky that it was only a Christmas Tree they hit. They could have killed someone the idiots! You all think that we don't need better control on the weapons that are available, really?
Jim Griffin · December 30, 2019 at 2:45 pm
1. VA is unique: He cannot run for re-election, so he serves as best he can.
2. Agreed -- it was a semantic objection at the start. Your reason was circular. Agreed -- if it is anti-2A, it will fall.
3. Agreed. I worry little about judges. The vast majority of cases would be decided the same or nearly so regardless.
5. Not a game: The change in the statehouse has consequences, much as it has in the National Capitol. At long last, we are discussing harm reduction policy instead of ending the meeting after an hour. These are difficult issues.
6. Yes, local issues count and affect us more directly. School Board and BoS are most important in many ways. I tend to think highly of our boards in both cases and weigh-in on them publicly, at the polls and with volunteer support.
DonkeyFarmer · December 30, 2019 at 2:37 pm
1. Maybe so, but it has interfered with his job at this point. He now will sign anything to appease his base.
2. How does it get to the Supreme Court? Somebody had to believe it to be anti-2nd Amendment. You are just arguing semantics now.
3. I suspect you suspect correctly.
But I would rather have 20% of the bench appointed by Trump than Hillary. Did you see that law professor that testified at the impeachment hearings? She was an absolute nut, and she was on Hillarys short list for the Supreme Court. Dodged a bullet there.
5. Yes you are playing games because we would not be having this conversation if the Democrats did not take power. Don't know why you choose to bring Republicans into this. It's one party rule in Richmond, Republicans have nothing to do with it.
Don't get me wrong, I really don't like any politicians on either side. And don't think for a minute most of these guys even care about the issues. They are all having steak together in evenings paid for by some lobbiest that wrote the bill for them. They are all friends, Republicans and Democrats, behind closed doors.
6. Yes. Wish more people cared about local issues, instead we are bombarded 24/7 with Washington that really does not affect your day to day life.
Parents especially should be more concerned with school board and county council decisions than DJT decisions.
Jim Griffin · December 30, 2019 at 2:07 pm
1. Everyone is racist, but I do not think our governor is so especially racist as you seem to think. Youthful indiscretion is just that.
2. A law is anti-2A if the US SupCt says it is anti-2a. The outcome drives the conclusion.
3. I suspect over time DJT appointees will behave in practice as do most POTUS appointees.
4. Yes, let's protect rights, but let's look at these things holistically and less literally. In other words, yes we have a 1A, but we do have libel laws, slander laws, etc.
5. Not playing games, but calling people out by party is. My point is clear: Neither party has a lock on doing the right thing. We should all come at this from a perspective of harm reduction.
6. No law is perfect. The US Constitution will win out. As regards legal measures, local is best, though not perfect.
Jim Griffin · December 30, 2019 at 2:02 pm
CI: Understood, but I prefer their designation ahead of time -- which occurred -- to the idea of anyone with a gun popping up (though obviously that is better than nothing).
Constitutional Insurgent · December 30, 2019 at 1:42 pm
@Jim - The church security personnel were volunteer parishioners.
DonkeyFarmer · December 30, 2019 at 1:25 pm
1. Our governor dressed in blackface several times, then posed for a photo either wearing blackface or a KKK outfit and found it all so humorous he published it in his yearbook. I'm not simply calling him a name because he us a democrat.
2. It was not conclusionary, I did not say all laws will be challenged, I said any law that is anti 2nd Amendment. The final call on that will be in the courts.
3. I refer to Strict Interpretation of the Constitution. I used the term Constitutional Judges as shorthand.
4. How strict? It depends. I believe in leaving people alone if they are not harming others or society. I don't know the legalities of revenge porn, never looked into it. Off the top of my head I'd say if it was legally obtained and not used to extort something from the subject, that person can post it up on the internet. Be careful who you make porn with I guess.
5. Orrock posted on his facebook page that he is withdrawing HB192. And let's not play games here. We both know Democrats are the ones proposing the anti gun laws. They always have been, it's just now they are in power and will get them passed.
5. I would prefer security guards too. But are you going to put one in every public place? Look to Israel for a solution that works. They had designated guards in public areas and the terrorists would kill them first. So they went with plain clothes guards. Terrorists don't know who is armed now. And it is working.
6. I understand how federal and state laws, and local ordinances work. I believe in following the 10th Amendment as well. Gun laws are one area though that I believe should be in the hands of the Federal government, if only to make them uniform. For instance if very strict laws are passed in Virginia, a crazy person intent on murder and fame could just drive over the border to West Virginia or Pennsylvania and get their gun there. We should also have Federal laws that would protect a law abiding citizen that is carrying his legal firearms from one state to another and has to drive through a state like New Jersey and become a criminal.
Jim Griffin · December 30, 2019 at 12:21 pm
In pursuit of discourse, consider the following:
1. Our governor is neither more nor less racist than anyone else. You are simply calling him a name because he is a Democrat and you disagree with him. We are all racist, including all who suffer at the hands of racists.
2. Your first sentence is a conclusionary statement: The question of whether or not any particular law violates the constitution rests with the courts. Naturally, if it violates the 2A it will be struck down, but there is lots of room for action.
3. All justices are constitutional. They take an oath as do public officials.
4. How absolutist are we all as regards infringement? We are now facing the question of whether revenge porn bans infringe 1A rights, which as a strict statement they do.
5. If you object to Democrats proposing laws, let's discuss laws proposed by Republicans in Richmond: State Delegate Glenn Davis (R-84) introduced legislation to make it more difficult and costly to obtain a concealed carry permit. HB 142 says you must ask nicely and pay for a concealed carry permit and must qualify via hands-on instruction. Republican Delegate Bobby Orrock (R-54) introduced HB 192: You must take a class, qualify and obtain a permit to purchase a firearm. What did our local Republican statehouse rep say? Wait and see. Republican leader Tommy Norment proposed restricting guns from public buildings.
My point: Neither side of the aisle has a monopoly on bad approaches to firearms legislation.
5. As regards the Texas church, while the facts remain unclear, at least half of those who raised arms in defense were designated security guards, and critically it appears it was a guard who shot the perpetrator first. When I watch the video, I am struck by how non-obvious it is who is doing the shooting when the room fills with people raising arms. I prefer designated security guards.
6. Laws passed by the US Congress do not always override state laws. Indeed, it is a conservative principle that laws passed closest to citizens should take precedence. Depends on how you write them. Unfortunately, it is obvious that regardless of party we want the laws we favor to take precedence and those we oppose to get over-ridden.
I know you like a good argument and I enjoy the respectful discussion with you.
Constitutional Insurgent · December 30, 2019 at 12:16 pm
@Mark - Feel free to swap "god given Rights" with "natural Rights" if you prefer. Both were understood by the Framers.
RGLJA · December 30, 2019 at 7:51 am
@MarkHouse, your argument is with Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Alexander Hamilton, and most of the other founders of our republic. There would not be a United States of America unless there was a specific declaration of individual rights, including our right of self-defense, and also including the right to resist a tyrannical government. If you don't like the reference to God, take it up with the founders whose early writings often referenced these "God given rights".
DonkeyFarmer · December 29, 2019 at 10:04 pm
Any anti-2nd Amendment laws signed into law by our racist governor will be challenged in court. President Trump has already replaced 20% of the federal bench with Constitutional justices. No need to panic yet.
I am willing to accept gun laws that will actually prevent murders. The problem is none of the laws proposed by the Democrats in Richmond will do that. The kids at VT layed on the floor and waited to be executed. The church in Texas today there were 5 armed citizens that took out the murderer. If you disarm the law abiding citizen you leave the criminals to be the only armed ones.
There is another avenue that we can take if Richmond passes their feel good laws. The US Congress can pass laws that protect our rights and will override any state laws.
Mark House · December 29, 2019 at 6:42 pm
Jeff old boy, "they intend to strip of us of our God given rights.", since when does god have anything to do with firearms?
You are projecting and inciting anarchy, possibly a riot. You are the one who is threatening law-abiding citizens.
Jeffersonian American · December 29, 2019 at 9:59 am
Well stated kudos below to VAPatriot, JustCurious, Donkey Farmer and Constitutional Insurgent. I wish to also pass along to all law-abiding citizens in our Fauquier, Culpeper, Madison, Rappahannock and Orange counties of the following Facebook information and announcement posted and forwarded by other Compatriots for an upcoming public event in Culpeper to be held on Saturday January 11, 2020:
On July 17, 1775, citizens from Culpeper, Fauquier and Orange counties came together in Clayton’s Old Field under a large oak tree, in present day Yowell Meadow Park, to raise a cadre of 350 men to defend themselves and their families from a tyrannical government. Those 350 brave men would go down in history as the Culpeper Minutemen.
Today, we are facing equally ominous threats from our own state government, including threats to confiscate our arms, threats of economic and legal retaliation against our localities, local elected officials and local law enforcement, and veiled threats of the use of military force against peaceful, law-abiding citizens who have done no wrong. The Governor and legislators in Richmond have said they intend to strip of us of our God given rights. They are not listening. We are being threatened.
It is time to join together again in defense of our liberties. Please join us. All law-abiding citizens are welcome. We are renewing our commitment to the defense of our right to keep and bear arms and to the principles of liberty upon which this great republic was founded. We will meet on the same hallowed ground where the Culpeper Minutemen pledged their lives in defense of liberty and do the same.
Meet at the Yowell Meadow Park Gazebo
Short walk to the monument at the site of the old oak tree where the Culpeper Minutemen mustered for a short prayer and remembrance.
Return to the gazebo to hear from patriots working in the trenches to protect our liberties.
When: Saturday, January 11th 2020
Where: Yowell Meadow Park N Blue Ridge Ave, Culpeper, VA 22701 (Gazebo behind the park off Gardner Street Entrance)
No matter the weather we will gather.
JustCurious · December 28, 2019 at 7:51 am
Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post? It appeared to support the gun ban(s) by presenting 'expert' opinions about why guns are horrible things to have.
IF your intention was to merely identify what 'they' are thinking, then I did misread.
Tony Bentley · December 27, 2019 at 7:23 pm
JustCurious · December 27, 2019 at 2:54 pm
TB: ""The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared.""
Your position is that an 'average person' can't control their anger. I would need some data on that point. An average person in Fauquier County might be different from an average person in a large urban setting?
They get scared. Yeppir! In a life threatening situation, getting scared is common. Being scared, but a means to survive, is far different from being scared with zero means to survive.
If a comet is on a collision course with Earth, then many will be scared - and can do nothing about it.
If a bad actor tries to invade my home, I'll be scared and angry - no doubt. But, having contemplated that, I'll be ready and willing. Anyone who isn't willing should not purchase a weapon. I'll grant you that point. Those who are willing should have the option - can you grant me that point?
So -- being scared and angry are not automatic disqualifiers for guns. Chat with folks who have been in combat - scared and angry are common emotions. Controlling those is key.
If your 'average' person can't, or won't, control her/him/their/them/itself - then they deal with the results of their incompetence.
Please don't impose their incompetence on me.
JustCurious · December 27, 2019 at 2:42 pm
The honorable = \sarcasm
On the one hand, Gov publicly withdrew the possession issue which would convert thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens into class 6 felons overnight.
But, on the other hand, a bill is filed which increases prison capacity in anticipation of a 'possession' felony law, in addition to other felony charges associated with the gun grab (HB30).
Who are we to believe?
The Gov and AG threaten calling out the National Guard to enforce a possession ban. First they have to know who has, or might have, newly illegal weapons. Then the search might begin. Warrants required, or warrentless? Take apart your residence, punch holes in the walls (like drug searches have done), then walk away empty handed, leaving you to repair their mess?
Of course, this is all speculation UNTIL bills are passed. Better to prepare for the likely worst case scenario. That scenario doesn't happen? Fine - the preparations can be undone. It does happen? No last minute scramble - you are ready (whatever that means to you).
Jessica · December 27, 2019 at 4:17 am
Board chief Butler read this 2nd amendment in front of the audiences.He took only five minutes for reading from his side.The board won this 5-0 votes by the members.This assignment writers uk
will teach you to write content and prepare your assignment about different topics.Now, it is the time to wait what react comes from general public side!
Post Washington · December 26, 2019 at 11:20 pm
these resolutions mark an expression of opinion, and that's fine. State law will be followed. Period.
DonkeyFarmer · December 26, 2019 at 8:46 pm
I stopped reading when you called him The Honorable Governor.
JustCurious · December 26, 2019 at 5:12 pm
The honorable GOV announced that SB16 might not ban possession after all - but he announced a registration mandate as a replacement.
The budget bill, HB30, includes 250K$ directly associated with increasing the prison population for possession and four other gun-control-related issues.
farmbum · December 26, 2019 at 10:38 am
CI..a flawed survey, age and extrapolated data have rendered it obsolete. The government if it was serious about the never ending debate surrounding gun violence could in fact earmark monies for a proper study. However, the politics of government would probably not bode well for such a study. Such are the times we are in. A recourse would be to simply focus on the criminal aspects of offensive gun violence rather than the defensive use of guns by law abiding citizens.
Constitutional Insurgent · December 26, 2019 at 10:03 am
“In particular, a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”: Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
farmbum · December 26, 2019 at 9:35 am
TB... It is a right established in the Constitution.
One has a choice based on that right.
There are other paths of course to mitigate fear, anger, risks and lawlessness.
Tony Bentley · December 26, 2019 at 9:02 am
"The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.
David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.
"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."
RGLJA · December 25, 2019 at 7:58 am
The hundreds of thousands of citizens protesting throughout Virginia are not advocating ignoring laws, they are advocating that we uphold the Constitution, the supreme law of the land that supersedes all laws of the Richmond legislature. Judging by the text of the Democrats proposed legislation, they definitely needed a reminder from Virginia citizens that we are paying attention, and hopefully their plans to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens will be reconsidered.
Truepat · December 25, 2019 at 6:31 am
If you vote pro constitutional candidates we wouldn't have this problem, consider this a wake up call and vote them out of Richmond and the National elections!!!
Constitutional Insurgent · December 24, 2019 at 4:48 pm
I’m not so sure DF, I have a feeling that he’s quite comfortable with armed agents of the State. Until they criminalize a Right that he personally enjoys, at least.
DonkeyFarmer · December 24, 2019 at 4:19 pm
It's almost like Tony has this fantasy of gun owners and police involved in shoot-outs.... He does not care as he hates them both.
Constitutional Insurgent · December 24, 2019 at 3:41 pm
BTW, you’re following the gun control script from your masters quite well, but what you’re actually referring to are standard capacity magazines. High capacity magazine typically fail and aren’t worth the money a small minority spend on those novelties.
Constitutional Insurgent · December 24, 2019 at 3:38 pm
@Tony - Perhaps you’ll note in your own statement why we will not comply with any registration scheme. You’ve, probably unwittingly, revealed the true intentions of the gun control lobby.
What makes you think that local law enforcement is any less protective of our Constitutional Rights than the rest of us. Do you really think that they will support in-Constitutional confiscation?
We will not comply.
DonkeyFarmer · December 24, 2019 at 3:37 pm
Tony are you actually asking a question? Because your "guess" is wrong.
If a ban is implemented, it will end up in court and it will be decided there if it complies with the Federal and Virginia Constitution.
Police have no idea who owns magazines or AR15s so unless they go door to door there is never going to be consfication.
Tony Bentley · December 24, 2019 at 3:14 pm
So, what happens now if say the State legislature or the Federal Government decide to ban AR-15's and high capacity magazines.
I guess people will be given a certain time period to turn in any weapons that are banned, and if they don't the police will be required to confiscate legally registered weapons. Are folks going to shoot at the police when or if they show up to take the weapons? The Sanctuary status is not the LAW, and the police are sworn to follow the law which is voted on by the State or the Federal government.
This could get ugly if it comes to pass. Are some of you saying that you would fight and kill the authorities if it does happen? Anarchy?
VAPatriotIII% · December 24, 2019 at 12:32 pm
Now all pro-2A residents NEED to come to the Lobby Day on January 20th 2020 at the Capitol Building in Richmond VA to make a THUNDEROUS statement to the General Assembly. Kudos to the Fauquier County Board and the patriot citizens who have written, called, emailed and shown up at board meetings to ensure they heard loud and clear from residents that we are not going to roll over for King Northam and his liberal cronies and Bloomberg backers who are trying to infringe upon our Rights. The VAST majority of Virginia counties have declared the same or similar stances. We are NOT California and will NOT roll over to these unconstitutional bills being pushed in Richmond. The Second Amendment is crystal clear - "...SHALL NOT be infringed." It's a mandate - not a suggestion, and it is there specifically to defend your other rights and to keep tyrannical government at bay. The Virginia flag's motto "Sic Semper Tyrannis" is not just words... I hope the politicians are listening and realizing that their little bastions of liberalism in the counties surrounding DC and Norfolk are islands in a sea of conservative values and people who believe in the Constitution (both US and VA's which protect the right to keep and bear arms), and who are sick of seeing Virginian Democrats and out of state influencers trying to turn us into sheep like CA, NJ, NY or the UK.
Constitutional Insurgent · December 24, 2019 at 9:35 am
@Farmbum - Sanctuary status is a Resolution, not Legislation. People really need to drop the hysteria and learn how government works.
Well done Fauquier Board!
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
Friday, January 15
Her grandfather’s example led Warrenton resident Constance Houk to a career focused on cats, dogs and their owners
Friday, January 15
Health department setting up clinics to provide COVID-19 vaccine by appointment, following state protocol
More Fauquier news
Friday, January 15
4,795 new infections and 30 more deaths across Virginia, health department reports