Only if the court deems them an appropriate custodian at least from what I’m reading.
Under the VA law they are required to store them until final disposition or turn them over to a court approved third party.
That’s not quite correct.
The law is intentionally vague to the point of unconstitutionality on what justifies seizure.
14 days is just the first step. The aggrieved party must file for a formal hearing within that 14 day period to make his case before the court.
The person who called it in can also get a hearing to extend the ERPO up to 180 days with again a completely vague standard for justification.
“My neighbor comes completely uncorked every time a kid walks across his lawn screaming and yelling at them an I’ve heard them threaten to do the kids physical harm”, seems to be more than enough.
Also the requirements for proving your innocence seem completely vague as well. A judge could easily and quite arbitrarily require the aggrieved party to at their own expense get an extended pshycological or psychiatric exam/treatment and then have the “professionals” come to court and certify they person “not a danger” before they could get relief from the ERPO.
This could easily run into 5,000-10,000.00 or more in expenses just for an innocent person to prove their innocence and sanity.
All the while they remain stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights completely unless and until the court rules them eligible again.
This will of course also throw up a red flag every time they fill out a 4473 in the future to transfer a firearm legally.
1 Like
Indeed we are. The unorganized militia would also be completely responsible for learning the proper handling and use of firearms which we both knows comes at a great expense in time, money, and ammunition and quite possibly professional instruction, all on their own dime.
Some of them did a bangup job of hiding it until The Constitution and BOR were both ratified.
1 Like
Samm
129
Just a point of clarification … the founders did not grant the right to keep and bear arms, they protected that right by prohibiting the Federal Government from taking it away from the people. The wording of the primary clause makes that intent perfectly clear, even without studying the discussion of that aspect in the Federalist Papers.
2 Likes
e7alr
130
True, but only after agreeing to submit the Bill of Rights. But as you well know governments are fleeting, and what we have in the States is a construct, which could be lost all to easily and quickly.
e7alr
131
The reasons individual rights need to be protected from the fiats of arrogant politicians have not changed since the rise of the first politician to assume a position of authority. And they never will.
And rights do not compare to technology, it’s an apples and oranges thing.
As for your horses and wagons, modern history is full of examples where in the waning days of conflict, the losing side is reduced to animal and hand drawn wagons and carts as fuel for the modern technology becomes unavailable.
If we’re going to apply the “modernity” test to the 2nd we’ll have to apply it to all other rights as well.
I’m thinking they won’t go for that.
Piper
133
I have it on good authority that statistically, you are more likely to be killed by Hillary Clinton than an AR-15. Tell Beto.
That’s actually not too far from the truth.
You are about 25,000x more likely to die by your own fork than you are by AR unless you’re committing a crime.
1 Like
mobulis
135
Wrong, you have the right to self defense. What tools you can use to exercise that right is not ironclad.
Samm
136
Don’t be silly, it’s right there in black and white … “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That right exists whether you need to defend yourself not.
2 Likes
Never get to face your accuser.
VA Dems are getting everything they wanted and more. Balls to wall.
mobulis
138
Sorry rights aren’t unlimited.
The constitution says otherwise and we absolutely know the original intent was to protect our rights to keep and bear firearms.
See the Heller decision.
What then precisely is the limit? Cite your affirming source.
mobulis
143
From Heller
2) 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
