Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Va. gun rights group cheers high court ruling

A Virginia gun rights group cheered Monday's Supreme Court decision that the Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to own firearms, potentially opening the door to legal challenges of some state and local laws and regulations.

But at least one gun control proponent also hailed the court's decision for making it clear for a second time in a landmark ruling that reasonable regulations and laws restricting guns do not conflict with the Second Amendment.

"I think the most interesting part of the Supreme Court decision is that it rejected an absolutist view of the Second Amendment for the second time," said Abigail Spangler, founder of Protest Easy Guns. She was referring to the 2008 Heller ruling that also recognized a Second Amendment right to firearms ownership and struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban. Monday's decision, in McDonald v. Chicago, basically held that the Heller ruling, involving regulations in a federal enclave, also applies to state and local governments.

"It was sort of what I was expecting, quite frankly," Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave said in a telephone interview Monday.

Van Cleave said that after the Heller case recognized a Second Amendment right to own and keep firearms in the home for self-defense, it seemed likely that the court would build on previous cases holding that protections in the Bill of Rights apply to state and local governments also, and would strike down Chicago's law.

But Van Cleave also doubted that it would have any immediate impact on Virginia's firearms laws, including the state's gun-a-month law. That measure, enacted by former governor Douglas Wilder, prohibits Virginians from buying more than one handgun every 30 days. Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William) led a high-profile but ultimately unsuccessful effort during this year's annual legislative session to overturn the law.

The Supreme Court decision comes as Van Cleave's group is planning a statewide celebration of another gun rights victory. On July 1, new laws become effective, including a measure signed by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell that allows people to carry concealed weapons into restaurants that sell alcohol, a measure dubbed by opponents as the guns-in-bars bill.

Van Cleave said the passage of the law in Virginia, a host of similar gun-rights measures across the country and two major gun rights decisions by the Supreme Court have given gun owners momentum in the debate over guns.

"When was the last big victory gun controllers had?" Van Cleave said.

But Spangler said gun control groups will continue to push for reasonable restrictions on access to weapons for people who should not have them or carry them into certain venues. Her priority remains trying to close the so-called gun show loophole, including a bill now before Congress.

By Fredrick Kunkle  |  June 29, 2010; 9:07 AM ET
Categories:  Fredrick Kunkle  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Updated: Man who threatened Kaine died after being held in jail
Next: UPDATED: U.S. Navy Vets director's political donations result in boon for Virginia charities

Comments

"But Spangler said gun control groups will continue to push for reasonable restrictions on access to weapons for people who should not have them or carry them into certain venues".
The people that shouldn't have access to gun's are criminal's. How does putting restrictions on my ability to protect myself stop a criminal from getting their hands on a gun? Her reasoning lacks any logic and maintains no coherent thought process. Virginia, thankfully, takes seriously my desire not to be a victim of crime. The same cannot be said for D.C., Maryland and Chicago. At what point do you arrive at the reasoning that it's OK or acceptable to be the victim of crime? Is it because your Local, State or Federal Government doesn't think you should be able to protect yourself or your family. If it's your desire to be killed, raped or robbed, go ahead and lay down. The life of my family and also my life, means too much for me to just roll over.

Posted by: youngs24 | June 29, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

You just have to love that term "reasonable". What a bunch of phony people these anti-freedom people truly are!

Posted by: gjdagis | June 29, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

What gun-control absolutists should focus on is pressuring our justice system to VIGOROUSLY prosecute illegal weapons crimes. Thugs who walk around with guns they're not allowed to have robbing and murdering people should get minimum 20 years.

This isn't hard to understand. Prosecute criminals, leave US alone. QED.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | June 29, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

You want total freedome, move to the jungle.

I live in a society and want rules to protect my right to live without fear or threat by gun toting nutjobs.

Judge Roberts is a crook, bought and paid for like most, current US Judges, eg., Texas judge who receives hundreds of thousands of dollars and is the preferred Judge of oil companies such as BP who is asking the he be assigned their case when it comes to court. And the one who overturned the ban on offshore drilling until the government can check oil rigs for any potential problems and formulate a method of dealing with such spills as we currently have in Louisiana.

So let's compromise: here send this to the governor of Illinois - single shot guns only with the ability to place only on bullet in the gun at a time.

Posted by: morenews1 | June 29, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

You want total freedom, move to the jungle.

I live in a society and want rules to protect my right to live without fear or threat by gun toting nutjobs.

Judge Roberts is a crook, bought and paid for like most, current US Judges, eg., Texas judge who receives hundreds of thousands of dollars and is the preferred Judge of oil companies such as BP who is asking the he be assigned their case when it comes to court. And the one who overturned the ban on offshore drilling until the government can check oil rigs for any potential problems and formulate a method of dealing with such spills as we currently have in Louisiana.

So let's compromise: here send this to the governor of Illinois - single shot guns only with the ability to place only one bullet in the gun at a time.

Posted by: morenews1 | June 29, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

When was the last time your life was threatened by a gun toting nutjob that wasn't a criminal? And I'm pretty sure YOUR society and rules have Failed in Chicago. I'm watching with amusement the Kagan confirmation hearings. Fienstein ran off a list of people that were killed or maimed by guns to make her point. The part she failed to make is that every one was shot by a criminal, Not a person that was carrying for protection and safety. Don't confuse crime statistics with gun ownership.

Posted by: youngs24 | June 29, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The High Court ruled 5 - 4 that people can keep guns in their homes. So what? In most states you can already do that. Now, however, people against gun violence will lobby for:
1. Universal gun registration.
2. Mandatory safety training.
3. No guns for persons under 21.
4. General ban on assault weapons.
5. Close the gun show loophole.
6. "Absolute liability" for those who choose to keep guns (ask a lawyer what that means).

Posted by: Xanadu2010 | June 29, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Let’s flip "reasonable" around.

1. Lets define what the "reasonable" amount of censorship we should have in the news.
2. Lets define when its "reasonable" to wiretap your calls, read your emails, search your home, to find and protect you from terrorists.
3. Lets define what is the "reasonable" level of health care an individual needs.
4. Lets define "reasonable" for how you discipline your children.

I can go on for hours how government Democrat and Republican CONTROL YOUR DECISION MAKING. It comes from both sides. You are all HIPOCRATES for only standing up for only the freedoms you agree with. You need to stand up for the freedoms you DON'T agree with.

Posted by: tonyspdx | June 29, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Let’s flip "reasonable" around

Or right now were standing up for the freedom that is the topic of the article. Not hypocrites, just staying focused on the point of this article.

Posted by: youngs24 | June 29, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company