Virginia Police Chief Wants To Ban ALL Guns

On Sept. 25, the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a 3 ½ hour “hearing” entitled “Protecting America From Assault Weapons.”

That framing of the issue underscored the erroneous notion that Americans need protection from inanimate objects, rather than from violent criminals who have and always will use any means at their disposal to harm innocent, defenseless people. It also revealed the unfortunate agenda of the proceedings, which was to emphasize politics and finger-pointing over any useful exploration of how Congress might take meaningful steps to improve public safety, The NRA-ILA reports.

The most startling claim of the proceedings came when Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department in Virginia responded to a question from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) about whether she would support a ban on hunting rifles. “I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” Brackney replied.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) even asked her directly, “Okay, so you then stand for the proposition to ban any type of firearm, because any firearm can be used and misused to kill people.”

Rather than answering the question directly, Dr. Brackney began talking about police and the social contract. Rep. Steube tried asking again, only to be interrupted by an anti-gun committee member who tried to raise a point of order. She claimed that Rep. Steube was “attacking” the witness – when in fact he was merely trying to get a straight answer – and requested that he “tone down his words.” That exchange took up most of Steube’s remaining time for questioning, which was not reinstated.

Again, however, Rep. Steube tried, to clarify, asking, “Any type of weapon … that can be used to kill people should be banned?” “Sir,” Brackney replied, “you’re adding the word ‘type.’ I said ‘any weapons,’ so that’s my answer. Thank you.”

LEGISLATIVE TESTIMONY “Protecting America From Assault Weapons” Testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives September 25, 2019 Amy E. Swearer Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies The Heritage Foundation

These are the lies that will be told in the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks—both by Democrats and by moderate Republicans. It is no longer a “conspiracy” that the Democrats are “coming for your guns”, they openly admit it now. They have also learned that President Trump stands in their path, so they have been passing state laws and when certain states refuse they then turn to large companies such as Walmart.

The days of saying, “It will never happen” or “shall not be infringed” are days of the past, because it is happening and horrifically infringed upon.

@umgud wrote: “In regards to the 2A, gov’t has never defined the term ‘infringement’.”

First off, umgud, the word is “infringed” ... not “infringement” [see next]

Second, the Virginia Bill of Rights reads:

“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...”

“... shall NOT be Infringed...” [EMPHASIS added]

Now, where have we read that before? ;-)

Third, ‘Heller’ cleared up that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms does NOT require membership in “a well regulated militia”:

“The [Second] Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

The Prefatory Clause:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,”

The Operative Clause:

“. . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

–‘District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller’, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Now, as to that term “infringed”:

“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.”
(The text as ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson.)

In law and statutes, the word ‘shall’ has the following meaning:

“An imperative command; has a duty to or is required to. For example, the notice shall be sent within 30 days. Usually ‘shall’ used here is in the mandatory sense.”

“When used in statutes, contracts, or the like, the word ‘shall’ is generally imperative or mandatory.”
[Independent School District No. 561 v. Independent School District No. 35, 284 Minn. 426, 436-37, 170 N.W.2d 433, 440 (1969)]

“In common, or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term ‘shall’ is a word of command, and one which has always, or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears; but the context ought to be very strongly persuasive before it is softened into a mere ‘permission‘, etc.”
[People v. O’Rourke, 124 Cal. App. 752, 759 (Cal. App. 1932)]

The Founders use of the word “shall” removes all doubt as to its being a command not subject to any other interpretation.

Their use of the adverb “not” is yet another command word.

Their use of the verb “be” means “occur” or “take place.”

And their use of the verb “infringed” cannot have any other meaning than “a intentional violation or breach of a legal right, contract, or statute.”

All the above simply means that any law, code, statute or ruling which prevents or prohibits an individual from purchasing or otherwise receiving, owning or carrying a firearm; _any_ firearm; or other “arms”; is to be considered patently unconstitutional and not to be used to deny that individual’s sacrosanct 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms: unless and until that individual’s right is individually and specifically subjected to being modified or removed by a court of law after using due process.

Adding to the above:

No law is automatically ‘Constitutional’

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.