Virginia Attorney General Opinion: Sheriffs and Law Enforcement Must Ignore Sanctuary Declarations

Virginia Attorney General

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

By Jeff Hulbert

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring has issued an official advisory opinion declaring that any and all new gun laws passed by the General Assembly must be enforced—despite Herring once declining to defend a law in court that he believed was invalid.

Herring’s opinion came in the form of a written response to a fellow elected Democrat, who indicated that he is alarmed by the flood of Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions adopted by more than 100 Virginia counties and towns over the past month.

Delegate Jerrauld C. “Jay” Jones of Norfolk requested the opinion following statements from some Virginia sheriffs that they would refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws issued by the new Democrat-controlled General Assembly.

Statewide Democrats, along with Governor Ralph Northam, have committed to passing at least eight new gun control laws in 2020—measures that would include universal background checks on the sales of all firearms in Virginia, a ban on AR-15 pattern rifles, and a “red flag” law allowing authorities to confiscate the firearms from anyone deemed a threat.

From the Virginia AG’s four-page official opinion:

When the General Assembly passes new gun safety laws they will be enforced, and they will be followed. These resolutions have no legal force, and they’re just part of an effort by the gun lobby to stoke fear.

While the Virginia Citizens Defense League and other gun rights advocates tout the Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions as an effective—but possibly only symbolic—political pressure campaign, there are Virginia elected officials and sheriffs who say they will honor the resolutions to ignore any unconstitutional gun rights infringements coming out of Richmond.

With the release of the advisory opinion, the Virginia Attorney General opens himself to claims that he’s a hypocrite when it comes to enforcing the law.

House Majority Leader Todd Gilbert, a Republican from Shenandoah, says Attorney General Herring’s official stance on gun control enforcement stands in contradiction to Herring’s refusal in 2014 to defend Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban in state court—a ban that Herring regarded as unconstitutional.

From WTVR.com:

Attorney General Herring’s opinion is interesting, as it directly contradicts his own statements and actions regarding the supremacy of state law over the preferences of the officials who must enforce them.

Phillip Van Cleave, the president of the VCDL, agrees that AG Herring is hypocritical in declaring gun control laws be enforced while the laws Herring disagrees with are not.

From the Associated Press:

Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League, called Herring’s advisory opinion “a yawn.”

“The whole idea was to send a message from local government representing large numbers of people to say no more gun control,” Van Cleave said.

And in an online post, Van Cleave said “VA AG says you can ignore immigration and marijuana laws, but not gun laws.”

VCDL Herring Opinion

Courtesy Facebook

Old Dominion Democrats complain that the VCDL’s campaign to persuade Virginia counties and towns to enact Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions has dangerously energized a growing militia movement, not only in the Commonwealth, but across the country.

VCDL lobby day

Courtesy VCDL

On January 20th, the VCDL’s Lobby Day event in Richmond is expected to draw thousands of armed gun rights supporters to the Statehouse grounds. The VCDL says militia groups are welcome at the event to “enhance security”—a position that Democrats say is tantamount to the approval of an insurrection.

The turnout in Richmond for the Lobby Day event, which has historically drawn about a thousand, is now predicted to overwhelm the Capitol complex next month, possibly attracting 10,000 guns rights supporters or more.

 

Jeff Hulbert is the founder of Patriot Picket

comments

  1. avatar neiowa says:

    STOP linking to the twits at CNN. Find a legitimate source.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Like the source that said the governor is planning to turn of the power and internet?

      1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

        “…the governor is planning to turn of the power and internet?”

        Turn of? Did you mean turn off?

        Yeah, cut the power, see what that gets you… 😉

      2. avatar Merle 0 says:

        Could you provide that source?

        Also, that’s quite the interesting strategy to take for someone in power. You figure the governments priority number one in such a scenario is to maintain as much order and obedience as possible. You start cutting off people’s electricity… well… your going to have chaos. Real chaos. And the most chaos is going to occur in his base of power, that being the big blue cities. It would be a serious shoot yourself in the foot move.

        As Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy while they’re making a mistake.

        1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

          Merle, I say to myself “Nobody could *possibly* be that stupid”…and then I realize, why yes, they can be that stupid… 😉

        2. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

          He probably means cut the power to the hicks, those folks used to dealing with power outages. While leaving the power on the comfy cities.

          He really doesn’t know how easy it would be make those cities very cold, dark, hungry places… 🙂

        3. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Indeed. Come to think of it, you could add in the governor likely doesn’t have that ability anyway. The power company being private entity probably wouldn’t take to kindly to a government figure trying to force them to turn off power to their customers.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      insurrection?….an interesting way to describe what is actually happening…this could be the test bed for the concept….

      1. avatar Erik in AZ says:

        The fact that civil war didn’t break out in Connecticut and California and other states when they passed similar laws (“assault” weapons bans paired with registration) makes me doubt Virginia will be any different. There will be abysmally low compliance (4%-8%), and the majority of counties won’t ever even issue a citation. They sure won’t go house to house, violating the 4th to see if by chance someone owns a “restricted” firearm or part, as that would guarantee a blood bath.

        1. avatar possum says:

          Guarantee a Blood Bath? Are you implying the masses will rise against oppression, in the United States of America, ,,,. Not

  2. avatar jeff says:

    Well, we know where he stands. Potheads and illegals are welcome in Virginia but not gun owners.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      A shame you don’t understand how our Federal system works. States cannot be compelled by the Feds to enforce Federal laws. State laws do not have to mirror Federal laws. If the Feds want to outlaw pot, fine, then Federal resources must be used to enforce that law. But all drug laws are unconstitutional.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        “But all drug laws are unconstitutional.”

        Just have your attorney start with that.

        Sure the 9th and maybe the 10th are in play in these sanctuary discussions but it really comes down to what the people do and what their overlords do in response.

        In the VA case this doesn’t look good and when they start enforcing their new laws in a year or so we’ll see how the media treats the aftermath. I predict it will get the same treatment they are famous for.

      2. avatar Prndll says:

        Please cite for us all the read where the Constitution even talks about drugs….must less makes it a right!

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          You believe the government owns your body? You think government gives you rights? You want government to hand out permission slips to do what you want to yourself?

        2. avatar Prndll says:

          @Chief Censor
          What I want is to be shown where in the Constitution is says anything at all about drugs.

        3. avatar Chief Censor says:

          The constitution does not give you rights. It guarantees protection of those rights and strongly limits the government’s powers. All other rights and powers are retained by the people. Just because it isn’t written down doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s not how the system was designed.

          You have the human right to do whatever you want with your body. At one time they passed an amendment to stop you from drinking alcohol. They got rid of that after it caused more problems. Now they have no lawful or moral authority to enforce prohibition.

          Don’t make a socialist argument that people can only do what the government says they can do.

        4. avatar MarkPA says:

          The Commerce Clause gives Congress an enormous amount of control because – today – just about everything crosses state lines. The Clause has been stretched beyond all reason, sometimes called the “herpes doctrine” of the Commerce Clause; and, it’s going to be mighty tough to rein it back in. Only in a couple of cases has the Supreme Court stepped in.

          That notwithstanding, I think it’s a stretch to say that an individual growing pot in his garden for personal consumption is engaged in or affecting interstate commerce.

          The seed he planted might have been blown by the wind or transported by fauna across state lines. His planting the seed, cultivating and harvesting is agriculture. If he doesn’t sell it then that’s not commerce. The fact that he grows his own might reduce his consumption of pot grown in other states. However, it is a stretch to say that NOT consuming an illegal product that MIGHT otherwise have been illegally trafficked in interstate commerce is “affecting interstate commerce”.

          Finally, we know that hemp was cultivated in the founding era. If the ratifying generation would have regarded it a natural liberty to cultivate and use pot then it’s a stretch to say that there was no unenumerated right to cultivate, sell and consume pot at that time. Congress would have to propose – and the states ratify – a Prohibition Amendment to secure the power to regulate or ban pot.

          Think of it like this. It’s well known that tobacco was cultivated, sold and consumed (by inhalation) in the founding era. Would the ratifying generation have regarded it as an unenumerated right to do these things? Then, tobacco remains a right – albeit unenumerated – today. In what way is pot different from tobacco?

          The same can’t be said for meth or Fentanyl. If one can’t sustain the case for tobacco or pot then it couldn’t be sustained for most other drugs. IF the case CAN be made for pot then it’s worth trying to extend the argument to other drugs.

          It is, at least, worth trying to make the argument that its a state’s right to regulate these drugs within its own borders as it sees fit. That is the current Constitutional status of alcohol; why should it not be the same for these other drugs.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That notwithstanding, I think it’s a stretch to say that an individual growing pot in his garden for personal consumption is engaged in or affecting interstate commerce.”

          Would it be a stretch under the Wickard v. Filburn decision?

        6. avatar Prndll says:

          @Chief Censor
          ok, so we agree that the Constitution says absolutely NOTHING about drugs one way or the other…..NOTHING.

          I do understand that things exist that are not specifically mentioned within text. The Holy Bible says nothing about how jet engines work. But we do have jet engines.

          I’m saying that it is not in the Constitution. As a result of that, any idea of laws against drugs is subject to opinion and is not in and of itself unconstitutional. The Constitution very specifically mentions the people of the United States being armed and that condition of being armed shall not be infringed. Therefore, laws that infringe on the armed condition of the people are unconstitutional. This is not subject to debate. It is there. It’s just that the left wants very much for that specific item to go away.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “As a result of that, any idea of laws against drugs is subject to opinion and is not in and of itself unconstitutional.”

          Uuuuuuhhh, uuuuummmmm, like, you know, ninth and tenth amendments?

        8. avatar In for a penny, In for a pound says:

          PRNDLL-If the 14th is used for anchor babies and the 2nd is constantly infringed, when it says it cant be. Then, the 21st Amendment could be interpreted as covering other intoxicating substances, and not just intoxicating liqours.

        9. avatar Prndll says:

          @Sam I Am
          Here again, no mention of drugs.

          The Constitution as a document is to be studied, argued, and debated. I do not question that. I question the idea that laws against drugs are unconstitutional. As if to suggest that drugs are constitutionally on par with firearms. Such ideas are preposterous.

          By all means, pursue your version of happiness. But if it’s not there then it’s not there.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “By all means, pursue your version of happiness. But if it’s not there then it’s not there.”

          The wet dream of leftists.

          The constitution is prohibitive, not prescriptive. Else, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments….which clearly state that the constitution itself does not list all the rights held by “the people”. The purpose of the ninth and tenth was that the anti-federalists knew government would seek to limit the liberty and freedom of the people by claiming that all protected rights must be in the document, and that whatever is not directly prohibited to government is inherently permissible.

          Simple fact: the ninth and tenth amendments invalidate the idea that “if it’s not in there, it’s not in there”. Seen another way, if government power isn’t specifically listed, that power does not exist. If it’s not in there, it’s not in there.

          BTW, the “right to privacy” is not listed, but is inferred. Following the “if it’s not in there…” doctrine, the right to privacy does not exist because it is not specifically identified; nowhere in the document is “right to privacy” mentioned.

        11. avatar Prndll says:

          @In for a penny, In for a pound

          It does not say “intoxicating substances”
          it says “intoxicating liquors”

        12. avatar Prndll says:

          @Sam I Am

          yes….inferred….I agree

          That is why so much long term debate. It’s how abortion has been seen within the text of the constitution.

        13. avatar Arc says:

          I second this, I would like to see exactly in the COTUS where the federal government was ever enumerated the power to control people’s bodies or deem plants created by the almighty, illegal. The government is only supposed to have the power its given, and it was never given any such power over herbs and mushrooms.

        14. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          Sam,
          More specific to marijuana, the Supreme Court held in Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) “that like with the home-grown wheat at issue in Wickard, home-grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce:”

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…home-grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation…”

          Yep. The insanity of the Supreme Court declaring that the constitution was established to permit government to order individuals to participate in commerce. The founders foresaw this is their long debate over the potential for the Commerce Clause to be corrupted. In this case, in direct opposition to founding principles.

        16. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Shorty pithy answer: 9th amendment.

          Your understanding is backwards. The fact that the constitution does not mention drugs means they are a right.

          The constitution grants specific powers to the government.

          Can you find where the power to outlaw investing substances is granted?

          The 10th amendment limits federal power to exactly what is explicitly delegated.

          The 9th amendment says that protected rights extend beyond, and are NOT limited to what is explicitly stated.

        17. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Prndll, you’re kidding, right? All powers not assigned to the Federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. So, if it is not mentioned in the constitution, it is forbidden for the federal government to even address it. We all knew that 100 years ago, when Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, and then another to repeal it. When was the Amendment passed authorizing a “War on Drugs”? As a great American once mentioned, all drug laws are unconstitutional.

        18. avatar jaac12000 says:

          Just because a “right” does not appear specifically in the Bill Of Rights does NOT mean that it is not a Right. Being an Artist does not appear in the Bill of Rights yet is is covered by the 1st Amendment among others. By your implied definition American citizens only have 10 Rights. How pathetic would that be?

      3. avatar JB says:

        Chris Mallory quit trolling the same spam statement, you’re an idiot.

      4. avatar Thixotropic says:

        States also cannot pass laws that contradict or invalidate Constitutional Laws like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th Amendments, etc. Also State Officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

        Different in context to War on Drug laws, etc.

        What if the Jews resisted the SA and SS in the manner that these brave County Sheriffs and people are planning to do? No Holocaust?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Also State Officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

          You do realize that there is no definitive, legally unassailable, test for specifically what that means, right?

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Thix, something liked 10,000 soldiers successfully exterminated 6 MILLION Jews, and another million gypsies, homosexuals, etc. If each of those 7 million humans had simply raised a rock in their hands, the soldiers would have dropped their guns and run away. Worse, if only the ones protecting their children who were under 12 had fought back, they could have not only stopped the genocide, they could have stopped the Reich, dead in its tracks.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The conundrum you put forward has been the subject of many “studies”. Not sure anyone ever announced a single cause for the inverse power proposition. However….

          Long ago, leaving a secure military facility, we were talking among a small group of officers, about an unfolding attempt to hijack an airliner. The jacker had a shotgun, and negotiations were not working. Among six military officers, only me, myself and I proposed that if the shooting started, the passengers would have to risk mobbing the shooter, and that there would be passenger casualties in doing so. The other five officers were virulently opposed to the idea, remarking that the best tactic would be to endure random shootings, hoping the authorities would storm the airplane, and kill the jacker. I was flabbergasted.

          Years later, United Flight 93. I have hoped that since that day, those five officers who recommended enduring random shootings still have nagging shame that a bunch of civilians in 2001 had more fortitude.

      5. avatar Merle 0 says:

        I like how you claim all drugs laws are unconstitutional yet the constitution mentions nothing about drugs. Yet, you claim infringing on gun rights is somehow magically constitutional, yet the constitution literally states “shall not be infringed.”

        Yeah, that entire important document stating the foundations of a free society to include the RTKBA, but yet you choose to decide for everyone it actually magically means drugs cannot be legislated against. Real addict logic.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Reading comprehension. The federal government has no business dealing with ANY drug laws, because the Constitution does not give them that authority. That does not mean the states are prohibited, the entirety of authority belongs to the states, or to the people. Which is why the fed is loath to interfere when states declare recreational drugs to be legal. Honest, guys, this shit used to be taught in high school.

    2. avatar Jon in CO says:

      I’d be willing to be that you work with more “potheads” than you know. And there are more “potheads” in your community and family and friends network than you know.

      Please, stop stigmatizing people as “potheads”. There’s no difference between someone going home after work and getting high and someone going home and having a couple beers or a couple glasses of scotch.

      1. avatar Possum and the Coons of Doom says:

        Yes there is. We laugh when we’re high and I get laughed at when we’re drunnk

        1. avatar Jon in CO says:

          Touché possum.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Probably true, today. When I was a kid, the difference was that a doobie could get you 5 years in a no-shit prison, and a scotch could not.

  3. avatar Hydguy says:

    Ah, the hypocrisy of the left laid bare, yet again.
    This libtard claims that sheriffs must ignore 2A ‘sanctuary’ status, but wholly supports illegal ‘sanctuary’ status.
    What a moron.
    The Founding Fathers would have, at a minimum, tarred and feathered this sack of crap, after running him out of office.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Two different issues. The Feds cannot compel the states to enforce Federal law. The states do not get their power and authority from the Federal government. Cities and counties are creations of the state. It isn’t hard to understand.

      1. avatar Hydguy says:

        I’m well aware.
        However, that doesn’t change the fact that the AG is a hypocrite regarding ‘sanctuary’ status.
        Your attempt to split hairs is pretty weak, and petty.
        Run along chump.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          How about you learn how the United States works by reading the Constitution of the United States? Why are you being a hypocrite by demanding a state government to give up their rights? You do know it works both ways?

          If the federal government passes gun control the states don’t have to enforce that law. The NFA is not something they have to enforce in their state. The feds have to do the enforcing. The Sheriff can get in their way if they try.

        2. avatar Hydguy says:

          Since you have been educated by others, I’ll just let those statements stand to a testament to your stupidity.
          Thanks for playing the moron in this little exercise.
          Maybe you will think twice before openly displaying your stupidity, but it’s doubtful.

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Hey Chief / Miner / Vlad the Cisco Impaler from Other Planets,

          Your statement that cities and counties are “creations of the State” is true, but you overlook the fact that any elected official (Sheriff, Mayor, et al) is bound to uphold the USC above all else. It’s the Supremacy Clause. I’ve said this many times here, but even Kommifornia here originally bent the knee not long ago. Article 3 Section 1 of the CA Constitution – added less than 50 years ago in 1972 when this state was still solidly conservative (my how things can change!) – consists of a single sentence:

          “The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

          Therefore, when a State official (Governor, Lt. Gov, Atty Gen, State Legislature, etc.) violates the Constitution and attempts to enforce an unconstitutional edict, others within the jurisdiction have not only the right, but the DUTY, to ignore it and revert to the USC. We already know this by historical SCOTUS decision:

          “The Constitution of these U.S. is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law.” [Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)]

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Two different issues.”

        Maybe not?

        The same sex case was based on equal protection of the law, not refusal to enforce an unfunded federal mandate. Immigration might be a different story. If same sex marriage is a protected civil right, then gun ownership is blatantly a civil right. The state has no authority to deny civil rights, especially when the state constitution contains a protection for gun ownership. (Article 1; Sec 13)

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          True. The government has no lawful authority to disarm the people. However, no one has stopped them for decades when they do. Republicans also infringe on the 2nd Amendment along side the Democrats. Look what Trump did with bump stocks and the Reformation.

      3. avatar Mark Bruscke says:

        There are two different issues. Yet, they are analogous.

        The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it controls what the states have the power to do.

        The 2A has been incorporated upon the states by the McDonald decision.

        These counties are standing on the firm ground of the US Constitution. If-when-as they see the enforcement of a new state law as an infraction of the Federal Constitution they have the right – even the duty – to do defy the state law.

        Suppose a state abridged the freedom of religion? Would a municipality have the right of resistance based on the 1A?

        Yes, it’s true that the municipality is subordinate to its state. Yet in our system of dual sovereignty, it is subordinate to the Federal government under the Federal Constitution. And it’s the latter which holds supremacy.

        The municipality defies its state at great jeopardy. It’s state may inflict its wrath upon the municipality with little hope of the Federales riding to their rescue. Nevertheless, it is a mechanism by which we the People of the municipality can collectively stand in defiance of state tyranny without (or with less) personal jeopardy of being individually charged with criminal behavior.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Yet in our system of dual sovereignty, it is subordinate to the Federal government under the Federal Constitution. And it’s the latter which holds supremacy.”

          That’s how it is now, but not in the beginning. The central committee could not be superior, per se, in as much as the superior States created the central committee, and set the Constitution as a boundary for the central committee, not the States (except where specifically agreed to as a provision of the constitution).

          Federalism, as created, no longer exists. The “federal” government is more accurately described as the central government, of which states (little “s”) are political subdivisions, nothing more.

      4. avatar Merle 0 says:

        States cannot infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

        See: Gideon vs Wainwright.

  4. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Herring is a hypocrite gun grabber and fascist.

  5. avatar Imayeti says:

    Well you see, there’s this thing called “The Constitution” and, well, never mind.

  6. avatar PK says:

    That’s nice, dear.

  7. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Is that THE Mark Herring who recently admitted to wearing blackface in college? THE Mark Herring who swept allegations of “rape” against the Lt. Governor under the rug…? Yeah, I REALLY give a shit what he has to say… Maybe he needs to spend more time reading the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Virginia…

  8. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The sheriffs taking seriously their oath,unlike the AG which should be removed from office for suggesting they violate the oath they took.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Should Trump be removed for demanding Republicans help the Democrats with gun control and violate their oath?

      1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

        I hope you are talking hypothetically. Because President Trump has never forced the Republicans in Congress to join the Democrats and ignore their oaths to the constitution.

  9. avatar Leighton says:

    Same thing when it comes to immigration sanctuary?

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      NO, NO, NO…… Sheriffs MUST obey the UNCONSTITUTIONAL “sanctuary” (for illegals) ordinances passed by local municipalities and REFUSE to assist Federal LEOs in the lawful course of THEIR Constitutional duties, however, they must IGNORE any law passed in SUPPORT of an American citizens lawful, Constitutionally protected rights… WELLLL alrighty then, isn’t that special? I get it, I really do… This is a rewrite of Monty Pythons old “Confuse a Cat” skit and we are the cats or maybe it’s a parody of “Groundhogs Day” renamed “April Fools Day” written by Adam Schitzzz (aka bubblehead) in which the Left keeps taunting us and pushing us in search of THAT fine line where enough is too much and the people finally strike back and they will jump back in feigned horror proclaiming “but….. but…… but….. we were only joking”…… “April Fool!!”

  10. avatar RGP says:

    That TV preacher hair looks absolutely fabulous to everybody back home at the trailer park.

  11. avatar former water water says:

    Ummm OK…American revolution.

  12. avatar OBOB says:

    As a sheriff in VA…

    I would be like…got it, all sanctuary BS is off the table and illegal! so when you pass those anti gun laws, I will obey them all and start giving ICE every illegal alien I come across!
    Mass deportations form VA!

    Two can play the game!

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      I really hope you are not a government employee. Your understanding of our Federal system is so lacking I would be surprised if you didn’t flunk out of 4th grade.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        You’ve assigned yourself the role of hallway monitor on all things constitutional. I’m sure you believe in strict following of the document but I’m not sure you know how it works.

        Have you the resources both legal and financial to take a case with standing to the Supremes?
        I didn’t think so. What happens in any circumstance is dictated by how it looks to others, the harm and costs incurred, and who gets embarrassed or wins the day.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          Every American should be a constitutional monitor. That is your duty. Stop shaming a constitutionalist for citing the constitution.

        2. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Chris Mallory isn’t a constitutionalist.

          He’s you. And you’re also Vlad, Planets, Arc, and Miner.

          You’ve been made.

      2. avatar OBOB says:

        Whoops I am sorry I just guessed a reader like you would have some Brains Chris and could make connections without them being SPELLED out

        As a sheriff in VA…

        I would be like…got it, all sanctuary BS is off the table and illegal! so when you pass those anti gun laws, I will obey them all and start giving ICE every illegal alien I come across!
        Mass deportations from VA!…..the deportations would be MADE BY ICE moron not the sheriff or the state Of VA like I said above….”””and start giving ICE every illegal alien I come across!””””

        Two can play the game!

        and done…only if you spent more time on reading the POSTS here, then looking up BS insults off the net to use when you can’t think of your own!

      3. avatar Hush says:

        Chris, your understanding of “We the People” is what’s lacking!

  13. Hey traitor Virginia A.G. Mark Herring, what about the “supreme law of the land” that you have taken an oath to uphold and support? Especially the part which states;

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

    Are you trying to claim that the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND has no validity or will not be enforced in the state of Virginia? That you and your fellow traitors can recklessly disregard it at will?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      E. David Quammen,

      This demonstrates the simple fact that we are rapidly becoming (if we are not already) a nation of men rather than a nation of justice and righteous laws.

      1. No doubt about it. And unfortunately we have only ourselves to blame. For we became complacent and allowed our appointed, elected and hired servants to stray outside the bounds we had Constitutionally placed on them. Of course the more they were allowed to take with no response, the more they have grabbed.

  14. avatar FB says:

    What about not abiding the oath to the constitution.

    1. What punishments are set forth for such violations? And who will prosecute them? There are laws on the books, but they are only selectively enforced.

  15. avatar Jeff Hulbert says:

    “TV preacher hair”! OK, that there is funny, I don’t care who you are…

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Kind of that OLD Bennie Hinn look….

  16. avatar KRP says:

    When last I checked Mega Donors like Soros and Blumberg did not write our Constitution! Yet by giving huge amounts to anti-gun politicians like this guy, they believe they have written it in their own image and likeness. Remember Soros was the 14-year-old who gave up Jews in his home country in order to get his hands on their money. The 60 minutes Interview from years ago confirms this and he wasn’t ashamed to admit to it. So with that background why do you think he would want to take away our guns? Because he cares so much for his fellow man? Please!!! None of these Dems give 2 craps about anything other than power, dominion and lining their own pockets.

  17. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Should be an interesting spectacle if those bills become law. Wake me when/if they do.

  18. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    So, surprising nobody “Respect my authoritah!” for he, but not for thee?

  19. avatar billy-bob says:

    Does VA have recalls?

  20. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    The National Guard Storm Troopers attended a rally held by Governor Roulf Northam SS-Gruppenführer. Herr Northam reminded them of their duty to him and to carry out all orders against any protesting proletariat unbelievers. Tanks are being fueled and armed much like was done in China at Tianamin Square to crush and slaughter the student uprisings demanding Democracy. Herr Hauptman Northam screamed we shall never let Capitalvania turn into a true Democracy of the people.

    Remember the Tanks at tianamin square? History will repeat itself. Sieg Heil!!!

    1. avatar Juicy Lucy says:

      Vlad, posts like this undermine your reputation of a troll.

    2. avatar James Campbell says:

      More dog whistle propaganda for the public school de-programmed and re-educated youth.

  21. avatar Shire-man says:

    So easy to send other peoples kids to war. So easy to send a bunch of faceless badges door to door.
    Or is AG Mark offering to take point?

  22. avatar Aven says:

    Our Democrat Sheriff and Democrat Commonwealth Attorney were among the first pushing our sanctuary county designation. Our Democrat majority Board of Supervisors approved our designation 100%. If the Sheriff won’t arrest and the Commonwealth Attorney won’t bring charges, what do they do next?

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Hold their breath till their lips turn blue? 😉

  23. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    I don’t know about Virginia, but when I went through the academy in Florida all those years ago we were taught officer discretion. It was up to me to decide if I was going to arrest an individual. I let many people walk. Especially if it was a technical violation of a firearms law. It’s a little different if someone has a warrant for their arrest. Then again, no one said I had to go look for the guy.

  24. avatar Jeff Hulbert says:

    Would it surprise you that the delegate who requested the “official opinion” on behalf of the Democrats is barely 30 years old?

  25. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    Juuuust so we’re all on the same page:

    Yes, the federal Constitution has a Second Amendment prohibiting infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Supreme Court made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states in order to enforce the fourteenth amendment and effectuate the abolition of slavery. So yes, the Second Amendment does apply across the entire nation.

    And yes, Virginia’s own Constitution has its’ own clause in Article I, Section 13 which provides, in part “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Legislation in violation of these rights violates both State and Federal Constitutional provisions.

    But then again, Maryland’s Constitution says “The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    Maryland went and made a whole lot of firearms illegal anyway, imposed onerous licensing requirements and never issues concealed carry permits to anyone who isn’t connected. Nobody said boo about it and the 4th Circuit sustained the law under “intermediate scrutiny” which is basically rubber-stamping government action.

    A thing can be grossly unconstitutional and yet still take years of litigation to get straightened out. Expect Virginia will pass a ton of idiotic and severely unconstitutional laws anyway. They simply don’t care.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Like I said, it takes time and money to get a case with standing before the supremes. Even if they rule for the 2A side the ruling will either be ignored or interpreted some other way.
      What really happens depends on how hard they push, who they go after and how it’s portrayed.

      1. Like I said, it takes time and money to get a case with standing before the supremes. Even if they rule for the 2A side the ruling will either be ignored or interpreted some other way.
        What really happens depends on how hard they push, who they go after and how it’s portrayed.

        I wonder why there are no similar problems with laws regarding abortion.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Although I suspect you already know the answer, I’ll give it a shot anyway. In trying to get a court to outlaw abortion, you will have a difficult time finding anyone with “standing”, since anybody involved in an abortion is there voluntarily, and constant publicity attempting to claim that women are being forced somehow is easily recognized as BS, plus most anti-choice people are men, or post menopausal women. If you are attempting to get a legislature to force women to bear unwanted babies, it is going to be difficult to enforce, since their laws will be disregarded, and any prosecution will be vigorously opposed. The reason? Because *you* do not have any right to force your will on anyone.

  26. avatar Chief Censor says:

    We all should ignore cannabis laws. The entire drug war is big government fascism. Drug laws on adults is tyranny.

    A state can “ignore” federal laws. They do not have to enforce federal law with local law enforcement. The feds don’t have supreme power over states’ rights.

    The AG can argue he does not enforce other laws because one is non violent and the other is federal. Whereas gun control is about public safety and they have the supreme court ruling stating they can pass some gun control constitutionally. That ruling coming from a “conservative” opinion.

    Even Trump is starting to send in the feds to enforce gun control and drug laws in the states. He is sending in armed task forces for enforcement and spending tax dollars to militarize the local police.

    Of course it’s for public safety.

    1. avatar Merle 0 says:

      But yet you support gun confiscations.

  27. avatar Mr. L. says:

    Instead of cointies saying they have “militias,” they could call them “Citizens Emergency ResponseTeams (C.E.R.T.).” They’re comprised of citizens from the county who are organized by the Sheriff to be called upon for added security and assistance in natural disaster areas along with search and rescue. Other municipalities and counties have had them for quite awhile.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Instead of cointies saying they have “militias,…”

      There is a very specific and disparaging reason the phrase was used.

  28. avatar JB says:

    Sounds to me like the AG is SCARED and is beginning to realize that they may have just stepped into a big old pile of sh!t.
    Just my opinion, but he’s trying to act tough.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      He is simply reminding you who has the power. Comply or die.

  29. avatar Dennis says:

    You all realize of course, this issue and all the others only work one way, right? The moral, pious dems all revere the rule of law and will beat you to death with it…..unless of course it doesnt fit their agenda!

    1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      Yes, in fact Attorney General Herring was saying local governments MUST not interfere with gay marriage in 2014.

  30. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    It was Jefferson who said ” On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in ”

    Virginia, once a bastion of freedom , has forgotten Jefferson’s words. The sanctuary movement has taken that spirit.

    Northam has to make threats, he has to have his AG say he will make good on those threats. It is nothing more than a bluff at this point. They know they have lost the majority of the State, they will not admit to it.

    Once the face off happens, when citizens come to air their grievances, the Governor, the AG and the General Assembly will have to ramp up the threats. This is where misstep by either side will set something in motion.

  31. avatar Chris Morton says:

    And if they don’t ignore them, what are you going to do? Take their families hostage?

  32. avatar frank speak says:

    “power” is only a reality when people choose to obey you…….

  33. avatar strych9 says:

    It strikes me that if the state government wants to play “who outranks whom” then perhaps they should look first to the supreme law of the state in the form of the Virginia Constitution which has it’s own variant of the 2A. The state maintains an online version of the document at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/

    I would first look at Art. 1, Sec. 13 which states:

    “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; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

    It would seem to me that if the state wishes to ban such firearms then the very first thing they need to do is repeal or significantly modify Art. 1, Sec 13.

  34. avatar Hannibal says:

    That’s nice. Let him enforce it, then.And if he won’t, what exactly does his advisory opinion matter? What happens if someone ignores it?

    Nothing? Is the answer nothing? Guys, I think the answer is nothing. There are very few laws that say that the police “shall” arrest. Maybe a judge could try and hold someone in contempt for not following a judicial order but that’s about as far as it goes.

  35. avatar Jimmy james says:

    If I was a tin foil hat kinda guy, I would be preparing for civil war.

  36. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    If you feel down in the core of your being a law is unjust or invalid.
    Then you must disobey it. If you do choose to disobey an unjust law. Also be prepared to fight for it or at the least let yourself possibly be incarcerated.
    In my personal case. Fight back even at the cost of your life.

  37. avatar M1Lou says:

    How about stop ignoring the constitution?

  38. avatar John Smith says:

    Two words – jury nullification.

  39. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Yo, Schumck, can you publish the same opinion regarding Illegal immigrant sanctuaries? If not, STFU!!

  40. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Mmmm…Nope…VA AG next one to go…

  41. avatar Huntmaster says:

    In the end it always comes down to one thing. Who has the stones. If there are enough people to make a stand, does the Governor have the stones, or do the people?

  42. avatar klaus Von Schmitto says:

    This guy had the balls to substitute the “gun lobby” for the overwhelming show of force by the citizens of Virginia? Number 2 after CoonMan on the wall.

  43. avatar Roymond says:

    Maybe if the westernmost twenty counties started talking about changing their allegiance to that other Virginia it would wake someone up.
    Or aimed at forming their own state — then there could be Virginia, Midvirginia, and West Virginia, with two out of three honoring the Constitution.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Unless the legislature approves it I doubt this would happen. States exist under the theory of “territorial integrity” once they join the Union.

      Without the state government acquiescing to the request I doubt any court would allow it. We went through this in Colorado. The state is still the same size as it was.

  44. avatar Jim from LI says:

    West Virginia has good gun laws. Perhaps all the sanctuary counties should take a page from 1863 and secede to WV. Leave Virginia a rump collection of blue counties.

  45. So sanctuary cities sheltering illegal aliens are illegal?

  46. avatar J Star says:

    These comments. Just stopping by to drop a knowledge bomb.

    Do you know why some of us have a fit when you call an AR15 an “assault rifle?” Or call things “illegal guns?” Because language matters.

    Point in fact: Did you know there are exactly ZERO “Illegal drugs?” That’s right, it was found to be unconstitutional to make drugs illegal. Therefore, drugs are REGULATED, but not illegal. When the press says someone was caught with illegal drugs, it means they were caught with drugs that they had not paid the tax on or were not licensed to own.

    Sound familiar? Yes, the “illegal guns” people are found with are not illegal at all, but the government said you have to pay a tax or have a license to own them. The media twists words to make ignorant people think a certain way. That’s why everyone believes heroin is an illegal drug. Did you know Heroin is a brand name developed by Bayer? They used to use it to wean people off of Morphine. Did you know the ADA begged Congress – back when they were setting the drug schedules – to keep Heroin available for common use and to make Morphine more difficult to acquire as Heroin is a better pain killer and less addictive than Morphine? Did you know that Heroin was made schedule 1 drug because of a political campaign against black people?

    Do some research. The war on drugs is unconstitutional and racist. The war on guns (which is what it is) is the same.

    1. avatar J Star says:

      Sorry, AMA, not ADA.

  47. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    To all Thanks for a good back and forth. On the question of state and local powers I suggest everyone read books on the Coal Mine Wars. There you’ll find out how local people resisted state government and local government, when it came to ALL levels of government violating the US Constitution.

    “The Devil Is Here in These Hills: West Virginia’s Coal Miners and Their Battle for Freedom”
    https://www.amazon.com/Devil-Here-These-Hills-Virginias/dp/0802124658/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=blair+mountain&qid=1577056685&sr=8-4

    btw
    I don’t care if you shoot up crystal meth to improve yourself sexul experience. Or smoke pot. Or take anything else.
    Just pay for it our of your own pocket. And if your driving under the influence I want you arrested and sent to jail.

    And when you steal to feed your habit because no one wants to employ an unreliable drug user I want you arrested. Or shot dead by the home or business owner.

  48. avatar conrad says:

    The Virginia legislature must abandon this impulse for a collision course or they will have every Patriot in the Country making their way to Virginia for the fight.
    Enlightened self interest indicates that they should pass bills banning the killing of new borns, instituting a Coonman Holiday, and getting rid of wet nuts.

  49. avatar sound awake says:

    virginia state motto:
    sic semper tyrannis

  50. avatar Join VCDL,GOA,FPC,SAF says:

    Let Tyrant Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring & his Cronies in the VA State House lead the charge door to door & see what happens! The National Guard & Sheriffs are not with you but, are against you!

    How about the National Guard & Sheriffs surrounding the State House for passing Unconstitutional Laws!

  51. avatar millard fillmore says:

    Since Red Herr Herring doesn’t believe in sanctuary cities,it would be simple enough for real citizens of Virginia to report possible illegal immigrants to federal immigration officials,since Herr Herring doesn’t want to enforce laws against illegal immigration.The federal government can and does enforce laws against illegal immigration,and Herr Herring’s opinion makes no difference.It will,as a side benefit,reduce the ‘blueing’ of Virginia communities.Show Mark Herring what it means to be powerless.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email