Posted in: Politics

Virginia House Committee Approves Anti-Gun Control Bill

virginia militia police and public safety committee

Richmond, VA – Virginia House of Delegates Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee approved a bill that would prohibit state agencies from enforcing a new gun control law. The move by the committee happened while Vice President Joe Biden was in town to stump for the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.

The bill is now headed for a full vote on the house floor, Business Insider reports. The Republican controlled Virginia House of Delegates is currently reviewing House Bill 2340. Delegate Todd Gilbert, a Republican, had this to say about the bill during an interview with the Virginia Pilot:

“No employee of the commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions should help the federal government tread upon our long-held belief that Second Amendment rights are highly individualized and very important.”

Virginia is not the only state fighting back against President Barack Obama’s gun ban initiatives. States which have announced plans to make it illegal for stated officers to enforce federal weapons ban laws include Texas, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Tennessee.

Delegate Bob Marshall of William County introduced HB2340. Following a brief debate on the anti-gun control bill, the measure passed by a 15-7 margin. The vote went along party lines with committee Democrats reportedly in opposition.

Democrats on the Virginia Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee were concerned that the anti-gun ban bill could detract from gun trafficking investigations. Lawmakers in opposition to the law forbidding state agencies to enforce a gun ban also noted the measure could put federal grant approvals at risk.

Virginia Gun Owners Coalition representative Mike McHugh had this to say about Virginia HB2340:

“If we don’t put some teeth into it, it’ll be useless. I think we’re coming to a point in this country where the states are going to have to face down Barack Obama’s federal plantation.”

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

11 Responses to “Virginia House Committee Approves Anti-Gun Control Bill”

  1. Heather Johnson

    Assault is illegal. Why should "assault" weapons be any different?

  2. Rick Sandlin

    "Assault" is an action. There is no inanimate object that I know of that's capable of "Assault" without a person to make it act as such. And on the same token, a car can be used to "Assault" – as can a baseball bat or a pair of scissors or a spoon or a rock. We should ban them all!!

  3. Chris Wagner

    Why would an "assault" weapon, as you put it, be any different than any other weapon? A knife, a baseball bat, a shovel, etc. If there is a ban, do you actually think anything will change? Guns can be concealed easily and bought and sold illegally now. What is to keep you from doing it when they are banned? Honestly, the high-capacity magazine ban would be just as dumb. I mean, I can have more than one ten round clip and I assure you that reloading wouldn't take much time as well. Even if guns were to be banned, which won't happen, we as a people are very capable and have inventive to find ways around such things. This whole notion is rediculous and just some stir-up to show the public the government is going to protect them when, as scary as this may sound, you are all alone out there.

  4. Anonymous

    Heather do you even know what an assault weapon is? Assault weapons are weapons capable of full auto fire or select auto fire such as burst fire. These weapons are already illegal to own by citizens without an ffl or tax stamp from the government. What Obama and his administration is trying to ban are semi auto AR-15s and other weapons that look like military weapons. This is a ploy to take your rights away from you. What part of the 2nd amendment don't you people understand. Tell me and I will dumb it down so you can understand it.

    A well regulated MILITIA (Self Explanatory), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE (seperated from MALITIA as noted here and meaning an individual) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

  5. Ken Peterson

    Perhaps they might want to note the meanings of INFRINGED and ARMS. Infringed could be replaced with REDUCED, DIMINISHED, CURTAILED, LESSENED, TRESPASSED UPON, VIOLATED, or any of a number of other terms. As for ARMS; Since the early Congress issued "Letters of Marque" to ship captains "to seize Cannon & OTHER arms…", it should be clear that the intent was for civilian weaponry beyond use for hunting. This point is less vague or hidden than Feinstein's (not so subtle) inclusion of all guns in her description of what to ban. Unlike politicians of today, the Founders wanted to make sure what THEY said/meant was well understood.

  6. Ken Peterson

    THAT is exactly the point. I'm glad to see you "got it". Anti-Gun Legislation can't and won't work. If someone already is willing to break laws against Robbery or killing, they won't care if they break one about having a gun.