One Gun a month: Be consistent
By Brian Kirwin | Thursday, January 7th, 2010 | PolicyDel. Scott Lingamfelter wants to repeal Virginia’s one gun a month restriction. (Virginian-Pilot)
I’m not sure if it will pass, but if it doesn’t I want Constitutional consistency.
Newspapers restricted to one editorial per week.
Abortions limited to one abortion per decade.
Accused criminals should only be allowed one speedy trial. Second offense? Have a seat, buster.
Right to vote? Well, that’s just too much influence. You can only vote in one race per election. It’s just not safe to have people voting in every race, so you have to be choosy.
After all, if Constitutional rights can be rationed, then they can be rationed.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
28 Responses to "One Gun a month: Be consistent"
We need to ration underpants, since you could obviously be carrying explosives in them. They’re deadly weapons.
Really? One editorial per week? It should at least be consistent with the gun law. Per month is more appropriate.
And shoes, too, Brad. Don’t forget those. So, one shoe only now.
Passes the House. Doesn’t pass the Senate. So McDonnell doesn’t have to lose his consistency. He voted for one-gun-a-month as a member of the House before disavowing that vote on the campaign trail this year.
My understanding of this is that it was implemented to prevent out of state gun purchasers from coming to our state to get around gun control laws in other states. It aimed at preventing someone, who can pass the background check, from purchasing multiple guns at a time and then passing them on to unsavory characters.
I am not sure why this requirement is so bad. As a law abiding citizen, I think I can only use one gun at a time. If I am a law abiding citizen, I can still get twelve guns per year.
It’s still the only Constitutional right that has a limitation on how often it can be used.
Brian,
Good point. But what does the Supreme Court have to say about it? Seems to me that the Second Amendment also has that pesky “well regulated militia” portion. Thus far it seems to me the Supreme Court has been attempting to thread the needle by protecting the rights of law abiding citizens while not being open to giving these rights to criminals or terrorists.
Just because the authorities have not provided a militia does not absolve us of the right and DUTY to be armed. Secondly, straw purchases are already illegal. Why should our liberties be restricted because another state cannot control their criminals? As to using only one gun and buying twelve guns a year, would you be so blase about only buying one book a month? Or voicing only one opinion per month? One gun a month laws restrict the law abiding. “Shall not be infringed.”
When will people understand that it is not the possession of arms that is dangerous but the use. Even former criminals, possessing arms, are no more dangerous than the law-abiding. “First-timers” as well as “ex-cons” can use weapons in crimes.
Governments were happy to let the militia fade as organized armed men could also protest THEIR decisions as well as protect them.
You’re right, the state shouldn’t have any rights in the face of the federal government’s power. You are an idiot.
Cargosquid,
I am going to react much more differently when faced with a mugger armed only with his fists then one armed with a gun.
I am not sure where the book per month argument comes into this. You after all do not have a restriction on the number of times you can express your opinion on the internet.
I think the well regulated militia aspect was only our founders’ efforts to state they were not encouraging unlawful behavior. An armed lawful citizenry should be encouraged. But that does not mean every bad actor has the right to own a gun.
Another good issue for a “Constitutional Convention” along with repealing the 16th and 17th amendments and adding term limits to the House of Representatives.
LD you sound like Vivian Paige just a week ago – why should we care about the confiscatory estate tax since none of us will probably ever face it?? We should care because a Constitutional Right is a RIGHT, and all of us should be concerned about the infirngement or abridging or rationing of every single one of our rights, whether they affect us personally or not. We should feel exactly the same way even if the rule were one gun per day – that’s trampling on our liberty no matter the degree. We’ll probably never earn a million dollars a year either, but shouldn’t we all be concerned if the government tries to limit annual income to $999,999? Sheesh.
And as far as threading the needle in your earlier comment, you’re getting confused. It’s not that the Supreme Court try to “not be open to giving these rights to criminals or terrorists”, it specifically rescinds the right to gun ownership from these individuals. And yet, criminals and terrorists still get the guns. Gun ownership control laws don’t work.
Like a stopped clock, Lingamfelter is right once, or perhaps twice, per day.
One Gun a Month, which by the way, was championed by none other than Bob McDonnell, is a stupid law that should have been tossed out on Constitutional grounds.
With McDonnell still backing this egregious usurpation, the debate on this repeal will see a rare case of the Democratic side championing greater gun rights and freedom while McDonnell loyalists try to retain this fascist-style law.
Paul – I think you would count Brian and I in the “McDonnell loyalist” camp – yet we both clearly do not support one-gun-a-month.
Let’s see what happens first before we make judgments on character.
Brad, I’m always amazed when people expect laws to stop lawbreakers.
Paul,
Actually you might be surprised how much I agree with Vivian about the estate tax. I think it is one of the most beautiful taxes we have. You can go visit the thread where Vivian made her comments to see why I strongly support it.
While I am sure you probably have the Second Amendment memorized, others may not. For their benefit, it goes: “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.”
Now my interpretation is that this right is extended so that a militia can be raised at a moments notice if the need arises. But note the amendment was written and approved with the reason for the amendment included.
Perhaps we need to look at the definition of the word infringed? From Merriam-Webster: “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another”.
Seems to me there is some room for interpretation. We have the Supreme Court to turn to for that interpretation. Thus far I have not been offended by their interpretations. Their decisions allow for trying to keep guns in the hands of lawful citizens and out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.
By the way, I am also against the assault weapons ban or even the ban on banana clips. I think assault rifles are just the kind of weapons we need in a militia. But each militia member does not need more then one assault rifle per month.
LD,
The reference to one book a month was to relate books to the 1st Amendment. The analogy may have been week. In regards to opinions, I was relating the expression of opinions to the ownership of weapons. As you say, we are not restricted in issuing opinions. So why are we restricted in purchasing more than one gun per month. The law does nothing to stop criminals from getting firearms. Straw purchases are already illegal.
You do have it exactly right that the Founders were encouraging a lawful and armed public. “Bad Actors” should not own a gun. However, those bad actors should be in jail if they are too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm. As I said, possession does not harm anyone and provides those owning the weapon with the tools of self defense.
I’m not sure why you mentioned muggers, but, whether that mugger is presenting fists or a gun, my response is the same. Stop him. And that is most easily done with a firearm. Notice that I did not say “shoot him.” One can show the firearm to stop crimes also. Furthermore, a man with his fists can kill you just as dead. I am a short, out of shape, fat man. I probably cannot defend myself realistically against a proficient fighter. There is a reason why Colts were called the “equalizer.”
The bottom line: One Gun a Month restricts the liberty of the law abiding and does nothing to stop criminals from using guns in a crime.
I do not see why restricting a citizen to one gun per month really restricts the rights of the average citizen. As a law abiding citizen, who potentially might join a militia, I only need one gun. I can not use multiple weapons at the same time. My objective is adequately served by having just the one gun in my hand when it becomes necessary.
David, how many books can you read at one time?
“I can not use multiple weapons at the same time.”
Well, that’s just a flat-out lie.
Brian,
I can only read one book at a time. I understand that you have two hands and two eyes. Just how well can you read two at a time?
Do not try to mix up first amendment rights within the argument about the second amendment. There are some limits imposed on the second amendment contained in it.
But perhaps you want to tray unto even unlimited rights imposed by the first amendment. Is it OK to shout FIRE in a theater for example when no fire exists?
Good post Brian. I support your idea.
“Is it OK to shout FIRE in a theater for example when no fire exists?”
Maybe during Avatar.
I bought a shotgun two weeks ago. In this Sunday’s paper, there’s a big advertisement about a huge sale on handguns at Bass Pro, and since I don’t have a handgun, and they’re having a 40% off sale, I want to go buy a handgun. Besides, keeping the shotgun in the closet isn’t close enough for comfort, I want the handgun under my pillow. But because of this stupid law, I’m unable to take advantage of an opportunity which every other law-abiding citizen has access to. That’s an infringement of my rights and unequal treatment and, unlike shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater, my intended actions would have no adverse affect on anybody else. Except for maybe the guy that breaks in to my house.
Brad:
Cheaper alternative (I know conservatives like to be fiscally prudent;-) ) Buy one of those long body pillows and stick the shotgun under that. You’re welcome.
I like the current restriction. I have many guns(hand guns as well as shotguns) and I buy more every year. But I’ve never had the need to buy many or more than one at a time. Frankly they are not cheap…
I think Del. Scott Lingamfelter is just playing politics to help his own interests… I hope we keep the current law.
Brad,
Seems to me that if you were a decent shot, you would have bought the handgun first and the shotgun second if your major worry was about home security.
I still am not convinced that the one gun per month limit imposes too great a burden on any citizen. OK, you might have to plan ahead as you accumulate your arsenal. I think this is more of an inconvenience then it is a denial of rights.
One gun a month was passed because of a PUBLIC REFERENDUM in 1989 ..the citizens of VA voted directly to pass the law..crushing the NRA who spent millions on a TV ad campaign that went nowhere
Background checks have nothing to do with the law…straw purchasing by people who ARE IN FACT criminals..but dont have a record is the point..they love to buy hundreds of guns at a time to resell
One gun a month should be a FEDERAL LAW!
Leave your response