Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Gun owners in New Mexico dodged a significant threat when the legislative session adjourned before SB 17 could clear the House. The bill would have banned commonly owned gas-operated semi-automatic firearms, .50-caliber rifles, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds under the broad label of “extremely dangerous weapons.”
It had passed the state Senate 21–17, with all Republican senators and three Democrats voting against it. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) celebrated the outcome but warned members to stay vigilant—supporters of the ban have made clear they intend to bring it back next session.
Elections have consequences. Sometimes those consequences show up fast — like when one of the nation’s largest defense contractors decides it’s seen enough and heads for the exits barely a month after the new governor takes office.
That’s exactly what happened in Virginia this week. Boeing announced it’s yanking its Defense, Space & Security headquarters out of Arlington and heading back to St. Louis — the same division it moved to Virginia in 2022 when business-friendly Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin was making the Commonwealth an attractive place to build things that go boom in defense of this country. Youngkin’s gone now. Abigail Spanberger is in charge. Boeing didn’t need to wait for a second term to read the room.
And here’s the part that should have every Virginia gun owner sitting up straight: the same agenda that sent Boeing packing is the same one coming for your AR, your standard-capacity magazines, and anything else Democrats have decided you don’t need.
Spanberger wasn’t in office five minutes before Virginia Democrats came out swinging with roughly 40 gun-related bills this session. The crown jewel is House Bill 217 — a flat-out ban on so-called “assault firearms,” targeting semiautomatic centerfire rifles equipped with magazines over 20 rounds, folding stocks, or the ability to accept a suppressor. Violators face Class 1 misdemeanor charges. The legislature also advanced a 10-round magazine cap that would instantly criminalize thousands of law-abiding Virginians who currently own perfectly legal standard-capacity mags. They’re also pushing a $500 state tax on suppressors — right after the federal $200 NFA tax was zeroed out. Because nothing says “we respect your rights” like a punitive tax on a hearing protection device.
Let’s be clear about where Spanberger comes from on this. She’s a former volunteer for Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action. Everytown for Gun Safety dropped $1 million in paid media to put her in the governor’s mansion and personally contacted a quarter-million Virginia voters to make it happen. This isn’t a politician who stumbled into gun control. This is a true believer with a compliant legislature and a pen that’s itching to sign everything Youngkin kept in the trash.
House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore called HB 217 exactly what it is — a direct defiance of Bruen and a blatant attempt to criminalize the most commonly owned rifles in America. He’s right, and the lawsuits will fly. But that’s the point. These people don’t care if their laws get struck down eventually. They want them on the books now, and they want Virginians living under the threat of prosecution in the meantime.
Meanwhile, Boeing is heading to Missouri — a constitutional carry state — where Secretary of War Pete Hegseth showed up at the St. Louis plant to congratulate the workers and call them “patriots that are key elements to ensuring peace through strength.” Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe called it a “win for the heartland.” Hard to argue.
The connection here isn’t subtle. The political environment that makes Boeing decide Virginia is no longer worth the risk is the same environment that looks at a law-abiding gun owner and sees a criminal-in-waiting. Both are targets of the same ideological project. Both are being told that their presence — whether as a defense manufacturer or as an armed citizen — is no longer welcome in the new Virginia.
Youngkin kept the wolves at bay. Spanberger opened the gate. Virginia gun owners knew this was coming. Now it’s here.
Stand your ground, Virginians. The Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of America, and the NRA-ILA all have active campaigns running right now. Use them.
Sources:
- Major Defense Contractor Flees Spanberger’s Virginia Just Weeks After She Takes Office — Daily Caller News Foundation
- Top Defense Contractor Announces Major Move Weeks After Dem Governor Takes Office — Fox News
- Gun Control Gone Mad: Virginia Gov. Spanberger Has Lost All Common Sense — Washington Times
- Virginia Democrats Bring Deluge of Proposed Gun Control Legislation — Washington Times
- Virginia Senate Panel Advances Gun Safety Bills Once Vetoed by Youngkin — Virginia Mercury
- House Democrats Pass Sweeping Gun Control Package Over GOP Objections — Virginia Mercury
- Virginia Moves to Add Tax on Suppressors, Ban Assault Firearms — Guns.com
- The Second Amendment Is Under Siege in Virginia — America’s 1st Freedom (NRA)
- Virginia Legislators Could Finally Ban Sales of Assault Weapons, High-Capacity Magazines — Virginia Independent
Anti-gun lawmakers in Virginia, still celebrating a new Democrat governor, are wasting no time pushing dangerous anti-gun bills through the legislative process.
Bolstered by the recent swearing in of Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger, the Democrat-led Senate Courts of Justice Committee on January 26 passed eight gun-control measures, most of which will now be considered by the Senate Finance Committee.
Perhaps the most egregious measure, Senate Bill 749 bans certain semi-automatic firearms, including many semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, and arbitrarily limits magazine capacities.
“With the removal of the grandfather clause for magazines, anyone in possession of magazines that exceed the arbitrary limit will become a criminal overnight,” NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) wrote in a member alert. “This bill is an attempt to redefine and ban firearms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens—plain and simple gun confiscation by definition.”
Among the other anti-gun measures, SB 272 would limit who can carry firearms at public institutions of higher learning, SB 348 would create mandatory storage requirements, and SB 312 would prohibit carrying so-called “assault firearms” in public places, including streets, sidewalks and parks. As NRA-ILA pointed out, the vague definitions in the bill basically criminalize carrying any centerfire semi-automatic firearm in the commonwealth.
Other anti-gun measures passed by the committee include SB 323, which would ban the centuries-old practice of Virginians building their own firearms; SB 496, which places further restrictions on the ability of citizens to keep a firearm in their car for self-defense; and SB 115, which would jeopardize concealed handgun recognition and reciprocity agreements.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), was critical of the Democrat-passed measures currently on the move in the commonwealth, especially the bill banning so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines.
“While Democrats have bills to weaken laws on violent criminals, they like and support every bill that in any way infringes on the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves,” Van Cleave said in an email to Virginiamercury.com. “For years Democrats said, ‘No one wants to take your guns, we just want reasonable gun control.’ They do want to take our guns away, and the committee reported out bills that do just that with the most popular long guns in America. There is only one reason that a government would want a disarmed population, and that’s to force their will upon that population.”
Unfortunately for Virginia gun owners, the lesson that “elections matter” is coming very quickly this time around. All of the measures on the move in the Senate are ones that would opposed by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, and Gov. Youngkin even vetoed several of the measures last year.
Ironically, the one measure the committee killed was SB 78. That piece of legislation—the only “commonsense” bill under consideration—would have increased mandatory minimum sentences for repeat firearm offenses.
Connecticut’s law banning so-called “assault weapons” is one of the most egregious in the nation. That’s why the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) and three private citizens filed the lawsuit Grant V. Rovella challenging the law.
Now, SAF has submitted a reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court suggesting that if the court follows the proper historical stage of the Bruen framework, this and other bans on common semi-automatic rifles would be declared unconstitutional.
As some background, SAF originally filed its cert petition in November last year urging the High Court to take the case and decide once and for all that AR-15-style rifles are most certainly in “common use” and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.
In Connecticut it is a crime to sell, transfer, or possess so-called “assault weapons” in the state. Connecticut’s law specifies some firearms by name and identifies various features to define what it believes constitutes an “assault weapon.”
As SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut pointed out, AR-15 and similar semi-auto rifles aren’t exactly rare in the United States.
“There are tens of millions rifles in circulation across America that meet Connecticut’s made-up definition of ‘assault weapon,’” Kraut said in a news release announcing the brief filing.
“Given that these firearms are no different than any other semi-automatic firearm owned by citizens for self-defense, there is no doubt these arms are in ‘common use’ and are certainly covered under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has already stated that a firearm cannot be banned if it is in common use for lawful purposes, which is exactly what is happening in Connecticut and elsewhere across the country.”
In the brief, SAF argues, “Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and similar rifles, and most do so for defensive purposes…applying the correct ‘common use’ standard, and situating it at the proper historical stage of Bruen’s framework, could change the outcome of this case.”
“As this Court held almost 20 years ago, the Second Amendment protects the right to possess those arms that are ‘in common use,’” the brief states.
“Yet the decision below upheld a ban on popular semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 based on little more than the Connecticut legislature’s assessment that—contrary to the judgment of the American people—the rifles are too ‘dangerous.’ Several courts have upheld similar laws, but they have not coalesced around a consistent rationale because there is none; these laws are flatly unconstitutional under this Court’s precedents.”
Ultimately, Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, wants the Supreme Court to, once and for all, clear up the confusion caused by lower courts and strike down Connecticut’s AWB and others.
“This is SAF’s second ‘assault weapons’ ban challenge we have before the Supreme Court for consideration,” Gottlieb said. “The list of banned firearms in Connecticut—and elsewhere across the United States—make peaceable gun owners felons for simply owning certain types of arms for self-defense.
This obstruction to the Second Amendment rights of Americans cannot be allowed to stand, and we are optimistic the Court will agree to hear at least one of our lawsuits in relation to these infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.”