Virginia 2nd amendment rally 1/20/20 (4 Viewers)

[msommer]

The only plus is that breweries have been popping up as much as houses have.  The "Loco (Loudoun County) Ale Trail" is now up to 34 different breweries (with additional cideries and distilleries).

Good beer?

 

[Henry Ford]

What am I missing Henry? 

Charge Filed After Woman Hit by Target Shooters

"The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office has obtained a criminal charge for reckless handling of a firearm after another target shooting incident in which errant

rounds caused damage on nearby properties. This time, a woman was injured.

On Sunday afternoon, deputies were called to a scene were a woman had been struck by a bullet outside her home. They determined the shots were fired from a nearby property on Gable Farm Lane east of Hamilton where residents were target shooting on private property.

The bullet, which is estimated to have been shot from 1,800 to 2,000 feet away, grazed the woman’s shoulder and may have then ricocheted off the victim’s house. She was treated at the scene and did not require further medical treatment.

According to the Sheriff’s Office, two adult males and two adult females were shooting into a natural berm. One person has been charged, but as of Tuesday afternoon, the Sheriff’s Office had not released their names pending service of the charge.

The Sheriff’s Office has custody of all the firearms that were in use at the private shooting range."

1. It's a different incident;

2. Apparently this part of the article: 

“Houses getting shot in Western Loudoun have become a monthly occurrence, and now this,” Meyer wrote. “None of the house shootings have been successfully prosecuted during this Board term, and we should all hope this shooter will face justice—but without County law changes, it is doubtful.”

3. And this:

https://loudounnow.com/2020/01/16/ashburn-man-acquitted-in-target-shooting-case-that-injured-woman/

Ashburn Man Acquitted in Target Shooting Case that Injured Woman

 

[Henry Ford]

I feel like it should already be illegal to shoot someone's house regardless of how far away you are when you fire your gun.

Accidentally? It's very difficult to make results illegal.  You have to make acts illegal.

 

[Henry Ford]

It is.  The incident they had I believe in the case Henry linked to is that they didn't know exactly who fired the shot that hit the house.  If 10 people are out shooting, how do you know which one fired the shot that went errant? 

That's not the problem.  If the discharge of the firearm is legal, then the results of that discharge are also legal.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

1. It's a different incident;

2. Apparently this part of the article: 

3. And this:

https://loudounnow.com/2020/01/16/ashburn-man-acquitted-in-target-shooting-case-that-injured-woman/

I get it. Folks shouldn't be worried about bullets pelting their houses. I have provided my suggestions. 

 

[Henry Ford]

It is.  The incident they had I believe in the case Henry linked to is that they didn't know exactly who fired the shot that hit the house.  If 10 people are out shooting, how do you know which one fired the shot that went errant? 

Not accidentally it isn't.

 

[Henry Ford]

I get it. Folks shouldn't be worried about bullets pelting their houses. I have provided my suggestions. 

In the case you linked a human being was shot. And it wasn't against the law.

 

[matttyl]

Sure I get it. I don't want idiots firing bullets in my direction either. I live in rural Massachusetts so it is not dissimilar (Socio Economic and Political ideology) Richmond/Boston vs. the Western parts of the States. As soon as it passes there it will be coopted by the folks here. I would hope for common sense gun laws instead of feel good blanket indictments. Let the local Sheriff or Chief of Police decide. 

Lets not go too far with that.  We have one here in VA that wants to deputize all the citizens.  Like thousands of them.  Quite a few sheriffs were present at the rally Monday.

 

[matttyl]

Good beer?

Some, not all.  I have some favorites if you want to message me.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

In the case you linked a human being was shot. And it wasn't against the law.

Henry I feel like we are going in circles here. 

"That concern prompted the Board of Supervisors to enact a new local ordinance late last year. That law reads:“the discharge of firearms for recreational or target shooting purposes shall be conducted in such a manner as to ensure that projectiles do not leave the boundaries of the property or parcel upon which the shooting is occurring, unless permission to do so has been granted by the adjacent landowner. A projectile leaving the boundaries of the property or parcel shall beprima facieevidence of a violation of this section.”"

Why isn't this sufficient? Why can't Counties that have similar concern enact the same ordinances?

 

[msommer]

Some, not all.  I have some favorites if you want to message me.

I'm geographically challenged so unlikely but thanks for the offer!

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Lets not go too far with that.  We have one here in VA that wants to deputize all the citizens.  Like thousands of them.  Quite a few sheriffs were present at the rally Monday.

Sheriffs are elected officials. They can be voted out every 4 years. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Henry I feel like we are going in circles here. 

"That concern prompted the Board of Supervisors to enact a new local ordinance late last year. That law reads:“the discharge of firearms for recreational or target shooting purposes shall be conducted in such a manner as to ensure that projectiles do not leave the boundaries of the property or parcel upon which the shooting is occurring, unless permission to do so has been granted by the adjacent landowner. A projectile leaving the boundaries of the property or parcel shall beprima facieevidence of a violation of this section.”"

Why isn't this sufficient? Why can't Counties that have similar concern enact the same ordinances?

Because of the next sentence:

Supervisors at the time were divided over whether the change would overcome the challenge of proving which individual fired the errant rounds.

And the headline:

Ashburn Man Acquitted in Target Shooting Case that Injured Woman

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Sheriffs are elected officials. They can be voted out every 4 years. 

Ssshhhhhhhh

 

[matttyl]

Not accidentally it isn't.

It could be, if culpable negligence can be proven.  I understand that's a high hurdle to get over.  We're not talking about an accidental discharge, either.  You meant to pull the trigger, and you knew houses (possibly with people in them) are in the potential line of fire. 

This states that here in Virginia, the "reckless handling of a firearm" is anywhere from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony.  Guess you have to get a good lawyer (NOT a dig at you). 

"It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."  That's up to 12 months and jail and $2,500 fine. 

ETA - not sure why the above couldn't have or didn't apply to any of the situations linked above.  I know there's the issue of "who fired the gun" in some of the situations, but not all. 

 

[matttyl]

In the case you linked a human being was shot. And it wasn't against the law.

It was, the prosecution just couldn't prove who fired the shot.  That's what I said above.  From that link "He was acquitted Jan. 15 following a trial in Loudoun County District Court, where it was ruled that prosecutors could not prove that he was the individual from the range who fired the shot that grazed the woman outside her home."

So it was against the law, they just couldn't prove who actually did it.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Ssshhhhhhhh

Not you. You have a lifetime appointment.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Because of the next sentence:

And the headline:

Loudoun can pass an ordinance. It shouldn’t affect the more rural counties on the other side of the state where there is no chance of this happening. My issue is with Richmond and not Loudoun.

 

[Henry Ford]

It could be, if culpable negligence can be proven.  I understand that's a high hurdle to get over.  We're not talking about an accidental discharge, either.  You meant to pull the trigger, and you knew houses (possibly with people in them) are in the potential line of fire. 

This states that here in Virginia, the "reckless handling of a firearm" is anywhere from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony.  Guess you have to get a good lawyer (NOT a dig at you). 

"It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."  That's up to 12 months and jail and $2,500 fine. 

ETA - not sure why the above couldn't have or didn't apply to any of the situations linked above.  I know there's the issue of "who fired the gun" in some of the situations, but not all. 

Because "reckless" is an extraordinarily high standard.  Shooting on a range is very rarely, if ever, going to rise to the level of recklessness.

 

[Henry Ford]

It was, the prosecution just couldn't prove who fired the shot.  That's what I said above.  From that link "He was acquitted Jan. 15 following a trial in Loudoun County District Court, where it was ruled that prosecutors could not prove that he was the individual from the range who fired the shot that grazed the woman outside her home."

So it was against the law, they just couldn't prove who actually did it.

Is that a helpful law in your opinion? Does that deter this conduct?

 

[matttyl]

Is that a helpful law in your opinion? Does that deter this conduct?

I’m sure having to go to court and fight for his freedom will deter the defendant (and likely those with him) from ever doing that again, yes.  Had the defendant been alone, and thus it could be proven he was the one who fired the shot, then absolutely it was a helpful law and would have deterred many from similar conduct.
 

I think the solution here is to somewhat lower the high standard of reckless use of a firearm.  The law itself leaves a whole lot of room for interpretation.  From one source (a lawyer’s local page here in VA) you don’t even have to pull the trigger to be charged with reckless use.  All depends on how it’s argued.  
 

If you feel that law isn’t helpful, then why have it?

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

A woman was shot outside her home and people are wondering why they’re trying to pass legislation so that, ya know, people might not get shot outside their home anymore? I’m pro 2A, but also pro common sense. 

 

[matttyl]

Each month (for the most part) in 2019 had between 30-40k gun sales in Va.  The democrats won a majority in November, and that number spiked to 55k.  The following month had nearly 74k gun sales. Biggest single month since December 2012....when, well you know.

 

[Henry Ford]

I’m sure having to go to court and fight for his freedom will deter the defendant (and likely those with him) from ever doing that again, yes.  Had the defendant been alone, and thus it could be proven he was the one who fired the shot, then absolutely it was a helpful law and would have deterred many from similar conduct.
 

I think the solution here is to somewhat lower the high standard of reckless use of a firearm.  The law itself leaves a whole lot of room for interpretation.  From one source (a lawyer’s local page here in VA) you don’t even have to pull the trigger to be charged with reckless use.  All depends on how it’s argued.  
 

If you feel that law isn’t helpful, then why have it?

Because it’s helpful for other situations. For one where every month someone’s home or person is getting shot it’s not stopping things apparently. 

 

[Henry Ford]

A woman was shot outside her home and people are wondering why they’re trying to pass legislation so that, ya know, people might not get shot outside their home anymore? I’m pro 2A, but also pro common sense. 

They know why it’s being passed. They don’t think it’s fair that it affects them because they use their yards for responsible target shooting 

 

[matttyl]

A woman was shot outside her home and people are wondering why they’re trying to pass legislation so that, ya know, people might not get shot outside their home anymore? I’m pro 2A, but also pro common sense. 

Look, I'm a huge gun safety advocate (who's going to say that they aren't, though)?  I went though training when I was little (both from a family member as well as from professionals who've been trained in training others.  I made my wife do the same before doing any sporting clays with me - and will do the same with my son when he's old enough.  Of course I don't want people, or property being hit by stray bullets, or people to live in fear of that happening.

The incident here is literally one of those one in a million, if not one in a billion situations.  A woman was hit (article says grazed, she didn't even leave to get medical treatment) somewhere about 2,000 feet away - so actually farther away than this bill's 500 yards.  So even if the proposed bill was in force, and being followed, it may not have prevented this.  The apparent shooter was charged (and should have been), but the prosecution just couldn't prove it was a bullet fired by him and not someone else in the group.  Local ordinances were passed to allow multiple people to all be charged if something like this happens (greatly lowering the burden of proof to only showing a bullet left the shooter's property).  I'm unsure how I feel about that as well, but understand completely why it was passed.  In addition, can't he can still be found civilly liable for damages (and again, should be)?

Another semi-local situation I found in doing some reading, a house and Xmas tree were recently hit by a stray bullet.  5 men (aged 19 or 20) all charged with reckless use of a firearm, firearm was found and confiscated.  Unsure how far away gun was fired from, but from google maps easily hundreds of yards through woods.  My point is that a law (and likely local ordinances) already exist concerning these exact situations.  Alleged crime was committed, people were charged.  Ordinances passed to assist those charges in sticking.  Isn't that the way it's suppose to be?

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Look, I'm a huge gun safety advocate (who's going to say that they aren't, though)?  I went though training when I was little (both from a family member as well as from professionals who've been trained in training others.  I made my wife do the same before doing any sporting clays with me - and will do the same with my son when he's old enough.  Of course I don't want people, or property being hit by stray bullets, or people to live in fear of that happening.

The incident here is literally one of those one in a million, if not one in a billion situations.  A woman was hit (article says grazed, she didn't even leave to get medical treatment) somewhere about 2,000 feet away - so actually farther away than this bill's 500 yards.  So even if the proposed bill was in force, and being followed, it may not have prevented this.  The apparent shooter was charged (and should have been), but the prosecution just couldn't prove it was a bullet fired by him and not someone else in the group.  Local ordinances were passed to allow multiple people to all be charged if something like this happens (greatly lowering the burden of proof to only showing a bullet left the shooter's property).  I'm unsure how I feel about that as well, but understand completely why it was passed.  In addition, can't he can still be found civilly liable for damages (and again, should be)?

Another semi-local situation I found in doing some reading, a house and Xmas tree were recently hit by a stray bullet.  5 men (aged 19 or 20) all charged with reckless use of a firearm, firearm was found and confiscated.  Unsure how far away gun was fired from, but from google maps easily hundreds of yards through woods.  My point is that a law (and likely local ordinances) already exist concerning these exact situations.  Alleged crime was committed, people were charged.  Ordinances passed to assist those charges in sticking.  Isn't that the way it's suppose to be?

Sure it is. It’s kind of like the saying “this is why we can’t have nice things”. Based on urban sprawl, etc. it’s probably going to change where people can legally shoot their guns from what they are used to. And a couple of incidents may ruin it for everyone, but better to be safe than sorry when it comes to this issue. IMO it doesn’t infringe on the 2nd, it’s just common sense for safety.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Sure it is. It’s kind of like the saying “this is why we can’t have nice things”. Based on urban sprawl, etc. it’s probably going to change where people can legally shoot their guns from what they are used to. And a couple of incidents may ruin it for everyone, but better to be safe than sorry when it comes to this issue. IMO it doesn’t infringe on the 2nd, it’s just common sense for safety.

Everytime something bad happens, folks cry out for safety. The Government answers by taking rights away from good people. 

 

[parrot]

Everytime something bad happens, folks cry out for safety. The Government answers by taking rights away from good people. 

What "right" is being taken away here exactly?

What's the old libertarian saw... something like 'your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose'? Well the same goes for bullets.  

 

[matttyl]

What "right" is being taken away here exactly?

What's the old libertarian saw... something like 'your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose'? Well the same goes for bullets.  

If this bill passes, the right (for most Virginians) to shoot their legally owned gun (be it rifle, shotgun, or pistol) on their own property.  Regardless of where the bullet could travel. 

I did the math above - the absolute smallest bit of land you could have and legally fire a weapon would be 260+ acres - and that's only if the land was a perfect circle and your "range" (as defined by the bill) were just a single point.  Neither of those things are reasonable, so in reality you'd need 300-400 acres of land not zoned as residential to legally target shoot with your legally owned weapon. 

It's like having the right to own a car, but not drive it anywhere.  Of course owning a car isn't a right granted by the Constitution. 

And that's just one bill.  I understand the reasoning for "red flag" laws, but that's a dangerous precedent as well. 

 

[Philo Beddoe]

So now they are pushing legislation that would make criticism of a government official a criminal offense?

18.2
 

§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

 

[dgreen]

So now they are pushing legislation that would make criticism of a government official a criminal offense?

18.2
 

§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

I don’t think that’s what it says. It is legislation that would make using a computer to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person illegal. “Any person” would cover government officials, but the part about them is just about where it can be prosecuted. 

 

[Philo Beddoe]

“ A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.“

It is absolutely what it says. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Look, I'm a huge gun safety advocate (who's going to say that they aren't, though)?  I went though training when I was little (both from a family member as well as from professionals who've been trained in training others.  I made my wife do the same before doing any sporting clays with me - and will do the same with my son when he's old enough.  Of course I don't want people, or property being hit by stray bullets, or people to live in fear of that happening.

The incident here is literally one of those one in a million, if not one in a billion situations.  A woman was hit (article says grazed, she didn't even leave to get medical treatment) somewhere about 2,000 feet away - so actually farther away than this bill's 500 yards.  So even if the proposed bill was in force, and being followed, it may not have prevented this.  The apparent shooter was charged (and should have been), but the prosecution just couldn't prove it was a bullet fired by him and not someone else in the group.  Local ordinances were passed to allow multiple people to all be charged if something like this happens (greatly lowering the burden of proof to only showing a bullet left the shooter's property).  I'm unsure how I feel about that as well, but understand completely why it was passed.  In addition, can't he can still be found civilly liable for damages (and again, should be)?

Another semi-local situation I found in doing some reading, a house and Xmas tree were recently hit by a stray bullet.  5 men (aged 19 or 20) all charged with reckless use of a firearm, firearm was found and confiscated.  Unsure how far away gun was fired from, but from google maps easily hundreds of yards through woods.  My point is that a law (and likely local ordinances) already exist concerning these exact situations.  Alleged crime was committed, people were charged.  Ordinances passed to assist those charges in sticking.  Isn't that the way it's suppose to be?

Thanks for the post and the clarity on the woman who was shot. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I don’t think that’s what it says. It is legislation that would make using a computer to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person illegal. “Any person” would cover government officials, but the part about them is just about where it can be prosecuted. 

If you sent an email to your representative and called him/her a dbag you shouldnt go to jail.  

Eta: that law is insane. If you think about it on a large scale imagine the outrage there would be if anti trumpers were being arrested for calling him names on twitter. Just a disgusting piece of legislationm

 

[jonessed]

If you sent an email to your representative and called him/her a dbag you shouldnt go to jail.  

Eta: that law is insane. If you think about it on a large scale imagine the outrage there would be if anti trumpers were being arrested for calling him names on twitter. Just a disgusting piece of legislation

I don’t think it would stand up under scrutiny.

 

[jm192]

The proposed law tramples allover the first amendment and will get thrown out in courts.  There's no way that flies. 

 

[matttyl]

Bill passed house yesterday.  Lots in it, but if passed, it would now be a crime to purchase or even posses a standard Glock19. 

 

[unckeyherb]

Bill passed house yesterday.  Lots in it, but if passed, it would now be a crime to purchase or even posses a standard Glock19. 

Is it because of the 15 round capacity magazine?  Because that would make quite a few of the most popular handguns also illegal.  

 

[matttyl]

Is it because of the 15 round capacity magazine?  Because that would make quite a few of the most popular handguns also illegal.  

Yes, anything over 12.  Now considered an "assault weapon"

 

[unckeyherb]

Yes, anything over 12.  Now considered an "assault weapon"

yeah, #### that bill.  

ETA I hope people will stop protesting the concept that when some dems talk about "common sense gun laws" they are really taking the first step to confiscation.  That's what this is.  An arbitrary capacity number that makes illegal at least three guns I purchased legally in the past.  Absurd.

 

[matttyl]

yeah, #### that bill.  

There's other parts I don't agree with as well. 

Some will say "most of those guns also will take a 10 round magazine", but that's just extra hassle and expense in my mind. 

 

[matttyl]

Looks like it worked.  The bills were shot down, pardon the pun.