Agency, political subdivision, etc., of VA; prevents assisting federal government in investigation. (HB2340)

Introduced By

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) with support from 10 copatrons, whose average partisan position is:

Those copatrons are Del. Anne Crockett-Stark (R-Wytheville), Del. Matt Fariss (R-Rustburg), Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock), Del. Terry Kilgore (R-Gate City), Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge), Del. Will Morefield (R-North Tazewell), Del. Margaret Ransone (R-Kinsale), Del. Nick Rush (R-Christiansburg), Del. Tommy Wright (R-Victoria), Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Prevent any agency, political subdivision, or employee of Virginia from assisting the Federal government of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, detention, arrest, search, or seizure, under the authority of any federal statute enacted, or Executive Order or regulation issued, after December 31, 2012, infringing the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms by imposing new restrictions on private ownership or private transfer of firearms, firearm magazines, ammunition, or components thereof. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/18/2013Presented and ordered printed 13104277D
01/18/2013Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
01/22/2013Assigned MPPS sub: #2
01/24/2013Subcommittee recommends reporting (5-Y 3-N)
01/25/2013Reported from Militia, Police and Public Safety (15-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)
01/28/2013Read first time
01/29/2013Passed by for the day
01/30/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB2340)
01/30/2013Motion to pass by indefinitely rejected (32-Y 63-N)
01/30/2013VOTE: REJECTED (32-Y 63-N) (see vote tally)
01/30/2013Motion to refer to committee agreed to
01/30/2013Referred to Committee on Appropriations
02/05/2013Left in Appropriations

Comments

Pam Lawrence writes:

This bill makes absolutely NOOOOO sense. So if we ever get another DC Sniper, killing innocent people across multiple states, we will make it unlawful to cooperate with federal law enforcement. Awesome. Good thinking. Since one of the victims was in Manassas, I'm sure his family thinks this is a terrible idea.

David Wright writes:

Nope, this bill would not make it unlawful to cooperate with law enforcement in catching the DC sniper or any other murderer. It allows the state to not be forced to be an agent in infringing on individuals' second amendment rights under the Constitution, which do NOT include the right to kill people.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

What this bill says is irrelevant. Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution (aka "the supremacy clause") says:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The state passing a law that says "we're not bound by federal law" is foolish claptrap. I might as well pass a law in my house that says I'm not bound by state law. It would have precisely as much legal force. This is not a debatable point. There is no legal perspective to the contrary. Period.

So, sure, pass this bill. It'll make Virginia a laughingstock, a state run by people who aren't familiar with the constitution, while passing a bill that purports to be about protecting the constitution.

Sarah Williams writes:

What passing this bill would do in addition to making Virginia look ignorant is generate confusion and hesitancy at critical points in investigations while people looked up what they have to do. So the legislature is wasting their time posturing for their Tea Party base, and insuring the later waste of our time in sorting out the mess that they create. This is a sad waste of taxpayer investment, which is supposed to pay reasonable people to deliberate on the good of the Commonwealth. Another shameful waste of time and money.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

I don't think it'll even get to that point, Sarah. If this bill were to pass into law, we'd see a lawsuit the day that it went into effect (or perhaps earlier), a judge would issue a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect, and the law would be struck down rapidly and decisively.

Here's how you can tell that this is a deeply stupid bill: it wasn't even written by legislative staff. That's totally extraordinary. The overwhelming supermajority of bills are written by the capable attorneys who work for the General Assembly. On the PDF of the bill is this disclaimer: "LEGISLATION NOT PREPARED BY DLS." But I knew that was the case before I even looked at the PDF, thanks to this sentence fragment at the end of the bill: "...who do not possesses any federal firearms license..." Really? "[W]ho do not possesses"? This bill has eleven patrons, and apparently none of them even read this bill. God only knows who wrote it.

I appreciate that some opponents of this bill would like to present it as something that would create huge problems for Virginia law enforcement, but, realistically, there's little reason to think that it would ever even get to that point. It's an objectively stupid bill.

Sarah Williams writes:

I hope that you are right and it does not pass, Waldo! I believe that we are getting a lot of legislation not written by our Virginia legislators (ALEC and others) and that they have not actually considered. This is certainly one of them.

Where's Waldo writes:

State and local officials are not required to assist the Fed in investigations to begin with. Please show me where this is required? The whole concept of government has been turned on its head in this country. The FED was never intended to be some large overarching entity that directed what the states could or could not do. The STATES were meant to control their own destiny. This bill should pass!

Waldo Jaquith writes:

State and local officials are not required to assist the Fed in investigations to begin with. Please show me where this is required?

There are dozens of bases on which this is required. The most obvious example is § 2.2-224.1, which requires Virginia to "share criminal information and...intelligence information to address threats posted within the Commonwealth by...the production, transportation, distribution, or use of...firearms" with "any...federal intelligence organizations as necessary, in order to facilitate the sharing of state and federal information and intelligence among the states participating in the exchange program." (There are piles of information-sharing agreements that exist, most of which are tied to federal funding. Much like speed limits, which states can set at anything that they want, but they have to stay below the federal maximum if they want to get federal transportation funding.)

That law was established by the General Assembly just two years ago with HB2330, which passed both the House and the Senate unanimously. Its patron was Del. Lingamfelter. Does that name seem familiar? It should—he's a patron of this bill, too. Apparently he has a rather short memory and a murky understanding of just what it is that he wants Virginia to be doing with gun records.

Mary Lough writes:

It seems to me the last statement B that includes "who do not possesses any federal firearms license" protects all those people with no license and have gotten guns without
background checks. This is insane.

If people are not required to help then that frees them to help. If you say "shall not help" then you are restricting a person and not allowing people/agencies to help at all.

I want a civil society that respects the rights of all people in a civilized manner.

Where's Waldo writes:

Thank you Waldo. You illustrated my point exactly. "criminal information and...intelligence information to address threats". Gun owners are neither criminals or threats. Those who wish to subvert The Constitution however are both.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

What this bill proposes is to refuse to comply with any new federal law regarding gun ownership. When people commit the crimes described in such laws—aka "criminals"—then Virginia law requires that state law enforcement agencies aid the federal government. Period. You might not think that such new laws should be the law, but your opinion is not germane here.

Where's Waldo writes:

So to be clear. You want to turn citizens who were not otherwise criminals into criminals (new Unconstitutional Federal laws requiring registration or elimination of certain weapons/accessories) when those citizens do not comply (in your words, "commit a crime"). When the citizens cite their rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, you want the state to step in and also trample their rights as well... Gotcha. If the Fed want's to pass a law that the majority of the citizens of a state do not agree with, and if the legislature of said state agrees, then it should be the Feds responsibility to enforce said law. I like your way of dancing around the intent of this proposed bill. This has zero to do with people who commit a crime with a gun, and everything to do with preventing the Feds from turning good people into criminals.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

So to be clear. You want to turn citizens who were not otherwise criminals into criminals (new Unconstitutional Federal laws requiring registration or elimination of certain weapons/accessories) when those citizens do not comply (in your words, "commit a crime").

That is incorrect. I don't "want" anything. What I have explained to you is that the state is obliged to cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies, and that should this bill become law, it will have no effect because it conflicts with existing state law and state/federal agreements. My wishes are immaterial to the reality of the situation.

If the Fed want's to pass a law that the majority of the citizens of a state do not agree with, and if the legislature of said state agrees, then it should be the Feds responsibility to enforce said law.

That is also incorrect. Again, I refer you to Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

David Wright writes:

Ok well the people who wrote this bill are actually well aware of the existence of the supremacy clause. That's the whole point- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not partisan politicians who value their own ideology above the Bill of Rights.

It's no sillier for a state to refuse to obey federal law than it is for a politician at the federal level to refuse to obey the Constitution and its amendments. The point of this bill is that IF any federal law were to be passed ignoring the 2nd Amendment and infringing on the rights of individuals, the state, by refusing to comply, is effectively asking for judicial review before actively taking away guns or the rights to own guns from its citizens. It's a way to expedite the issue as a Constitutional case before the Supreme Court. What the Commonwealth is saying with this bill is that it wants to be a party to such a case on behalf of its people BEFORE they are directly hurt by it.

I actually have no opinion on the wisdom of this kind a bill. Personally I would like to see more reasonable gun regulation at the federal level and I would want Virginia to cooperate, or at least find out what the legislation IS before taking radical preemptive action refusing to comply. Whatever your position is on gun rights though, or however you might feel about the merits of this particular bill, you can't argue that it has no practical application- it does.

This thread begain because someone claimed that this bill would prevent the state from assisting in stopping the DC sniper or other murderers, which is ridiculous. I find it curious Waldo that you took absolutely no exception with that statement but then reacted with outrage at anybody correcting her on that point.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

That's the whole point- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not partisan politicians who value their own ideology above the Bill of Rights. [...] The point of this bill is that IF any federal law were to be passed ignoring the 2nd Amendment and infringing on the rights of individuals, the state, by refusing to comply, is effectively asking for judicial review before actively taking away guns or the rights to own guns from its citizens.

You cannot simultaneously argue that it's self-evident that the Constitution reigns supreme and that we need a law that declares that the Constitution reigns supreme.

Anyhow, that's not what this bill says. It says that Virginia shall not help the federal government with any investigation based on the violation of firearms laws passed from January 1 2013 onward. It says not a single word about the constitution, the Second Amendment, etc. You're confusing the bill's legislative summary with the actual text of the bill. The former has no legal force.

This thread begain because someone claimed that this bill would prevent the state from assisting in stopping the DC sniper or other murderers, which is ridiculous. I find it curious Waldo that you took absolutely no exception with that statement but then reacted with outrage at anybody correcting her on that point.

"Outrage"? I have expressed no outrage. I don't have the faintest idea as whether this bill would prevent the state from from assisting in stopping the DC sniper. The point is moot—this bill would be struck down so quickly that its application would be irrelevant.

Where's Waldo writes:

"The point is moot—this bill would be struck down so quickly that its application would be irrelevant."

You mean like those laws allowing marijuana use in some states now even though it's against Federal Law?

Waldo Jaquith writes:

You mean like those laws allowing marijuana use in some states now even though it's against Federal Law?

No, not at all like those laws. President Obama has instructed agencies not to enforce those laws within such states. I am not aware of President Obama providing any instructions that gun laws not be enforced within certain states.

Where's Waldo writes:

So per Obama's directive, we now selectively enforce laws that he agrees or disagrees with, but when a sovereign state such as Virginia wishes to do the same as in this example, you disagree. He is a President, not a God or a dictator.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

That is how the executive branch works, and that is how it has worked since the earliest days of the United States. ("John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it", Marbury v. Madison, etc.) You are objecting to the checks and balances that are the core of American democracy.

robert legge writes:

I covered a local BOS workshop meeting on Monday. The chairman spoke of a citizen request that the board pass a resolution supporting this bill. There was active discussion but no action taken.

Kit Johnston writes:

This bill is claptrap. Waldo is 100 percent correct. With such a short legislative session this year, you'd think the State Assembly would focus on (report out of committee and so on) legislation that is sound, wise, forward-looking, makes for good policy, is well researched and so on. Sadly, for the most part, the bills still before the Assembly are a sad assemblage of unwise, backward-looking pieces of poorly researched and sometimes inherently conflicting claptrap that, if enacted, will make for very poor policy. What a waste ! If you think we're a laughingstock now, just wait...And worse, all this nonsense is costing us money ! This is not to say I didn't enjoy meeting Sen. Hanger earlier this week or congratulating Ed Scott (in a short note) on his position on uranium mining or saying "hey" to Sen. Tata in his very nice office on the 8th floor. But...

Jamie writes:

As a former law enforcement officer I hope that this bill does pass. I also know many in law enforcement that agree. The Federal government in overstepping and the states have to intervene in order to protect their 2nd amendment rights. The reason the bill was introduced is in case the current administration implements any gun control laws that violate the 2nd amendment. If the current administration had its way they would strip us of our 2nd amendment rights. As a former secret service agent said, “It’s people control not gun control.” It is unbelievable how this president has divided the country so severely that a bill like this has to be introduced to protect the rights of the people.

marsha maines writes:

The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1997 under Mack/Printz vs. U.S. The court stated its UNLAWFUL for ANY state employee to perform duties on BEHALF OF a FEDERAL AGENCY.... so how many STATE AGENCIES are Currently operating under Color of Law?... Gee, I don't even know how MANY agencies there Are!?...

James Renwick Manship, Sr. writes:

Marsha Maines is very insightful about many discrepancies or inconsistencies in the operations of governments at all levels in Virginia.