This analysis came by way of email today.

People have been going nuts about the proposed anti-Paramilitary law in Virginia. They have been making all sorts of stuff up, including that it will apply to martial arts instructors. It lacks rationality and does not reflect well on pro-2A folks.

So let’s take a look at this with a little bit of rationality and perspective. Firstly, let’s understand that there is already an anti-paramilitary law in Virginia, since 1987.

[ … ]

When I started MVT, I was aware of this code. This was one of the factors that led me to build the VTC in West Virginia. West Virginia has an anti-Militia law, but not an anti-paramilitary one.

Note that the key part of this code is: “such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.” This is the absolute key point. It is also why in the disclaimer packet for attending training at MVT, you sign that you do not intend to utilize this training for unlawful or civil disorder purposes.

Now, it seems absolutely fair to me that State Government does not want anyone training for the purposes of Civil Disorder. Would you want some dudes down the road training in firearms and explosives with the purpose of conducting terrorist activities? I don’t think so. So the key point here, and why you must take care to protect yourself, is not so much the law itself, but the political motivations behind the politicians and enforcement agencies. And we now have a situation where Virginia has gone blue in the legislature and we face very real threats to the 2A.

My assessment of this amendment to the current law is that it is aimed specifically at armed protest marches that may / will occur if / when some of the new anti-2A laws are passed in the 2020 session. Also, if you are not careful with your rhetoric, you may be prosecuted under any parts of this law. I have already seen talk of lobby day being an armed protest, which will likely be before this law is in effect. Anyone showing up armed at any of these sort of political protests will be at risk from this law. This applies to militia groups from both sides of the political divide, and we have already seen leftist groups showing up armed to protests. I think this new law is an attempt to head off this kind of armed protest to the proposed anti-2A laws in the 2020 session.

Of course, depending on the political climate, we cannot expect this to be applied equally across the political spectrum. It should not be applied to private or commercial tactical or firearms training, but it may be if you become a target due to rhetoric. An intent for civil disorder needs to be shown, and a snitch could provide that. At least enough that your life is seriously impacted by law enforcement action, even if it is ultimately not proved in court.

I believe that a greater threat is the push for sweeping anti-2A laws coming in the 2020 session. I can’t understand the drive of some to protest while openly armed. That isn’t what firearms are for, and by doing so you may will put yourself in a poor tactical situation should it kick off due to any number of potential causes.

The rest of Max’s analysis can be read here.

I agree with some of this, but I also disagree with some of it, or at least, I would emphasize different things.

First of all, I was also aware that Senate Bill No. 64 was an amendment to the existing code, not a new code.  However, as I stated in the comments to my analysis, “This seemingly would also prohibit open carry (Virginia is an open carry state) as well as congregations of individuals as happened in Charlottesville. Finally, you’ll notice that the code is “amended and reenacted.” Apparently, no one has enforced a provision to prohibit tactical training thus far. You can bet your bottom dollar they will now.”

Taking a deeper dive into these waters, Max asks this. “Would you want some dudes down the road training in firearms and explosives with the purpose of conducting terrorist activities? I don’t think so.”

But that’s exactly what’s happening as we speak.  There are Islamist paramilitary training compounds operating around the nation today, one of them in Rock Hill, South Carolina.  I recall discussing this face to face a few years ago with John Guandolo at Understanding the Threat.  To the best of our knowledge, this camp is still in operation with no pressure to cease operations.  And take special note – South Carolina also has a law similar to the one in Virginia, i.e., S.C. Code 16-8-20.  To date, no officer of South Carolina has used this law to shut down the camp in Rock Hill.  One of those training camps is also in Virginia, and the Sheriff has defended them.

So there will indeed be bias in the application of this Virginia law.  Besides, what constitutes a “terrorist activity” is in the eyes of the beholder.  To some, an Islamist training camp constitutes a terrorist threat.  Others couldn’t seem to care less (viz. the officers of SC).  To some, patriots training for protection of home and hearth, or for protection against a tyrannical government, constitutes a terrorist threat.

Max and others have to remember that the way this all plays out will be a function of overzealous prosecutors and jurors who are soccer moms from Alexandria, Virginia, whose husbands probably work in some sort of government work.  To them, an open carrier is a terroristic threat, and especially two open carriers who go to dinner with their families.  Two or more guys who go rucking in the mountains while carrying rifles as part of their own personal fitness training would certainly be perceived by soccer moms in Alexandria as a threat.  Remember what David Codrea has recently observed concerning this: “Eyes of the beholder.”

As for those documents Max has his students sign, I hope it works out to protect him, but we’ve seen that the FedGov apparently intends to monitor financial transactions on firearms, and monitor social media in an Orwellian pre-crime program.  If the government finds social media posts they don’t like from one of the “tactical studies” students, that agreement they signed might not be worth the paper it’s printed on.  Whether the instructor knew the alleged “real” intent of receiving the training or not may not make any difference.  And whether the FedGov or state officers of Virginia really know the intent of receipt of the training is questionable, because it all goes to state of mind.

However, I certainly agree with Max that the larger threat concerns anti-2A laws concerning firearms.  This is the holy grail for the collectivists, and it’s where they will focus all of their energy.  But the bills on firearms and Senate Bill No. 64 are coupled – they are corollaries of each other.  It will be illegal to own certain firearms, and it will be illegal to receive training on those firearms, perhaps to the extent of range training at gun clubs or even for concealed handgun permits.  Time will tell how far this goes.

So the law existed before, but it will be reenacted with some modifications.  I see this as a threat to liberties, and the enforcement of it may become a model for other states.

David Codrea.

[This all] … presuppose[s] the “civil disorder” hasn’t been precipitated by a government violence monopoly intent on usurping unconstitutional power and ignoring human rights, such as the newly Democrat-controlled State of Virginia is doing with its feeding frenzy of disarmament edicts.

[ … ]

Item 3 recalls the “eye of the beholder” adage.

It’s true that the Constitution, through the Second Amendment and through powers delegated to Congress and the President, define Founding intent for “the Militia of the several States.” What’s also true is those in power recognize the threat such a system poses to their continued and growing depredations, and have deliberately undermined “the whole people” with “unorganized militia” weasel-wording that leaves them sidelined while a de facto standing army exists to do the enforcement bidding of parasites intent on securing their rule over “the Blessings of Liberty.”

Yes.  The government of Virginia is proposing that training to cause “disorder” be illegal, while also allowing for the government of Virginia to be the catalyst of that disorder.

And remember the “eyes of the beholder” adage.  There is significant latitude in this, and that’s all by design.

Tribunist.

According to the FBI, over 200,000 background check requests associated with the purchase of a firearm were submitted to the agency on Black Friday, marking the second highest gun sales day ever. The previous record was set on the day after Thanksgiving in 2016. In both 2017 and 2016, enough guns were potentially purchased on Black Friday to arm every active duty United States Marine.

That makes me happy, everything except the NICS part.

But that’s nothing compared to what we witnessed at the time of Obama, when Larry Hyatt at Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte sold 1000 AR-15s in a single day, enough to arm a Marine Corps Battalion.  That’s from one single store.

That article title comes from CNBC, not me.

The Supreme Court seemed unlikely to deliver a major win for gun-rights activists during arguments on Monday in the first significant Second Amendment case the justices have heard in nearly a decade.

The case was challenging a New York City gun regulation that barred the transport of handguns outside of the city, even to a second home or firing range. After the court agreed to hear the case, though, the city did away with the regulation and the state passed a law that prevented the city from reviving it.

While court conservatives including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito seemed eager to use the case to address the reach of the Second Amendment, it appeared likely after an hour of arguments that Chief Justice John Roberts would side with the court’s liberals to dismiss the matter altogether as moot in light of the repeal of the regulation.

Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of three gun owners in New York and a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, argued that the case was still active because his clients could potentially seek monetary damages in the future.

Clement also argued that even under New York’s new regulations, his clients could still be penalized if they did not travel directly to a firing range outside the city, such as if they stopped for coffee.

But Richard Dearing, an attorney for New York, said that the city guaranteed that gun owners would not be prosecuted for such stops. And he said that any challenge to the new regulations would have to be argued in a future battle.

“There may be a controversy here. But it’s a new controversy that will have to be litigated in a new case,” Dearing said.

Clement, who argued for 20 minutes, had little time to address the merits of New York’s gun regulation. Instead, he spent nearly all of his arguments fielding questions from the court’s liberal wing about why the justices should rule on the case at all.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked the first question of the day, sounded off on a theme that would be heard throughout.

“The state says: Thou shalt not enforce the regulations. So, what’s left of this case?” Ginsburg asked.

The court’s other liberals also wrestled with Clement over whether it was proper for the court to decide the case.

“You’re asking us to opine on a law that’s not on the books anymore,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama-appointee.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, said he did not think it was bad “when people who have an argument settle their argument.”

Roberts asked few questions throughout. But at one point, the chief justice asked Dearing if it was possible that individuals who violated the old regulation could be targeted in any way by the city, even though it is no longer in force. Roberts also asked whether gun owners could still seek damages if the high court were to find the case moot.

Dearing responded that the gun owners would face no consequences for any past violations of the regulation, and he left open the possibility for damages, though he suggested there could be a time limit.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is known to have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, did not ask any questions.

One wrinkle during arguments came from a difference in opinion between Clement and Jeffrey Wall, the Justice Department’s principal deputy solicitor general, who was arguing in favor of the gun owners.

Gorsuch asked Wall whether he agreed with Clement that the potential for gun owners to be prosecuted for stopping for coffee while traveling to a gun range kept the case alive.

“Why isn’t that good enough?” Gorsuch asked.

Wall said it was a “close call” and a “hard question” but stopped short of endorsing the argument. Instead, Wall emphasized that the gun owners could still seek monetary damages.

All in all, the justices spent just a few minutes probing the key constitutional question that gun-control activists feared would be on the table and that gun-rights groups hoped the court would address.

“Jeffrey Wall, the Justice Department’s principal deputy solicitor general … was arguing in favor of the gun owners.”

Sure he was.  He didn’t even know if the possible overbearing enforcement of the revised law kept the case alive.  He wasn’t even smart enough to jump on the plank Gorsuch gave him.  Or perhaps he was, and this failure was nefarious.

Good job, DoJ.  Good job, Barr.  Good job, Trump.  You presented a divided front to the Supreme Court.  Y’all can all mark this one as a colossal failure.

And as for the Supreme Court, along with the statists on the court, everyone except Gorsuch and Alito (and also presumably Thomas) let this go, allowing New York to impose yet more restrictions in the future, requiring the next case to be brought back, if it even makes it that far.  Roberts did exactly what we expected him to do.

So if you thought that the black-robed tyrants were going to help you by recognizing your God-given RKBA … sucker!

The Washington Post Editorial Board.

It would be too laborious to fisk this completely, but let’s make a few important points.

First, notice the literary device right out of the gate.  Vigilantism = Rugged American Individualism, or at least it conjures that image.  They could have said that hard work and self reliance = rugged American individualism, or that a free market economy conjures images of rugged American individualism.

But they didn’t.  They equated rugged American individualism with vigilantism.  This is no mistake, for they like neither one.  The inside-the-beltway culture holds the collectivist value system in high regard.  It takes a village, you know.

Next up, they equate the offended with hunters whose way of life may be threatened.  Nonsense, say they.  Only this isn’t really what’s happening.  Hunters, many of them, still use bolt action rifles, and during black powder season they won’t even use centerfire cartridges.  Prior to that, it’ll be bow season, and the Eastern states still have an awful lot of bow hunters.

They alleged, if you read carefully, that some ne’er-do-wells are agitating this on.  It’s not the hunters who are to blame for this, it’s some careful political craft that hopes to make hay of the situation.  Except it’s not true.  To the collectivist mind, the peasants need leadership, and most often, the media elites see themselves as leaders, perhaps right right up there with elected officials.  If the peasants are revolting, it must be because of a peasant leader who’s agitating them on, perhaps even lying to them.  The real reason the peasants are showing up en masse is because someone has lit a fire, not because of anything they really believe.

This is delusionary.  The editorial board knows this and is whistling through the graveyard, or they don’t know this and are oblivious to the civil war they are about to foment.  This is the same mistake the collectivists make when they blame Trump for political polarization.  Trump, as I’ve said before, is a symptom of the problem, not the problem.  Trump didn’t cause polarization.  Trump was elected because America is already polarized.  For most gun rights folks, Trump is seen as a traitor, and his mistake is not being true to the constitution (bump stock ban, support for red flag laws, etc.).  It would come as a shock to the media elites that there are actually people in America who see things the way my readers do, far to the right of Donald Trump.  Flyover country is the “land out there,” not something they actually visit.

But most Americans don’t need leadership, and don’t vote the way they do, or own guns, or make any other decision, because a “leader” says this or says that.  Rugged American individualism doesn’t have the peasant / leader division.

Next up we have the reflexive defense of “red flag” laws.  That social media is planning to roll political beliefs into FedGov background information they either don’t care about or don’t know.  And the notion that an angry spouse can flag another spouse and have firearms confiscated by police (which we have seen before over these very pages), all without due process, they either don’t know about or don’t care.  They don’t know about any of this because they are the ones who look to leaders to tell them what to think, or they don’t care because what’s a few broken eggs for the sake of “community security?”  All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

And since I’ve given myself this segue, I would hazard to guess that most gun owners in Virginia would give up their bolt action deer hunting rifles before they would give up their AR-15s.  The ultimate threat against which arms are necessary is the state itself, not a deer or feral hog.  Gun owners aren’t revolting because they are afraid they won’t be able to take a deer this season.  Gun-free counties have a horrible record on liberties, a fact of history that probably doesn’t interest the editorial board of The Washington Post.

Finally, while unstated (or perhaps understated), notice the worship of the back-robed tyrants.  While it would be obscene to the board to deprive someone of life and liberty by, let’s imagine, executing someone named David on every other Friday for the purpose of bread and circuses, it’s not obscene at all to the board to murder 60 million unborn infants, or to throw a Sheriff in prison because he refuses to violate his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.

Because judges.  Statists have no higher law than judges who can say with a straight face that the law doesn’t really say what it most obviously does say.  It’s a priesthood of the highest order, those men and women who can absolve every sin, dictate imprisonment, and tell you the difference between right and wrong.

And thus, I suspect most Virginians won’t ever give up their AR-15s.  At least they didn’t comply in Connecticut and New York (with AR-15 and magazine bans), and so it isn’t clear what sort of mental gymnastics would make the editorial board believe that folks in Abingdon, Damascus, or Franklin County would comply with any new firearms laws.

If they believe that, they need to visit those places and ask some “peasants.”

From reddit/firearms.

I was called over the intercom ~2 minutes before people started boarding. I was asked to hand over my key so they could bring it to TSA as they needed to get into my bag. I was not allowed to accompany the key. I made it clear that I am not comfortable with their systematic way of committing felonies; however, this is common practice at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, please see this inquiry which I sent to TSA as both a Security Issue and a Request for Information on November 22nd (anticipating they may ask for the key again).*

A person from Southwest brought the key to TSA and ~10 minutes later another man from Southwest came back with both my spare locks and the key to my original locks. He asked me if I could unlock the spares so they could put them on the case as TSA had cut my other locks. He also stated, “They thought there was a gun in there.” To which I replied, “There are… that’s why I declared them.”

In my opinion the TSA at this airport is guilty of a felony. It is against the law to turn over access to a firearm to someone you don’t know and who is not under your control.

It also disagrees with the TSA’s own rules, where the only person who is allowed to have a key to the lock is the firearm owner.

As I’ve said before, the TSA is an irredeemable, unmitigated clown show.  The TSA can trot employees out all day long (and I see this especially before heavy holiday flying) telling people that it’s really simple and here are the rules, follow the rules and you’ll be okay, blah, blah, blah.

I’ve had the TSA ask me to open my case in the ticket line (Charlotte), take me back behind walls and try to pry my case open (Charlotte), take me back behind walls and ask me to open my luggage, after which she threw my clothing asunder, literally unpacking my luggage and stuffing the clothing back inside the luggage in wads, and never once even showing interest in the firearm case (Phoenix), take me to an X-ray machine and take pictures of my luggage, never once showing interest in opening the luggage and examining the firearm case (Denver), force me to drop my luggage on a conveyor that started at an outside, unsecured location (Denver), ask me to open my firearm case and swab my firearm with a patch (for God only knows what reason), etc.  I could go on.  This isn’t the entire laundry list.

I am tired to death of hearing that it’s the fault of the airline company since the rules vary with each company.  No … they … don’t.  Airlines don’t do firearm or case inspections.  That’s just a pathetic excuse.

Here’s a tip for the TSA.  As long as you act like uneducated goobers and ignore your own laws, you have no right to complain if passengers don’t take them seriously either.

Guns America.

Virginia gun owners have gathered by the hundreds at Board of Supervisors meetings in counties across the state to send a message to the newly elected Democratic legislature in Richmond.

As of this writing, 23 counties and towns have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries since Michael Bloomberg flipped the state legislature from red to blue earlier this month. Second Amendment sanctuaries exist in many states across the country, but no state has seen so many in such a short span of time.

“It’s sending a message to Richmond saying we don’t want any more gun control out here,” Philip Van Cleave told GunsAmerica. Van Cleave is the President of the gun-rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League, which has been fighting for Second Amendment rights in Virginia since 1994, when they helped turned the state from may-issue to shall-issue.

Van Cleave has been active in the gun rights movement in Virginia for over 20 years, and he says he’s never seen anything like this.

“Nothing even touches the activity in Virginia right now. A lot of gun owners were sleeping, but now they’ve woke the sleeping giant. All these gun owners that have been sound asleep have suddenly woken up.”

The numbers don’t lie. Of Virginia’s 133 counties and independent towns, 23 have already declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, and another 53 are considering the measure.

“There are more coming,” Van Cleave predicted. “That number’s going to jump quite a bit.”

County Board of Supervisor meetings are literally overflowing with gun owners hoping to send a message to Richmond.

One thousand people showed up at a Board of Supervisors meeting in Shenandoah County, for example, and 700 people attended a meeting in Washington County. The meetings in Amherst and Amelia counties were standing-room-only with crowds flooding the hallways and the front laws.

On a larger scale, gun owners—when they show up—represent a massive voting block in state elections. Van Cleave pointed out that in a state of 8 million people, there are 2 million gun owners and 600,000 hold concealed carry permits.

Van Cleave admitted that when a county declares itself a Second Amendment sanctuary, the gesture is mostly symbolic from a legal standpoint. While all county employees, including any police force, are bound by the resolution, sheriffs and county attorneys are independently elected in Virginia.

But Van Cleave also pointed out that many sheriffs follow the county’s lead, and many others have independently vowed not to enforce new gun control.

It’s a bit late in the game to be waking up when the collectivists have been active for a hundred years.

As for the allegedly symbolic nature of the resolutions, it will be symbolic until the hard times come.  When the state threatens to arrest county employees for refusal to implement whatever new laws they make, we’ll see where this all goes.

Either it’s a protest vote today and evaporates tomorrow, or real men and women go to prison when counties arrest state police for enforcing these new laws.  There are hard decisions coming for everyone.  And since the Sheriff and county attorneys are elected, the political work is just beginning.

There is a lot of catching up to do.

David Codrea.

Furthermore, by withholding the names of the companies, important information is being withheld from citizens who it appears are at legal risk. I hope your office can see that if the intent is to establish compliance with the law, decisions made by those citizens should be informed. I maintain that it is in the public interest to make that information known, and that should take precedence over the reportedly stated intent of AG James not to “direct business” to companies engaging in business that is lawful in other jurisdictions.

I think it would make it a good day to be able to reward those companies, and to piss off the AG of New York.