Virginia Democrats are still keeping the details of their forthcoming gun and magazine bans under wraps, but two gun-related measures have now officially been introduced in the state Senate, and a key Democrat lawmaker is hinting at another on the horizon.
SB 27 is aimed at the firearms industry, with the intent to make it easier to sue gun makers and sellers for the third-party actions of criminals. The bill would create “standards of responsible conduct for firearm industry members and requires such members to establish and implement reasonable controls regarding the manufacture, sale, distribution, use, and marketing of the firearm industry member’s firearm-related products.”
Such reasonable controls include reasonable procedures, safeguards, and business practices that are designed to (i) prevent the sale or distribution of a firearm-related product to a straw purchaser, a firearm trafficker, a person prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law, or a person who the firearm industry member has reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk of using a firearm-related product to harm themselves or unlawfully harm another or of unlawfully possessing or using a firearm-related product; (ii) prevent the loss of a firearm-related product or theft of a firearm-related product from a firearm industry member; (iii) ensure that the firearm industry member complies with all provisions of state and federal law and does not otherwise promote the unlawful manufacture, sale, possession, marketing, or use of a firearm-related product; and (iv) ensure that the firearm industry member does not engage in an act or practice in violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The bill also provides that a firearm industry member may not knowingly or recklessly create, maintain, or contribute to a public nuisance, as defined in the bill, through the sale, manufacturing, importing, or marketing of a firearm-related product. The bill creates a civil cause of action for the Attorney General or a local county or city attorney to enforce the provisions of the bill or for any person who has been injured as a result of a firearm industry member’s violation to seek an injunction and to recover costs and damages.
Those “reasonable procedures, safeguards, and business practices” aren’t defined in the bill, which is absolutely intentional. The more vague the statute, the easier it is to sue a gun shop or firearms manufacturer for supposedly not complying.
SB 38, introduced by Democrat Sen. Barbara Favola, is far less worrisome, at least on the surface. The bill would allow “a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm because the person is subject to a protective order or has been convicted of an assault and battery of a family or household member” to transfer any guns that they lawfully possessed to anyone over the age of 21 and who does not reside with the person who is subject to the protective order.
So what’s the issue?
Under current law, there is no requirement that a transferee cannot be younger than 21 years of age and cannot reside with the prohibited person. The bill also provides that the prohibited person who transfers, sells, or surrenders a firearm pursuant to the provisions of the bill shall inform the clerk of the court of the name, address, and signature of the transferee, federally licensed firearms dealer, or law-enforcement agency in possession of the firearm and shall provide a copy of the form to the transferee. The bill also provides that a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm because the person is subject to a protective order or has been convicted of an assault and battery of a family or household member shall be advised that a law-enforcement officer may obtain a search warrant to search for any firearms from the person if the law-enforcement officer has reason to believe that the person has not relinquished all firearms in his possession.
There’s a reason why the current law doesn’t prohibit transfers to adults younger than 21; our Second Amendment rights kick in at 18. Even more troubling, though, is the partial gun registry that would be established by the bill. I understand the desire to know whether someone who’s been prohibited from possessing firearms has divested themselves of any guns they might have owned, but that doesn’t mean that the state has any right to know who those guns were transferred to.
These two bills are truly just the tip of the iceberg, though. We know that Democrats are crafting semi-auto bans, prohibitions on “large capacity” magazines, storage mandates… and at least one permit-to-purchase measure.
“We’re definitely talking about it,” said Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, after a briefing to the Virginia State Crime Commission on how firearms purchaser licenses work in other states.
Del. Karrie Delaney, D-Fairfax, a commission member, said she wants to dig into data about any impact that purchaser licenses have on deaths from homicide and suicide.
“That’s what we’d be trying to achieve,” she said.
Commission deputy director Colin Drabert told the legislator and citizen members of the body that some research found states requiring purchaser licenses do see reductions in homicides and suicides but that other studies were inclusive.
Limited sample sizes and timelines, along with failing to account for the impact of other laws, are problems with some studies, he said.
“We have to be sure that correlation means causation,” Delaney said.
Drabert said research does suggest that purchaser license laws, in conjunction with other firearm laws, may reduce firearm trafficking.
Virginia already has “universal background checks (though an injunction has been placed on requiring background checks on private sales) and a “1-in-30” law limiting handgun purchases to one every 30 days (with an exception for Virginians with an active concealed carry license). Permit-to-purchase laws may ostensibly be aimed at reducing violent crime and gun trafficking, but the real effect is reducing legal gun ownership by putting up another barrier between we the people and their Second Amendment rights.
Unfortunately, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has already upheld Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License, so if Virginia lawmakers simply borrowed that law and enacted it in the Old Dominion, it would most likely survive a legal challenge unless the Supreme Court stepped in.
The biggest impediment to putting a permit-to-purchase law in place might be the cost. The Crime Commission was informed that Delaware officials expect their new permit-to-purchase law to cost about $7.5 million each year, and Delaware has 1/8th the population of Virginia. Still, I’m not convinced that Democrats are going to let a $50 million price tag stand in the way of enacting a gun control measure that would likely reduce gun ownership… especially if they can pass some or all of the cost of administering that program on to the permit applicants themselves.
We’re sure to see many more gun-related bills introduced in the coming days, so this is just a small taste of what Democrats have in store for Virginians exercising their Second Amendment rights. Virginia gun owners need be engaged with their lawmakers now, but should also be in contact with their county supervisors and Commonwealth’s Attorney to encourage them to take a public stand in opposition to these attacks on our right to keep and bear arms.
Editor’s Note: Second Amendment advocates are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their legal and legislative efforts.. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
