The two-sided coin of Virginia's Dillon rule.

The two-sided coin of Virginia’s Dillion rule.

In recent days the Daily Press and Williamsburg Gazette have run articles concerning the use of the Dillion rule to stop second amendment sanctuary. I find Democrats as being hypocritical in this case. Opposition to Dillion's rule has been gaining some momentum in Virginia, where the new democrat majority has made some promises about allowing local governments more authority to take down statues. However, its support for structural change to reverse Dillion's rule is far from clear. In Charlottesville, the Lee statue remains standing in part to the local government not being allowed to remove the statue because of state law not allowing the removal of the statue. Charlottesville community members also mobilized to establish a stronger civilian review panel to process complaints against local police officers. Efforts stymied the legislature, which, thanks to the Dillion rule, does not allow subpoena powers for a review board. The Dillon rule can also eliminate, raising of the minimum wage, burning of fossil fuels, heightening civil rights protections, and other key social issues, including the 2^nd Amendment of our United States constitution.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, challenged Dillion's rule to maintain a commitment to state and federal protections. Federal protections like the 2^nd Amendment, and local community rights to increase communities’ civil rights and expand protections. We can go one to sight other Dillion rule issues. Charlottesville, once again, was lobbied to pursue racial justice reforms that were seen as a benefit to African American communities in response to white nationalist rallies. But, according to the Dillion rule, the city had limited powers to enact meaningful, affordable housing measures. On September 13, 2019, Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore overruled the Charlottesville council's decision to remove the statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. But there is another critical implication that has received little attention. This lawsuit reaffirms a rule that's been thwarting progressive policymaking by cities and counties across the nation.

      In the United States vs. Miller 1939, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. The Court observed with a distinct purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia or public force. "The significance of the militia, the court continued, was that it was composed of civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." This force, if called upon, is a force that states could rely upon for the defense and securing of laws. A force that "comprised of males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called to service".... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in everyday use of the time. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun having a barrel of fewer than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. We cannot say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. What they were saying is, if the weapon is not used in general defense of the country, then it can be regulated. The governor and his fellow Democrats want to ban the following.

1.     AR-15: A semi-automatic rifle used for hunting in VA and of course, is considered a hunting rifle in VA. This same rifle can be used in defense of the state whereby the military and the private citizens use the same ammunition NATO .556 for lawful purposes. Even the Democrats call this weapon "an assault / military rifle and want to ban. But, according to the United States vs. Miller, that would be against the law.

2.     Extended magazines: Extended magazines are needed and would be useful to a militia in the protection of our state, county, or city. Extended magazines are part of ordinary military equipment. To ban would be against the law.

After the United States vs. Miller 1939 decision, Congress placed more significant restrictions on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms. Proposals were made for the prohibitions of firearms altogether. Miller, however, sheds a little light on the validity of such schemes. Miller points out the interest in the "character of the 2nd Amendment right" has been burgeoned, and our governor, along with the Democrats, want to destroy our "individual rights" even further.

In closing, we find ourselves at the forefront of a catch 22. If the Democrats utilize Dillion's rule to thwart the 2^nd amendment sanctuary, they will also prevent their zealous progressive ideologies in other matters. Today we understand Governor Ralph Northam lied to fellow republicans by no longer seeking a work requirement for able-bodied Medicaid recipients. "Every promise made to those republicans who agreed to approve expansion has been broken." Tomorrow, we will see a Democrat governance that will misapply the Dillion rule as they see fit. The rule will be used to take our constitutional rights and ignored overzealous local government where progressive values are the rule. All I can say is this Jim; you need to ignore the Dillion rule as Governor Ralph Northam has ignored his promises to republicans. This day is not a time to bow; this is a time to fight.

A letter to the James City County board of supervisors - 2nd amendment sanctuary.

In response to the 2nd Amendment sanctuary resolution found in the Williamsburg Gazette.

In response to Dr. Jeffery Fiske's opinion as found in the Williamsburg Gazette some months ago. Dr. Fiske had written about the reasons why the 2nd Amendment should be altered or removed. I had offered discourse. Being of the thought every opinion published requires respect for our fair and most honorable local Gazette, I would like to offer discourse to Dr. Jeffery Fiske at el. I will provide my dissertation in the same writing length as Dr. Jeffery Fiske, as this topic does not bear witness to 250 words or less. We will attempt to offer an argument for the 2nd Amendment concerning all within these writings.

To proceed, let us start with the Declaration of Independence (DOI) words and end with nature's first right to self-defense. My dear fellow citizens bear witness to the following terms found in the (DOI). "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness."

Layman's Terms:
It is the right of the people to alter or abolish government and institute a new government. We might do so if our safety and happiness were to be subjected to authoritarian rule. Examples of authoritarian rule: Socialist Democracy, communism, and tyranny. 

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Layman's Terms:
A long-established government in the United States of America is a republic form of governance. What this means is a cause originating or having an effect outside an entity. When a group of people within our government decides to promote socialist democracy in place of a republic, we should have cause for concern for our happiness and safety. Our forefathers warned us not to change for light and transient causes.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Layman's terms:
Despotism can be defined as the exercise of absolute power, especially cruelly and oppressively. Usurpation can be described as a means of taking someone's power or property by force. If this were to happen to our republic, or I believe if we the people were to witness abuses, usurpations, and despotism, then we the people have the right to throw off such government and or attempted takeover of our republic—examples of an attempted takeover of power and an attempt to take one's property by force.

1.    ACA healthcare, free college tuition, all of the carrots they now dangle before you take ownership from citizens by force to give to others without the owner's permission.
2.    The New Green Deal: If implemented by socialist democrats will force you to a standard of living without your consent. Will take from you, your property, and power to pursue happiness and safety within the dictates of your own reason.

"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all directly objectifying the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." Let us here offer our facts of Tyranny if Socialist Democrats take power. In the interest of space, I will provide four.

1.    The New Green Deal: If implemented by socialist democrats will force you to a standard of living without your consent. Will take from you, your property, and power to pursue happiness and safety within the dictates of your own reason.
2.    Abolishing of the electoral college. This right and protection afforded, we the people, should be held close and safe to our bosom. For if we allow a socialist type of government to take from us this right, we have the right to make back this ethical and proper principle by force and as needed.
3.    Reparations for the Black community. Socialist Democrats have offered another carrot for consumption, albeit empty of calories. This is another example of the use of tyrannized authority to take from one without permission and give another, undeservingly mind you, for nothing more than the vote's premise. In other words, the socialist democrat is trying to buy an election with those who possess citizen achievements.
4.    The disposition of the 2nd Amendment. If the citizen's right to nature's first law of self-defense is in some manner, abolished, severely restricted, or mandatory gun confiscation, we the people have every right to throw the government off. Let us be mindful of how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted by Democrats hell-bent on taking your rights.

Democrats are all about ignoring laws. Let us explore why this is a true statement. As we all know, federal immigration and federal drug laws have been dismissed in many states. For a county to ignore a state law pertaining to the right of a (1) well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, (2) the right to keep and bear arms, (3) shall not be infringed. If hypocrisy is something democrats do not value or consider an immoral act, then this idea of infringing on a publics' right to keep and bear arms might be of value to them. Created in 1789 and ratified in 1791, our US constitutional language and grammar reflect the use of commas to list three separate rights as listed above. One of which is "shall not be infringed." It was indeed proper and common to utilize run-on sentences in this time period where independent thoughts were linked together by commas. It is indeed appropriate to understand that one cannot apply today's grammar to yesterday's grammar to interpret meaning. This is where the democrats fail, or in my opinion, hide their true objective of complete power. We only need to look south, our neighbor Venezuela, to understand what happens when guns are confiscated by the government.

In fact, it is our right per the US constitution to determine the individual's fate and pursuit of happiness. It is our right to expect reasonable safety. It is the citizen's right to protect our republic and protect the United States Constitution and its Amendments. Per the (DOI), our duty is to cast off those who want only to take from us without our permission. We must provide guards for the security of our republic, our pursuit of happiness, and our safety. We, the people, have the right to cast off by force and, as needed, a socialist, communist, or tyrannical form of government. 

We seem to be circling around to the very tyrannical government we cast off in 1775. Our (DOI offers a glimpse into why we had cast off the last oppressive government and created a republic dependent on our Constitution. Will we have to cast off a government again? Let's hope not. 

Dr. Fiske writes, "with the advent of professional law enforcement, the need for the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed. This is a false statement. Dr. Fiske writes the second Amendment was written for citizens who live remotely. This, too, is a misconception.   The police can never be there to protect you at all times, and it does not matter if you live in a city or are remote. Every citizen has the right to nature's first right of self-defense and the Second Amendment gives you that right. In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme court ruled that a federal handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, the justices held that state and local governments also could not prohibit handguns. These decisions debunk the idea of remote only.

I offer the following for consideration: The 2nd Amendment and why it is essential to our pursuit of happiness and safety. Our forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and listed the reasons and grievances against England's King. During the revolutionary war, ordinary citizens took up arms against a tyrannical government. Lives were lost, and freedoms were won. We were an armed citizenry willing to fight for our beliefs. Without weapons, we would have had no recourse but to be subjected to King's rule. When our forefathers wrote the Second Amendment, they kept in mind the first law, nature's right to self-defense. I think we are again at this critical moment in history, where we may have to decide to fight a tyrannical government should socialist democrats take control of our government and enforce the listed grievances at el.

Hunting: Yes, my board of supervisors, we the people, use AR15s for hunting. As a matter of fact, and if you choose to explore, you will find the VA game regulations, as they pertain to hunting rifles in Virginia, allow the AR15 as long as the projectile's caliber is greater than .223. The AR15 is nothing more than a platform whereby .308, ACC 300 blackout, Grendel et al. are built for hunting. The AR15 is not an assault weapon per definition, and as a matter of fact, it is b VA hunting rifle. By definition, deer, coyotes, and feral pig hunting are the most popular use.

In closing, let's examine gun violence statistically and not in a manner of creating laws that take from you your first right, a natural defense. While my numbers are true and accurate, for the sake of simplicity, I offer the following. Violence against your fellow man is a despicable act. Yet all through time, violence, war, murder, etc., has and will be a part of human culture. Is gun violence a crime worthy of the alternation of man's right to nature's first right of self-defense? I say no, to take from me what God has given me, where good shall always prevail over evil is the true crime. According to pew research, In 2017, 39,773 people died from gun-related injuries. 23,854 were suicides, 486 were unintentional, 553 involved police informants, 338 were undetermined circumstances. In 2017, 14,542 were murders in a country with 330,000,000 people. Simple math: 14,542 / 330,000,000 * (100) = .00044% chance you might get shot with a gun and this statistic does not allow for multiple people killed by one person, (.00044% chance). You can find my reference at pew research.org. Nearly 1.25 million people die in car crashes each year, an average of 3200 a day. 250,000 people die every year from medical errors, 70,237 people died from drug overdoses per year. According to the FBI, more people are killed with knives, hammers, clubs, and even feet than rifles. Yes, even rifles, including the AR15 style rifle. Rifle deaths in America according to Statista.com 2018; 297 people.

I ask that we fight the Democrats on every level; this incessant need to take from me my right to nature's first right of self-defense. Create a 2nd amendment sanctuary, and if I choose to use a rifle to defend my family, that is my right and not your right to take away. Please do not turn our police department into a militant force going door to door, confiscating our freedom, rights, and guns. Not even John McGlennon, government professor of William and Mary, hiding behind his locked doors and tall walls, will ever be able to argue against the Declaration of Independence, our founding father's intent of the bill of rights, and our US constitution. (See how I used the comma there?) If John ever inclines to debate, I stand ever ready to debate this issue if John finds himself brave enough to stand against a righteous God who has given us nature's first right to self-defense. 

Why we need 2nd Amendment Sanctuary from Democrats

James City County will consider a 2nd amendment sanctuary pronouncement. My letter to Ms. Sadler, JCC BOS, giving my full support of said pronouncement. 

Dear Ms. Sadler, I will be out of town on December 10^th, 2019. I will be traveling for business. If the opportunity arises that, I shall be given the right to speak at a later date, then I will do so. In the meantime, I have written what I would have spoken to in regard to our individual rights. If you can please enter into the transcripts of the meeting that would be great. If you wish to read for me that would be great. Good Luck.

James City County has a fitting question to answer this December 10, 2019. Will we the people protect lawful abiding citizens from the constant need of others to deny the constitutional rights of legal abiding citizens? The 2nd Amendment was written deliberately and divided into three parts. Some scholars may argue for two parts, but I would say the 2nd Amendment offers three separate "individual rights" or roles and the Supreme Court agrees with me, or I could say I agree with them. This intended divide would consider its prefatory clause, ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and its operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") and then closes with the phrase ("shall not be infringed"). All separated by commas.

With getting to the point in mind, let us consider what is at hand. There are two opposing arguments. Argument one: state rights noted with importance and found within the prefatory clause of the 2^nd Amendment. Here we see a case for the protection of state rights from an overzealous federal government. Many states would have never signed the Constitution, states like New York, Rhode Island, and yes, even Virginia had provisions not been made or promises to amend the Constitution with a bill of rights. The 2nd Amendment being the right to “form a militia” if need be is evident to this writer as significant to our founding fathers. After all, it was the 2nd Amendment considered. But the founding fathers did not stop here; the founding fathers went on to write another portion into the 2nd Amendment. "Individual rights" emphasized the operative clause, here we see our founding fathers protecting individual citizens in the ownership, possession, and transportation of firearms. However, our founding fathers did not stop here; they went on to write "shall not be infringed."

In the United States vs. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. The Court observed with a distinct purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia or public force. "The significance of the militia, the court continued, was that it was composed of civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." This force, if called upon, is a force that states could rely upon for the defense and securing of laws. A force that "comprised of males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called to service".... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use of the time. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun having a barrel of fewer than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. What they were saying is, if the weapon is not used in general defense of the country, then it can be regulated.

The governor and his fellow Democrats want to ban the following.

1.   AR-15: A semi-automatic rifle used for hunting in VA and of course is considered a hunting rifle in VA. This same rifle can be used in defense of the state whereby the military and the private citizens use the same ammunition NATO .556 for lawful purposes. Even the Democrats call this weapon "an assault / military rifle and want to ban. But, according to United States vs. Miller, that would be against the law. When a state draws up bills that are against federal law or fall under the protection of our Constitution, we must cast off said government and legally create our own.

2.   Extended magazines: Extended magazines are needed and would be useful to a militia in the protection of our state, county, or city. Extended magazines are part of ordinary military equipment. To ban would be against the law.

After the United States vs. Miller decision, Congress placed more significant restrictions on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms. Proposals were made for the prohibitions of firearms altogether. Miller, however, sheds a little light on the validity of such proposals. Miller points out the interest in the "character of the 2md Amendment right” has been burgeoned, and our governor, along with the Democrats, want to destroy our "individual rights" even further.

Justice Thomas, concurring in the Court's invalidation of the Brady handgun violence act, questioned whether the 2nd Amendment bars federal regulation of gun sales, and suggested that the Court might determine "at some future date, Whether Justice Story was correct "that the right to bear arms" has justly been considered, as the palladium of liberties of a republic. A republic minds you; the Democrats want to destroy.

The Supreme Court sided with "individual rights" in or around 2008. The Court in Columbia v Heller confirmed what has been a growing consensus among legal scholars - that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a thorough examination of the Amendment, an analysis of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statues, and a detailed exploration of the 18th-century use of the phases found in the Amendment. The Supreme Court went on to consider the phrase "well-regulated militia." This phase did not adhere to state or federal militias but a pool of "able-bodied men." who were available for conscription. The Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude, the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include the right to self-defense.

Using this "individual rights theory," The Court struck down a District of Columbia v. Heller law that banned virtually all handguns and required that any other type of handgun could be prohibited as long as other guns (such as long guns) were available. Another requirement that all firearms be inoperable at all times was found to limit the "core lawful purpose of self-defense."

In McDonald v. Chicago, it found that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and is thus enforceable against the states. The Court examined whether the right to keep and bear arms is "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" or deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. Relying on Heller, the Court noted common English law of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and a bulwark against overreaching federal authority. The Court suggested that the right to keep and bear arms has become a valued principal for self-defense.

One might find it interesting, the 14th Amendment of which I have already tied the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the right of ex-slaves to keep and bear arms. While the dissent might have countered with the equal protection clause, not the due process clause, the plurality also found enough evidence of the then existent concerns regarding the treatment of blacks by state militia to include that the right to bear arms was also intended to protect against generally-applicable state regulation. The Democrats and some presidential candidates are calling for the confiscation of guns nationally in 2019. I might note here, while by the 1850's the perceived threat of the National Government disarming the citizenry had primarily faded, this communist idea has resurfaced, as a means to obtain power over the citizenry of the United States. If not for no other reason, we should consider a 2nd Amendment sanctuary pronouncement.

In closing, our rights to bear AR15’s and extended magazines are protected under federal law and given statute under United States vs. Miller. The rights of the 2nd Amendment adhere to individual rights and not state rights as written with statute District of Columbia vs. Heller. Lastly, has it not become rather obvious, the Democrats want our lawful guns in order to gain power over the citizenry, in order to dictate egregious laws that may further dilute our God given rights. What will our 2^nd Amendment sanctuary look like? You will find the answer in my last paragraph. “The plurality of the Supreme Court acknowledges individual rights to keep and bear arms, arms should be useful to “other pool of men” conscripted into service. Arms are for self-defense, individual rights such as hunting, and above all “shall not be infringed” upon.

Ref. Columbia University of Law