Virginia has gone anti human

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: beyondknowledge

Sorry, but no.

"Explosive or incendiary device" means (i) dynamite and all other forms of high explosives, (ii) any explosive bomb, grenade, missile, or similar device, or (iii) any incendiary bomb or grenade, fire bomb, or similar device, including any device which consists of or includes a breakable container including a flammable liquid or compound, and a wick composed of any material which, when ignited, is capable of igniting such flammable liquid or compound, and can be carried or thrown by one individual acting alone.

18.2-433.1. Definitions

Sorry, but yes. A Zippo qualifies by the definition you just posted. It's got flammable liquid, it's got a wick that will ignite the flammable liquid, and if you throw it hard enough, they will pop into two pieces and all the fluid will flash burn, they can be carried or thrown by one individual, and you can absolutely set a building on fire with the proper set of circumstances just simply by throwing a zippo at it.

This is exactly the point. The laws are written basically so anything they deem to be contraband is contraband. Will the court really punish you for just carrying a zippo? Probably not, but if you don't jump through every hoop, or you make some police officer upset -- yeah, they'll put you through the ringer.

a reply to: kwakakev

You're once again ignoring the important part. Self-defense is not civil disorder. Now teaching someone BJJ so they can be effective at playing the Knockout Game? That's a whole different story.

a reply to: SRPrime

Carrying a Zippo on your person does not show intent to intimidate. Wielding a Zippo and threatening people that you will light them on fire does show an intent to intimidate.

Do you think this second example should be illegal?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Self-defense is not civil disorder.

Im Trying. What kind of of civil order will you have when no one can defend themselves? A globalist bum rape is all I see.

a reply to: kwakakev

Yes. Because this law has been on the books since 1987. The language you have an issue with has been law since 1987. I don't see any of the local Strip Nall Senseis getting dragged in by the cops.

So if this law has been on the books since 1987, what part of this proposed amendment to it will suddenly make it illegal for Master Johnny's Karate Palace to operate?

a reply to: kwakakev

What part of this law makes it illegal for someone the defense oneself?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Shamrock6

Which would be perfectly fine under this bill, since that’s not being done to create a civil disturbance.

How will that work when your local Sensei has shut up shop? All it takes is a cowards punch to kill someone. Too much legalise for any local training to continue. What happens to all the routine, discipline and general exercise? Just more candy for Blomberg to take?

Seemed to work fine when I shot combat pistol courses in Virginia when I lived there. I’d bet it’ll work just fine after this, too.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons

Learning how to punch is enough for this. Death from a punch generally occurs when the other person is not expecting it. That is naughty. Walking down the street and surrounded by a gang is a different story. The cops will clean up the mess and if it was unprovoked so be it. If one is threatened it is got them home safe all good.

a reply to: kwakakev

You cannot just sample quote the law, it needs to be taken in full and in context.

a reply to: kwakakev

You literally just ignored my post the explains why your interpretation is wrong. You keep forgetting that part that includes the words "civil disorder." Thus why I called you obtuse.

I like how everyone defending this is completely overlooking the fact that "Civil Disobedience" and "protest" often go hand in hand.

What this bill indicates, is that any sort of protesting must be done unarmed, so that the public is easily subdued thereafter if need be.

All about ease of control.

Now with that little cherry in perspective, are you still laughing to yourselves and saying "oh, this is fine."?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Are you serious? Really?? IDK???

You ask me for what pat part of the legislation I don't like then call me obtuse. Go get a job with Adam Shiff.

a reply to: dothedew

I like how everyone defending this is completely overlooking the fact that "Civil Disobedience" and "protest" often go hand in hand.

I live in Virginia, and I think it's nuanced.

On one hand, Virginia is a Commonwealth. What this means is the state is the one who presses charges, and if you get into a scuffle with someone, you both can't just decide to drop the charges on one another.

On the other hand, open carry is legal, so there does seem to be a focus on the rights for people to protect themselves.

Being armed while protesting could certainly create the appearance of intent to commit a crime. That's not my personal opinion, but I'm being a realist, especially with how the law works here.

Personally, there's no way I would ever think about carrying while protesting, I know better.

a reply to: dothedew

”Civil disorder” means any public disturbance within the United States or any territorial possessions thereof involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual.”

It helps to read the whole of the law.

a reply to: kwakakev

It says nothing about martial arts. Or not being able to defend yourself. Just more typical hysteria about nothing!

a reply to: kwakakev

And your issue is a small part of a single section. A section that has been law since 1987 and has a qualifier attached to it that you keep ignoring.

The reason I call you obtuse is because you continue to ignore that the law has been a law for over 30 years and that there's that whole "civil disorder" qualifier.

a reply to: Joecanada11

It says that anyone who teachers another about methods that can injury and possibly kill another is to face 5 years imprisonment. Nothing is said about the legality of being in a threatening situation. Most of my training includes the discipline and responsibility of when to hit. This is not a black and white circumstance usually, it is about getting getting you home safe in a potentially and sometimes dangerous world.

a reply to: kwakakev

Except that's not what it says. As has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The reason I call you obtuse is because you continue to ignore that the law has been a law for over 30 years and that there's that whole "civil disorder" qualifier.

You are going off legalise tangents that are not discussed in the legislation that is presented. Maybe if I have heaps of cash to pay my way out of the word salad presented I can get away with anything. With the the law that is presented all I need to do is teach someone how to punch straight and I get 5 years jail.

a reply to: kwakakev

Are you planning on teaching that five year old how to punch straight so they can commit "acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual?"

If not, then you are not in violation of the law. Because, once again, it requires that "civil disorder" qualifier and what I quoted is how the law defines civil disorder.

I honestly don't know how much simpler I can make this.

What the proposed SB64 seeks to do is amend 18.2-433.2 which was enacted as a law in 1987. This is how 18.2-433.2, which became a law in 1987, reads currently before the proposed amendment:

A person shall be guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.

Source

Here is how it would read if the proposed amendment to it is passed:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That §18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited; penalty.

A person shall be guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.

Source

As you can see the part you take issue with is included in the current law. The same law that has been on the books for over 30 years.

Please, show me what change between the 1987 version of the law and the proposed 2020 version of the law that prohibits a jefferson from taking a five year old how to punch.