Virginia has gone anti human

a reply to: dothedew

Except that it doesn't

Except that it does.

Civil disorder requires acts of violence that pose a risk to life or property. Civil disobedience doesn’t. There is no threat to life or property at a sit-in. You can have civil disobedience without civil disorder. You can’t have civil disorder without civil disobedience.

The actual definition of civil disorder might help if you want to try and argue definitions and precedent. The code you cited specifically mentions violence as being an element.

It seems this bill mirrors the federal law against civil disorder 18 U.S.C. § 231 in some ways while leaving other parts out, so I'm not sure the purpose.

Here are the three ways you can break the federal law...

1. Teaching or demonstrating to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function;

2. Transporting or manufacturing for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder; or

3. Committing or attempting to commit any act to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder which in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or adversely affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function.

a reply to: Xtrozero

A lot of states have laws almost word for word like this one. The purpose behind them, in theory, is to give some sort of ground to prosecute insurrectionist movements on a state level.

In practice, what usually happens is that the feds come in and go after the groups from a conspiracy angle. Federal charges mean federal sentencing as opposed to state.

I have Looked Observed Long a Enough ..

about that SB64

well... The State Is Running a OHH NO!

unless you have been under a rock or not seeing what had been going on ..
in the State of Virginia... in the past few years of the OL BIG Boys ( Politicians ) // Security Based ( FBI CIA NSA ) District// State



Here Some Words

ANTIFA // ISIS // Terrorist Groups & Camps ( to many too List ) which is all over the State's

also including the Big Boys CLUB Fear of....


Gun Law Protesters , Militia Groups , Survival Camp Training

The Big Boys Club is preventing a new Breed of Brown Shirts
en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Brown Shirts
Over Powering The State ..

Supported by Virginia Senator Louise Lucas [D]

ohh yeah ...

What Else has she Supported...

HMMMMMM FIRE ARMS FIRE ARMS !!!!!!
Right down the Dam LIST!!

Senator Louise ( Anti Fire Arm ) Lucas
legiscan.com...


Been around Since ....1987 ya ya ... I here ya ...

but .... allways a BUT ..

Have you heard of the ....

Nazi Germany Commie & Jewish Scare
Enabling act of 1933 ??

( RED SCARE Cold WAR )
International Security Act of 1950
A.K.A.
McCarran Internal Security Act

( Red Scare Cold War )
House Un-American Activities Committee
an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives.

Those 4 Combined , Are Slightly Adapted into the ...

Patriot Act and a lesser Version called the Freedom Act ..

Loosing Your Rights in the Course of their own Security...

a reply to: Shamrock6

The code I cited was reference to the law as it was written, and was cited in my statement regarding the application of the law and its variance from how it was initially written.

The thing about laws is that their interpretation and enforcement can and do often change through subsequent rulings and challenges in regards to said law.

The same way that here in Michigan, you can get cited for changing the track on your Bluetooth connected phone via Pandora, under a law passed in the late 1920's regarding sending and receiving digital transmissions through a walkie talkie.

The same way the second amendment has become what it is today, as opposed to its intentions when it was written (literally the biggest evidencing example of this happening)

The same way that the legal requirement for having car insurance and state vehicle registration was initially written to encompass commercial vehicles only, which has since been interpreted to include all vehicles upon the road, commercial or private.

The same way (here in Michigan ONLY - due to court rulings) that 401k/retirement funds are considered income UNLESS you're in an active bankruptcy (again, not written or stated within the text of the laws, but established later on through case law and court rulings)

The interpretation changes, the clauses within the law change with it. that's why attorneys like to use software such as LexisNexis as opposed to google searches and law books, since that software not only pulls up the law as written, but subsequent rulings, opinions, outcomes, etc., that have a direct impact/change on said law.

I mean honestly, I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not, I'm just throwing out some information. I see people every day at my office believe they "know how to get one over on the man", or that they have the law on their side, because the internet told them so; oftentimes they even know the corresponding codes and have printouts....... but it still doesn't mean they're correct in its current-day application.

originally posted by: dothedew
Same way that here in Michigan, you can get cited for changing the track on your Bluetooth connected phone via Pandora, under a law passed in the late 1920's regarding sending and receiving digital transmissions through a walkie talkie.

Link? The walkie/handie talkie wasn't invented until the late 30's/early 40's.

a reply to: dothedew

The thing about laws is that their interpretation and enforcement can and do often change through subsequent rulings and challenges in regards to said law.

Right. Except you didn’t cite anything to substantiate your claim, you just said it’s changed in its interpretation and enforcement and act as if that’s it, job done. Talking about car insurance is irrelevant. The rest of what you said is largely irrelevant other than the fact that yes, laws are subject to interpretation and that interpretation impacts enforcement. Great, we agree on that but it’s not exactly new information.

For somebody who doesn’t care, you sure talk a lot.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I honestly couldn’t care less whether you believe me. I’m just throwing out information. I deal with people every day at my “office” who think they know the law and like to cite incorrect amendments to me during our conversations, and act as if just because they said something that’s it, job done.

Remember that time I told you the fringed flag gets me off all charges? I know my rights!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So long as you cite Black’s Law, you’re golden. Glad it’s working for you

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That was more of on off-handed reference; I looked up the law I was cited under when I received a ticket for doing so; an archaic law from the depression era that had virtually no application to the current day.... but has changed over the years

Edit: Michigan Public act 300, 1949. I don't know why, but I thought it was 1929. Oops.

It's a bit difficult at the moment to find the original code prior to amendments; we had to add some language to cover cellular phones and texting...... which obviously weren't a thing 70 years ago

a reply to: Shamrock6

You can mock me if you wish; there's a saying about facts vs feelings that you may be familiar with; Ben Shapiro squeaks about it often.

I do talk a lot; I'm just trying to get through a point that items shouldn't always be taken at face value and deserve further scrutiny before dismissal, before I move on; it still pains me when people are quick to brush things away without really digging. You talk a lot as well, for someone promoting a thin blue line - I guess it's just nature of our business, right?

You're essentially throwing out some sort of Red Herring:

Talking about car insurance and Bluetooth really isn’t relevant to the OP in even the remotest way. Yes, laws are interpreted and applications can change over time. Court rulings shape applicability. Talking about how that’s happened with other laws is immaterial to the discussion about this law, though, since the only rulings relevant to this law are rulings about this law.

I never stated that those have any direct impact on the issue within the OP, but are examples that..... things change.

According to this here:

www.aclu.org...

and this as well:

www.govinfo.gov...

oh, and here's a good layman explanation:

www.marc.org...

You can see some obvious discrepancies between USC 232 and 231, procedures, crimes, etc. etc., that effectively disregard the need for harm to persons or property to be present, in order to be charged under this code.

I mean dog, there's literally a response that you replied to, to "Xtrozero" that cites text from 231 disputing your ongoing argument with me.

Since I'm unfortunately becoming invested in this to some extent, I'll see what I can pull from Lexis in regards to past changes and rulings when my boss gets back from court ( no idea what his password is, plus, that stuff is expensive, and I don't make enough as a paralegal to start ordering filings with Christmas right around the corner)

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: kwakakev

Once again. That part of the law has been in effect since 1987. The part you keep ignoring is:

knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder

You can still teach someone how to shoot, or martial arts, or whatever. However, if you're teaching people these things knowing they're going to then use these skills to break the law then it becomes illegal.

Like I said earlier, this law was in response to groups like Bruder Schweigen, a white supremacist paramilitary group who robbed banks to fund their organization, and the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, a far Right terrorist organization linked to bombing oil pipelines along with the murder of a number of people, including a police officer.

With this new amendment I'm guessing that Virginia is attempting to prevent another UTR from occurring.

You and most others that are defending this nonsense aren't reading the law and applying your critical thinking skills. You're taking the first sentence of the legislation and assuming that it applies to all of the sections when it clearly states that it does not. This is the Straw Man they've placed in front of you to make it appear that it is only for some type of fringe paramilitary practitioners.

The main word throughout this whole Bill is "OR". Take the first section for instance:

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


The first line says it all. A person will be considered in violation of the law if....(they)...."teach or demonstrate to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm....yada yada." After this...appears "or". This means that the first line alone will make you guilty whether you're training ISIS fighters or training local kids weapon safety courses at the local Rod and Gun Club. As far as the law is concerned...each is the same offense.

So yes, this law will stop your local DoJo...all gun safety courses for the public....MMA training facilities...I mean the list would be endless.

This is all groundwork being laid to prohibit non-compliance when tptb finally show their hands.

a reply to: MrBuddy

And what you people keep ignoring is this clause:

knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder

The law defines civil disorder as:

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.

So no, teaching kids karate is not in violation in the law.

As I've pointed out numerous times, this law has been on the books since 1987. If this law made teaching martial arts illegal why did I have about 50 different "dojos" within 15 minutes of me when I lived in Virginia?

a reply to: dothedew

Chapter one of the aclu link: civil disturbances arise from civil disobedience. It explains that federal troops can be called in when civil disorder has exceeded a state’s ability to restore order. If you can cite a specific page out of the nearly 200 pages in the document that talks about how somebody can be charged under that specific USC for acts of simple civil disobedience, I’d love to read it. Same for your other link, since that one is a couple thousand pages long. Unless you’re seriously just going to throw almost three thousand pages at me and claim your supporting argument is in there somewhere.

As for the Xtro comment: it’s baffling that you think his comment somehow disproves anything I’ve said? The three points he quoted all mention civil disorder which, again, has a specific definition. It proves nothing whatsoever about anything I’ve said. I’ve point blank agreed that laws get amended and interpreted.

I’m not even sure at this point what you even think we’re discussing. I’m not disputing that not all laws have the exact same verbiage in them, nor am I denying that laws can be amended and interpreted after being written.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I still to this day, have no idea how to break up documents and upload individually to here, let alone any pictures (or I'd have a damn avatar by now).... as a side note.

The clauses cited by Xtro are specific to Civil Disorder; specifically that violating any one of those clauses would deem you potentially guilty of civil disorder. The provided PDF dumps contain text and reference to what Xtro stated, and what is further stated below.

Basically civil disorder is Defined as:

For purposes of this chapter:
(1)The term “civil disorder” means any public disturbance 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.

But at the same time, in order to be deemed guilty (or charged) with Civil disorder, you need only to violate one of these clauses:

18 U.S. Code § 231.Civil disorders
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)
(1)Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function; or

(2)Whoever transports or manufactures for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder; or

(3)Whoever commits or attempts to commit any act to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder which in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or adversely affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(emphasis added by me)


taken from: www.law.cornell.edu...

You've been claiming that violence is needed to qualify as an act of civil disorder. I've been claiming that, no, it doesn't necessarily require violence to be guilty of violating that law. You keep saying I'm wrong, I keep saying that I'm not........ and now we're here.

Apparently, I didn't need to go as far as relating the possibility of changed interpretation, since it's already part of the code (whether or not it was initially written as such or amended later on, is moot at this point)

a reply to: dothedew

United States v. Casper established that in order to secure conviction for that code portion, the government has to prove, in part:

4. That the Defendant attempted to commit an act for the intended purpose of obstructing, impeding, or interfering, either by himself or with someone else, in a violent manner with such law enforcement officer or officers;

I have found nothing whatever that changes, overruled, or disputes that interpretation. I grant that that’s only been stated by the 8th district CoA, but I haven’t seen anything that contradicts that interpretation.

So, no, violence is still a required element.

a reply to: MrBuddy

Are you training in the dojo for a violent revolution?
Are the gun safety classes teaching violent overthrow?
If the answer is no then this law does not apply. So again big nothint burger. Virginia has NOT gone anti human as the OP states.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So essentially, we have to wait until some sort of challenge to work it's way up in the 4th circuit.

This is the only main, small issue I see within the opinion:

Because the parties contemplated aims protected by the First Amendment, it is this Court's duty to carefully examine the specific intent of each party so that the illegal aims of one or several defendants are not mistakenly imputed to an innocent party. The trial court apparently engaged in precisely the sort of inferential process which the strictissimi juris doctrine is designed to avoid. Although Ms. Red Feather admitted that she was attempting to enter Wounded Knee and it could be inferred that she intended to carry the guns and ammunition with her, none of the other defendants acknowledged similar aims. The only evidence that Sioux Casper, Martha Ellen White Bear and Joseph Bill harboured the necessary specific intent was that they were discovered lying in the grass near the cache of weapons. None of the weapons were found on their person or in their possession, nor did any of these defendants express an intent to use the weapons against law enforcement officers or supply them to parties to fire upon officers at Wounded Knee. Of course, the right of each to enter Wounded Knee to protest and to otherwise lawfully assist the occupants is protected. Because of the importance traditionally attached to the speech-related aims of these defendants, the circumstantial inferences necessary to establish the requisite specific intent must be proven with greater particularity than the government provided. The convictions of Casper, White Bear and Bill can only be affirmed by piling inference on inference and by disregarding their rights to go to Wounded Knee to participate in the demonstration.

41
The evidence is also insufficient as to Red Feather and Land because no showing was made that they knew that there was a civil disorder at Wounded Knee at the time they were arrested or that they knew that federal law enforcement officers were on duty at Wounded Knee at the time.

Oh, thank the good lord for court ambiguity, don't know what we'd do without it. It leaves this a bit open-ended.... maybe that's not the best term.... we'll say that it leaves "wiggle room" down the road. This could potentially be interpreted in later cases that the knowledge of officers and/or other law enforcement officials may have a hand to play in the violation of the code and statutes, as well as the use of the notorious *NOR* term, in regards to simply having firearms and ammunition on or around their person..... We've both won cases and lost cases of the same nature, in front of different judges, primarily dependant on their interpretation of that damn word. (going to court with al your ducks lined up based on a prior order, just to find out the next judge interprets "nor" as "or" as opposed to being in conjunction and relation with "neither"? talk about a MAJOR buzzkill)

I guess at the end of the day, we're left with a "let's wait and see" approach lol

The fact is we have a group of ideologues here in VA where I live. I've heard their statements on things they would like to see happen and frankly they are a scary bunch. Given any legal wiggle room they will take it, of that I am sure. We already had the Charlottesville show trials where those who were attacked ended up being branded as the assailants and are now in prison. Those who attacked the alt-right were allowed gofundme accounts and collected $140,000 after bashing a man in the head with a flashlight. Constitutional rights were trampled and the facts turned on their heads for public consumption.
These are not ethical politicians in power now and they are not to be trusted.