Skip to main content

Wanna see something crazy? Look no further than Virginia...

Bob Marshall, a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates introduced a crazy bit of legislation today. I'm not exaggerating one iota when I label the legislation as "crazy." Here, have a look for yourself:

"HB2340: SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED: Prevent any agency, political subdivision, or employee of Virginia from assisting the Federal government of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, detention, arrest, search, or seizure, under the authority of any federal statute enacted, or Executive Order or regulation issued, after December 31, 2012, infringing the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms by imposing new restrictions on private ownership or private transfer of firearms, firearm magazines, ammunition, or components thereof."

That's right - the far-right gun nuts (I now believe this is the proper term as well) have reached the point in their the-federal-government-is-coming-after-my-guns paranoia, that in the state of Virginia, they're attempting to restrict gun-crime information sharing with the big, bad federal government.

The really crazy part is the fact this "piece" (ambiguously used) of legislation passed along party lines by a 15-7 vote today and will head to the House of Delegates for a vote next week.

In response to the legislation, Democratic Delegate Alfonso Lopez, who voted against the bill, said: "Say the federal government was investigating a gun-runner in Virginia, local police would not be allowed to assist the FBI or the ATF with providing addresses, contact information, or phone numbers. It has unintended consequences, is overly broad, and is the wrong direction for Virginia to be going."

Patrick Hope, another Democratic Delegate, had this to say, "This bill will turn Virginia into a haven for fugitives of the federal government. If you're a criminal, you should come to Virginia, because under this law we would ignore any commonsense legislation that comes out of Washington. It will be a danger to public safety. This is not a joke - but it's something you'd think you'd see in The Onion."

If this legislation ultimately passes, there may be some changes on the way in the commonwealth state, such as the following:

New state song: Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal"

State bird: The dodo bird

State movie: Idiocracy

State nickname: The Felon State

State motto: "Mostly crime, most of the time"

Yeah, just imagine if bin Laden were still alive. If this law passed, he'd probably leave the Middle East and head to the state of Virginia, where he'd be better protected from the United States federal government. Virginia may call itself the commonwealth state, but if this law passes, it will be the antithesis of the commonsense state.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/25/1497681/virginia-advances-gangbanger-bill-of-rights-to-withhold-gun-crime-evidence-from-federal-government/

http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2013/01/gangbanger-bill-of-rights-passes-house-committee.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"