Home | Virginia
Politics		 | National
Politics
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Poll
Should Democrats Move Their Convention Out of North Carolina?
No, I agree with the anti-gay-marriage amendment
No, lots of states have these amendments
No, it's too late to change
No, we want to win North Carolina this November
Yes, we need to take a stand against bigotry
Yes, NC's amendment is particularly heinous
Yes, we're not going to win NC anyway
Yes for many reasons

Results

Weather

Search




Advanced Search

Blog Roll
Virginia Blogs
All Politics is Local
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Coarse Cracked Corn
Crew of 42
DemRulz
Dixie Pig
Equality Loudoun
The Fix (WaPo)
Greater Greater Washington
The Green Miles
Leaving My Marc
Leesburg Tomorrow
Loudoun Progress
Moonhowlings
New Dominion Project
Not Larry Sabato
Off K Street
Old Dominion Blogs
Ox Road South Blog
Renaissance Ruminations
Richmonder
Richmond Sunlight
RTD VA Politics blog
Roanoke Times blog
Shad Plank
SlantBlog
Too Conservative
True Adventures of the Doorbell Queen
VB Dems
Virginia Education Report
WaPo - Virginia Politics Blog
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll

Progressive Legal Directory www.criminallawyervirginia.net
www.virginia-duilawyers.com
www.virginia-personalinjurylawyer.com
www.recklessdrivinglawyer.net
www.helpdisabilitylawyer.com
www.criminallawdc.com
www.duilawsdc.com

ADT Home Security in Virginia

Scott Surovell: "The Gun Movement Comes to Fort Hunt"

by: lowkell

Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 07:04:12 AM EDT


Over at his blog, The Dixie Pig, Del. Scott Surovell (D-44) shares his thoughts on the "open carry", "Restore the Constitution" rally scheduled for today at Fort Hunt Park in his district. According to Surovell, his constituents are reacting with "concern, fear, and outright anger with some." The bottom line, from Surovell's perspective, is that "writing a letter to the editor, starting a blog, or running a TV ad are much more effective methods of communication than staging a rally with a loaded and/or unloaded weapons in what is really a suburban neighborhood park just because you can do it."

For all of Del. Surovell's thoughts on today's anti-government, "open carry" rally in Fort Hunt Park, click here. What do you think?

P.S. As the Washington Post story points out, "Those coming to the "Restore the Constitution" rally give Obama no quarter for signing the law that permits them to bring their guns to Fort Hunt, run by the National Park Service, and to Gravelly Point on the banks of the Potomac River. Nor are they comforted by a broad expansion of gun rights in several states since his election." That's right, Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have expanded gun rights since they took office in January 2009. Why don't they get any "credit" for this from pro-gun folks?

UPDATE: Rep. Jim Moran (D-8th, VA) weighs in.

The free association and gathering of individuals is a constitutionally protected right that all Americans should support, regardless of whether one agrees with the substance of the protest. Holding an armed rally at a public park however, raises major public safety concerns.

These anti-government demonstrations are fueled by the belief that our constitutional rights under the Second Amendment are somehow under attack and urgent action is needed. While this may be a powerful rallying point for special interest groups, the claim could not be further from the truth. In fact, much to my dismay, virtually every action the federal government has taken in the past decade has weakened commonsense gun laws already on the books.

I understand that the Park Service is well aware of the situation and is working to ensure the public's safety is protected. I urge anyone attending the event to protest in a peaceful manner, respectful of the park and its visitors. I maintain my belief that firearms do not belong in national parks but unfortunately, that's now the law of the land.

 
lowkell :: Scott Surovell: "The Gun Movement Comes to Fort Hunt"
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Scott Surovell: "The Gun Movement Comes to Fort Hunt" | 41 comments
Frustrated Far Right (0.00 / 0)
These people - ignoring the dangerous types that, thankfully, are monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center - are very frustrated people from the far right of the Republican party. They lost the last election and can't get over it. They said not a word about respecting the limits of the Constitution as the Bush administration and Congress carried on undeclared wars and trampled on individual rights regularly, in the name of "national security."

The Obama administration has LOWERED taxes and INCREASED gun rights, but these people can't accept those facts. They don't follow the line of their propaganda.

This whole orchestrated hate campaign is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

He Sign the Credit Card Reform Bill (H5806) (0.00 / 0)
Bush put in a new policy in January of 2009 to allow the carrying of loaded, concealed weapons in National Parks, Forests, etc.  That policy was then overturned by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in April.  The papers report that 0bama was not going to fight that ruling, although they do say that he was directing the Interior Department to perform an environmental impact study, the lack of which was the reason the Judge gave for overturning the policy.  Frankly, I do not see what else he could have done.  The Judge made her ruling, and nothing he could have done EXCEPT have the study done would have been able to override the Judge's ruling, because the ruling was based on the environmental law, passed by Congress and signed by the President.  (I disagree with the ruling, but, as I say, there isn't much else 0bama could have done, except take it to a higher court.)

Then Sen. Tom Coburn's amendment to the Credit Card Reform bill was passed in the Senate and the House.  In both houses, it passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support.  Although some congressional leaders wanted to remove it in conference committee, they decided there was not time to do that given the timeline that President 0bama pressed for.

We cannot know whether President 0bama would have vetoed the Coburn Amendment if it had come to his desk separate from the Credit Card Reform bill.  However, he has frequently opposed gun rights in the past, and when asked about a vote he made FOR allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, he said, "I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."

[ Parent ]
In sum... (0.00 / 0)
...Obama gets no credit for anything he does, whether it's cutting taxes for 95% of Americans or loosening gun restrictions. To the contrary, we're told that he "had no other choice" or that Bush gets the credit or something else laughable.  As many people have (half) joked, if Barack Obama cured cancer tomorrow, the right wing would give him no credit and/or criticize him for not having done it yesterday. At some point, I think it's time to just tune out the incessant carping by the Obama haters, as there's simply nothing Obama or Democrats can do to make them happy or less "angry."

Follow me on Twitter.
[ Parent ]
You seem to have misread me... (0.00 / 0)
I said that 0bama had no choice in trying to re-institute the Bush policy, and that he put the Interior Department on the right path to satisfy Judge Kollar-Kotelly.  I was giving him credit for that.

Nor was I saying that he had no choice in signing the bill.  He certainly could have vetoed it because of the Coburn Amendment.  Considering the support the Coburn Amendment had in both houses, his veto probably would have been overridden anyway.

Just as an aside, I do not like this tactic of putting unrelated items in a bill.  Such things should stand of fall on their own merits.

[ Parent ]
Sorry if I misread you. (0.00 / 0)
I'm just getting extremely tired of Republicans, conservatives, etc. who bash Obama for everything and refuse to give him credit for anything. Hopefully, you're not one of those folks.

Follow me on Twitter.
[ Parent ]
Just Words? (0.00 / 0)
"It is true that mere talkers have no legal responsibility when an impressionable, perhaps unbalanced, person decides to act on their vitriol. But those who say their words are only words, or say their hyperbole is justified to make their message heard, cannot pretend that they play no role in inciting the actions that follow". http://www.politico.com/news/s...
Why? (0.00 / 0)
"Why don't they get any "credit" for this from pro-gun folks?"

Because these people are bats--t crazy!

Why are they really mad? (0.00 / 0)
It's not "federal control." It's "that one."

Read more at TheGreenMiles.com and follow me on Twitter
[ Parent ]
The Main Stream (0.00 / 0)
of the "gun rights" movement is across the Potomac participating in the Second Amendment March.

Even the Open Carry Movement and Oathkeepers have rejected the "Restore the Constitution" rally at Ft. Hunt  because of the mixed messages, the speakers, and the possibilities of trouble at this rally.

Concerns about this rally are justified. Lets hope it goes off without a hitch, in spite of itself.  

Gun rights and wrongs (0.00 / 0)
Y'know, I have no problem with regulated gun ownership for hunting and sportsmanship. But when did the debate move from there to armed opposition to the Federal government?  

And having these rallies on the anniversary of Timothy McVeigh's terrorist massacre sends a dark message.  I think the government should watch these folks like a hawk.
Patriotism -- or sedition?

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

Just one problem with that... (4.00 / 1)
I have no problem with regulated gun ownership for hunting and sportsmanship

In the Miller decision, the Court ruled that Miller's posession of a sawed-off shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment because it was NOT a military weapon.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
In terms of the 2nd Amendment basing gun rights on the militias that preceded the National Guard you mean?  So are you saying that it protects the right of people who want to use weapons to use armed force against the government?

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.
[ Parent ]
I meant what I said (0.00 / 0)
Miller lost because sawed-off shotguns were not military weapons, and thus he had no 2nd Amendment right to have one.

Why he wanted one was not relevant to the case, nor was his militia status a factor.  The only factor was the TYPE of weapon in question:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen 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 Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...
[ Parent ]
2nd Amendment is for militias (0.00 / 0)
Jack is following the "Gun Rights" mantra by citing a 1939 Supreme Court case which was decided under unusual circumstances, is rarely followed, and is considered by many to be abrogated, at least in part.  Look it up in Wikipedia.  

I agree with kindler that the 2nd amendment should not (and cannot) extend to armed opposition to the federal government.  Why else would Section 3 of Article III of the Constitution define treason?

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Just wondering, what is the shortest time for a member of this site to reach their 100th [right-wing] comment...

[ Parent ]
2nd Amendment Guarantees a Personal Right (0.00 / 0)
See Heller v DC.  Where have you been?
[ Parent ]
Opps, backward... (0.00 / 0)
DC v Heller
[ Parent ]
Then why did you cite Miller? (0.00 / 0)
Maybe it was because Heller talks about that there is no right to bear military weapons such as machine guns, and completely undercuts the rationale behind Miller?  

Or maybe because Heller is limited to Federal jurisdictions, as the Second Amendment is not extended to the states via the 14th Amendment?

The Second Amendment applies to militia style weapons that could be brought home, that is "Arms."  While you and the gun lobby may wish the unusual 1939 case of Miller to be the law of the land, it is not.  

Likewise, while you and the gun lobby would like to think that the Heller v. DC and the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear military weapons, it does not.

The Second Amendment merely guarantees that the federal government cannot infringe one's possession of a weapon that can be used as "Arms" in a State Militia.  Which in the context of the late 18th Century, makes a lot of sense.  


[ Parent ]
McDonald v Chicago (0.00 / 0)
Will most likely incorporate the 2nd Amendment.  Can you see any reason that it should not be incorporated?

As for Heller, I believe the portion you are look at is this:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and evolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 1973)).  Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...

So the question is, can the government ban arms that are not "in common use at the time"?  If the answer is YES, then the government could have banned revolvers, cap-and-ball muskets, breech-loaders, cartidge-loaded guns, semi-automatic pistols, lever-action rifles, bolt-action rifles, ALL rifles in fact, if it had done so before they came into "common use."

Is that your contention?

[ Parent ]
Get back on point (0.00 / 0)
You challenged kindler's statement.  I defended the statement.  You gave up, and are now grasping at tangential straws and setting up strawman arguments.  

The Second Amendment was intended to permit State Militias, and to allow members of those militias to bring their weapons home.  Allowing those members to keep and bear those weapons, free from Federal government interference, was consistent with maintaining the integrity of those militias.  

Nothing in the Second Amendment condones or permits an individual taking up arms against the Federal government, which was your initial (and quite troubling) implication.

[ Parent ]
When did I say that? (0.00 / 0)
Nothing in the Second Amendment condones or permits an individual taking up arms against the Federal government, which was your initial (and quite troubling) implication.

I made no such implication.

[ Parent ]
Heller and Miller agree... (0.00 / 0)
... that the Second Amendment protections do not require membership in a state militia.
[ Parent ]
What horrible taste to schedule today for this "protest" (0.00 / 0)
I am all for 2nd amendment rights, but what monumentally bad taste to pick the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing for the march...

This batch should have their 2nd amendment rights stripped permanently for having such bad taste.

April 19th... (0.00 / 0)
...is also the day of the Waco Massacre, 1993, and of the battle at Old North Bridge, Concord, MA, 1775.

The Oklahoma City bombing was in response to the former.  Perhaps Janet Reno could have chosen another day to kill all those 76 men, women, and children.

[ Parent ]
For the facts of Waco (0.00 / 0)
click here. An excerpt.

In addition to allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct, Koresh and his followers were accused of stockpiling illegal weapons. Authorities investigated these charges and obtained a warrant to search Koresh's compound. Former Davidian Marc Breault claimed that Koresh had "...M16 lower receiver parts" (when the receiver is modified and these parts are added to an AR15 rifle it becomes a fully automatic weapon and is subject to the National Firearms Act and its $200 tax in the United States).[7]

On August 5, 1989, Koresh (at that point still legally named Vernon Howell) released the "new light" audiotape in which Koresh stated he'd been told by God to procreate with the women in the group to establish a "House of David" of his "Special People." This involved married couples in the group dissolving their marriages and agreeing that only Koresh could have sexual relations with the wives.[7]

Interviews with Koresh's surviving followers reveal that he was intimately versed in the Bible and "knew it like he wrote it." Koresh had taught that the U.S. government was the enemy of the Davidians and that they would have to defend themselves against it with weapons. The January 5, 1992 interview of David Koresh by Martin King of Australian TV show A Current Affair included this exchange:

King: "Would you use a gun if someone trespassed?"
Koresh: "They come in here with a gun and they start shooting at us, what would you do?"[10]

[...]

Reports from Joyce Sparks, an investigator from the Texas agency responsible for child protective services, stated she had found significant evidence that the allegations were true in her visits to the Mount Carmel site over a period of months. However she said the investigation was difficult as she wasn't permitted to speak with the children alone nor was she permitted to inspect all areas of the site. She noted that safety concerns over construction sites at Mount Carmel were either ignored or slowly corrected.



Follow me on Twitter.
[ Parent ]
He went into town... (0.00 / 0)
...often enough.  Why didn't they just arrest him there?
[ Parent ]
Are courageous friend LAS (0.00 / 0)
with sign - They're terrorist - not patriots

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

As LAS reports - there were more press than protestors - what a bunch of hype

"with sign -- They're terrorists"? (0.00 / 0)
I just don't understand?  Carrying a sign is terrorism?
[ Parent ]
Obviously, carrying a sign isn't "terrorism" (0.00 / 0)
but what these people are advocating - violent overthrow of the government - is about as close to "terrorism," not to mention "treason," as you can get.

Follow me on Twitter.
[ Parent ]
Which signs? (0.00 / 0)
I've gone to the link that totallynext posted, but I see no indication that they are advocating violent overthrow of the government.
[ Parent ]
Did you watch the video (0.00 / 0)
or read any of the articles on these people?  Or is this yet another one of your "rhetorical" questions?  

Follow me on Twitter.
[ Parent ]
Yes. (0.00 / 0)
And I'm still waiting for an answer.
[ Parent ]
The answer's obvious. (0.00 / 0)
No need to comment further, beyond their ultra-violent/paranoid/anti-government rhetoric.  

Follow me on Twitter.
[ Parent ]
WHAT rhetoric? (0.00 / 0)
Put up some quotes that YOU think are terroristic.
[ Parent ]
Dude, did you ever hear of "Google?" (0.00 / 0)
This takes about a minute. The featured speaker at this rally, Mike Vanderboegh, is an "Alabama survivalist and former militia boss" who referred to health care reform as "Nancy Pelosi's Intolerable Act" and told his followers, "We can break their windows. Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary."

Case closed.  

Follow me on Twitter.

[ Parent ]
Also... (0.00 / 0)
see here.

Vanderboegh: I'm calling on the government to understand that there are going to be consequences to pushing people like us any farther back.

Questioner: More Ruby Ridges? More Wacos?

Vanderboegh: Precisely.



Follow me on Twitter.
[ Parent ]
When the government attacked civilians (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Carrying a sign can be terrorism (0.00 / 0)
Especially if it induces or encourages terrorism.  Under some definitions of terrorism, terrorism requires only a "threat" of violence.  

For example, a common Tea Party sign that "I did not bring my guns...this time..." definitely sends a terrorist message.  It is intended to terrorize a government or society into a course of action by threat of violence.  

That being said, looking at the site, I did not see any signs that rose to "terrorist" level.  Of course, as the attendees were brandishing weapons, the need for a sign was significantly diminished...


[ Parent ]
Not brandishing (0.00 / 0)
to shake or wave, as a weapon; flourish: Brandishing his sword, he rode into battle.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

Hard to do that when it is holstered.

[ Parent ]
Flourish? (0.00 / 0)
Or "to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner" according to another M&W definition?  

The rally was all about flourishing their weapons on the outskirts of DC.  An ostentatious sign of aggression.  

Terrorism to some.

[ Parent ]
Not flourishing, either. (0.00 / 0)
to brandish dramatically; gesticulate with: a conductor flourishing his baton for the crescendo.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

It is simply that, if a gun is not in one's hand but safely holstered, it does not fall afoul of the law:

ยง 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.


http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bi...
[ Parent ]
Relevant recipe (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Scott Surovell: "The Gun Movement Comes to Fort Hunt" | 41 comments
Advertising

Donate to Blue Virginia

About
The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, and "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!

P.S. You can contact us at lowell@raisingkaine.com and you can subscribe to Lowell's Twitter feed here. If you'd like to subscribe to Miles Grant's Twitter feed, click here. For Teacherken, click here. For Kindler, click here.

P.P.S. To see the Blue Virginia archive, please click here. To see the Raising Kaine archive, please click here. To see the Blue Commonwealth archive, please click here.



RSS Feed

Subscribe to Blue Virginia - Front Page

Powered by: SoapBlox