Virginia Governor Increases Corrections Budget In Anticipation Of Jailing Gun Owners

Governor Ralph “Blackface Baby Killin” Northam is determined to make room in state-run correctional facilities for the upcoming purge of Virginia gun owners. Merry Christmas.

The $250,000 is appropriated to the Corrections Special Reserve Fund in order to provide for the “increase in the operating cost of adult correctional facilities resulting from the enactment” of Northam’s gun control measures.

The budget bill (HB30) includes an appropriation of a quarter million dollars to carry out a host of gun control measures that Northam and his anti-gun allies hope to enact.

1 Like

May happen; that being, law abiding gun owners arrested because they decided to grease the people who wanted to confiscate their guns. Sad that a stroke of a pen can turn an honest law abiding citizen into a criminal. Seems like just the way a liberal would operate.

The daily caller is FOS.

Never mind that 250K is junk change and wouldn’t do shit in the entire state. Their premise is misleading and what they “quote” is cherry picked.

That’s the case with any new law enacted anywhere anytime. Do you recall that Trump was a supporter of the 1994 AWB???

$250 K? (snickers)

Wow, this guy must be serious :laughing:

You can’t really claim that what the Daily Caller is reporting is false. They provided the link to the bill with the exact language that describes what the money is to be used for.

2 Likes

From the link.

The $250,000 is appropriated to the Corrections Special Reserve Fund in order to provide for the “increase in the operating cost of adult correctional facilities resulting from the enactment” of Northam’s gun control measures.

Notice what part is in quotations!

Apparently you didn’t read the full text of the bill before commenting, which isn’t surprising. Hopefully you will be able to add up the numbers below without much assistance.

  1. Allow the removal of firearms from persons who pose substantial risk to themselves or others – $50,000

  2. Prohibit the sale, possession, and transport of assault firearms, trigger activators, and silencers – $50,000

  3. Increase the penalty for allowing a child to access unsecured firearms – $50,000

  4. Prohibit possession of firearms for persons subject to final orders of protection – $50,000

  5. Require background checks for all firearms sales – $50,000.

2 Likes

That’s only PART of it. The point is that the op gives the impression it is THEE cause of the increased budget.

But again, how far is 50K going to go in the whole state…:rofl:

What’s most odd is that you guys oppose those measures with the notable exception of the assault weapons.

I’m actually getting a bit concerned. With police breaking from the ranks of the Governor and trying to find loopholes to help people keep guns and a Governor that not only seems to not be backing down but actively raising tensions, the potential for a bloodbath is growing. I absolutely believe these citizens will fight the state government if necessary, because they have the local government on their side and this is one of those trigger issues for many people.

2 Likes

When I think about gun rights, I am not a hardliner. There are some forms of acceptable restrictions. So for me, it’s a question of how much restriction is acceptable. The answer comes back to how much of a weapon do we need to protect ourselves from the government and foreign invasions. The answer comes to the semi-automatic. Semi-automatics would allow the people to storm storages to get “the good stuff”. Semi-automatics are quite accurate and are ammo efficient. They can also shoot relatively long distances.

Now trying to limit people from being able to use these reasonable semi-automatics down to simple hunting rifles, that’s going too far. People need to be able to shoot multiple times in fairly quick succession accurately and efficiently. Pistols don’t do the job, either, because you need to get so close. Fully-automatics are probably worse than semi-automatics. So that’s where I stand.

You know this is really great as it will cause “centrist” gun owners quit buying the “nobody is coming for your guns” BS that democrats trot out election after election and push them towards our side.

Let the democrats keep dividing us and showing their true intentions going into 2020.

“Was” being the operative word.

Reagan was a Hoplophobe too.

Trump has learned better since and knows he can’t possibly even keep his office much less get reelected if he caves to the anti gun left.

Yes, they didn’t quote the technical language of the bill, they paraphrased.

That is not a misrepresentation nor is it “cherry picking” it’s simply paraphrasing for the sake of brevity.

Well that’s certainly reasonable.

Not according to the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has final say on interpretation, not you. Why are you anti-Constitution disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s decision that guns can be somewhat restricted while maintaining everybody’s right to bear arms?

This is a very slippery slope; since “it all hinges on interpretation”. That being said, what is considered a substantial risk? It appears it points to what can be considered mental issues. I’ll elaborate; you lose a loved one, and naturally you’re sad & depressed. Uh Oh, the guy has a mental problem, so we better make sure he has no access to firearms. This is something that can snowball.

Anyway, all moot; since, if I were a criminal, I could effortlessly locate & acquire a firearm & ammunition. There are literally 100s of millions of firearms in the wind, and unaccounted for.

No, that isn’t what the SCOTUS has determined.

Sit down with someone who can explain Heller and MacDonald to you on a level you can understand.