Bush did his best to fight abortion. He ended funding to international groups(or was it a UN program?, I can’t recall right now) that under Clinton had used that money in part for abortion. Bush appointed Justices that were anti-abortion(not enough of course, but as many as he had the chance to appoint).

Fairfax County, Arlington County and the City of Alexandria are examples were liberal elected officials would use the ending of the Dillon law to push their anti-gun policies.

Of course people in Utah, Alaska, South Carolina etc have gun rights, those are CONSERVATIVE states. New Mexico, is not a conservative State in the traditional sense, but being in the West, they have a long love affair with the gun. Even Richardson is not that stupid to attempt to push more gun laws there.

Regardless….

Dillon’s Rule is not a light switch. It is not “on” or “off”. For example, the state could grant counties city-like charters. And those charters could ordain that all taxes collected for transportation in a locality be spent in that locality - on transportation projects. This would be a dillution of Dillon’s Rule in Virginia, It would also have absolutely nothing to do with gun rights.

Let’s review your mistakes. First, you see Dillon’s Rule as something that is black and white, either “on” or “off”. It is not. Second, you equate any dillution of Dillon’s Rule with having gun rights recinded or curtailed. Alaska, Utah, New Mexico and South Carolina are all among the non-Dillon Rule states in the US. Have the citizens in these states lost their gun rights? Is it hard to own a gun in Utah?

“States can easily limitedly allow gun ownership, thus not “excluding” thesecond amendment while writing an passing laws which clearly have the intent on curtailing gun ownership.”. Yes - states probably can do this. And dilluting Dillon’s Rule would take power away from the state. Which would give them less power to curtail your gun rights if the dillution of Dillon’s Rule revolved around gun rights. So, in your case, dilluting Dillon’s Rule would enhabce the gun rights in gun friendly localities within a gun unfriendly state.

“The Dillon Rule is used more by local legislators as an excuse to avoid making tough decisions than it is by state officials to stop legislation at the local level.”. Maybe. Let’s clarify the roles of local vs state government by dilluting Dillon’s Rule and end the finger pointing between state and local officials.

Yup, he was posting on a pretty regular basis, and now…..

I agree with everything you wrote. People get the Government they vote for. Unfortunately, we all suffer.

States can easily limitedly allow gun ownership, thus not “excluding” thesecond amendment while writing an passing laws which clearly have the intent on curtailing gun ownership. Look at proposed taxes on guns, D.C.s mandatory 3 year re-registration, NYs mandatory requirement, with NO time limits, a simple permit just to buy a handgun then good luck on ever getting a permit to conceal carry. Also NY has a mandatory ID on the purchase of any ammunition. Then we have new proposals on “safe guns”, mandatory gun locks, storage and transfer laws. NY has ballastic fingerprinting which has not solved a crime but criminalizes guns and gun owners. NY has the Sullivan law and God forbid you carry an “unlicensed”, locked up, disassembled hand gun to New York - it’s a felony with several years in the pen for just exercising your right to OWN a handgun. In NJ, God forbid you have gun and you can forget a conceal permit. California has selective restrictions and MANY bans on firearms. Look at the so called Clinton Gun Ban which did much of nothing except make criminals out of ordinary citizens not to mention in Virginia you are an instant felon if you have a legal conceal carry permit, have your gun on you and step one foot on K-12 school grounds - bad person- new felon - guns and all other rights GONE!

There is no guarantee Barry Obama will NOT stop trying to ban guns and the Supreme Court is the absolute best and LAST place you can do it - no votes - no politicians and no “redress of grievances” - just gone in one swoop. That 5-4 decision gave the anti’s and the grabbers new life and they know it and so do we. Barry is an avowed gun banner. He “hired” alot of Clinton-ites - more gun grabbers. Obama himself jeered the Supreme Court decisions he disagreed with and used it as a turning point for his election.

The Constitution is under attack because those who are going into power believe in government first and last. The people just have to enjoy what the government doles out; personal choice will be limited from cars, fuel, power, doctors, health care, retirements, citizenship and tax dollars raised. The way I look at it, we are so screwed.

Just as a follow up as I was thinking more about what you said regarding the Supreme Court protecting the Second Amendment. The DC case was decided on a 5-4 vote. Obama will be sworn in as the next President, he likely will have the chance to place at least one new Justice on the Supreme Court. If a conservative Justice retires, that 5-4 vote gets switched around, and guess what? No more individual right to own guns.

So, please tell me again how the Supreme Court with another liberal on it will protect the Second Amendment? Please tell me again that liberals do not want to do away with the Second Amendment?

You see, while many Dems in Congress say they support the Second Amendment, and have voted in favor of gun rights, do you really think they would turn down an Obama nominated Justice based on the fear the justice might be anti Second Amendment? I do not think so.

Virginia goes democrat because the republicans have no ideas, no substance and certainly no leadership on a scale sufficient enough to make folks understand that hard decisions must be made, dollars wisely spent and government does NOT solve problems. I know, I know, I am now the “minority”. May be that is a new mantra we can build “hope and change on”.

agreed! I’ve found nothing with regard to the Dillon Rule that would lead me to think otherwise. Short, sweet and to the point!

Sorry, but you are wrong about Dems wanting to take our gun rights away. Washington DC very much took away that right for 35 years. While they of course did not outright ban hand guns, the laws the City passed made it very difficult to own one and in fact discouraged the owning of guns by passing such harsh laws. The City of Chicago has also taken away that right. NY has too. Obama is on record stating he wants to do away with hand guns.

I sure hope you understand that Dems want to make it difficult to own a gun by passing laws to make it illegal to have a gun not broken down, by making it against the law to have it outside the house, etc, that it is their way to “ban” guns and to infringe on the rights of the people to enjoy our rights.

There is a bill filed by a Dem from the VA Beach area that wants to chip away at our right to carry guns in Government buildings( http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+ful+SB832).

There is no question Dems would use the repeal of the Dillon law to push for tougher gun laws. All one has to do is look at what localities did before the State passed preemption laws. The NOVA Park Authority did not allow guns into their parks. The City of Fredericksburg did not allow guns on City property. There are of course other examples, but these are two I thought of first.

Let’s try again. First, for the record, I oppose abortion and capital punishment. I also support an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, I recognize the people’s right to bear arms. The comparison of abortion to gun rights was an example of political game playing. Staunch Republicans will try to convince you that county politicians will come take away all the guns if they are elected. Ridiculous. If the city council in DC couldn’t do it then neither can a NoVA Board of Supervisors. Gun rights are guaranteed by the Constitution not handed out by county government. The argument against the reducing Virginia’s adherence to the Dillon Rule based on gun rights is absurd. Democrats, on the other hand, often argue that governors or local politicians do not support “a woman’s right to choose”. This is an equally absurd argument since the US Supreme Court guaranteed that right with the very questionable discovery of an unwritten right to privacy in Roe v. Wade. No state or local politician is going to recind that “right” either. Both of these debates are red herrings used by extremists in both parties to deflect attention from serious economic issues. The fact that McAuliffe has focused on job creation instead of blathering on about a “woman’s right to choose” is a sign that he’s on the right track. He might not end up being a good candidate as the election unfolds but he is on the right track.

As for Fairfax and Dillon’s Rule - the best example of state interference in local matters was the construction / expansion of Rt 28. This was a clear debacle where ever-changing state decisions delayed a necessary construction project that should never have come onto the state’s “radar”. As for gun rights - try shooting at cans in the backyard of an Arlington house. You’ll be quickly talking to Arlington’s finest. As for gun possession - ask DC how well their prohibition went. Was it Virginia’s Dillon Rule that led the Supreme Court to overturn DC’s handgun ban? Of course not. It was the US Constitution - the same protection you would have in a state that does not strictly adhere to Dillon’s Rule.

Finally, a bit of definition. Dillon’s Rule is not a law, it is a philosophy based on a long-ago argued Supreme Court case. The philosophy basically holds that local government only has power to the extent granted by the state since state governemnt is described in the US Constitution while local government is not. 45 of the 50 states have granted some form of home rule to their localities. These grants of home rule vary in nature and extent. No state has ever abdicated all power to localities and none ever will. The argument that granting home rule over economic matters will result in a gun ban in Fairfax County is no more believable than claiming the same limited home rule will result in an abortion ban in Wise County. Home rule would do neither. Neither the state nor the localities have the power to amend or ignore the Constitution, with or without Home Rule.

I’m so glad you admit you support child rapists and murderers. You support of the carpetbagger makes sense now.

Liberals want to take guns away and to take our gun rights away. Liberals say they want to protect live, yet have no problems with supporting baby murder. How you can compare guns to baby murder is beyond me.

Owning a gun does not equal murder. Having an abortion means murdering a baby.

You can say that McAuliffe’s visit may be part of his “Global Crossing.”
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Wasn’t it the Prince William County Board of Supervisors who passed the Rule of Law amandment that I read so much about on this blog? Or was it the General Assembly? Meanwhile, Prince William County and the rest of NoVA are being robbed blind by the Richmond political elite - from both parties. Have you ever noticed that the state politicians we elect from NoVa won’t even provide an accounting of the sources and uses of state funds by region? The simple reason is that if any of them ever admitted just how much money is transferred they’d all be ridden out of office on a rail. In fact, if the local Republicans had any sense or credibility - accounting for the sources and uses of tax money would be at the top of their list. But they don’t have any sense or credibility (as a group), so they miss their best chance to get back in power. Meanwhile, people like you cling to the hopeless hope that the state politicians from rural Virginia will somehow be able to hold the statehouse and give the Republicans their last foothold of power in the Commonwealth. The Republican Party of Virginia needs a “reboot”. A good place to start would be a full and honest accounting of the sources and uses all state an local tax receipts by region. The next step would be to give the localities more autonomy to meet the needs of the voters and taxpayers in those localities.

“It is not the state level elected officials that are the problem, it’s the lobbyists and their campaign contributions that thwart the will of the electorate.”.

That’s almost comical. While I agree with the special interests being the source of most problems, I really can’t see how you exonerate the very politicians who cave in to the special interests. And it’s these same elected officials who refuse to put any limits on campaign contributions.

As for Terry McAuliffe - I would neither under-estimate him nor over-estimate him. He might just “cancel out” with Brian Moran and leave the nomination to Creigh Deeds. In fact, I’d guess that Deeds has a better chance of beating McDonnell than McAuliffe or Moran. Deeds will automatically get a good percentage of teh NoVa vote just by being a Democrat and he’d be a lot more acceptable to Virginians outside of NoVA. But McAuliffe is already thinking ahead. He (like your pal Keith Fimian) has never held elected office. So, he talks about reducing the power of those who do hold elected office. Whether he wins or not the Republicans ought to watch how he runs his election. Unlike Fimian, he’s out early and he’s staking out positions hard for his opponents to take (they will be forced to defend the concentration of power in Richmond since they are elected officials who have helped preserve that concentration). In two months he’s gone from a non-entity in the governor’s race to being the center of attention.