Anti-gun member of the General Assembly supports VCDL

[DaveH]

Anti-gun member of the Virginia General Assembly write a LTE (letter To the Editor) supporting the 1st even for RKBA.

VCDL Had the Right To Distribute Stickers
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I write with respect to the recent news article detailing efforts by the Virginia Citizen Defense League to hand out at the Coliseum lapel stickers stating, "Guns Save Lives." Will Jones' article stated that officials at the Coliseum attempted to stop members of the VCDL from distributing the stickers.

As a member of the General Assembly, I have frequently spoken out against the proliferation of handguns. Indeed, during the recently completed session I spoke out strongly against any attempts to allow people to bring concealed handguns into bars and restaurants. Further, I introduced legislation that would define who was and was not a registered gun dealer at gun shows.

I do not expect to be invited to too many VCDL barbecues.

However, it was absolutely wrong and constitutionally irresponsible for officials at the Coliseum to prohibit, or otherwise hinder, VCDL members from distributing the stickers. While I do not agree with the message conveyed, I absolutely agree that members of the VCDL should have the unfettered right to distribute lapel stickers to anybody and everybody.

To obstruct or impede an individual's efforts to distribute said stickers is a clear and unequivocal violation of the First Amendment.

Joseph D. Morrissey.
Highland Springs.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[pcon]

Right on...I don't mind if people disagree with my position or ideals as long as they do so respectfully.

[retsupt99]

He must have had a weak moment...did someone mess with his cigarettes?
It's OK though, well take the support.

[BlackJack]

Maybe somebody should invite him to a BBQ…..

[BikerRN]

Joseph D. Morrissey.
Highland Springs.

Now there is a man I can respect.

I'm sure some of his liberal supporters will get their Hanes in a wad over his letter, but he is right. I don't agree with certain things, but I will defend someone's right to do so.

For example, I don't agree with abortion. It is however legal and I would assist someone attempting to go into an Abortion Clinic through a group of protesters. I may even join the protesters after doing what I see as my duty to uphold what I swore to defend.

Biker

[jwhite75]

Right is right and wrong is wrong....sounds like he is one of the few politicians who understands that.

[shooterX]

Now there is a man I can respect.

I'm sure some of his liberal supporters will get their Hanes in a wad over his letter, but he is right. I don't agree with certain things, but I will defend someone's right to do so.

For example, I don't agree with abortion. It is however legal and I would assist someone attempting to go into an Abortion Clinic through a group of protesters. I may even join the protesters after doing what I see as my duty to uphold what I swore to defend.

Biker

I agree with you Biker, I don't agree with his view on this issue, but I would defend his right to express it peacefully.

[DaveH]

Maybe somebody should invite him to a BBQ…..

It's in the plans.

[Tubby45]

He doesn't support the VCDL, he supports the 1st Amendment. Now if he can support the 2nd Amendment, he will be respectable. Until then, he's another anti-gunner out to ruin my country.

[Janq]

He doesn't support the VCDL, he supports the 1st Amendment. Now if he can support the 2nd Amendment, he will be respectable. Until then, he's another anti-gunner out to ruin my country.

Agreed.

His statement in fact makes no sense at all.
He stands firm on Constitutional grounds toward the First Amendment, an amendment that in whole states;

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yet in the same breath he states by preface that he is not in support of the same Constitution document by way of the Bill of Rights as applied to the Second Amendment;

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Source - LII: Constitution

The 2A is an easier and most direct statement as where the 1A is all things being relative much more complicated.

The 1A though is almost universally viewed and accepted without question to which he states his position unequivocally.

Swap the two and place a 1A view point as within his 2A related commentary and what you get as a sum result is a problem.
Same applies inversely as applying a 2A view point as in relation to the text of the 1A.

Further it gets even more interesting and telling when you look into the definition of 'abridge';

1a archaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>2: to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense

Source - abridge - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

We have words such as "prohibiting", "abridging", and "infringed" as related to other words and terms such as "free exercise", "freedom", "security of a free state", and between the two even use of the same phrase "right of the people".

Right...Of...The People.

Hooray for Morissey to recognize that the First Amendment is relative to and relevant for _everyone_ including those we as individuals might not care to hear from. Welcome to the 18th century!
But he gets no kudos from me of any sort at this moment and not until he can find it within himself and/or learn to 'read' down to the Second Amendment as well...and by doing so note the hypocrisy of his positions one against the second, which as per his current views cancel each other out.

- Janq by birthright, regardless of birthplace, as being a human being has a basic human right to at a base level speak so as to utter my thoughts, as well as right to bear arms so as to defend my person and means of life and living.

[Tubby45]

That folks is 100% pure politics.

[Tom G]

He can disagree with us all he wants on the second amendment as long as he dose not try to forcibly take our guns away. Trying to change the second amendment around to suit the anti's agenda is doing just that.