Sparks in Virginia

Sparks in Virginia

Years ago, one of our instructors emeritus Margie was giving a presentation on sex crime prevention and reduction.  (Margie at the time was an investigator with the Orange County Sheriff….she has since held positions as Chief of Police Services for a South Orange County city, and recently was promoted into the “Puzzle Palace” at OCSD Headquarters.)  She said something that was very impactful during that lecture that led me to engage in a fair amount of intellectual reflection.  Specifically when it comes to the philosophy and practicality of behavioral legislation.

She had said that if the California Legislature outlawed heterosexuality, the day after the law took effect she would be a criminal.  Her sexuality is endemic to who she is.  A mere law stating that her sexual orientation was illegal, would have no effect on her biology.  It would simply convert her into being a status criminal. 

She was right….but there is a corollary to that as well.  The sanctity of not just that law, but the entire legislative schemes of California would also be degraded.  After enough of that degradation the value of law as a regulatory mechanism would ultimately become worthless.

If you attended our CCW program, you may remember an analogy I use.  I mention that law and policy are embankments along a raging river.  That river is human nature.  It starts at the top of a mountain and courses down to the sea.  Along its way it destroys property and terrain as it makes its way to the ocean.  To minimize the damage that the river makes along its journey, and to protect peoples property and lives, the legislature creates embankments along the river.  Through the use of those embankments the river can be nudged in certain directions.  It can be manipulated to avoid property down stream.  Those embankments though are only of limited value.  If the embankments are built to stop the river and and force it to go back up the mountain the river will inevitably overflow the embankments and continue its natural journey to the sea…this time unabated.  Law and policy must be consistent with the underlying human nature that it is attempting to regulate.  If it is not, than human nature will ultimately decimate the edifice of law and policy and make the entire rubric rendered worthless.

That brings us to some interesting developments in Virginia

(If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here:)

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the “Sanctuary” movement popping up in Virginia.  After the last election cycle the Democrats won control of the governors mansion as well as the state legislature.  Well….as always, elections have consequences.  The Democrats wasted little time when it came to one of their pet projects: gun control.  What they decided to target though was massively politically charged. 

They chose to make training…weapons training… potentially a criminal offense.  More specifically, they tailored a proposed law to suggest that those that engage in weapons training are preparing for armed resistance to the government, and they want to make that training a felony.  They also want to make those providing the training also guilty of committing a felony. 

As I wrote in my original piece, this proposed law is not only dangerous….it’s potential for tyrannical abuse is staggering. 

So…a bunch of sheriffs and city councils preemptively announced they would not enforce the law if it ultimately passes.

Hence the designation of “2A Sanctuary” counties.

One sheriff also opined that he would be willing to deputize any of his citizens that want to exercise their Second Amendment rights and train with arms, thereby exempting them from the law.  He stated he is fully prepared to deputize ten thousand of his citizens.

Well…the Democrats are far from pleased.

This last week, they decided to push back.  In session they stated that if a Sheriff is against their proposed law they should resign or shut up and enforce it.  If they are not willing to enforce it then the Governor should use the National Guard to engage in enforcement. 

I think we can all agree that this is a ratcheting up of the rhetoric.

It also could have catastrophic consequences if this is a plan that they honestly intend to implement.

The image of military personnel under command of the governor marching down city streets to enforce laws that are putatively contrary to the Constitution, is not make the bulk of gun owners in the country sit back and say “hmmm… honestly I think this is an entirely reasonable way to implement gun control legislation.” 

The response, country wide would be to provide massive support to the patriots in Virginia. 

(Remember….most of those that died at the Alamo were not “Texians”….they were patriots that came to Texas to fight for and with the Texians.  It is entirely probable, that the ranks of patriots in Virginia would swell with patriots from other states.)

The National Guard might have its own issues in potentially enforcing an unlawful order.

Then there is the whole nationalization thing.  As Eisenhower did during the civil rights era, all the president needs to do to pop this Democratic balloon is to nationalize the guard under Title X, and order them back to their barracks. 

I don’t foresee armed conflict per se…. but the Democrats zeal to push through and enforce laws that run contrary to our Constitutional culture is demoralizing to say the least.

Like Beto O’rourkes missive during his failed campaign, it will be very difficult for future “reasonable” Democrats to say that their party is not “coming for your guns”.

2020 shall be interesting! 

Steven Lieberman and Sandy Lieberman are the owners of the Artemis Defense Institute. A tactical training facility headquartered occupied California.   (  Mr. Lieberman is also one of the founding partners in the Law Offices of Lieberman and Taormina LLP.  Their law firm specializes in use of force, and Second Amendment defense and litigation.

Recent Posts

Comments (3)

  • Kevin Callahan Reply

    It’s Kevin Callahan – now residing here in VA as Kiera attends UVA Law.

    I looked up the proposed amendment to the Law you were referencing, here is the link, and what it references is ‘intent of intimidating’. This Amendment is ostensibly in response to the Charlottesville, where we reside now, event.

    In addition, the Sheriffs you reference, i.e., ‘2A Sanctuaries,’ are responding to newly proposed legis re: regulating ‘assault firearms’,


    12/19/2019 at 09:45
  • Lewis Long Reply

    The Virginia legislature seems to be placing itself (ironically, since Jefferson was the representative of the state of Virginia in the Continental Congress) in the position of a certain previous government, which elicited the following response: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

    Having said that, I should make it clear that I am not in any way a crackpot like those self-styled “Patriots” who advocate insurrection, armed or otherwise. It just strikes me as ironic that the state of Virginia has taken up a stridently anti-Constitutional, hence anti-American, position.

    12/19/2019 at 17:14
  • Lewis Long Reply

    And I plan to oppose, in spirit, the proposed Virginia law tomorrow evening, at Artemis.

    12/19/2019 at 17:15

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *