The two-sided coin of Virginia's Dillon rule.

The two-sided coin of Virginia’s Dillion rule.

In recent days the Daily Press and Williamsburg Gazette have run articles concerning the use of the Dillion rule to stop second amendment sanctuary. I find Democrats as being hypocritical in this case. Opposition to Dillion's rule has been gaining some momentum in Virginia, where the new democrat majority has made some promises about allowing local governments more authority to take down statues. However, its support for structural change to reverse Dillion's rule is far from clear. In Charlottesville, the Lee statue remains standing in part to the local government not being allowed to remove the statue because of state law not allowing the removal of the statue. Charlottesville community members also mobilized to establish a stronger civilian review panel to process complaints against local police officers. Efforts stymied the legislature, which, thanks to the Dillion rule, does not allow subpoena powers for a review board. The Dillon rule can also eliminate, raising of the minimum wage, burning of fossil fuels, heightening civil rights protections, and other key social issues, including the 2^nd Amendment of our United States constitution.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, challenged Dillion's rule to maintain a commitment to state and federal protections. Federal protections like the 2^nd Amendment, and local community rights to increase communities’ civil rights and expand protections. We can go one to sight other Dillion rule issues. Charlottesville, once again, was lobbied to pursue racial justice reforms that were seen as a benefit to African American communities in response to white nationalist rallies. But, according to the Dillion rule, the city had limited powers to enact meaningful, affordable housing measures. On September 13, 2019, Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore overruled the Charlottesville council's decision to remove the statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. But there is another critical implication that has received little attention. This lawsuit reaffirms a rule that's been thwarting progressive policymaking by cities and counties across the nation.

      In the United States vs. Miller 1939, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. The Court observed with a distinct purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia or public force. "The significance of the militia, the court continued, was that it was composed of civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." This force, if called upon, is a force that states could rely upon for the defense and securing of laws. A force that "comprised of males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called to service".... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in everyday use of the time. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun having a barrel of fewer than 18 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 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. What they were saying is, if the weapon is not used in general defense of the country, then it can be regulated. The governor and his fellow Democrats want to ban the following.

1.     AR-15: A semi-automatic rifle used for hunting in VA and of course, is considered a hunting rifle in VA. This same rifle can be used in defense of the state whereby the military and the private citizens use the same ammunition NATO .556 for lawful purposes. Even the Democrats call this weapon "an assault / military rifle and want to ban. But, according to the United States vs. Miller, that would be against the law.

2.     Extended magazines: Extended magazines are needed and would be useful to a militia in the protection of our state, county, or city. Extended magazines are part of ordinary military equipment. To ban would be against the law.

After the United States vs. Miller 1939 decision, Congress placed more significant restrictions on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms. Proposals were made for the prohibitions of firearms altogether. Miller, however, sheds a little light on the validity of such schemes. Miller points out the interest in the "character of the 2nd Amendment right" has been burgeoned, and our governor, along with the Democrats, want to destroy our "individual rights" even further.

In closing, we find ourselves at the forefront of a catch 22. If the Democrats utilize Dillion's rule to thwart the 2^nd amendment sanctuary, they will also prevent their zealous progressive ideologies in other matters. Today we understand Governor Ralph Northam lied to fellow republicans by no longer seeking a work requirement for able-bodied Medicaid recipients. "Every promise made to those republicans who agreed to approve expansion has been broken." Tomorrow, we will see a Democrat governance that will misapply the Dillion rule as they see fit. The rule will be used to take our constitutional rights and ignored overzealous local government where progressive values are the rule. All I can say is this Jim; you need to ignore the Dillion rule as Governor Ralph Northam has ignored his promises to republicans. This day is not a time to bow; this is a time to fight.