2nd Amendment Showdown in Virginia

Colion Noir is a lawyer and 2nd Amendment activist in Texas. In the following Fox News clip he discusses the plans to ban and/or register certain guns in Virginia, and the resulting pushback that has prompted 90 or more localities to vote themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries.

Connecticut and New York passed similar laws a few years ago, but never attempted any systematic enforcement against citizens who refused to comply. Virginia Governor Ralph “Coonman” Northam, however, has staked his political mojo on enforcing such laws after they are passed. If he doesn’t declare martial law and call up the National Guard, he’ll have to send in the state police to apprehend citizens who refuse to comply, since most sheriffs have vowed not to cooperate.

This will not end well.

The big question, though, is how many Democrat delegates will actually vote to pass these bills. Many of the newly-elected legislators represent districts whose localities have now turned themselves into 2nd Amendment sanctuaries. If you represented such a district, what would you do if you hoped to be re-elected?

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

41 thoughts on “2nd Amendment Showdown in Virginia

  1. Wasn’t there a similar argument over State’s Rights 150 years ago? If I recall correctly a lot of blood was shed, a great many lives were lost, but the question was never answered, and has yet to be answered in these days. This is the question, “Where does the Federal Government’s authority end and the State’s authority begin?”

    • The “Civil War” wasn’t fought over Constitutional rights. It was primarily fought over, among many other things, what form of government was better suited to the Southern states.

      Your question of Federal vs State authority is apples to oranges. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, among others, apply equally to all the citizens in all the states. An individual state has no more authority to prevent the exercise of one’s religion than it has to prevent the keeping and bearing of arms.

      That’s the way it should work but the People have been a bit lax in enforcing it.

      • You’re wrong. The original bill of rights was meant to apply only to the federal government, in protection of states rights. You can see that in the language of the first amendment, and to a less obvious degree, in the language of the second.

        The people who agreed to ratify the Constitution viewed the state governments as the protectors of their citizens against the larger, less accountable federal government. Virginia, as the original guarantor of individual rights, would never have dreamt that a Virginia governor would take away citizens gun rights. But, nevertheless, you can’t read what is not there into the Constitution, unless you’re a liberal Supreme Court Justice.

    • The question of states rights was settled by force and the invasion of the Confederacy by the Union. The lesson of the Civil War was, don’t go to war against a superior military power.

      The question of state power versus federal power is interesting. The first ten amendments were passed to apply only to the federal government in protection of the states. If you go by the original intent of the first ten amendments, Virginia does indeed have the right to regulate firearms as it sees fit. This is my reading of the history.

      There are multiple responses available to non-urban residents of Virginia. The concept of sanctuary county is not legally valid, but Virginia does have a history of parts of it breaking off and forming new states. West Virginia is the latest example, but in fact, during the Articles of the Confederacy, Virginia allowed the territories of Kentucky, Indiana, Wisconsin etc to break off from itself, in accord with Jeffersonian principles.

      Another possibility is to contract with an arms dealer in another state to store their weapons for awhile, until the heat dies down.

      The very worst response would be to initiate any sort of violent response. An indigenous uprising will not work. They will be going against the full power of the governor, the state police and the power of the governor to mobilize the state army units. In addition, the federal government, Trump notwithstanding, will fully support the governor in any conflict.

      When you’re facing a superior military force, you look to strategy, rather than tactics. Strategy dictates a rational assessment of your possibilities, rather than an emotional response. The demographic replacement is well underway in Virginia, and may not be reversible. So, the proper course is to work around the government, rather than against it.

    • Yes they are similar in that they both are directly about the Constitution of the United States of America. That being the right to own property which some states affirmed that slaves were property without the same civil rights as Citizens. Read the Ordinances of Secession of 1860-1861 and it is as plain as day to see right before your eyes. Read the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union adopted on December 24, 1860 and you see the same reasons being given as some of the other confederated states. The war from 1861 to 1865 was to put down the insurrection by those insurgents in certain southern states of the union.

      • Question: “Where does the Federal Government’s authority end and the State’s authority begin?”

        Answer: The Federal Government’s authority begins when the State’s authority violates the Constitutional rights of any Citizen of the Union of States organized under the Federal Authority in the city of Washington. State authority begins and ends anywhere it wants to operate as long as it doesn’t violate the Supreme Law of the Land as written in the Constitution of the United States of America which include those enumerated rights from the 1st Amendment onward. The problem was that slave holding states were already rejecting that document in order to operate outside of it…

        Here’s a bit of orientation for the historically challenged: Both Houses of Congress had adjourned on March 27, 1861 without a quorum (Sine Die) to reconvene. The Battle of Fort Sumter then occurred from the 12th to 13th of April 1861 by the then South Carolina militia which officially hadn’t been conscripted into an army. Then only one day after the surrender of Fort Sumter on 14 April 1861…

        …which was followed only then by a Presidential Proclamation of April 15, 1861 issued under the Militia Act of 1795…

        “By the President of the United States: A Proclamation.

        Whereas, the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:

        Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, tho militia of the several States of the Union to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

        The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

        I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular Government, and to redresss wrongs already long enough endured.

        I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, and destruction of or intereference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

        And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

        Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress.

        Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble [they had adjourned on March 27, 1861 without a quorum (Sine Die) to reconvene] at their respective Chambers, at 12 o’clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.

        In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

        Done at the city of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.


        By the President : William H. Seward, Secretary of State.”

        …so then it was the Militia that was formed before they then became conscripts in the Grand Army of the Republic. People should get at least that point straight just in case history gets repeated.

        • I’m not sure II understand your statement. You seem to be saying the secession and formation of the Confederacy was illegal because Lincoln proclaimed it illegal.

          By the way, I’ll buy you dinner if you can find anywhere in the Constitution of 1860 any provision forbidding the withdrawal of a state from the Union.

          There was nothing in the formation of the Confederacy that violated the rights of any American in the Constitution. According to the original Constitution, the source of rights was in the states, not the federal government. The Bill of Rights was a guarantee to the state governments that the federal government would not infringe on their sovereignty.

          I personally think the attack on Fort Sumter was a strategic blunder of the first degree. It allowed Lincoln to mobilize the Union forces in a way he never would have been able to otherwise. There is strong evidence that Lincoln actually manipulated the situation to motivate the attack. But, the mistake was made by the Confederacy. Lincoln outmaneuvered them.

          But, your last point is perfectly valid. All the government forces could and would be mobilized to suppress a show of force.

        • Abraham Lincoln took office as President of the United States on March 4, 1861 and then the two houses of Congress adjourned on March 27, 1861 without a quorum (Sine Die) to reconvene. That was only three weeks time. Just two weeks later they began hostilities by firing on Americans at Fort Sumter.

          “…In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world…” A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. 9 January 1861″ – and you can read the rest that here: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Mississippi

          History shows us the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and 1850, the Mason–Dixon line border between the northern free states and the southern slave states and the Underground Railroad all speak of the reasons why slavery in America was destroying the country long before Lincoln became the 16th President of the United States of America. The abomination of slave labor in the British Empire had been abolished in 1807 and yet it took another 54 years and the blood of how many Americans to finally put an end to it.

          …and yet to this day slave labor still exists in the world. There were those monsters who defended it in the 19th Century for the reason they “asserted” their slave population consisted of a subspecies of mankind. This imbecilic reasoning being mostly reinforced by an 1859 publication entitled: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” by Charles Darwin…

          …a war was waged by the Confederated southern slave states to preserve the practice of slave labor against their fellow humanity. Such were the reasons that were given by them and written down by those who were operating slave labor in their states. Think hard and long on that one and then go to the Nuremberg Trails after 1945 that were about the crimes against humanity of using slave labor for military and economic advantages by the National Socialists of Germany from 1933 to 1945. Then tell me these are two completely different topics. And may God have mercy on your soul if you do.

          …and then put all of it into the context of the subject here…

          “No slaves shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass, unless with written orders from his master or employer, or in his company, with arms from one place to another.” – A Bill Concerning Slaves [1785]

          “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear private arms.” – Tench Coxe, in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.” under the pseudonym, “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 Col. 1

      • You actually talk about two topics. One is the declaration of slaves as property. The other topic is the putting down of the Confederate “insurgency”. The two are historically unrelated, although Lincoln eventually used the ploy of freeing the slaves to win the election of 1864 and also to keep countries like England from recognizing the Confederacy.

        Lincoln made clear at the beginning of his Presidency that he intended to protect the institution of slavery in the southern states.

        The history of emancipation movements in the southern states is actually rich and interesting. Many people in the South actively worked to end slavery. The Confederacy, respecting individual rights, did not interfere with peaceful opposition. But the abolitionist movement, pretty similar to the Antifa of today, helped to motivate the south to secede, among other non-slavery issues.

        • No they are not two topics. They are one and the same. That was what the Confederates were being referred to as insurgents conducting an insurgency. Or as you would prefer to put it they were like ANTIFA in wanting their own country separate from the Union of States of a Constitutional Republic. The declarations by the southern slave holding states wrote about separating from the Federal Government a decade or more before Lincoln became POTUS.

          The two houses of Congress adjourned on March 27, 1861 without a quorum (Sine Die) to reconvene as I already wrote. The attack on Fort Sumter and its surrender on 14 April 1861 was the crossing of the Rubicon that began formal war by the Confederated States against all of the Union of States still part of the Federal government in the city of Washington. The trigger was pulled by the Confederacy who didn’t respect the individual rights of humanity and who didn’t respect all men…

          “Texas: A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union. … We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. … Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.” – and you can read the rest that here: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Texas

          I’m providing the original copied documents here and not the subjective opining of modern revisionist history. It is very, very condemning to say the least that those in power just like Northam and Bloomberg today had little or no regard for the natural rights of all men. No. They only want the power to enslave others just as they did back then. But I’m under no delusion that people ever learn from such errors, mistakes and atrocities. They will only forever repeat them until someone else puts an end to their ways. There’s plenty of such objective documentation for anyone to read either from free or slave states of that time.

          • I make several assertions. Assertion 1 is that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery and that Lincoln at the beginning of his presidency pledged to protect slavery in the states where it already existed.

            My evidence is the Corwin Amendment, which Lincoln supported after being elected:

            The Corwin Amendment read as follows:

            No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.


            In other words, Lincoln supported an amendment to the Constitution which forbade even the consideration of a constitutional amendment threatening the legality of slavery.

            What could be clearer?

            As far as Antifa, the Confederacy had no relation to Antifa-like actions whatsoever. I knowingly compare the abolitionists to Antifa, as opposed to those advocating emancipation.

            The abolitionists supported terrorism and murder. The abolitionists gave financial and political support to John Brown, a criminally-insane sociopath who specialized in mutilating the bodies of his victims. The abolitionists supported violent slave rebellions, like Nat Turner. The comparison of the abolitionists to Antifa is well-founded.

            Here is Lincoln’s promise during the 1860 campaign:

            “We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the constitution demands it —


            So, it is plainly inconsistent with historical facts to claim that the Civil War was fought to either protect slavery or end slavery, at least in the beginning.

            The southern states seceded because they felt they would be overwhelmed by the entry of industrial states into the union, as opposed to the south, which was primarily agrarian. The south and the north were actually developing distinct cultures. You can read more about it at https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/clyde-wilson-library/why-the-war-was-not-about-slavery/

            As far as the welfare of the slaves and free blacks in the south, the Union victory was a major disaster for them. Estimates are that as many as a third of the slaves and free blacks died under the Union occupation, of starvation, disease and exposure.

  2. the bill of rights was added to the constitution to limit the power the politicians could have over the citizens so nobody should be surprised that modern day politicians would want to repeal them. and the politicians supposed concern of being murdered, wait until the disarm the citizens, then the mass murdering will really start.

  3. I don’t think Coonman has the cojones to actually force a showdown. All these wanna-be confiscators have one thing in common; they have an aversion to actually putting themselves in physical danger but don’t have a problem with others doing violence on their behalf. But the catch is they have to order it to be done and take some measure of responsibility.

    Coonman will likely try to hide behind his AG and pretend the orders didn’t come from himself. If his AG isn’t a complete moron, he will try to distance himself from this debacle because once they actually try and confiscate someone’s weapons they will have a nasty little guerrilla war on their hands and anyone remotely connected to this mess will have just made himself a target legally or kinetically.

    • It’s delusional to think that citizens can begin a guerrilla action against governments backed by the full power of the federal government, including FBI tactical units and fully-supported special forces units.

      Furthermore, once gun owners, or someone using their name, initiates violence, public opinion will swing towards suppression. In fact, it’s probably a false flag operation will occur to trigger an armed repression, unless guns rights people organize themselves to maintain control of their movement and immediately eject anyone even hinting at violent action.

      • RonaldB, I really hate to break this to you but the minute they try to use police or God forbid the NG to forcibly take arms from people, is the day a cold war will go hot and no democratic politician will be able to go anywhere in public without someone taking a pot shot or more, the leftists will know what true fear is and their wretched families will not be safe as well. As for the feds or military to step in? Not likely, especially if Trump nationalizes the NG and tells them to stand down. You also have the fact that thousands of people from every state in the union will flood into the state to fight as well. This very much has the potential to get very bloody, very quickly. Besides no police officer or trooper is going to put his life on the line to enter a mans home to take arms from them without open season being declared against them. They won’t have freedom of movement because they won’t be able to get anywhere without someone shooting at them or their families. If this Gov trues to enact making weapons and training illegal, it will be open warfare against him and all those that support him.

        • I’ll say it again. It is a recipe to lose the fight to talk about using guns against government agents or forces.

          You think Trump is going to get the National Guard to stand down? Did Trump pardon Michael Flynn or Roger Stone? Did Trump persist on his initial insight that the Charlottesville violence was not simply white nationalists attacking peaceful leftist protesters?

          It’s true that police might be reluctant to invade the homes of citizens of their districts. Tyrannical governments have routinely brought in troops from outside the area, who have no emotional attachment. It’s what the Chinese government did to suppress the Tiananmen Square uprising.

          A squad of special forces troops will make short work of citizens trying to carry out a guerrilla movement. Americans are not Afghan Muslim mountain goatherds and poppy growers.

          • Of course they aren’t. A ragtag bunch of illiterate poppy growers and goat molesters only managed to defeat the USSR and the USA back to back. Technology, superior firepower, and trillions of dollars are all useless without the will to use them to their utmost ruthlessness. You cannot wave the white flag forever. At some point a line in the sand will need to be drawn and defended whether you desire the fight or not.

          • RonaldB. Again my friend I must disagree with you and I will point out the reasons why. At some point, the line in the sand must be drawn and cannot be crossed by our so called betters. Our so called betters are about to cross the Rubicon and there will be no going back, no do overs, no thoughts of cooler heads prevailing, the abyss is too wide and too deep now to bridge.
            As one of those who have been schooled by the USMC in warfare and counter insurgency, a special forces group needs assembly areas and are great at the attack, but if you bottle them up and cut off support, it is just a matter of attrition, especially with guys who were raised in those woods and hills making 1,000 meter shots and disappearing. As Mack Bracken stated below, once the insurgency knows where those police units assemble and have to drive too the area to confiscate arms, it will be a literal gauntlet of fire and after the first of second convoy gets ambushed and slaughtered, nobody else is going to try it again, for nobody is dumb enough to follow that suicidal order. So it is a win for the insurgency, for the politicians who ordered this abomination will become targets themselves.
            Now to Trumps ordering troops into Virginia to put down said insurgency, it won’t happen as Moon as stated, for his base won’t allow it so therefore Trump will by default will side against those commiecrats. The 2nd Amendment was written for just this purpose, not as you stated to protect against crime or anything else. At some point, one must make a stand, or fall forever.

          • For G

            Yes, I greatly respect your USMC training and experience. You referred to the resistance actions on gun confiscation as an insurgency.

            Very well. And what would be the long-term goals of such an insurgency? Where would you be headed? When you speak of ambushes and sniping, you’re talking tactics. But, to what end? What would you consider success and what failure?

          • RonaldB, Success would be in the form of Purging every commiecrat from office who took that step too far. It would remind the other commiecrats of other states of the consequences of their treachery, nothing sobers a liberal better than pictures of their compatriots hanging from lamp posts and lined up against walls, and stacked in ditches for their treason and treachery. Hopefully if would start electing politicians who work for their constituents instead of enriching themselves.
            Failure will be if everybody stands by and does nothing and lets the state take what is by rights, theirs, and more liberty is lost to the almighty state to do whatever they want without consequences.

  4. I am sorry, but you are all wrong.
    They are some people in the USA who misbehaved (to put it that way) and go by the names of “Hanoi” Jane Fonda, Lon Horihuchi, the guys of the BLM and the guys who killed LaVoy Finicum.
    Not one of them was punished.

    Not one Vietnam Veteran with Special Forces Training wanted to thank Hanoi Jane for her recommandable actions during the Vietnam war. (That sentence was meant to be sarcastic!)

    So, the law will be passed and the people will comply.

    I am reminded of a joke told in Germany:
    When the enemies of the current government wanted to assemble on a green field outside of parliament, the government passed a law that made it against the law to assemble on a green field. So all went home and when they arrived at their homes as individuals and not as one group, the secret police picked them up one by one. And that was how the only attempt at removing the dictatorship ended – by obeying the law.

    I would say this is a test ballon of the forces that want to disarm the people.
    If no one resists they will implement it across the entire USA – you know responsible citizens and all that.
    If someone resists – Hey, we`ve got a NAZI terrorist! All must disarm NOW!
    If many resist, then it were the regrettable shortsighted actions of a politician who had his heart at the right place but broke the law. Please have sympathy! (And in the next few years in sessions when nearly no politician is in attendance or hidden in other laws, the groundwork for disarming the people is laid – like hollowing out the 2AD and other gun supporting laws – and your children are meanwhile even more indoctrinated against gun ownership.) And the next attempt succeds. Or the attempt after that. They are patient and wont give up. You have to respect them for following their course year after year after year- even if they are the enemy.
    Dare anybody bet against me?

  5. This will indeed not end well but does not have to end violently – yet. Its about the cojones. Be the cojones as they may this sets a dangerous precedent – further encroachment upon the 2nd and Constitution generally.

    So in long term I see these events in Virginia as portents of difficult times to come – if Trump re-elected, adjourned for a couple of years; if not, full speed into lawlessness.

  6. Colion Noir posits the question that he doesn’t understand how it has been allowed to get this far. Yet answers that with Northam isn’t the Governor of Virginia, Bloomberg is. What I keep asking people is what they think will be the solution imposed at the end of all of this Kabuki theater, Hegelian Dialectic of problem, reaction, solution?

    Bloomberg and Northam were allowed to create the problem of passing unconstitutional, illegal legislation without any fear of legal consequences. They can do this because no legal body in America enforces laws like this one…

    U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law “…makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” …”shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

    …which to note the seriousness of this being one of the sentences is execution for those crimes which Northam and his cohorts in Virginia have committed. Instead the governing authorities inside the beltway of Columbia’s Federal District seem quite content to let this boil over into actual civil unrest that will lead to the deaths of American Citizens. So again let me ask my fellow citizens out there why do they think this is being allowed to happen?

  7. In the end Coonman’s actions are in line with communist agenda for US. I used word communist, because that’s what they are, no matter how they call themselves. And in order for communist rule to begin, nation has to be disarmed. No ifs or buts. Disarmed people cannot do anything when State comes for their wealth or their land or in the end for their lives. This is a huge undertaking for them and it’s been going on for a long time. Through “laws”, long march trough institutions, through certain billionaires supporting certain AG’s and politicians and cetera. But end goal is and always was- full bore communism.

    • It is a total losing strategy to speak about using guns against official government security people like the police or military. A government is generally reluctant to initiate force against organized citizens, but if you start shooting, you do their work for them.

      Guns are to protect the individual against crime, street violence, or politically thuggery. This is a considerable benefit, as the first strategy of a government wishing to go totalitarian is to organize proxy shock troops. Antifa today is pretty obviously the tool of some elements in government. This is evidenced by the fact that hardly any Antifa street fighter has been charged, however violent, and that groups like Proud Boy members who do fight back against attacks have been charged, convicted, and sentenced to prison. You can’t get more obvious than that.

      Leftists have gotten into the habit of attacking the persons, or the homes, of people with whose political philosophy they disagree. If the justice system becomes more impartial, possibly in a second Trump administration, people will be able to use their guns to protect themselves and their property. This is the proper use of guns.

      • So the Bundy standoff didn’t happen in your reality. Patriots from all over came to support, even Sheriff Mack.

        • Bundy did seem to have come out ahead on the standoff, but he was skating on thin ice.

          On February 10, 2016, Cliven Bundy traveled to Portland, Oregon, in response to federal law enforcement moving to end a standoff led by his sons Ammon and Ryan at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. He was arrested at the airport by the FBI and was incarcerated at the Multnomah County Jail. He was indicted for 16 federal felonies on February 17, along with Ammon and Ryan Bundy, militia leader Ryan Payne, and broadcaster Peter Santilli, who were already under arrest for their role in the Malheur standoff. Another 14 individuals were charged on March 3, 2016. Santilli subsequently pled guilty to felony conspiracy to injure or impede a federal officer.[168]

          On January 8, 2018, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas dismissed with prejudice the criminal charges against Cliven Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and co-defendant Ryan Payne regarding the standoff.[169][170]


          The result seems to say that standing against federal forces depends on the integrity of the judiciary. If the US changes demographically enough to tip the Congress and judiciary, everything changes. Think of the Obama appointees to federal and Supreme Court, who would invalidate Constitutional rights in a heartbeat.

  8. We are in uncharted waters here, because there are some variables in the known civil war/insurgency equations that are far out of line with available precedents. For example, in all of history, there has never been any kind of civil war where the indigenous population was armed to the teeth with rifles capable of making 500 to 1,000+ yard shots. NEVER. I’ll bet there are a hundred riflemen in every Virginia zip code capable of walking out their front door in the next minute and making a 500 yard shot. And many of them are hunters who know the regional woods like the backs of their hands.

    If and when widespread confiscation begins, even under color of “red flag” laws, there WILL be armed resistance. The topography of much of Virginia means that convoys of police cars and SUVs will be required to transit through tight terrain. These convoys will be identified far in advance of their confiscation objectives, and in the event that this constitutional struggle over the 2nd Amd goes hot, these convoys will be taken under accurate long-range fire from hidden marksmen. After a few examples on the lines of Waco or Ruby Ridge, Virginians will not wait for these LE convoys to simply arrive on their or their neighbors street for the next set-piece raid.

    There are not enough law enforcement helicopters in Virginia to protect those hypothetical columns of police cars and SUVs heading out to confiscate weapons that were perfectly legal in 2019. The minute that helicopters are used to fire on Virginians, those helicopter bases and their supporting elements (including their homes and families) will become targets. There is no way that Trump will send federal forces to back up Bloomberg/Northam’s unconstitutional gun confiscation schemes, in direct defiance of his base. Virginia state police will be on their own to carry out Northam’s orders.

    If ordered to support the VA state police, he Virginia National Guard — Virginians– will drag their feet and make enough noise in their preparations and movements that they will have no effect. And they will NOT kick down any doors looking for weapons. No way.

    The full might of the U.S.S.R. and then the U.S. military was not able to subdue a few thousand rag-tag Taliban in Afghanistan when these troops were operating from safe fire bases thousands of miles away from their completely safe homes and families. In a civil war in Virginia, the families of the gun confiscators will be living among those whose guns will be confiscated. The tactic of choice will be bullets accurately delivered from 500+ yards by unseen marksmen who will melt away into the landscape.

    It’s often mentioned that Switzerland has never been invaded due to its tradition of nearly all men keeping their military-issued battle rifles at home for their entire lives following their time in the reserves. Less considered is the fact that Switzerland has also never had a dictator who ruled against the people or tried to disarm them. (The gun laws are changing there, but the point remains.)

    Just go onto Northam’s twitter account to see how 99% of the comments on any post that he makes are tearing him to shreds with thinly veiled threats. He posts “Merry Christmas” and gets an unending torrent of angry threats in return. (He’s @GovernorVA on Twitter.)

    January 20th in Richmond is going to be very interesting.

    • Hear, Hear!

      I think what also cannot be overlooked is the minute things go hot in VA, patriots will flock to there from the rest of the country to participate so the number of combatants will not be restricted to just the native population of VA firearms owners.

      I believe you are correct in your analysis of Fed participation in any hostilities. If anything, I would expect any attempt at martial law or targeting of peaceful gun owners by elements under the governor’s control would likely bring the Feds in on the side of the citizens through legal injunctions to cease and desist while legislation is reviewed/challenged for constitutionality, etc. The track record for governments successfully fighting insurgencies is very poor, and any insurgency that persists for any length of time risks spreading to other states, demonstrating the weakness of central authority to armed citizens, or risks outside powers getting involved through shipment of real military firepower in the form of automatic weapons and explosives to those involved in the fighting. VA is a coastal state, so this last point is not too far outside of the realm of possibility for any outside actors wishing to stir the pot here in the USA.

      Looking forward to your next book!

    • Matt:
      May I say I follow you on Gab and consider your posts to be a high point of Gab as well as a primary motivation for me to be there. I have also ready your “The Enemies” trilogy, which is, in fact, a valuable source for a lot of my views.

      I think the critical point in your reasoning is the assertion that

      “There is no way that Trump will send federal forces to back up Bloomberg/Northam’s unconstitutional gun confiscation schemes, in direct defiance of his base. Virginia state police will be on their own to carry out Northam’s orders.”

      Your whole scenario is predicated on the assumption that federal forces will not get involved in a state resistance movement in Virginia.

      I find this troubling. Trump is not predictable. Further, there is absolutely no doubt that if he failed to act, the House would file additional impeachment charges against him. Could Trump count on strong-central-government hawks like Lindsey Graham to support him on this?

      Also, consider that migration has changed the demographics in Virginia to the point that the governor and legislature will be Democrat in the future. The leftists know how to use the waiting game. Trump may be re-elected in 2020, but by 2024, enough birthright immigrant children will come to voting age to almost guarantee a reliably-Democrat President. No Democrat President would hesitate to use federal forces to enforce state authority on gun control.

      There is also the Constitution. Strictly speaking, even if you concede the right of a state to secede, armed resistance within a state to the state government is clearly insurrection, strictly illegal by Constitutional standards. The Constitutional clause is:

      The Congress shall have Power To …provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions….


      So, legally speaking, it might actually constitute a crime for the President to not support a state government fighting an insurrection in the state.

      The difference is, states were considered as sovereign units by the federalists. But, the federalists did not consider the scope of government to be infinitely divisible. So, a rebellion against a state government could be considered an insurrection, even if the state as a unit had the right to secede.

      Now, consider whether the guerrilla tactics you describe could work not only against the Virginia police but against federal forces. I have to draw knowledge of two similar conflicts: the Civil War and the Boer War. In both cases, the invading forces were fought to more-or-less a standstill militarily. They responded by carrying out a war of attrition against civilians. In the case of the Boer War, Boer civilians were put into concentration camps by the British and systematically starved. (I’m not a great fan of the British). In the case of the Civil War, plantations and farms were burned, along with their crops, and animals slaughtered. The successful tactic was to starve out the civilian population.

      The bottom line is that I would urge people considering resistance tactics to think through the strategy of what they are undertaking. What might make sense tactically might be a losing proposition strategically.

      There is a quote from the Vietnam War, probably from Giap, but I can’t find it, so I’ll paraphrase it:
      If your strategy is good and your tactics are incorrect, you will win.

      • What would you have us do then? Roll over and surrender without a fight? While it might be folly to attempt to oppose the power of the state through force of arms, if you keep retreating without a fight, your opponents will just step up their efforts once they realize you will not fight. Remember back to when you were in school and how one dealt with bullies. The best way to deal with a bully was to stand and fight; give him a bloody nose or a boot to the testicles. Of course fighting wasn’t allowed and to do so would get one in trouble with the school administration, maybe even suspended. But the bully and his followers would have learned the lesson and would leave you alone afterwards.

        Those who are trying to restrict or take away the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans would do well to learn the lesson that to screw with those who are armed will be met with resistance, even if it means some will die or be maimed. That is the only lesson that resonates and is remembered by those who don’t have the resolve to personally use force to enforce what they believe.

        • “While it might be folly to attempt to oppose the power of the state through force of arms,…”

          I’m opposing any course of action that could be described as “folly”.

          If you see a pathway to victory, plan for it.
          If all you see is a grand, losing gesture, take another direction.

          • What was the “pathway to victory” for the IRA in Northern Ireland from the 1960s to the 1990s? A few 100 “Active IRA” vs the might of the British Army, intel assets, hidden cameras, helicopters….

            After 30 years, the Brits quit and left. The IRA/Sinn Fein forced a peace deal on favorable terms. And they never disarmed, even though it was called for in the deal.

            It will be 100 times worse for Virginia LE trying to disarm millions of Virginians armed with rifles the IRA could only dream about, except for a handful.

      • Regarding the Boers, the actions of the British were highly unpopular throughout Europe, and England itself at the time. The war was horribly expensive for the Crown, and if the modern instantaneous communications had existed back then, they would have certainly lost public support in the same way that the US was defeated in Vietnam through television sets back in the US. Targeting civilians and scorched earth tactics do not work in the modern era, and are indeed counterproductive in western democracies with a press corps free to report on whatever they want.

        • Very good point. British tactics vs the Boers would never fly in the modern era. The closest anybody is trying is the Chinese Communists vs the Muslim Uighurs, and the Chinese are paying a price for it in terms of global perceptions.

          • Matt, It seems to me the Chins really don’t care what others and their perceptions have to say ? I think the Chins revel in the viewpoint that they are strong and resolute against their opposition. I will say this of the Chins, what they are doing in dealing with their muslim problem is very effective.

      • You make valid points, particularly if Trump loses the election.

        But before any federal forces assist with gun confiscation raids in Virginia, the laws will go all the way up to the SCOTUS. The odds of the Supremes coming down on the side of confiscating guns that were legal for a century-plus prior to 2020 (semi-auto rifles) is virtually nil. They would be declaring war on American citizens, they would ignite CW2 across all 50 states. It doesn’t matter if the demographic tilt favors the DemonRats going forward in elections, if 45% of Americans consider the gun confiscation raids to be unconstitutional and worth fighting for, there will be civil war.

        I’m not aware of any civil war (including the Boer War, or Ireland, or Ulster, or anywhere else) where millions of agrieved citizens possessed rifles capable of making 500+ yard accurate shots. This is an equation changer. Gun raids will not be possible if LE convoys are shot up en route, and checkpoint duty becomes a suicide mission.

        A few 100 “active IRA” tied down divisions of British military for 30 years, and eventually the Brits gave it up and signed a deal.

        A few thousand Taliban armed with iron-sight weapons have fought the U.S. military to a standstill, and that is when our troops are fighting from secure bases, do their families do not share the same neighborhoods as their enemies.

        Gov Northam better think long and hard about what he might be launching. Going to war against thousands of patriots armed with 500-1,000+ yard scoped rifles is not going to be a cake walk. After a few “bad outcomes” (mini Wacos and Ruby Ridges) Virginia LE will be identified as the oppressor, and I don’t think many will be willing to head out into the hills in convoys of police cars and SUVs. Not when they are in range of unseen riflemen most of the way.

        It will be 100 times harder for them than it was for the Brits in Northern Ireland. Bullets will strike, and no shooter or rifle will be found. Again and again and again. Northam must be insane.

        • What you say may be true.
          But, Civil War era rifles had accuracy of 500 yards.

          Springfield Model 1861
          Well-trained troops were able to fire at a rate of three aimed shots per minute while maintaining accuracy up to 500 yards, though firing distances in the war were often much shorter

          Used by
          United States
          Confederate States of America


          • Apples and oranges. Your theoretical CW1 rifle accuracy was vs. massed infantry troops at that range, plus or minus yards and yards with no ability to distinguish individual targets. Hitting any one of a 100 was fine shooting, with a few very exceptional exceptions.

            When I say 500-1000+ yards, I mean the ability to choose between hitting an SUV’s tire, engine, or driver, and to know a civilian SUV from a .gov/.mil SUV at those ranges. An ability shared by tens of thousands of standard deer-hunting Virginians today.

  9. Let me start by saying that I live about 5 miles from the Virginia state line and have a few friends that live in Virginia.
    I go to a gun club for IPSC and IDPA matches at Kettlefoot in Bristol.
    I just finished making 500 rounds of .308 for my buddy that lives in Virginia. For those who understand reloading, when you do it for a bolt action rifle, you make a round that is 3x more accurate than factory ammunition.
    I also helped him lapp his barrel. I’m currently filling an order for 1000 rounds of 5.56.

    We were talking about Northam’s declaration and the very liberal house delegate Donald McEachin who threatened to use the National Guard to confiscate firearms and arrest any sheriff that didn’t obey any laws passed in Richmond.

    Here’s the short and skinny.

    there are 7500 National Guard in the entire state. That’s everyone, including cooks, clerks, and combat oriented troops.

    There are also 2118 state troopers. I’m not sure all of them are willing to carry out such edicts as Northam decrees but those are the gross numbers.

    In Washington county alone, there are 53,000 citizens.

    My best guess is that they will attempt to confiscate firearms in the democrat held counties like Fairfax and Alexandria.
    The Virginia constitution states that militias are controlled by the counties.
    No matter what the AG says, that’s what the Constitution says.
    When all of this first came out, most of the state of Virginia was furious.

    They’re past that now. they’re over their anger and all that is left is a cold resolution.
    I doubt that there will be any confiscation, but the next election cycle is going to be quite interesting.

    • The only trouble I foresee is the proposed legislation that would fire public servants who do not carry out these laws. Not sure what they would do about sheriffs since those are elected positions, but many public servants would get cold feet if they would lose their jobs over refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. Maybe a possible counter to this would be to crowdfund a “strike fund” for anyone who was fired over refusing to enforce unlawful legislation. That, along with “blue flu” or outright striking the first time any law enforcement officer is fired over refusal to enforce these laws would up the ante without having to resort to violence.

Comments are closed.