As soon as the Virginia Democrats took over the state legislature last November, gun sales have been soaring. In February 2020 alone, there were 66,000 new firearm background checks in the Commonwealth; that’s 63.4% higher than this time last year.

This is only the latest in unintended consequences that the Democrats’ anti-gun measures are having. Towns within Virginia are declaring themselves second-amendment sanctuaries, a clear middle finger to the recent Virginia Governor veto of a bill that would have allowed local law enforcement to alert federal immigration personnel upon the release an undocumented prisoner. But while VA Democrats have focused their energies on making legal gun owners criminals and getting illegal immigrants lawful driver licenses, the Trump administration has been gaining the legal right to deny these “sanctuary” areas the federal funds they depend on… to enforce their ridiculous laws.

Still, they wouldn’t be Democrats if they didn’t press on with their decisions that are growing more and more unpopular. In February, the state senate finally passed the coveted new “red flag bill”, voting on strict party lines.

This bill was SB240, a tyrannical power grab which declares that if a citizen is viewed as a risk (with no legal definition given for “risk”) they will be given the “opportunity” to voluntarily give up their personal self-defense weaponry. And who gets to determine who is a risk? Lawyers, mostly.

Of course, if the individual target by a “risk order” does not comply with the mandatory volunteering, they will be seized from their possession. The subject will also be default-guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor that was specifically written into the law as punishment for not volunteering to have your right to due process violated along with losing the right to legally own guns in the future – not necessary is the conviction of any other crime.

SB240′s language below:

Firearms; removal from persons posing substantial risk; penalties. Creates a procedure by which any attorney for the Commonwealth or two law-enforcement officers may apply to a general district court, circuit court, or juvenile and domestic relations district court judge or magistrate, who must consult with the attorney for the Commonwealth, for an emergency substantial risk order to prohibit a person who poses a substantial risk of injury to himself or others from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm. Upon service of an emergency substantial risk order, the person who is subject to the order shall be given the opportunity to voluntarily relinquish any firearm. An emergency substantial risk order shall expire on the fourteenth day following issuance of the order. The bill requires a court hearing in the circuit court for the jurisdiction where the order was issued within 14 days from issuance of an emergency substantial risk order to determine whether a substantial risk order should be issued. Seized firearms shall be retained by a law-enforcement agency for the duration of an emergency substantial risk order or a substantial risk order or, for a substantial risk order and with court approval, may be transferred to a third party 21 years of age or older chosen by the person from whom they were seized. The bill allows the complainant of the original warrant to file a motion for a hearing to extend the substantial risk order prior to its expiration. The court may extend the substantial risk order for a period not longer than 180 days. The bill provides that persons who are subject to a substantial risk order, until such order has been dissolved by a court, are guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor for purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm; are disqualified from having a concealed handgun permit; and may not be employed by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill also provides that a person who transfers a firearm to a person he knows has been served with a warrant or who is the subject of a substantial risk order is guilty of a Class 4 felony. The bill creates a computerized substantial risk order registry for the entry of orders issued pursuant to provisions in the bill. Virginia’s Legislative Information System

Similar measures have already been passed in 18 American states but none so far reaching and unpopular. These laws are being pushed through legislative bodies on the slimmest margins possible because no politician even pretends to care about being seen as bipartisan these days, like in Virginia where SB240 passed 21-19. Now those three single voters will interfere with the lives of the two and a half million Virginians who are legal gun owners despite evidence that added gun restrictions have no substantial effect on gun crime.

Citizens of Virginia are using every democratic process awarded them to fight back against Gov. Northam’s rule and it’s not enough. A huge pro-gun rally occurred outside of the State Capitol building on January 20th. Tens of thousands of legal gun owners gathered to show the handful of legislators inside exactly who their laws were impacting. Governor Northam, terrified of “online chatter”, had actually declared a state of emergency in response to the preparation of the gigantic crowd by holding a press conference to conjure up images of the infamous Charlottesville protest. Regardless, the rally was totally violence-free even though there were thousands upon thousands of firearms in once place.

Democrats also aren’t getting the support from local law enforcement that they anticipated would be the muscle for their shitty ideas. Not only did Virginian sheriffs join the gun rally as part of the resistance, local law enforcement has been integral in getting second-amendment sanctuaries set up around the state. Some, like Sheriff Jenkins of Culpeper County have been finding legal loopholes like deputizing citizens in opposition to the newest anti-2A laws.

Other Democrat strongholds like Minnesota are seeing their own resistance to the wave of sweeping gun legislation. In mid-February, three more Minnesotan counties declared themselves gun sanctuaries or “second amendment dedicated counties”.

And just like Virginia with their four consecutive months of gun sale records, firearm purchases are up elsewhere around the nation, as well. NCIS data on gun sales around the country show a 24% nationwide increase in 2020 so far and almost half of these are people buying their first gun.

These spikes in sales mimic the same spikes gun dealers see after mass shootings or other widely reported gun tragedies. And just like those spikes, almost half are not previous gun owners increasing their personal arsenal, but first-time gun owners. While researchers previously believed this to be an effect of shock, I’d argue that the lowest common denominator would be the mass coverage of politicians, specifically Democrats, and their anti-Constitutional rhetoric and actions.

It’s a shame that Democrats are so against firearms since they’re so good at selling them.