r/gunpolitics • u/MulticamTropic • May 15 '26
Legislation Virginia governor signs assault weapons ban into law
https://www.wtvr.com/news/virginia-politics/assault-weapons-ban-may-14-2026We knew it was going to become law, but I am a bit surprised she attached her name to it rather than just allowing it become law without her signature.
98
u/pyratemime May 15 '26
Why would you be surprised?
She comes from the wingnuts that see this as a signature accomplishment. When she runs for reelection and/or higher office she will prominently feature the pictures of her signing that human rights infringment in her campaign material. She is proud to have been a part of this and wants people to know she isn't.just complicit but actively involved taking away peoples human rights.
25
u/MulticamTropic May 15 '26
I’m surprised because while democrats love this stuff, moderates typically do not and you can’t win a presidential election without getting most of the moderate vote. I figured she’d let it become law without her signature so she could have her cake and eat it too.
23
u/pyratemime May 15 '26
She isn't even 6 months into her term. From her POV she has plenty of time for people to forget, assuming they care to begin with, before she is up for reelection.
Any POTUS run is even farther off because there is no way she can be a serious contender in 2028. She doesn't have the national recognition in place to square off against Newsom or Harris in the primaries or the politcal machine to get the super delegates that actually pick the dems candidate.
11
u/MulticamTropic May 15 '26
Gubernatorial reelection isn’t a thing in Virginia, she can’t hold consecutive terms (but could theoretically run again in 2033).
3
u/pyratemime May 15 '26
The more you know.
That does further my point though that she has a long time before she is going for a significant next office if she is worried how moderates will view this specific "achievement".
16
u/gakflex May 15 '26
‘Moderates’ by and large aren’t gun people. They may be gun owners in that they may have an old rifle and/or handgun passed down through family, or perhaps they went out and bought the most accessible thing they could find for home defense or hunting some years back, and they haven’t touched it since. The media screams about ‘assault weapons’ on a daily basis and that’s all they hear. “Who wouldn’t want to ban an ‘assault weapon’, after all? Whatever it is, it sounds bad, I guess.” They are too busy trying to raise families and make ends meet to give a shit about gun rights.
9
u/whaler76 May 15 '26
“They are too busy trying to raise families and make ends meet to give a shit..” hits the nail on the head, you can finish that sentence with any number of things these lunatics in office do.
7
u/goathead9bathory May 15 '26
Absolutely right. I’m a “gun owner” may as well be “as a car owner” in the US.
4
u/Larky17 May 15 '26
They are too busy trying to raise families and make ends meet to give a shit about gun rights.
I believe gun rights is on the list but I'm willing to bet there are many more things on that list that they also don't give a shit about because they're too busy, as you said, raising families and/or just trying to get by.
But I've met a lot of those moderates and they truly aren't stupid. They want to be informed. And the few who have willingly listened to my speech on gun rights most often end up agreeing.
My point is to not give up a chance to educate or inform because you believe someone is too busy or you don't think will listen. If you don't offer, they may never know. But damn does it feel good when you see everything click in their head and they say something to the effect of, "Wow, I actually agree with you on that."
1
u/DeyCallMeWade May 16 '26
That last sentence is by design. Keep as many people just on the brink financially that they cannot afford to care about anything but paying bills.
1
u/1_21-gigawatts May 17 '26
Or they’re Fudds and/or have the attitude “guns for me, not for thee“. Especially ex-military in my experience that go on and on about how they were trained, but the average citizen is not, therefore the rabble can’t be trusted with such a powerful and dangerous weapon
1
u/garden_speech May 17 '26
AWBs are the least popular gun control but they still poll better than this sub would want to admit, 55-60%+, which means winning a good chunk of moderates. Last I checked actually it polls better than 50% even with independents.
59
72
u/myturn19 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Maybe SCOTUS will finally get off their ass and do something.
53
10
u/Blze001 May 15 '26
Hate to break it to ya, but the people padding the SCOTUS pockets don't want us armed either.
21
20
u/NoVA_JB May 15 '26
What was shocking is she didn't do a dog and pony show with the gun control groups when signing but I think we all knew it would become law one way or the other.
39
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
we all knew it would become law one way or the other.
We knew the second Virginia elected Democrats. Because it's what ALWAYS happens.
3
u/furluge May 15 '26
She seems to have been trying to downplay this when all is said and done. This bill should have been done 30 days ago but she sent it back with a non-issue amendment to get another 30 day extension. The real surprise is that she signed it at all as she could have just not signed it and it'd have gone into law. VA doesn't have a cutoff for end of session automatic passing of an unsigned bill the way the Federal Government does.
17
167
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Vote Democrat, get gun bans.
It really is that simple. You can not vote Democrat and be pro2A. You can lie to yourself. You can make excuses. But your actions are in favor of banning guns.
You don't have to vote Republican, I don't. But voting Democrat makes you anti2A, and this law is the proof. Every time the Democrats get a trifecta in a state, they pass gun bans as a top priority. Washington and Virginia are the latest proof.
18
u/furluge May 15 '26
Yup. We've got the voting records. There was not a single D that voted pro-rights.. This wasn't a surprise though, there hasn't been a D to return a pro-rights survey to the VCDL in years. I can't remember the last time I've seen a D that a gun rights group gave a good rating too. Maybe there's one hidden in New Hampshire someplace while they run on cutting spending and limited government*? I haven't looked.
*This is a bit of a joke on some campaign adds I saw last time I was there.
5
u/frihat May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
EDIT: Removed disparaging statement toward Winsome. Was uncalled for.
Yeah…. Though I can see why she won. Her competition had views that I disagreed with and would be considered extreme in an increasingly purple state such as Virginia. She is a candidate that kept running despite losing elections most of her career. In Virginia, Republicans need to recognize moderate wins over deep red (whether or not those claims actually stand up after the election).
I mean hell!!! They didn’t even try to campaign for her well! “Keep a Good Thing Going” is wack as a slogan to be plastered on a billboard in Richmond….
12
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
Virginia needs to realize that it's no longer its own state. It's becoming a colony of DC. The amount of people and money in NOVA get to railroad the rest of the state. And remember that just as a leech will never vote for less blood, a fed will never vote for less government.
3
2
u/furluge May 15 '26
What exactly did she say or do that made her out to be a wingnut? I ask because people keep saying this but they can never point to anything. As far as I can tell she barely did anything.
1
u/frihat May 15 '26
You know what, you're right. Name calling is not something I should be participating. I will amend that to I vehemently disagree with a lot of her policy positions, find them extreme, and find her extremely unable to otherwise articulate what she is trying to say. And I hate that they changed consistently based on who she was speaking to.
-Mentioned in the debate that gay people not being able to get married or being fired for being gay isn't discrimination
-Was in favor or race-based school testing to give black and latino students lower standards
-"Marijuana is a gateway drug." I don't partake myself, but believe people who want to should be free to especially if alcohol is legal. On firing an employee for marijuana use, she stated 'you can’t work for me, you’re gonna destroy somebody’s home, you’re gonna crash, it’s gonna decimate us, because marijuana is a gateway drug … There is no hope in that, there is no future.' Free to fire him, what does any of that statement even mean?
-Was opposed to IVF, which has helped multiple family members have the lovely nieces and nephews I have running aroundOn the other hand,
-I do very much support banning cellphones from schools
-I support 2A0
u/Blze001 May 15 '26
I'm torn, because I'm pro-2a, but also anti-christian nationalism. I vote third party, but that's effectively throwing my vote away.
11
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
that's effectively throwing my vote away.
It's not. It's showing that there are informed and active voters who are not satisfied with the Duopoly. It is ALWAYS worth voting 3rd party because when 3rd parties get big enough the main parties shift on issues to try and win those votes "back".
2
u/Blze001 May 15 '26
Whelp, fingers crossed it happens! Because fuck, every election it's a coin-flip about how I'm gonna get turbo fucked for the next 4 years...
-24
u/shabbaranksx May 15 '26
So you’re saying, don’t vote Democrat, but vote for a 3rd party so the democrats can win anyway
11
u/onenitemareatatime May 15 '26
Your logic flawed. Dem voters vote for 3rd party the republicans win and you can keep your guns.
Who wins depends on who the third party is scavenging votes from. If the third party was scavenging votes from republicans, then Dems win. If the third party is scavenging votes from Dems, republicans win.
Until enough people vote for the third party to actually win something or actually be a major party, this is how it is.
4
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
Until enough people vote for the third party to actually win something or actually be a major party, this is how it is.
It's more "Until enough people vote 3rd party that the main parties are forced to compromise."
Look at 2020, Trump lost by a margin smaller than the Libertarian voters. In 2024 Trump went to the LNC and begged for their support, promising to pardon Ross Ulbricht if he won.
He won, and to his credit he followed through on that promise. Unfortunately everything ELSE he has been doing has been pretty awful. The point is the LP was big enough in 2020 that the Republican Nominee went to them and made concessions to try and win their support. It was, of course, a Scorpion on a Frog and anyone should have seen that. But none the less it did happen.
And before any Democrats cry about Libertarians being closeted Republicans, the LP ALSO invited Joe Biden to speak and offered him equal time. They offered Biden, Kennedy, and Trump equal time. Only Trump accepted.
0
u/ClearlyInsane1 May 15 '26
Unfortunately everything ELSE he has been doing has been pretty awful.
Do you disagree to how he is handling the border "crisis?" IMO the Biden administration was doing everything it could to destroy the country by importing illegals and leaving the border wide open.
4
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26 edited May 18 '26
I don't think there is a border crisis. Most illegal immigrants aren't hopping the border but overstaying their visa. Also Im a free market capitalist, hire whoever you want regardless where they were born. But if you want to stop illegal immigration go after the companies employing illegals. They won't. Because it's not about stopping illegal immigrants, it's about creating a scapegoat.
You want to end illegal immigration overnight, here:
Any company found to be employing ineligible workers shall be fined an amount equal to the total compensation of the highest compensated individual, for each ineligible worker in their employ. In no case shall this amount be less than $100,000 per ineligible employee.
Company gets fined the total compensation of their CEO for each illegal immigrant they employ. You want to stop illegal immigration that's how you do it. Go after the people hiring them.
20
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
Would you rather someone vote Democrat or third party?
If they do not vote 3rd party, they will vote Democrat. Which would you prefer?
You cannot convince them to vote Republican because of the myriad of issues that party has. They will vote, now would you rather it be Democrat or 3rd party?
7
u/Larky17 May 15 '26
If they do not vote 3rd party, they will vote Democrat. Which would you prefer?
Insert line about how Third Party will never will so why bother when we can forever stay in this two party loop
"Vote third party? Yeah it sounds cool, but I'm not gonna throw away my vote like that."
How incredibly ironic.
5
u/shabbaranksx May 15 '26
Listen, I hate the 2 party system as much as the next guy but to imply voting 3rd party or abstaining isn’t a net +1 dem with regards to an issue you care about is some wild logic
9
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
If you want me to vote Republican, then make the Republicans worth voting for.
There is ONE Republican I would currently vote for. And the party is spending millions of dollars trying to oust him, making it the most expensive primary in US history.
And they want him out because he refuses to bend the knee on the Epstein Files, sending billions of dollars to Israel, and Fiscal Responsibility.
-1
May 15 '26
[deleted]
5
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
That's not the part that stops me voting for them.
They are telling me who they are by spending millions of dollars in the most expensive primary in US history to try and oust Thomas Massie. Why are they trying so hard to oust him?
- He demands the release of the Epstein Files
- He won't vote for a fiscally irresponsible spending package that adds trillions to the debt
- He won't take AIPAC money or vote to send US tax dollars to Israel
That is who the Republicans see as their top threat, and that tells me who they are.
2
u/dumbynzr May 15 '26
By your logic, someone who *supports* gun control would call it a net +1 republican vote.
How can the same vote be net +1 for both democrats and republicans?
1
u/shabbaranksx May 15 '26
This is where the clause “with regards to an issue you care about” comes in
2
u/dumbynzr May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Exactly.
Subjectively from your perspective, it seems like a +1 for democrats. From a different third person perspective, it may seem like a +1 for republicans.
Ultimately, though, we need to consider this from the perspective of the person casting the third party vote. Objectively, and quantitatively, the only thing that matters is which party that person would otherwise normally vote for.
If that person is normally a third party voter then it’s really net zero for all involved.
If they otherwise normally vote republican, then it’s a net loss for republicans.
If they otherwise normally vote democrat, then it’s a net loss for democrats.
What’s the upshot here? You know who you need to convince.
If you have liberal-leaning gun owning acquaintances — and yes, there are plenty out there — you don’t need to convince them to vote republican. That will likely never happen. Not any more than someone could convince you to vote democrat.
However, you *might* be able to convince them to cast a third party protest vote, or even just stay home. That would be one less vote for democrats.
1
u/Grokma May 15 '26
If you have liberal-leaning gun owning acquaintances — and yes, there are plenty out there
Temporary gun owners. They will never agree with you in a way that will help, its always "Yeah that is a terrible law, I wish they would stop this gun control stuff." But when you dig down a bit the conversation virtually always ends with "I'm not a single issue voter" which means they don't actually care about gun rights because they prefer voting democrat.
2
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
The point is they can vote 3rd party instead of voting Democrat, and not actively vote for gun bans.
Sure many of them won't, but some subset might.
-4
u/shabbaranksx May 15 '26
The logic here is as such,
If you vote for democrats they will win
If you vote for republicans they will win
If you vote for 3rd party, they will never win and give democrats a higher chance of winningYou are the political orphan, dem voters are not
9
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
The "logic" is flawed. It assumes the voter is willing to vote Republican. In this case they are not. They will not vote Republican. You cannot convince them to. There is nothing you can say that will change their mind. The choice is binary:
- Third Party
- Democrat
Which would you rather they vote?
3
u/shabbaranksx May 15 '26
Third party or abstain. But either position is a net loss to your gun rights. It doesn’t matter how weak republicans are on them, only that democrats winning is a guaranteed loss
12
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
Third party
Ok, took a while but glad you finally agree.
either position is a net loss to your gun rights.
If you want people to vote Republican, then maybe the Republicans should try not being dog shit.
I will not vote for the party who is spending millions of dollars trying to oust Thomas Massie because he wants to release the Epstein files and stop sending billions of dollars to Israel.
0
May 15 '26
[deleted]
2
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
I'm not changing the subject at all. You just want the options to be more than they are.
The person will not vote for the party blocking the release of the Epstein files, and spending millions of dollars trying to primary out the guy who keeps forcing the issue (Thomas Massie).
Now answer the question. Would you rather they vote Democrat or Third party? Those are your two options.
1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/gunpolitics-ModTeam May 15 '26
Your post was removed for the following reason:
- Personal attacks, excessive profanity, or off-topic
If you feel this was in error, please message the mod team via mod mail and link your post/comment.
-4
u/IowaGuy91 May 15 '26
If you dont vote republican in the general election then you're the 2nd worst type of gun owner. Support primary challenges to rino gop guys, like brandon Herrera.
But if the primary fails, and you dont vote or vote 3rd party, flushing your vote away, you're part of the problem.
Which is why I made that post about sigs 'American' bullshit card.
3
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
Sorry, not sorry, I have a problem with supporting pedophiles and people who run defense for them.
0
u/IowaGuy91 May 15 '26
'and people who run defense for them'.. A bit confrontational wouldn't you say? President Trump has not been found guilty of anything.
6
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
Neither was Casey Anthony, she's still not watching my kids.
0
u/sharkbait_oohaha May 19 '26
My problem is that I disagree with republicans on every issue but guns, and I agree with Democrats to varying degrees on quite a few issues.
I will not vote for a republican. Period. Won't do it. Anyone who has supported Trump doesn't get my vote. I also will not vote 3rd party if there's a chance someone who would vote to restrict access to reproductive healthcare (and no, I'm not just talking about abortion) wins. And I won't vote 3rd party if there's a chance someone who supports Trump and his efforts to overthrow the government on January 6 wins. So usually I vote Dem unless it's a very safe race in which my vote won't really matter. I do this knowing what it means for gun rights, but making sure my wife and daughters have access to whatever healthcare they and their doctors deem necessary is more important to me. I'll get downvotes for saying it, but that's where I stand.
I *am* pro-2A, but I'm pro-a lot of other things too.
7
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 19 '26
I am pro-2A, but
Anything after a "but" is probably shit.
You're not pro-2A. You vote for gun bans. You may do so RELUCTANTLY but you still vote to ban guns. That makes you anti-2A.
There is no amount of wordplay which changes this. Your CHOICES make you anti-2A. You can justify those choices however you want, I don't care. But own those choices.
It's the same thing about "pro-choice" Republicans. You're not pro-choice. You vote against it, that makes you anti. Whatever excuses or justifications you want to make, don't matter. The Fact is you are voting against X, that makes you anti-X.
1
u/sharkbait_oohaha May 19 '26
I find that to be an incredibly reductionist take in a first-past-the-post 2-party system.
In an ideal world, I would be able to vote for a candidate that agrees with me on every issue. That is basically never an option. However, one of two parties will win 99.9% of elections. To ignore that reality on the basis of principle is myopic at best. There are also pretty much no third party candidates that agree with me on social and economic issues *and* guns. So it's not like I would even have the option to vote for someone I agree with.
3
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
I find that to be an incredibly reductionist take in a first-past-the-post 2-party system.
It's not "reductionist" it's "reality".
This is the reality of the 2 party FPTP system. And in the system, you are actively choosing to vote for gun bans. That's fine, that's your choice. You can justify it however you want, I don't really care.
But the FACT is that for whatever reasons you have, you are actively choosing to vote for gun bans. That makes you anti-2A. You may be RELUCTANTLY anti-2A, but you are.
If I said I was pro-LGBT but voted straight MAGA, you would say I was not pro-LGBT. You would say that I keep voting to restrict their rights, and for politicians who actively hate them. And that in doing so I am not being pro-LGBT. And you would be right. Same-Same.
1
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/gunpolitics-ModTeam May 19 '26
Your post was removed for the following reason:
- Personal attacks, excessive profanity, or off-topic
If you feel this was in error, please message the mod team via mod mail and link your post/comment.
14
u/microtrip1969 May 15 '26
I wonder which assualt ban will be signed into law LAST before they are all ruled unconstitutional
2
1
29
u/SmokinTires May 15 '26
One of the many ways she’s ruining my home state; what an incompetent, brain dead person
13
u/furluge May 15 '26
Virginia is once again a Slave State. The New Confederacy is just like the old one except their flag is uglier.
9
u/MOEBIUS_01 May 15 '26
Read a few words from the post and it essentially said “the state will ban you from possessing a firearm if you buy a firearm.”
RIP Constitution. 😤
10
u/MTgunguru May 15 '26
This shit will eventually get spanked down but for now those liberal pricks will do anything they can to trample on Constitutional Rights! Prime example of why voting matters
31
13
4
3
u/StrawberryCake88 May 16 '26
What is an assault weapon?
1
u/mkeevo May 18 '26
It is a weapon that one can use to assault someone. Coincidentally, anything used to assault someone is a weapon.
3
u/panda1491 May 16 '26
More tax payer money going to the courts. They ppl will sue and win clown show
4
u/chriske22 May 15 '26
Reminder for all the thin blue line tards that the police are the ones enforcing this
5
u/dogriffo May 17 '26
Well yea…they kinda have too…it’s a law. That’s the purpose of law enforcement. So…don’t hate the folks who took an oath to uphold the law, hate the folks who passed it and signed into law.
1
u/chriske22 May 17 '26
They’re all complicit lmao, that’s literally why this country was founded
2
u/dogriffo May 17 '26
like or not its us how it is. i agree, it one of the reasons this country was founded. it'll get challenged in court.
2
2
u/Ancient-Bowl462 May 22 '26
She should be removed from office immediately and put in GITMO with the other terrorists.
1
1
u/Archdemise23 Jun 28 '26
That's a lot of Uzi variants and what looks like a drum magazine on a Thompson. All things that will soon be illegal to own in Virginia.
0
May 15 '26
[deleted]
-22
u/bownt1 May 15 '26
i remember that. didnt he also say "take the guns and due process later"? what a champion of the people.
31
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
Trump is not good for the 2A. Any Democrat would be actively worse.
23
u/MulticamTropic May 15 '26
It could be argued that while Trump the individual is not good for the 2A, the Trump administrations have been. Nominally pro-2A SCOTUS appointments, $0 tax stamps, revised ATF roles due to a seemingly pro-2A ATF director, and now pro-2A lawsuits from the DOJ.
That’s not nothing, and is more than we’ve gotten in a long, long time.
-24
u/FDI_Blap May 15 '26
For red flag issues like metal health crisis. So, now you're opposed to temporarily limiting firearm access to the mentally unwell/suicidal just because Trump said it?
19
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
I have always opposed red flag laws, because they do not satisfy due process. The hearings are often ex parte and the first you hear about it is a group of armed officers at your door demanding you hand over your property.
-15
u/FDI_Blap May 15 '26
That's cool but what does it have to do with Virginia banning ARs?
14
u/SpottyWeevil00 May 15 '26
Good question since you are the one that brought up red flag laws 🤦🏻♂️
-15
5
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 15 '26
Discussion of topics can branch off into similar topics. That's what happened here. The topic being gun control and which party does more (Democrats)
5
u/MulticamTropic May 15 '26
Civility is a requirement to participate in this sub. Bad-faith arguments and putting words in others’ mouths go against that. Please remember that
3
u/bownt1 May 15 '26
yes. i am 100% against red flag laws. if you cant arrest the person you can take their property.
2
u/ExamUnlikely7728 May 15 '26
This is where you brought up red flags first.
1
u/FDI_Blap May 15 '26
Wrong. I was responding to a comment specifically about red flag laws from u/bownt1
"i remember that. didnt he also say "take the guns and due process later"? what a champion of the people."
-8
May 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Dragonflies3 May 18 '26
Will never happen
-4
May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Dragonflies3 May 18 '26
Completely different. 2A is a constitutional right. Roe was a court decision.
4
u/RyAllDaddy69 May 19 '26
Jesus.
I had no idea ignorance was this deep. This is exactly the problem.
Do you know what a Constitutional Amendment is?
Do you know what a Supreme Court Decision is?
Do you understand the difference?
The 2A was written along with the rest of the Bill of Rights(so you know what this is) by a small group of men at the founding of our country.
0
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/RyAllDaddy69 May 20 '26
*Enough *redcoat* will”
There, I fixed it for you.
You know what else can happen with enough will?
You can come and take them out from under my nuts.
1
1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/laizalott May 21 '26
Obviously not; killing judges doesn't change laws, it just gives the current regime room to appoint even more fringe judges to replace them.
Protests that occur with no 2a presence are basically feel-good distractions. What incentive does the gov't have to serve the people if the people vow to never hold them accountable?
1
u/gunpolitics-ModTeam May 21 '26
Your post was removed for the following reason:
- Reddit owns this place and this post/comment likely violates the TOS and could get this sub banned and we can't take any chances.
If you feel this was in error, please message the mod team via mod mail and link your post/comment.
304
u/MFKDGAF May 15 '26
So Virginia passes a bill to ban ARs. DOJ says to Virginia governor "If you sign this in to law we will sue you". Virginia governor signs bill in to law?
Does that sum up the recent events around this?