Of course, right now, they know they’ve got a couple of years where they won’t be bothered, but then election time will come again. Elections are always risky. After all, the same people who voted them in could easily vote them out. They need to do something that will solidify their hold on the state.

Enter a proposed state law that would impact suburban zoning laws.

Democrats in Virginia may override local zoning to bring high-density housing, including public housing, to every neighborhood statewide — whether residents want it or not.

The measure could quickly transform the suburban lifestyle enjoyed by millions, permitting duplexes to be built on suburban lots in neighborhoods previously consisting of quiet streets and open green spaces. Proponents of “upzoning” say the changes are necessary because suburbs are bastions of segregation and elitism, as well as bad for the environment.

The move, which aims to provide “affordable housing,” might be fiercely opposed by local officials throughout the state, who have deliberately created and preserved neighborhoods with particular character — some dense and walkable, others semi-rural and private — to accommodate people’s various preferences.

But Democrats tout a state-level law’s ability to replace “not in my backyard” with “yes, in your backyard.”

House Delegate Ibraheem Samirah, a Democrat, introduced six housing measures Dec. 19, coinciding with Democrats’ takeover of the state legislature in November.

“Single-family housing zones would become two-zoned,” Samirah told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Areas that would be impacted most would be the suburbs that have not done their part in helping out.”

However, I think this is about more than affordable housing or trying to combat elitism. I think this is an assault on the Second Amendment.

Rural voters are generally going to be pro-gun. Nothing is going to change that, and even someone like Samirah can see that. Urban centers, by contrast, are generally easy to convince to be anti-gun. That leaves the battlegrounds for the hearts and minds in the state to the suburbs.

Samirah’s plan would seek to implant thousands of urban voters in suburban enclaves, thus diluting any pro-gun sentiment in those districts. They know they won’t lose the cities with this, and they know urban voters won’t relocate to the country in sufficient numbers no matter what you propose. Yet because so many of our lawmakers are selected based on geography, the proposal would spread the anti-gun vote more broadly, undermining pro-gun voters residing just outside of the urban centers.

The rhetoric, however, is important to note. They’re citing the environment and racism not because they see racism or an environmental impact, but because they know how difficult it is to argue against any of those. After all, who is in favor of hurting the environment? Who is in favor of racism?

Yet the suburbs aren’t about racism or elitism or anything of the sort. They’re people who are trying to get a quieter life while remaining close to all the cities have to offer. Yet the cultures within the city that led to the exodus to the suburbs in the first place would now end up in the suburbs.

If there’s an upside to this, it’s that it won’t work the way Samirah seems to think. Instead, people will move further and further out of the city. Racial diversity may be all fine and good, but when you’re faced with cultures that glorify and revel in violence, most people are going to worry about their family’s safety first and foremost.

I’m sure Samirah will deny any such intention to his proposals, but I don’t care. We can all see what he’s trying to do here, and I hope that most other Democrats recognize that there’s no way this will be a good idea for them.