Posted on 04/20/2023 10:51:52 AM PDT by Conservativetpa
Respectfully to Rep. Gaetz, why doesn't he effectively exercise single lawmaker majority power by pointing out the following major constitutional problem with peacetime restrictive federal gun laws?
Consider that the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the big, bad federal government (my words) the specific power to make peacetime penal code, not even for murder!
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union [emphases added]. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day.” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, the Supreme Court later clarified in United States v. Cruikshank that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (2A) is to constitutionally identify the untrusted federal government as a possible enemy of the people (my words).
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress [emphasis added]. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." —United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
Given the constitutionally recognized possibility of Congress being the enemy of the people, the federal government doesn't need to know anything about the people's munitions of 2A-protected weapons imo.
Also, is it any surprise that Constitution-ignoring FDR is regarded by some as the father of modern gun control?
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control (Non-FR)
So patriots need to make it clear to federal career lawmakers that they're going to get primaried in 2024 if they don't quit messing with our 2A protections.
On second thought, forget about 2A and primary all career state and federal lawmakers anyway so that Trump 47 has the full support of both state and federal governments.
After Trump finishes draining the swamp which hopefully includes an all-new judiciary, then he can spend the remainder of his second term on the golf course which the drafters of the Constitution had arguably intended for the peacetime president of the constitutionally limited power federal government to do.
I wonder how the atf would classify a firearm stock like this old one. A Petronel.
https://www.artic.edu/iiif/2/89b92bd4-4315-5f85-0a1d-ebbaa66e4737/full/843,/0/default.jpg
If it’s made before 1880(iirc), it’s legal to own.
No kidding.
"He has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
What’s the deadline? Nobody suing, no judge blocking? Ridiculous.
~~~~~~~~
Actually, the rule goes into effect at the end of MAY, 2023.
https://freerangeamerican.us/pistol-brace-ban/
~~~~~~~~
....According to the new stabilizing rule, brace owners have until May 31 to register their braced pistols as SBRs or remove the brace from their pistols entirely. In short, braced pistols are being regulated, not stabilizing braces.
The ATF published the rule on Jan. 31, setting off a 120-day countdown on the impending pistol brace ban....
~~~~~~~~
One of the better suits is the Texas suit, because 25 states joined it, and because it challenges the constitutionality of the fallback legal ban on short-barrel rifles. If longer guns and shorter guns are all constitutionally protected then how can an SBR be illegal?
...like the Southern Baptist Convention behind the push for 'red flag' laws in Tennessee...left of center RINO Governor Bill Lee is thinking long and hard about such laws. How about it, Baptists?
Trump started this after, I think, the Vegas shooting. Obviously you have to blame Joe instead because you believe the stolen election was a thing.
Surprise! democrat party government is the enemy.
That would be my first preference. It should be a convenience store not a federal bureaucracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
