Posted on 10/07/2015 12:01:06 PM PDT by don-o
This is one of the arguments for building your own firearms. Granted you can not legally transfer (sell) the firearm, but it does remove any of the federal controls as long as the firearm does not cross state lines.
How so? Federal law says felons cannot be in possession of a firearm - doesn’t ask where it came from.
Those two guys made it easy for the feds - they *ARE* convicted felons, and if they want to own a firearm, they need to petition the courts for a restoration of rights.
The title says that he is a Border “soldier”. He appears to be a member of some self named militia group and therefore is not a soldier.
28 years after a burglary, he is still a convicted felon and not allowed to own a firearm. Absent other offenses, that is extreme. But soon, many other circumstances will warrant denial of firearm ownership. For example, notation of PTSD in someone’s VA health records. Certainly the war on gun owners is in high gear by the Feds.
“a felon in possession of a firearm”
How is this possible?????
So many posters around here claim these guys are just a bunch of law abiding citizens who wouldn’t hurt a fly!!!
Makes sense now why a certain poster around here has been defending the Waco gangsters, if you read this article...
.
>> “How so? Federal law says felons cannot be in possession of a firearm - doesnt ask where it came from.” <<
Congress cannot enact laws WRT firearms.
The second amendment clearly states that the right to own and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
Who could argue that a ban on ownership or possession is not an infringement?
.
.
>> “He appears to be a member of some self named militia group and therefore is not a soldier.” <<
.
By whose definition?
.
Per 10 U.S. Code § 311, the militia consists of all able-bodied males between 17-64, in both organized (National Guard) and non-organized capacities.
Although he is not a soldier in the sense of the word that is typically used today, the law remains as stated above.
Militia were never styled soldiers until mustered into service by some authority, County Committee of Safety, State/Colonial government, or much later, Federal government. As you pointed out, all able bodied males constitute the militia, but they were not called soldiers until mustered and read the Militia Act. Its important in this case because these guys have every right to call themselves militia, but not to call themselves soldiers and they have no special authority except as citizens.
Name names.
Why?
Tattle telling to bring in the trolls? You couldn’t merely comment and be done with it. You’ve shown your colors. That’s not just low class but no class.
Pinging someone to a topic they are interested in is “tattle telling”???
What are you, five years old?
Because you are accusing someone of supporting gangsters. Be man enough to name names. (Do keep the fate of the late Crystal Palace East in mind.)
The calumny you are resurrecting had pretty much died down. Now you are starting up with it again.
They did the investigation on him to cover the ineptitude of the agent who fired the shots.
It was stupid of him to be violating Federal law, but he gave them the hook to hang him with.
This should have been about an agent firing without justification; instead it is now about a felon in possession of a firearm.
Texas Law allows felons to possess firearms five years after release from confinement, mandatory supervision, community supervision, or parole.
There should not be any such federal law, but there we are.
This clearly is both a Second Amendment and a 10th Amendment issue.
It is framed as a commerce clause issue to get around the above amendmnets.
And what do you suppose would happen if either of these fellows went to an FFL dealer, attempted to purchase a rifle, and filled out the 4473 honestly?
“Because you are accusing someone of supporting gangsters.”
Ha! I’ve been accused of much worse by your buddies on these threads, so your selective outrage is simply humorous at this point.
“Do keep the fate of the late Crystal Palace East in mind”
You’re not a mod, so keep your veiled threats to yourself. I won’t be bullied.
All my buddies have the common decency to come at folks head on. Not twitter like little girls.
“Veiled threats”? Not at all. Calling a FReeper a gangster supporter is right up there (actually down there) with calling one a Russian troll.
fwiw and imo
Federal authority comes from the interstate commerce clause. They assert that a firearm at one point in it’s “life” traversed interstate boundaries thus they have legal authority. If the firearm NEVER crossed state boundaries, there is no authority for the feds.
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.