Its that good.
Get paid, nukka.
(clean up the typos first)
People need to wake up and recognize. The republic has been overgrown and we have a ruling junta that can do anything it pleases and nothing can stop them. They just locked you in your house for a year and closed a third of the business in America by mere decree.
Yes, he can ban guns by executive order in the new dictatorship and he will.
NO STATE, is bound by ANY EO.
Joe can go eff himself.
Only each state/community can pass what gun laws they want.
Anyone ever think why the gunfight at the OK coral happened?..or many of the gunfights in Dodge City Kansas happened between the cowboys and law enforcement,etc?
The EO doesn’t have to be a door to door confiscation order. Such would be patently unconstitutional and even Biden isn’t dumb enough to try it.
However, there is a lot that can be done via EO that your “I WILL NOT COMPLY!” will have nothing to do with.
Just a few Examples:
1: Imports. (Bush Sr. did this by EO back in 1989. Klintoon did it again in 1998 and 2001.)
2: Increased funding for ATF Enforcement.
3: Directing the ATF to make creative interpretations of features and definitions.
4. Increasing processing time for various regulatory functions.
“I WILL NOT COMPLY” sound great on paper and you shouldn’t comply with violations of the 2nd Amendment. However, it is also largely become a meaningless coping mechanism for many.
Saying “I WILL NOT COMPLY” doesn’t change the fact that there are many regulations that will directly affect you for which your non-compliance is irrelevant.
This is one of the reasons that people who take the coward’s way out of “IZ NOTTA A VOTINGZ NO MOARH!” have brought this on themselves.
Modified laws before elimination
Freedom of speech check
Right to bear arms check
Voting check
Democrats are racing to speed things up before the 2022 election vote or take the loss forever no other options.
In a close to normal world, that would be the case. We left normal during the covid shutdown, and the door was slammed during the election. Until further notice, we’re stuck in uncharted territory.
One wonders what unelected person(s) are running the executive branch.
Remember when he said if he became president he would make everyone wear masks and his legal team said he was pretty sure he could do it. How did that work out for him. If he can’t do that then no way he can take guns. He knows it. He just don’t want to admit it. So he is calling on Congress to do it and they want no part of it. They can talk but they will be voted out if they do it.
Otherwise, if lawmakers had to vote on gun restriction bills for example, then it wouldn’t be surprising if most of them would have to expose themselves as anti-2nd Amendment.
In preparation for the 2022 midterm primaries, patriots need to be asking all federal and state candidates to agree that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the unconstitutionally big federal government the specific power to make peacetime restrictive gun laws.
Hopefully, patriots will then start pulling other loose threads by checking what other federal laws, including federal spending programs are constitutionally indefensible.
From related threads…
To start this 2nd Amendment (2A) discussion, please consider this. Regarding recent gun violence, the main option that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave to the feds to address domestic violence in a state is to wait for a state to formally request help from the feds.
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphasis added]."
As a side note to federal involvement in violence, note that although a state is not obligated to request help from the feds for domestic violence, consider that the feds also have the express power to interfere with possibly nationally-related violence in a state imo.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions [emphasis added];"
Otherwise, let’s examine major constitutional problems (imo) with so-called federal peacetime gun control laws and executive orders.
Patriots, in addition to continuing to defend 2A, also argue that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime gun control laws.
More specifically, since the federal government has only those powers that the states expressly constitutionally give to it, some of the drafters of the Bill of Rights (BoR) had expressed the following concern.
The drafters had feared that patriots would eventually develop tunnel vision (my words) for BoR protections and forget that the BoR was redundant in the context that powers that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds to regulate our basic protections are prohibited to the feds.
”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 congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that, until the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified was ratified, the states hadn’t expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime penal laws, 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. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
The great irony of 14A where today’s unconstitutional (imo) peacetime federal gun control laws are concerned is this. That amendment gives Congress the specific power only to make penal laws that STRENGTHEN constitutionally enumerated rights, including 2A, from abridgment by state actors, still no express power for Congress to make peacetime gun control laws.
“The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Unfortunately, today’s generation is proof that patriots have long-forgotten the significance of constitutionally enumerated federal government powers as the drafters of the BoR had feared, particularly the lack of such powers in the context of peacetime gun rights.
In fact, it is disturbing that peacetime restrictive federal gun laws seem to have started appearing in the books during FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at that time infamous for making laws which they had no express constitutional authority to make imo.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Even the post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court is glaring evidence that top legal professionals don’t bother to check if a contested federal law is reasonably justified under a constitutionally enumerated power.
Finally, citizens need to start working with their federal lawmakers to demand the following. When the federal government accuses someone of violating a federal law, the accused also needs to be informed of at least the common name of the constitutional clause that arguably justifies the law for further scrutiny of the constitutionality of that law, especially where our 2A safety net is concerned.
The flaw in this reasoning omits the treachery of the current scotis, a state of treachery not in the court before the arrival of the dead soul Roberts.
If Biden bans the importation of all foreign guns, I’m buying Ruger stock.
Its that good.
Get paid, nukka.
(clean up the typos first)