Pete Buttigieg Wants More Background Checks, Reinstatement of Social Security Gun Ban

breitbart.com ^ | 4/20/2019 | AWR Hawkins

[Paladin2]

Isn’t that Avanti guy in Gaol?

[Amendment10]

"Pete Buttigieg Wants More Background Checks, Reinstatement of Social Security Gun Ban"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regarding Social Security gun ban, patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific powers to establish either Social Security (SS), SS based on stolen state powers, or to make laws regulating non-military related, peacetime firearms.

The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had put it this way about the fed's constitutionally limited powers.

"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.)

A previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had also clarified the feds's constitutionally limited powers.

”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.

So although Mayor Buttigieg’s heart is arguably in the right place, he is unthinking trying to unconstitutionally expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers with unconstitutional campaign promises.

What Buttigieg really needs to do is to run for governor and use that office to establish state social security with 10th Amendment-protected state powers as the Founding States had intended for the states to do.

Bingham had put it this way about unique state powers to care for the people.

”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)

Justice Brandeis had reflected on Bingham’s clarification as follows.

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” — Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.

Note that the constitutional limit on states as laboratories of democracy is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government.

But in order to find new state revenues to experiment with his state’s social security program, Buttigieg will first need to support PDJT in leading the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.



And to make his state’s new revenues permanent, he also needs to support PDJT in leading the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.

Remember in November 2020!

MAGA!

[richardtavor]

Come and get ‘em, butt boy.

[Paladin2]

Though I’m eligible, I’m not on the take yet.

I view Hussein as a credible threat to Life and Liberty.

He would be well advised to approach my front door with caution.

[Bob434]

[[The big point was if you were declared disabled and someone else had financial responsibility for you, Obama considered you too disabled to have a gun and you were put on the prohibited list.]]

Ah- that’s definitely unconstitutional- there are folks who are mentally deficient, and can’t take care of finances well, but are perfectly fine being able to hunt- target shoot etc- There are also folks who are just financially irresponsible who need help with their finances, but are fine to own guns-

I can’t believe the Supreme court let that law stand?

[Rusty0604]

I’ve known a lot of people that work and get a pay check that can’t manage their finances very well. Would they be next?

[palmer]

The Obama SS ban: "requiring Social Security to search its records and report people receiving disability benefits or supplemental income payments and who had someone else managing their finances, deeming them “mental defectives” who shouldn’t be able to buy firearms."

[jospehm20]

Buttplugs should go ESAD.

[RFEngineer]

Neither the gun ban nor social security is constitutional

[rktman]

See post 32 of this thread.

[Bob434]

Thanks Frank- I assumed it was anyone on SS-

“Adjudicated as a mental defective means people who — “as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” — lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, or are a danger to themselves or someone else. It also includes people found insane by a court in a criminal case, or found incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.”

(From the site you linked to)

We had those laws already really- only it was never the responsibility of the SS administration to ‘turn people in’- obama’s law however gave the power of the SS to do so- That is despicable- many many people no doubt got swept up who didn’t deserve to be- who were perfectly capable of owning and using guns without being a danger to anyone

Yeah- that red flag law is also despicable- anyone can call the police and say “so and so threatened me, and they have a gun in their house’ now- and the person becomes a felon, or at least has their guns confiscated with no due process- when no crime is committed-

[Travis McGee]

Peto Buttplug.

[ealgeone]

The urban areas will.

[Teacher317]

Didn’t the GOP just pass HR8, opposed by the NRA, expanding background checks? The Dems opposed it, because it included a rider that requires ICE to be notified when an illegal is applying. HR8 passed 220-209, with 26 Dems crossing over to help get it passed.

[alabama_heart]

You beat me to it! I was just thinking he will fly like a lead zeppelin in the south...he’s a homo that wants to take your guns.

[SkyDancer]

Just back from Sportsman on the web; ordered up 500rds of CCI mini-mags and 500rds of .22magnum, shipped to the house for $120 - just love to read the restrictive regs from other states about receiving ammo to your house - have to have all sorts of certs.

[Olog-hai]

Probably does what the first two letters describe, already.

[JBW1949]

It sure fooled me that time...:o)

[Soul of the South]

“If so, there is absolutely no way that is constitutional”

Unfortunately in today’s world “constitutional” is whatever 5 Supreme Court justices determine is constitutional. The actual meaning of the words is irrelevant.

[Don W]

Rather than taking joy in the unconstitutional restrictions placed on others, why not at least offer moral support to your fellow FReepers in getting those laws removed, altered or changed?

Gloating doesn’t help anyone.