Here is Your 'Guidance to Help You Understand' if You Have the Right to Buy and Sell Firearms

Townhall.com ^ | January 5, 2016 | Justin Holcomb

[MeganC]

Inspired by my President I will be ignoring these rules and regulations.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Or you can just ignore this BS and do as you please since a federal judge will be striking it down soon.

[Uncle Miltie]

I’ve got a pen and a phone.

So I can buy and sell.

[sargon]

Or you can just ignore this BS and do as you please since a federal judge will be striking it down soon.

I really want to believe that.

What if it doesn't happen?

What if, instead, it is upheld, emboldening unelected bureaucrats to foment Tyranny upon private individuals?

[GunPkrBkr]

GFY, you facist, commmie scumbags! NO WAY NO HOW AM I GOING TO FOLLOW THESE “RULES”! UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

So, would it be legal to give a gun as a gift but then to sell another item to the same person? Can you gift the gun but sell the accessories?

[Kaslin]

Right on

[Chode]

feh...

[cableguymn]

or, buy this 500 dollar Pen and i’ll give you the gun.

[556x45]

There’s a solution for that too.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yes. Seems an obvious legal loophole.

[yoe]

Other than Chicago, look at what is killing our young...Mexico is sending in Billions of $$$$s worth of drugs...not guns....Obama thinks the nation is like Chicago.

[Carthego delenda est]

Worth repeating.

“For we as Americans to waste any time in complaining and chasing the delusive phantom of hope that things will soon be better is complete and utter folly.”

[ealgeone]

Nice!

[Renegade]

Barter

[Last Dakotan]

...Mexico is sending in Billions millions of $$$$s voters.

Make sense now?

[Amendment10]

Yes, when buyer and seller are domiciled in different states or countries, the corrupt feds have the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause (1.8.3) to regulate such commerce.

H O W E V E R . . .

Regardless what FDRs state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce, which reasonably includes gun sales.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

But what is even worse than the feds breaching their constitutional prohibition on regulating intrastate commerce is this imo. The Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected government bureaucrats like those running the ATF or the EPA. So Congress has a constitutional ”monopoly” on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not imo.

But by not stopping the ATF from stealing legislative branch powers to make federal regulations that intrastate merchants have to comply with, Congress is wrongly protecting such powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 referenced above imo.

Remember in November !

When patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect as president, they also need to do this. They need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the new president, while prohibiting the corrupt executive and judicial branches, along with Constitution-ignoring federal bureaucrats, from stealing legislative branch powers.

Also consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

[bunkerhill7]

There were no gun seller licenses until 1968. That meant for 193 years it was ok. Then a president get shot and the govt does this. But other presidents were shot [Garfield] etc and nothing happened to our guns.

So the whole gun law licensing is unconstitutional by practised precedent and the Second Amendment, in writing and in practice.

You could buy 22 rifle in 1957 from an unlicensed gun dealer, an ARMY store, a local HARDWARE store- you could also buy dynamite for blowin up them pesky tree stumps...
There was no limit on age, weapon, open carry, nuthin-

SO YOU CAN readily SEE that the whole laws on guns are TOTALLY Unconstitutional PERIOD> In 1957 You could carry your new-bought rifle right down main street and nobody would bat an eye coz EVERYONE DID IT THAT WAY>.

This is what is meant by INFRINGEMENT “THE GRADUAL ENCROACHMENT” OVER THE YEARS UPON THE SECOND AMENDMENT, LIKE A WHITTLER REDUCING A BLOCK OF WOOD, A LITTLE BIT AT A TIME, TO SAWDUST TIL NOTHING IS LEFT>

That why we completely ignore all these stupid gun laws up here.

We done been stockin up since WW2 just for the kinda crap.

[James R. McClure Jr.]

Peace, Kaslin,

Any executive order which seeks to act as law is unconstitutional, violating Article 1, Section 1. The federal government has no constitutional authority to interfere in intra-State commerce. Unconstitutional acts do not need to be obeyed. The States must nullify such unconstitutional actions under the Tenth Amendment.

James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian, Anti-Federalist Democrat candidate for IN09