Column: Maine should be known for exporting lobster, not guns

During my time as the U.S. Attorney for Maine, particularly during the Bush administration, prosecuting gun crimes — including gun trafficking — was a high priority. A loophole in Maine law allows dangerous people to buy guns from unlicensed sellers without a background check.

Since 1998, background checks performed by licensed Maine dealers have kept guns out of the hands of more than 5,500 people who are prohibited by law from them. And while it is true that background checks occur when ordering a gun from a licensed internet dealer as well as at brick-and-mortar gun shops, there are no background checks required for the thousands of unlicensed online and classified sales that occur in Maine each year.

As a result, people who can’t buy a gun from a licensed dealer because they are felons, domestic abusers, have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Services, who have been admitted to a mental institution or are otherwise prohibited from having a gun can buy one from an unlicensed seller through a private sale.

” A loophole in Maine law allows dangerous people to buy guns from unlicensed sellers without a background check.”

That “loophole” is known as liberty. People have the right to sell their own personal property...except guns, according to this totalitarian. The 2nd Amendment says,”...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”. That means something - and being required to go through a licensing or permitting process is a very definite infringement. Just going through a FFL transfer costs time and money, an infringement.

Screw all of these people, I am so k of them. Bad people WILL get weapons, but that is not justification to infringe on the rights of others. What’s next, prior restraint on all free speech because SOME people incite violence or revolution?

“Bad people WILL get weapons, but that is not justification to infringe on the rights of others.”

And it’s not limited to the 2A! Try, when you are in need of serious pain medications following a medical procedure. Just like gun owners, people in pain are treated like criminals for needing “Schedule 1” pain drugs ( Opiates and Opioids). You doctor can’t phone in a prescription. It has to go on special paper and be hand delivered. Then the mfers in the pharmacy have to “validate” the prescription by calling the doctor. But hey, some a$$hoie who wants to get high, has a tougher time doing it, and we get a whole effing bureaucracy setup with pensions, and all the acoutriments so life is good, right? Drugs or Guns, it’s all the same worthless $hit, and we have worthless turds like this attorney telling us just how “bad things are.”

As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.

Congress's military authority enumerated in the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I aside, there is no clear constitutional delegation of power by the states for the feds to regulate civilian-use firearms. It is therefore very important to point out that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that powers that the states have not expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds, the specific power to regulate civilian-use firearms in this example, 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, regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), state sovereignty-respecting justices had also previously clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.

”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.

So especially in this time of politically correct open borders, it remains that the feds have no express constitutional authority to make laws regulating the INTRAstate sales or use of civilian-use firearms imo.

So why are there federal laws that regulate civilian-use firearms?

It is disturbing that federal laws regulating civilian-use firearms don’t seem to have appeared in the books until the time of the FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at the time infamous for making laws which Congress could not justify under its Section 8-limited powers.

Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control

Remember in November !

Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs as evidenced by unconstitutional federal gun laws imo.

Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-gun control activist justices.

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.