Posted on 01/30/2021 8:45:52 AM PST by delta7
“Here we have it. They are going after EVERYONE who has a gun or ammunition. They are deeply concerned about a revolution and they want to know every person who has a gun or ammunition. The object of this bill will be to identify every person who has a gun. They will be able to revoke a license and confiscate the gun under rules to be created by the Attorney General. Biden swore he would end the NRA. He was not joking. Like a diverse license, once they create this federal license, they effectively limit the Second Amendment claiming if you obey all their regulations which they can change at any time, then you have that right. But all such rights are eliminated whenever they say so. 922(dd)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater. Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(1) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both ‘‘(B) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(2) shall be fined not less than $10,000 and not more than $25,000, imprisoned not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years, or both.’’
(Excerpt) Read more at armstrongeconomics.com ...
I’ve always stated that this was one of the hills I die on. Slaves can’t own weapons. I’m not a slave.
We had better decide to fight like the third monkey trying to get on the Ark. He didn’t have anything to lose, and soon neither will we.
More specifically, pro-2A patriots need to consider a major constitutional oversight on their part as a consequence their 2A tunnel vision (imo) in the context of the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.
The first thing that patriots need to do whenever they hear about any action of the federal government, the introduction of a new bill in this example, is to find where in the Constitution the states have expressly given the feds the specific power to justify that action.
This is because if no clause is found in Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, or elsewhere in the Constitution, to justify the action, then the lawmakers who introduced the bill are in contempt of the Constitution imo and need to be removed from office for rebellion against the Constitution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment imo.
”14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
”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.
Regarding our express constitutional right to bear arms, it would arguably have been a better idea if the early states had included that express protection in the 1st Amendment's list of powers prohibited to Congress imo.
H O W E V E R…
Constitutional Convention delegates had previously given Congress the express power to arm the militia, evidenced by several clauses in Section 8 of Article I.
From the Constitution's Article I, Section 8:
"Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming [emphasis added], and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Again, the states couldn't easily amend the Constitution to include the right to bear arms in the 1st Amendment's list of powers prohibited to Congress since the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had already given Congress such powers.
Next, and hypothetically speaking, let's take away 2A just to see what happens. Doing so would mean that we would have no constitutionally enumerated right to bear arms, right?
W R O N G !!!
Regardless of Congress's constitutionally express powers to raise an army, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to restrict peacetime use of firearms.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the 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.)
This means that the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, Democratic-controlled Congress still has no express constitutional power to make laws restricting the peacetime use of firearms.
But if you don't believe Bingham and me, then maybe you'll believe the 19th century Supreme Court about the right to use firearms to defend oneself.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress [!!! emphasis added]. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States." —UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.
Again, evidenced by clarifications of the respective scopes of federal and state government powers by Bingham and the Court, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the express power to make peacetime laws that take away our guns and ammo — even if 2A was repealed!
Here again is excerpt from United States v. Butler for emphasis.
”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.
With respect to unconstitutional attempts by renegade federal and state government leaders to prohibit citizens from policing themselves with firearms, the great irony about the feds and our 2A protections is this. The congressional record also shows that Bingham had included that amendment when he read the Bill of Rights as main examples of constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities that 14A a applies to the states.
John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See 2nd Amendment (Article II) about in middle of 2nd column.)
In other words, the only power that Congress now has to make 2A-related laws is to use its 14A power to STRENGTHEN 2A protections from unreasonable infringement by the states. The Supreme Court had put it this way in general in Minor v. Happersett.
“3. 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.
So why is the federal government now making peacetime laws that restrict the use of firearms?
It is disturbing that federal civil gun regulations 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.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
The bottom line is that patriots need to start making sure that Section 3 of 14A is used to give the boot to rebellious federal and state lawmakers when federal lawmakers refuse to make law to strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights, especially 2A, from infringement by state lawmakers.
As a side note to this post, consider that former Arizona federal Representative John Shadegg had proposed an Enumerated Powers Act which would have obligated Congress to justify every bill with its constitutionally enumerated powers. But the last that I heard is the bill unsurprisingly wound up in the circular file.
In fact, Congress's canning of the Enumerated Powers Act is arguably another act of rebellion against the federal government's constitutionally limited powers that deserves the Section 3 of 14A penalty imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Will they outlaw 3D printers and drill presses? An insightful man once said, “If you’re not even willing to break a law, do you think you’re ready for war?”
It will be a self fulfilling prophecy... gun owners are evil because they are fighting common sense gun laws... we will be fighting alone.
There is no way to count the number of privately owned firearms in the USA.
I sold all my guns to a guy named Hunter Biden for $1.00.
He seemed honest.
Several years ago a family member (a cop) and I were talking about this kind of thing. I asked him how many cops would go along with confiscation, and he said lots of city cops would, and that lots of cops and lots of citizens would die if the government did try confiscation. This thread got me thinking: This is EXACTLY what the left want! The left want dead cops and dead citizens, two groups they utterly despise; and they see it as the answer to their problem initiating totalitarian control.
Also the .55 caliber Boys anti-tank rifle, for those lucky enough to own one. Probably have to handload for that anyway; I don’t remember ever seeing those rounds on the shelf at Cabela’s.
Do not shoot the tank.
Shoot the person that voted to send the tank.
Over half of NC counties are 2nd amendment sanctuary counties. There are a few state’s that are declared gun sanctuary states.
Not sure how much protection that provides from feds.
This could lead to a legal snafu for the Dems, bc if SCOTUS over turns it, it could in one fell swoop include automatic weapons.
There aren’t enough people in the country to effectively enforce this. At some point, law enforcement will just give up and go through the motions, because they are being given impossible tasks. Many won’t do it because they object. As P.J. O’Rourke said, even if the government could put a camera in every room in your house, at least half of them wouldn’t be working.
I think the Biden un-presidency is already starting to implode. It will be constipated (probably like ol’ Joe) by all the lawsuits.
Referencing a bill and passing that bill are two different things.
Evey year for 20 years, the scum democrats advance a bill to committee to outlaw handguns. It never passes.
Give it to them.Bullets first .
Gun grabbers will die
“You’ll change your mind on all those so-called rights when they come to your home to get your guns.”
What makes you think people will be waiting in their homes? What makes you think that gestapo gun-grabbers can even drive down the road unmolested to any home?
I can see them charging an outrageous tax on gunowners trying to force us to give them up, as opposed to confiscation.
The same way they will tax gas to force us to give up trucks/SUV’s.
Exactly. They hate gunowners and cops so it’s a perfect solution to get rid of both of us. Kind of like Cuomo used the virus to get rid of old people.
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.