dems introduce HR7115 to ban parts kits,80%lowers

So whereas there are some writings with the professed argument that concealed means up to no good, no such limitation or opinion is expressed or implied by the Amendment ratified that restricts government power to limit the keeping or bearing of Arms.
You are absolutely correct about the language of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the courts see the totality of the law differently. If you wish to engage in open civil disobedience in an attempt to change the legal landscape, I will happily contribute to your legal defense.
 
Last edited:
With out control of the Senate and Trump as President, the Dems can't do anything, they do not have a veto majority.

I can see this getting passed in some states, though.
MA, CA, MD, NY, NJ, CT, RI,
They'd all ban all guns to protect the corrupt and criminals of they could.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Looks like they have been planning this stuff for awhile. I would bet there are many more proposals simmering in the pot waiting to be served.
No doubt this was pulled out of the desk drawer after having been previously drafted for just the right occasion.
 
Last edited:
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they wish to test in the now-Conservative majority Supreme Court?

A Supreme Court, by the way, which finally incorporated the Second Amendment against the States back in, what...2010?
Yet NY still arrests and prosecutes anyone they catch that is lawfully leaving through the state, under federal law, with anything deemed to violate NY law. And NY law considers a gun to be loaded even if the gun is unloaded, in a locked case, asks the ammo is in another storage locked case, but in the trunk of the same car because the car is then considered to the the same container.
DC, and others, still consider an empty, silent case, to be illegal possession of ammunition without a permit.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
It obvious to me that if nothing else, it's useful to them as a symbolic rhetorical instrument.

"Well, we'd love to legislate all the gun violence in the US away, but those darn assault rifle clutching Republican textualists just love seeing news stories about our children being slaughtered. We tried though!"
How many times did Republicans vote to repeal Obamacare when they knew it wouldn't pass? Then when they knew it would pass, they did nothing?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
You are absolutely correct about the language of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the courts see the totality of the law differently. If you wish to engage in open civil disobedience in an attempt to change the legal landscape, I will happily contribute to your legal defense.

Well the State will always State. It is it's nature.

As generous as your offer is, if it becomes necessary to be openly defiant towards the State as it relates to firearms, I would much rather prefer the company of like-minded men and women, shoulder to shoulder, ready to face down Tyranny together.

"Well, we must all hang together now, else we shall all hang separately...."
 
Well the State will always State. It is it's nature.

As generous as your offer is, if it becomes necessary to be openly defiant towards the State as it relates to firearms, I would much rather prefer the company of like-minded men and women, shoulder to shoulder, ready to face down Tyranny together.

"Well, we must all hang together now, else we shall all hang separately...."
You can count me in brother.

Terry
 
How many times did Republicans vote to repeal Obamacare when they knew it wouldn't pass? Then when they knew it would pass, they did nothing?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

At least one too many times...
Politically, we're right back on the same square we were on where no one understands why Trump ended up in office. Both parties are headed back towards the same old comfortable status quo, and they'll hang out there until it's time to sample the prevailing rhetorical sentiment for the 2020 election.
 
Why Judges are Incapable of Ruling on the Second Amendment
What they really need to do is challenge the constitutionality of any court using these laws to decide anything. The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, and the Supreme Gun Law is the Second Amendment. Any law that in any way “infringes,” or touches the absolute outside edge, (that’s what the fringe is) of the right to own and carry firearms, is unconstitutional. Since each of these laws, from 1934 to 1986, all blatantly infringe on the Second Amendment, they are unconstitutional, and being inferior in standing to the Second Amendment are rendered moot by it.

The real problem is why any court feels they can decide whether any law is constitutional or not. That is called “judicial review,” and it was specifically left out of Article 3 of the Constitution, which governs the federal courts particularly the Supreme Court. Judicial review is unconstitutional, because it is a usurped not a delegated power, and because it allows the judiciary to interpret, rule on, or effectively overrule the Constitution. That is why such power was never delegated by the states, to the federal government, when they ratified the Constitution. This is why it is the states, Congress, and the people directly through jury nullification and through representation, who can rule on the constitutionality of federal laws. Having usurped judicial review, the courts have also ruled out any challenge to that authority. So until the judiciary is stopped, they are going to continue to use, and abuse, this assumed power. No part of the government can self validate their own authority without any challenge, because there is no check or balance, which is why no such authority exists. No judicial review authority over state law exists either. Therefore, any court basing their opinion on laws they have decided are constitutional through judicial review is illegal, if those laws conflict with the Constitution.


https://canadafreepress.com/article/why-judges-are-incapable-of-ruling-on-the-second-amendment
 

Thanks for posting the best possible resource about this case.

I understand that the plaintiffs' lawyers wanted to make a case before the Supreme Court, but I also understand why a District Court judge would dismiss a decade-old case about getting a CCW license after the primary plaintiff received his CCW license eight years ago. I could not readily tell what happened with the secondary plaintiff, but her request for "not only a CCW, but also an Honorary Deputy Sheriff badge and credential" was intriguing.
 
To prohibit the sale, acquisition, distribution in commerce, or import into the United States of certain firearm receiver castings or blanks, assault weapon parts kits, and machine gun parts kits and the marketing or advertising of such castings or blanks and kits on any medium of electronic communications, to require homemade firearms to have serial numbers, and for other purposes.

IMG_4545.JPG
 
The real problem is why any court feels they can decide whether any law is constitutional or not. That is called “judicial review,” and it was specifically left out of Article 3 of the Constitution, which governs the federal courts particularly the Supreme Court. Judicial review is unconstitutional, because it is a usurped not a delegated power, and because it allows the judiciary to interpret, rule on, or effectively overrule the Constitution. That is why such power was never delegated by the states, to the federal government, when they ratified the Constitution. This is why it is the states, Congress, and the people directly through jury nullification and through representation, who can rule on the constitutionality of federal laws. Having usurped judicial review, the courts have also ruled out any challenge to that authority. So until the judiciary is stopped, they are going to continue to use, and abuse, this assumed power. No part of the government can self validate their own authority without any challenge, because there is no check or balance, which is why no such authority exists. No judicial review authority over state law exists either. Therefore, any court basing their opinion on laws they have decided are constitutional through judicial review is illegal, if those laws conflict with the Constitution.

Congress has plenary, or full and complete, power over the lower federal courts.
Article III, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Congress can decide whether the Supreme Court can hear appeals from lower federal courts.
Article III, Section 2
2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868), Congress repealed the Supreme Court's authority to hear the case when it looked like the court might void or limit the underlying law.
 
Last edited:
Looks like they have been planning this stuff for awhile. I would bet there are many more proposals simmering in the pot waiting to be served.
That's one thing I actually really like about Dems. Once they get power back they already have their agenda ready to be implemented. What did the Repubs have ready to go once Trump won the WH? Absolutely nothing except to vote against Obama care for the 100th time but had nothing worked up to replace it with. They weren't even all behind that.
 
It's all about the balance of power. All the branches of government we're designed to keep each other in check. This is an underlying principal throughout. But, should even this fail, the final balance point is between the government and the people, between those governing and those being governed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If we are granted the right to oppose the government, then the government is not permitted to remove the capacity to do so.
 
It's all about the balance of power. All the branches of government we're designed to keep each other in check. This is an underlying principal throughout. But, should even this fail, the final balance point is between the government and the people, between those governing and those being governed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If we are granted the right to oppose the government, then the government is not permitted to remove the capacity to do so.

We are granted that Right by Almighty God, not the government, nor by any other temporal authority on this Earth.

It is Our Natural Right, unalienable from our person.
 
So whereas there are some writings with the professed argument that concealed means up to no good, no such limitation or opinion is expressed or implied by the Amendment ratified that restricts government power to limit the keeping or bearing of Arms.

You are absolutely correct about the language of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the courts see the totality of the law differently. If you wish to engage in open civil disobedience in an attempt to change the legal landscape...

It's really not about "changing" the legal landscape as much as it is exercising liberty that's rightfully yours, despite the legal landscape.

It's a peaceable, conscientious choice to be a free citizen in the face of "You may not" or "You may not without our approval and/or permission"...No; I can and I will because it is my birthright, with both "birth" and "right" being equally important operative terms within one word.

Birth, by virtue of the fact one is born an American citizen. Those rights become yours the second you take your first breath as an American...no waiting period, no approval process, no stamped documents; yours...immediately.

Which leads to the second part of the word...

Right; which requires no 'vetting' process, background checks, dues, fees, special use taxes or permission slips. The minute any of those requirements are attached to a right, it ceases to be a right. It has now morphed into a privilege, granted by a bestowing body to those fortunate enough meeting all the requirements to exercise the privilege, should the privilege be approved and issued.
 
Last edited:
It's really not about "changing" the legal landscape as much as it is exercising liberty that's rightfully yours, despite the legal landscape.

It's a peaceable, conscientious choice to be a free citizen in the face of "You may not" or "You may not without our approval and/or permission"...No; I can and I will because it is my birthright, with both "birth" and "right" being equally important operative terms within one word.
Which is why if you do go into one of these People’s Republics armed, you had better be willing to fight like the proverbial third monkey with a hurricane coming in. You will never receive justice from the “courts” in these areas any more then you would in the People's Republic of China.

This is what makes the practices in some of those areas so damned scary, such as illicit demands to or just outright searching by force under duress of people who drive through with their personal tags that show them having a carry permit. It also lays bear the falsehood of any argument that the cops will side with the people when it comes to right and wrong. Comply with their stupid laws and disarm yourself only to get one of their Stasi to light you up along the road and find that empty casing from your last range trip that fell out of the bag.
 
Last edited:
Yet NY still arrests and prosecutes anyone they catch that is lawfully leaving through the state, under federal law, with anything deemed to violate NY law. And NY law considers a gun to be loaded even if the gun is unloaded, in a locked case, asks the ammo is in another storage locked case, but in the trunk of the same car because the car is then considered to the the same container.
DC, and others, still consider an empty, silent case, to be illegal possession of ammunition without a permit.

Of COURSE New York still arrests and prosecutes people as you say.

As someone else posted, the State will State.

We CANNOT expect the State to act counter to the natural behavior of the State. This is why our battles for freedom, liberty, and rights is, has been, and ever shall be ongoing. We cannot stop...because the State cannot stop.
 
As someone else posted, the State will State.

We CANNOT expect the State to act counter to the natural behavior of the State. This is why our battles for freedom, liberty, and rights is, has been, and ever shall be ongoing. We cannot stop...because the State cannot stop.
Albert Nock: Our Enemy, The State

He praises the Articles of Confederation as the closest model of American freedom. And he blasts the men who hammered out the Constitution as nothing but usurpers engaged in a coup d'etat. Far from heralding the drafters, he exposes them as public creditors, land speculators, money lenders, and industrialists looking for privilege. They tossed out the Articles and used unscrupulous methods to ram the Constitution down the public's throat.

It was in this stage of American history, Nock says, that the state was unleashed. Next came the party system, and the dynamics of statism that causes "every intervention by the State" to enable another so that "the State stands ever ready and eager to make" interventions through deceit and lies.
Downloadable here: https://mises.org/library/our-enemy-state-2
 
How many times did Republicans vote to repeal Obamacare when they knew it wouldn't pass? Then when they knew it would pass, they did nothing?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Just one example why I hate them. Every time they call here for money I tell them that I am NOT a Republican!!!! I belong to the party of TRUMP and until they start moving his agenda through, they get 0 from me . 0!
 
Back
Top Bottom