In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Gun Rights Push-Back - NOW, please

cat66hatcat66hat Member Posts: 70 ✭✭
Can we just cut to the chase on gun rights, please.

The 1934 NFA and all the rest are simply unconstitutional. The only reason NFA stands today is that the Defense did not show up for the Government's appeal hearing in the first test case.

Citizens of the United States of America need to demand legislation overturning all of the anti-gun laws from the 1930's until now. Anything else is just acknowledging the ability of the USG to ignore the Constitution.

Terry

Comments

  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,530 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Legislation will not do it.

    The 1934 NFA needs to be declared unconstitutional.

    This has been made next to impossible by the Heller and McDonald decisions.

    CATO and the SAF were working towards this, but were undercut by the NRA with its pushing for Due Process incorporation of the second.

    That traitorist act instantly made the NFA Constitutional.

    In short, Wayne and Co. sold us out again.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    cat66hatcat66hat Member Posts: 70 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I guess I am confused. Here, I was thinking that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land.

    NFA and all the rest are clearly in violation of the Constitution's 2A. Any SCOTUS decision is the current court's interpretation of the Constitution. There is more than one SCOTUS decision that supports the 2A, and they all are uniformly ignored. What makes the current court so important?

    Terry
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,530 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
    I guess I am confused. Here, I was thinking that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land.

    NFA and all the rest are clearly in violation of the Constitution's 2A. Any SCOTUS decision is the current court's interpretation of the Constitution. There is more than one SCOTUS decision that supports the 2A, and they all are uniformly ignored. What makes the current court so important?

    Terry


    McDonald was the first decisions to directly confirm that the 2nd Amendment was enforceable upon State and Local Governments. Heller , dealing with Washington D.C. applied only to the Federal Government. This is based upon the myth that lived for decades that the Bill of Rights was only to apply to the Federal Government. The wording of the B.O.R. dispels this myth, but none-the-less, the myth persisted until it was decided that they could be enforced upon the States through the Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, when the wording in Article 4, Section 2 is virtually identical to the Privileges and Immunities wording of the 14th, and the wording in Amendment 5 is virtually identical to the Due Process wording in the 14th.

    Why is this important? It is important because the creation of this method of selective application of the Bill of Rights allowed the Court to decide how those Rights applied to the People.

    Had the Court decided that the 2nd Amendment was simply a specific statement regarding the Privileges and Immunities of the individual with respect to firearms, the 1934 NFA could have been challenged. By deciding that the application of the 2nd upon the individual was regulated by Due Process (of law), it created a newly Constitutional power for Federal, State, and Local Governments to license and register firearms and individuals and to regulate through law which individuals are eligible and what type of firearms they are eligible to possess.

    Like it or not, these two recent decisions confirmed that the Power of the Government to infringe upon the RTKBA is in fact Constitutional. That is why there were/are important, IMO.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    cat66hatcat66hat Member Posts: 70 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    SCOTUS clearly got it wrong. The 2A was written in plain english to be easily understood by the public.

    If SCOTUS rules that the color blue will hereafter be called blish, that doesn't make it right, it just makes it harder to fix.

    My point is that SCOTUS has published opinions on 2A before this. The USG simply finds it inconvenient to acknowledge them.

    This HAS to be fixable, unless all of our freedoms are at the mercy of some unelected whores.

    Terry
  • Options
    Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,372 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
    SCOTUS clearly got it wrong. The 2A was written in plain english to be easily understood by the public.

    If SCOTUS rules that the color blue will hereafter be called blish, that doesn't make it right, it just makes it harder to fix.

    My point is that SCOTUS has published opinions on 2A before this. The USG simply finds it inconvenient to acknowledge them.

    This HAS to be fixable, unless all of our freedoms are at the mercy of some unelected whores.

    Terry
    Their will is being tested in CA, to some extent, regarding prop 8.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,530 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
    SCOTUS clearly got it wrong. The 2A was written in plain english to be easily understood by the public.

    If SCOTUS rules that the color blue will hereafter be called blish, that doesn't make it right, it just makes it harder to fix.

    My point is that SCOTUS has published opinions on 2A before this. The USG simply finds it inconvenient to acknowledge them.

    This HAS to be fixable, unless all of our freedoms are at the mercy of some unelected whores.

    Terry


    It is fixable if we can remove politics from the court, ensure that jurists are bound by the actual words of the Constitution (not original intent or precedent), and insist that our Presidents ignore ideology and stick to the above when making appointments.

    In short, it is not realistically fixable in today's America.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    cat66hatcat66hat Member Posts: 70 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hi Don,

    In other words, we're screwed.

    OK, if that's the way it has to be, better in my time than my Grandchildren's. Bring it on Barry.

    Terry
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,530 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
    Hi Don,

    In other words, we're screwed.

    OK, if that's the way it has to be, better in my time than my Grandchildren's. Bring it on Barry.

    Terry


    I agree with the sentiment, Terry, though I always believe there is hope.

    SCOTUS is sea anchor to change, however, and re-setting it with pro-Constitutional activist justices will be necessary in order to effect the change in attitude that is required.

    Nullification by the individual states is a possibility, and we were very close in Missouri (link below). A couple of GOP Party Hacks got cold feet, however, and sided with big government (no doubt under pressure from the GOP National Committee) over the individual, so we do not have a viable Constitutional challenge in the works at the moment.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/12/missouri-measure-nullifying-federal-gun-laws-fails-in-state-senate/

    This one had legs, it seemed, and was going to again force the issue of the 2nd Amendment through what would eventually be a 9th and 10th Amendment challenge to these obviously non-delegated Federal Powers. We had a similar law that was introduced in my state last year, but, IIRC, it died in committee.

    My belief is that these State Challenges to Federal Powers are our next best option in attempting to correct the failings of the Roberts Court. Sadly, many state legislators are looking towards D.C. as their future, and will not be terribly inclined to go against the will of the national parties.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
Sign In or Register to comment.