Dems pushing new Federal firearms license via Dept of Justice

[Bob A]

You want a gun? In the unlikely event that this passes, firearms purchase will only be possible thru the Feds.

From the article:
The Attorney General would be able to deny a firearms license if they determined that the prospective gun owner “poses a significant danger of bodily injury to self or others” by owning a firearm.

The federal government could deny Americans gun rights if they’ve ever been arrested or have a history of drug or alcohol use. They can even be denied for the “unsafe storage or handling of firearms.”

Furthermore, some could be denied a firearm because of a “recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition or other deadly weapons.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/red-...t-firearm-owners-forever-require-doj-license/

 

[welder516]

The Feds will F things up and be subject to the kings that are in power, look no further than the guy named Merrick and you will get a vision into the future.

 

[Inigoes]

The feds already do that with the 4473.

 

[AssMan]

Congress needs to convene once every 4 years to address serious issues at hand. We don't need a full-time ruling class working on legislation 24/7/365.

 

[Chauchat]

I have read the text several times. Does not apply to citizens of the fifty united States unless a person is stupid enough to buy from some type of FFL or is in the District, possessions or territories, or inside the fences of forts or airplane patches, etc., per the Constitution.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Fifty shades of infringement.

 

[Bob A]

The feds already do that with the 4473.

Didn't know they could arbitrarily deny purchase because you have too many guns. Keep the Attorney General in the loop about your purchases and sales; keep your nose clean or they'll take your license and your guns. Since they can pull your license if they wish, it's a short step from there to cancelling everybody's license. Then you get to turn in your guns, just like in Hitler's Germany.

If they really don't like you, they'll shoot you in the street as you carry your weapons to the police station. Just like they did in Germany.

Nothing Hitler did was done outside the scope of German law. Unlike the USA, where they make it up as they go along. Ask MSP if you don't believe me.

Anyway, here's the text of the bill - it's only 11 pages:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-dc23-d6b4-a7e5-fcebd8760000

 

[Chauchat]

YAWN. Does not apply to citizens of the fifty united States.


and excerpt from the fish wrapper :

15 (d) STATE LICENSES.—
16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall not
17 apply to an individual in a State if the Attorney
18 General determines that the State has a process for
19 issuing a State firearm license to eligible individuals
20 in the State with substantially similar requirements
21 to those described in subsection (b).


This bill, when it is assigned a number, WILL amend Title 18, chapter 44, if, meh, passed.

Title 18 Chapter 44 states this:

§921. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
...

(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).


This is the true jurisdictional and constitutional application of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This how you should read the GCA per 921a

15 (d) District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States LICENSES.—

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall not
17 apply to an individual in a District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States if the Attorney
18 General determines that the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States has a process for
19 issuing a District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States firearm license to eligible individuals
20 in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States with substantially similar requirements
21 to those described in subsection (b).

How can you write that, Chauchat? Are you mad?

I can write it very easily, thank you, and, no, I am not mad. It is easy because of the supremacy clause of the law of the land which states without any ambiguity the congress has exclusive legislative authority where is has been given and no where else.

Section 8

The Congress shall have the power

'''
17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

And just to drive the nail home in case of any weaseling on the part of corrupt men the Bill of Rights was submitted to the States to further guarantee our rights and liberties. Read the preamble to the Bill here.

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

...

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Of course that leaves the people to the corruptions of the fifty State legislatures. To which I say, break out the warm pine tar and feathers.

 

[Bob A]

Perhaps you may not have noticed the numerous laws passed that have been found blatantly unconstitutional. It only takes decades to get them overturned, and requires serious legal fees. Meanwhile those laws are defended by armies of government lawyers paid by the plaintiffs.

Of course many unconstitutional laws remain on the books.

Once the damage is done there's little hope of getting it undone in my lifetime. Once the guns have been legally seized it's unlikely they will be returned.

Still it's comforting to know that the legal profession will continue to prosper while its members in congress continue in their efforts to turn the law abiding into criminals while giving criminals a soft pass.

Sorry to have bored you. Government-paid attorney, perhaps?

 

[Sirex]

Hmm, that, the push for universal background checks, government buybacks, assault weapons bans, red flag laws, gun licensing schemes, it's almost like the want to infringe on the 2A.

 

[Chauchat]

Perhaps you may not have noticed the numerous laws passed that have been found blatantly unconstitutional. It only takes decades to get them overturned, and requires serious legal fees. Meanwhile those laws are defended by armies of government lawyers paid by the plaintiffs.

Of course many unconstitutional laws remain on the books.

Once the damage is done there's little hope of getting it undone in my lifetime. Once the guns have been legally seized it's unlikely they will be returned.

Still it's comforting to know that the legal profession will continue to prosper while its members in congress continue in their efforts to turn the law abiding into criminals while giving criminals a soft pass.

Sorry to have bored you. Government-paid attorney, perhaps?

I am not certain if you were replying to me but will comment as if you were.

Could you elaborate on which federal statutes were blatantly unconstitutional? Just a couple so I may research them.

And then which unconstitutional laws remain in effect? Again list a few so I may do a deep dive into them.

Best regards

 

[Chauchat]

Hmm, that, the push for universal background checks, government buybacks, assault weapons bans, red flag laws, gun licensing schemes, it's almost like the want to infringe on the 2A.

There are two spheres of jurisdiction. One congressional regarding the government (verb) of the Union and two, the sovereign jurisdiction of the fifty individual States.

So.

Universal background checks at the congressional level: Don't want a check? Don't buy from a FFL. Only applies where Congress has authority. You take their license, you are under their authority

Universal background in the several States: Some States have them. Some do not. Don't live in the States that do have them or buy outside of your State. If you do live in the bad States fight hard or live with it. Freedom is not free, cheap, or easy.

Government buybacks typically are not law. They are programs. Never participate in a program. Our fellow countrymen are using your tax dollars unwisely.

So called "assault weapons bans at the congressional level: Only applies where Congress has authority.

So called "assault weapons bans in the several States: Don't live in the States that do have them or move outside of your State. If you do live in the bad States fight hard or live with it. Freedom is not free, cheap, or easy.

The answer is nearly the same in any given situation. Is the topic congressional or does it belong to the States. The big exception is the recent proposed fire arm licensing bill from a couple days ago. That goes deeper. It goes to the Declaration and the reason Man creates governments. Citizens does not need a license for the tools to defend their inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.

Fight against the usurpers with all of your being no matter where it comes from.

 

[Chauchat]

Hmm, that, the push for universal background checks, government buybacks, assault weapons bans, red flag laws, gun licensing schemes, it's almost like the want to infringe on the 2A.

There are two spheres of jurisdiction. One congressional regarding the government (verb) of the Union and two, the sovereign jurisdiction of the fifty individual States.

So.

Universal background checks at the congressional level: Don't want a check? Don't buy from a FFL. Only applies where Congress has authority. You take their license, you are under their authority

Universal background in the several States: Some States have them. Some do not. Don't live in the States that do have them or buy outside of your State. If you do live in the bad States fight hard or live with it. Freedom is not free, cheap, or easy.

Government buybacks typically are not law. They are programs. Never participate in a program. Our fellow countrymen are using your tax dollars unwisely.

So called "assault weapons bans at the congressional level: Only applies where Congress has authority.

So called "assault weapons bans in the several States: Don't live in the States that do have them or move outside of your State. If you do live in the bad States fight hard or live with it. Freedom is not free, cheap, or easy.

The answer is nearly the same in any given situation. Is the topic congressional or does it belong to the States. The big exception is the recent proposed fire arm licensing bill from a couple days ago. That goes deeper. It goes to the Declaration and the reason Man creates governments. Citizens does not need a license for the tools to defend their inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.

Fight against the usurpers with all of your being no matter where it comes from.

 

[Sirex]

There are two spheres of jurisdiction. One congressional regarding the government (verb) of the Union and two, the sovereign jurisdiction of the fifty individual States.

So.

Universal background checks at the congressional level: Don't want a check? Don't buy from a FFL. Only applies where Congress has authority. You take their license, you are under their authority

Universal background in the several States: Some States have them. Some do not. Don't live in the States that do have them or buy outside of your State. If you do live in the bad States fight hard or live with it. Freedom is not free, cheap, or easy.

Government buybacks typically are not law. They are programs. Never participate in a program. Our fellow countrymen are using your tax dollars unwisely.

So called "assault weapons bans at the congressional level: Only applies where Congress has authority.

So called "assault weapons bans in the several States: Don't live in the States that do have them or move outside of your State. If you do live in the bad States fight hard or live with it. Freedom is not free, cheap, or easy.

The answer is nearly the same in any given situation. Is the topic congressional or does it belong to the States. The big exception is the recent proposed fire arm licensing bill from a couple days ago. That goes deeper. It goes to the Declaration and the reason Man creates governments. Citizens does not need a license for the tools to defend their inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.

Fight against the usurpers with all of your being no matter where it comes from.

I understand gun buybacks HAVE typically been local programs, but dems have been calling for them on a mandatory, federal level, on modern sporting weapons. As well as the call for a national assault weapons ban, similar to, if not more comprehensive than in 1994. Closing the "loopholes" they may have found. The dems have called for a national, universal background check system for all firearms transfers, potentially covering black powder arms as well.

 

[Chauchat]

They can call for a national "assault weapons" ban all they want. It still does not change the limited reach of the congress. One only has to go back to the '94 effort and read what the statute says and legally did.


Again, Ask yourselves a couple of questions. Who created the act? Congress. What did it do? It amended another act of the congress. What does the supreme law of the land say about the congress' reach? Extremely limited and specified.


The problem is everybody and their neighbor due to poor learning on their parts have been brainwashed into believing the congress can reach into our souls and dictate to free men of the fifty States what they can do or not do. The legislatures of the States are supposed to do that

Another thing is to stop using the legal terms of the enemy when discussing inalienable rights. When dumb people, present company excepted, say word such as "weapons" or "assault weapons" or any other nonsense I reply back using the word "arms". The conversation sometimes goes like this.

"So, Chauchat, how many assault weapons or modern sporting weapons do you have?" A curious fellow fire arms owner sometimes ask.

"I don't have any weapons but I do have a couple of arms."

"What do you mean by that, sir?"

"Because I have an inalienable right to bear arms. I do not have an inalienable right to bear weapons."

This keeps the conversation in the realm of rights and limited congressional government.