Skip to comments.Fox: Obama to impose gun control through federal agencies he controls
Posted on 01/28/2013 11:16:53 AM PST by pabianice
Per Fox, Obama knows he will not get gun control through Congress so he is preparing to order federal agencies to require private citizens to obey his gun control measures as a prerequisite for the public to do business with the government.
Got a link for that or at least a reference to which show you saw it on?
Own a gun?? = NO Obamacare
Not an Obamacare “member?? = GO TO JAIL
Felony arrest for NOT having Obamacare = NO GUNS ANYMORE FOR YOU!!
This is actually an executive order. I am sure he thinks he can circumvent the Constitution.
Please. someone stop him!
He is welcome to try to stop me from exercising my rights.
Even the traitor John Roberts understood this much...Obamacare also claims to cut off money from whichever states refuse to expand Medicaid under the “law” and that is not constitutional under the seperation of powers. Even the libs agreed. You can’t threaten coercively and punitively in order to exercise a power you don’t have.
I would think this would be similar. Either federal agencies have the power under the constitution to threaten and coerce people into obeying Obama’s gun rules by threatening them in some other area of normal interaction, or they don’t.
This is called being a Dick-tator.
So we just stop doing business with the “Government.”
Since I will not comply with any gun control measures, does this mean the IRS will not be doing any more business with me?
1. Not doing business with the Government will be a felony.
2. If you want to do business with the Government, you will give up your weapons.
Barry is going further than that. Sat our next door neighbor was at the Gwinnett County gunshow with a friend. The friend was in the process of buying a gun through a private sale when a Fed came up and told him he had to get a background check. The friend told the Fed that the law does not require a background check for private sales and basically to get lost. One thing led to another and a gwinnett county cop was called over. He told the Fed to take a hike.
But the point is the ATF is sending agents out to try to coerce the public into complying with things that are not required by law.
ATF goons are regularly at gun shows. I’ve seen more than my fair share of them. They’re bullies. They’ve sown plenty of misinformation.
“ATF goons are regularly at gun shows”
Yes last year my fiancee’ was waiting to pull into the Gwinnett Gun show parking lot when he spied a black Suburban with cameras mounted on each side going down the rows of parked cars taking pics of everyone’s license plates. He left immediately.
Buddy of mine is a city cop and says they do that to trap straw buyers and illegal sales. They’ll find a car associated to a known felon and take the booking photo inside to find the person in the exhibition hall. If they find him/her, they’ll follow them around until they try to make a purchase or even just pick up a weapon. Then, instead of charging that felon with illegal activity, they’ll shut down the dealer’s booth for “aiding and abetting.”
I’ve seen it happen a few times, but I never understood what was going on until after I heard about that tactic.
There is a legal concept called “unconstitutional conditions.” The Supreme Court cases on this have involved the use of highways, telegraph companies and permitting of property use. These have been cases where the state has imposed permit conditions that required the surrender of a constitutionally protected right
“In Southern Pacific Co. V. Denton, 146 U.S. 202, 207, 13 S. Ct. 44, there was under consideration a Texas statute requiring a foreign corporation desiring to do business in the state to agree that it would not remove any suit from a court of the state into the Circuit Court of the United States. This court held the statute invalid, saying:
‘But that statute, requiring the corporation, as a condition precedent to obtaining a permit to do business within the state, to surrender a right and privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of the United States, was unconstitutional and void, and could give no validity or effect to any agreement or action of the Corporation in obedience to its provisions.’
See also: Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 1, 34-48, 30 S. Ct. 190; Frost v. Railroad Commission of State of California, 271 U.S. 583 (1926,); Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 56 (30 S. Ct. 232); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105, 114 (38 S. Ct. 438, 1 A. L. R. 1278).’
There is also the concept of “essential nexus.”
In Dolan v. City of Tigard, No. 93-518 (1994), Chief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the Court, further developed the rationale of Nolan in examining the proportionate balance of the regulatory conditions imposed upon use with the severity of the danger or injury the regulations were intended to ameliorate or eliminate:
... “Under the well-settled doctrine of ‘unconstitutional conditions’, the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right-here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use-in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972); Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968).”
Whenever a Fed tries coercion like that, the incident needs to be recorded by a dozen Iphone holders. If the govag tries to arrest them, he won’t get them all & it will go viral el muy quicko. Shot heard round the world sort of thing.
The “anti-eavesdropping laws” need to be researched & clarified. By the way, that local cop did exactly the right thing. What was the Fed going to say, “Hey, back off or I’ll arrest you”?
Well that and they are collecting a database of names and addresses in case they decide to start confiscating.
Who in their right mind would want to do business with this crony government ?
Sen. John F. Kennedy’s statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960): “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
Sen. Hubert Humphrey’s statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4 (1960): “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
They’ve got mine in multiple agency databases. I’m not secretive about my weaponry, and I am trained and willing to use it against criminals or agents of any agency who infringe on my God-given right to defend myself, my family, and my property.
he is going to have a real challenge find business partners under that scenario.
Moronic nonsense, only too typical of our ignorant and benighted excuse for a president, and will be declared unconstitutional and invalidated at the first legal test.
So can we expect “speech control” next?
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.