The Federal Firearms Act

The Federal Observer ^ | 10 February 2003 | unknown

[45Auto]

Need Freeper Attorney(s) to interpret this.

[45Auto]

Why aren't more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so.

[coloradan]

Care to take a shot?

[The Shootist]

Hell's Bell's! Are you just noticing this?

The Federal Government can't regulate, food, tobacco, alcohol or marijuana either but it does.

[Grut]

1. The power to tax.

2. The power to regulate interstate commerce.

These two add up to unlimited federal power so long as the courts are willing to go along.

[Shooter 2.5]

Short answer:

Because we have never had a sufficient amount of Supreme Court Justices who know how to read on the eighth grade level, gun groups have refused to push the issue. Where the issue was a clear violation of our Rights, the Supreme Court, with it's liberal judges, have simply refused to hear the case.

Look for the libs, more than anyone, to try to push for a Second Amendment ruling. This may be their only chance with 5-4 odds to get a ruling that will doom gun owners forever.

[coloradan]

Actually I think the power to regulate alcohol is at least partially proper ... when Prohibition was repealed, the repealing amendment stated something about "shall be enforced by appropriate legislation." So the A in the ATF is Consitutional, by amendment. But the T and F in ATF are not legit, and everything in the DEA is not legit.

[sit-rep]

Check this one out...

SR

[agitator]

This is business as usual for the Federal Government and the only reason this crap gets over is that Americans have been asleep at the switch for too long. And if you think this is bad, take a look at what the states are doing. Does anybody here know what the difference is between a duly enacted "session law" and the "Revised Statutes" or "General Laws" or whatever they charge you with violating in one of the several states and what the requirement under state constitutions is for a law to be duly enacted? No? I thought so. Too bad for you, pay the clerk on the way out.

[groanup]

"This may be their only chance with 5-4 odds to get a ruling that will doom gun owners forever."

The founding fathers had a feeling that it would be difficult to "doom" a man with a gun.

[marktwain]

This is business as usual for the Federal Government and the only reason this crap gets over is that Americans have been asleep at the switch for too long.

If Americans have been asleep at the switch, its because the OldDominantLiberalMedia has been feeding them sleeping pills for 70 years. People can only make decisions based on what they know. If the OldDominantLiberalMedia were supportive of a constitutional government, instead of trying to create a socialist mediacracy, no judge would be able to get away with the rulings that they have, no legislature would be elected to do the unconstituional things they do.

[45Auto]

No, I've seen this crap for the last 40 years; the only thing that bothers me is that we, as a nation, don't seem to care a whit about Constitutional limitations on government; is it because we are all "on the take" from the public treasury? Or because we figure we all have an economic stake in the doomed Social Security pie? Or is it simply because we all lack the will to really have it out once again, like the Founders did? Maybe we all really believe that the "government" is some benign, fatherly despot that only wants to do things for "our own good"?

[Eala]

You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase "interstate or foreign commerce" [...] means only what Congress says it means and nothing more!

And the Constitution means only what the SCOTUS says it means, shadows and penumbras and all, and nothing more.

So this raises the question: Are we living in the nation bequeathed to us by the Founders, or in something else?

[Eala]

Replace "all" (clearly false) with "generally" (what I believe is true), and I think you have the answer.

[agitator]

It's not only the media's fault. I have patiently tried explaining this racket to people before and their eyes glaze over because they're intellectually lazy and don't recognize their duty as an American to pay attention to what is going on around them. Now that things are completely out of control, the courts and lawmakers have become players in the Theater of the Absurd and people wonder why.

[Jeff Head]

"Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void ..." - MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137

That's all I have to say.

Jeff

THE FIREARMS RESTORATION ACT

[Travis McGee]

Thanks Tim!

[Travis McGee]

Eventually all of this tortured legalese may be superceded by Rule 308 if the Constitution shredders go too far.

[Travis McGee]

#16: BINGO!

[Travis McGee]

bttt