The only person between us and them is
Posted on 02/27/2019 10:35:27 AM PST by C19fan
I love it when Democrats and fake news have orgasms over gun control.
Means squat without the Senate and Trump.
...vote reflects a confluence of events...
Another nothingburger that is going nowhere.
DJT said its a bad Bill & he will veto it.
Dem party:
Kill babies at birth.
Seize guns from non-violent people.
Take money from those who earn it and give it to those who vote dem.
Kill the elderly.
Turn people against people of a different ethnicity.
Destroy the cultural icons of this country.
I’ll never vote dem.
Democrats are rabidly anti gun. They are tyrants. No matter what they say they are for or against if you are stupid enough to vote for them they always only move to increase governments power over you.
If you vote dem at any level.....your either expecting something for your vote or your brain dead!
Why do they keep repeating the lie that “no background check is required on internet purchases”?
If I use the internet to buy a gun from a well-known NC or KY gun seller/reseller, for example, but I live in FL, I pay for the gun directly to the seller in the other state, but I cannot get the gun until he ships it to a FFL holder in my state and I go there and fill out the federal forms and the required state and Federal background checks are done. And passed. Period. No way around that.
Now if I use the internet as a communication medium, say, go onto a firearms enthusiast bulletin board, and purchase a gun from an individual in another state, the same is true—the seller has to go through an FFL holder in my state for me to do the background check and get the gun. And to ship a gun across state lines, common carriers (FedEx, UPS, USPS, etc.) won't ship it unless they have proof it's going to a licensed FFL holder, and not to an individual, and unless the shipper is an FFL holder himself, most of these won't even ship a handgun, only a long gun. I cannot travel to that state and obtain the gun, not legally, unless I have it shipped from that state to mine through an FFL holder in my state, and I go through the background check in my state.
Now if I use the internet as a communication medium, say, go onto a firearms enthusiast bulletin board, and purchase a gun from an individual in MY OWN state, then I have to deal with my state's laws about formal background checks, but in most states, all I have to do is a reasonably prudent transaction—I am a citizen in my state, not prevented by law from buying/possessing guns and ammo, and I am selling to or buying from another individual, also a citizen of my state who is not prevented by law from buying/possessing guns and ammo. I do this by asking the person if he is prohibited from buying/possessing guns and ammo, and by requiring him to have a valid my-state driver's license and valid my-state concealed weapons permit. I can't do anything about a liar, or someone who has become prohibited since the issuance of his state DL and CCW permit, but I'm not responsible for that—he is. And I for one believe in the constitution, that one is presumed innocent (i.e., not prohibited) until proven guilty by due process. And if I feel any kind of deception or hinkiness in the transaction, I do not have to go through with it, whether as a seller or a buyer. So a background check has occurred even on this kind of sale, and a reasonable one, and yet it's private.
So.....fake news, the “internet loophole.”
The only person between us and them is
Great Pic of POTUS Trump. Is that his “official” Photo?
TRUMP WILL VETO........................FLUSH.
True....great Trump photo and even the Islamic kook ones.
XLNT!
It was among POTUS photos....thanks...it is a winner, then so is our President. Remember, FIRST THEY COME FOR YOUR VOTES...THEY THEY COME FOR YOUR GUNS under the guise of protecting you AND again FOR YOUR VOTE. VETO any destructive gun bill.... amazingly none of the other gun bill have stopped killings....
That’s right. Anyone still voting Rat is an immoral, selfish, indecent and ignorant idiot.
What about shall not be infringed is so hard to understand?
A helpless populace is a compliant populace. This is just the beginning.
I'm not 100% certain of this. As it is, his administration has signed more gun bans that Obama's did. Let one make it to his desk with the Senate's stamp of approval on it and I'd say the chances are about 50/50 he'd sign it.
Anyways, I'm more worried about gun control laws via ballot initiatives than I am about seeing them through legislative action. That's the next future in gun control and we'd best be paying attention.
Ideally, the Democrats should've been busy trying to re-pass all the gun control laws that the Republicans repealed when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency but the GOP squandered that opportunity.
The states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime civil penal gun laws. This is evidenced by clarification by constitutional lawmaker Rep. John Bingham in congressional record, Bingham using murder as example to emphasize the fed's limited powers. Note that the Supreme Court had also clarified the fed's constitutionally limited powers.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See bottom half of third column.)
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Bingham was clarifying that the 14th Amendment gave the feds new power to make gun-related civil laws for example. But ironically, such powers are limited to STRENGTHENING constitutionally express rights, the 2nd Amendment for example, from abridgment by state actors.
From the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
So it is disturbing that federal civil gun control laws seem to have started appearing in the books during the time of Democrat FDR, FDR and Democratic Congress at that time infamous for making laws that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
And it's not surprising that, since everybody living today grew up with FDR-inspired civil gun laws, we fall into the trap of thinking that such federal laws are somehow constitutional.
Regarding background checks on gun sales, please consider this. Regardless what FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist Supreme Court justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3) when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor imo, FDR's justices seemingly ignored the following.
The Supreme's had previously emphasized the uncommon, common sense interpretation of the Commerce Clause, saying that Congress has no express constitutional authority to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So what misguided, anti-PDJT House Democrats are trying to do by introducing gun-control bills is to stay in power by winning votes from low-information voters imo, unconstitutionally trying to expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government's powers by doing so.
I suspect Trump will sign it. We’d better hope Turtle doesn’t bring it to a vote.
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.