Posted on 01/04/2019 9:10:17 AM PST by JamesP81
On the first day of the new Congress, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., brought back the “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act.”
(Excerpt) Read more at sunshinestatenews.com ...
The Republican Party is not really your ally. They’re good at pretending to be though.
Marco Rubio should have been removed after his amnesty betrayal.
Keep voting for Amnesty Senators and you will get it.
Keep voting for gun grabbers and they will grab for your guns.
The title of the “act” alone makes it obvious these assclowns have NO clue what they’re doing. ‘Violence Prevention’, yeah, okee dokee.
Decent idea which is completely impossible to enforce without massive abuse potential. Plus, it’s not a federal issue. It’s a state issue. My state has it and it’s being abused.
Useful idiot.
...
Cops should not be allowed to carry off duty. Leave it at the station and be vulnerable like the rest of us.
Used to be that dangerous nutcases were sent to the nuthouse - didn’t need any legislation federal or local to put kooks away - worked fine.
When is he flipping toDemocrat, else taking his parents and returning to their native Cuba?
Yes, same laws apply to everyone.
We shouldn’t fool ourselves either. Trump would sign it in a heartbeat.
I read stories like this and remember that Rubio was first elected as the “Tea Party” senator. I just laugh and shake my head. He’s such a two-faced fraud.
Well I can carry anytime I wish so why shouldn’t a cop be allowed to carry? Give me a LAWFUL (according to the Constitution) answer.
There is no delegated power given the federal for this bill.
Two faced like the rest of the Judas/Quislings that are the Congressional Republicans!
“There is no delegated power given the federal for this bill.”
You say that like it means something.
"Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Patriots are reminded that they need to check every action of the corrupt, unconstitutionally big federal government against Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, basically 16 relatively short clauses. And if no clause can be found to reasonably justify an action of the federal government then the action is probably unconstitutional.
Regarding this example of Sen. Rubio’s "Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act," while Rubio’s heart may be in the right place, there is no express delegation of power in Section 8 to justify it.
In fact, using murder as an example, the congressional record shows that post-Civil War constitutional lawmaker, Rep. John Bingham, had clarified that the states have never expressly given Congress the peacetime power to make civil penal laws.
"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 [emphasis 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.
So state lawmakers, Florida’s in this case, uniquely have the 10th Amendment-protected state power to make the otherwise constitutionally indefensible federal law that Rubio wants to make.
In other words, post-17th Amendment ratification, constitutionally low-information Rubio is probably clueless that he trying to unconstitutionally expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers.
Rubio first needs to lead Congress to successfully propose a ‘red flag’ amendment to the Constitution before he introduces such a bill.
Insights welcome.
Another professional Republican whose political instincts are surpassed only by John Kasich’s.
It’s like everyone of these fools walks around with their heads inserted as far into their rectums as they can get getting high off the smell of their own crap.
We need president Trump to come out and cite the maryland case and ask rubio why he thinks it’s fine for government to violate people’s constitutional rights when they have done nothing wrong and someone ‘reports them’ for no legitimate reason- EXPOSE rubio as a gun grabbing, constitution violating rino
Very accurate description of little Rubio. We really need to watch our backs with him.
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.