Posted on 11/04/2023 8:02:58 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Senate Democrats push for checks for ammo purchases.
Just as soon as you show your off shore bank accounts.
What she voted for was not for only humanitarian aid. She knows, and the vote was for her borscht condo community of her district in FL. Of course continually she is full of crap.
They are not in the least concerned with mass shooters or any other type of criminal activity. The sole purpose of this POS is to further infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.
No gun control law has an ounce of legitimacy after what biden abandoned in Afghanistan. Nothing.
I don’t do drugs. How in the hell does a “background check” on ammunition purchases keep people from being shot? Why don’t we have background checks on marijuana and fentanyl purchases? How about machetes, hammers, baseball bats, antifreeze, pipes for pipe bombs purchases?
Stupid question: what has the RNC commented on this? Probably nothing, as usual.
I think that’s just what they want to do and so that when they start attacking us in our homes we will be dead meat just like the Israeli civilians were.
Elizabeth Warren and her cohorts want you dead. And they’re bringing in plenty of people to do the dirty work if they can get your guns away from you.
Important note on history. The battles of Lexington and Concord were the result of the British trying to secure AMMUNITION and Black powder, to deny the citizens the use of their weapons that they were having troubles seizing.
We are under the grip of the nwo, and you foccus on Israel. Get out of EVERY INTERNATIONAL ORGS AND THEN USE THE MONEY FOR ISRAEL.
“A club not to exceed 16” in length, likely.”
A club shorter than 16” is considered concealable and requires registration and a $200 tax stamp.
The Democrat’s plans:
1. Destroy the Middle Class ... well on it’s way
2. Disarm law abiding citizens ... starting
3. Hello Totalitarian Government ... coming soon to America?
Every time the Dems propose this kind of stupidity, the GOP should include an amendment to require all members of congress House and Senate (and their staffs) be subjected to random drug testing.
Make them go on record apposing the amendment every time.
Why don’t we have House and Senate members’
monthly disclosures of all financial transactions?
We also need their monthly cell and landline phone records
plus snail mail, email and all their other communiques.
For example, we need to know what stockbrokers and lobbyists
they’re communicating with to make these lucrative insider deals .
I will only accept this law if the sponsors can actually make ammo themselves, like many companies and private citizens can do, and define things like primer, powder, etc.
Wish in one hand…… you you you know the thing..
Bit extreme cowboy— the NWO is the Islamofascist/Marxist globalist agenda, co-opted not too covertly through Chi-Coms and their client states (Iran). Fortunately the Navy knows what it is doing in S. Pacific (despite Austin’s moronic SecDef directions, which have to be run by obama’s minions who removed a lot of leadership back those years, spec ops among them, and the neutering of our military to woke bs).
Did you catch the piece about Army requiring immediate assignment to recruiting stations... seriously disturbing, as they “hire” illegals just got here.
Tell Pocahontas that if she wants to outlaw ammo…how about arrows, which are not protected by Constitutional Amendment!
Yes, to use against us. 😡
Agree. Freedom requires smart vigilance, and disciplined priorities. Constitutional is our bulwark against tyranny.
"House, Senate Democrats Push Background Checks for Ammo Purchases"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
There is nothing in the Commerce Clause, or the other delegations of power in Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, to justify federal laws for background checks for ammo purchases imo.
”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 [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"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.
And the last time I checked on Congress's constitutionally limited powers, the Constitution's Article V was still working.
In fact, the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 authorizes Congress only to arm people.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, [emphasis added] and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Federal background checks for ammo purchases are also effectively a violation of 4th Amendment (4A) protections imo.
"4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Also consider that the congressional record shows that when Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the power to make peacetime penal laws, not even for murder!
"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 [emphases added]. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day.” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
Regarding unconstitutional federal laws, consider that the new Trump-supporting state and federal lawmakers that patriots elect in 2024 will need to decide the fate of people who are in prison for breaking a federal law that the states have never given the feds the specific power to make.
But most importantly concerning the 2nd Amendment (2A), the Supreme Court had clarified in United States v. Cruikshank that the purpose of that amendment is to keep Congress's big nose (my words) out of our gun rights.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress [emphasis added]. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." —United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
So not only should the untrusted, unconstitutionally big federal government not know how much munitions citizens have under 2A and 4A imo, but since the main official product of Congress is to make bills, Cruikshank effectively says no federal laws to restrict peacetime 2A-protected gun rights in any way imo.
Also, since Congress is working on legislation that will allow the untrusted feds know how much ammo you have, note that the drafters of the Constitution had made the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4 to required the feds to STAND DOWN to domestic violence unless a state's popularly elected leaders formally request federal assistance to help stop the violence.
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphases added]."
So even if the big, bad feds know how much ammo you have, the feds cannot darken your doorstep without your state elected leaders formally requesting federal assistance to justify such a visit imo, the exception being if your are involved in insurrection.
So why are there now peacetime restrictive federal gun laws in the books?
Consider that Constitution-ignoring FDR and the Democratic Congress at the time passed the first peacetime gun control laws with no express constitutional authority to do so.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control (Non-FR)
In fact, note that major peacetime federal gun laws got started in the 1900s under FDR, not in the 1700s or 1800s.
Major federal gun laws (Non-FR)
ASAP, patriots must be ready to support hopeful Trump 47 by primarying ALL state and federal, lawmakers and executives up for reelection in 2024, except for MTG, Gaetz & Company, Jordan (and others?), replacing them with Trump-endorced patriots who will promise to help Trump finish draining the swamp.
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)
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.