Posted on 12/03/2023 10:18:39 AM PST by DoodleBob
Politian’s are the center of a special world that orbits them.
“Good morning, Senator. Here’s your coffee. I’ve put your agenda on the table. You have a meeting with the head of the United Labor Front at nine. Your notes on the last meeting are next to your schedule. Can I get anything for you?”
Someone lays out their clothes, folds their laundry, makes their meals and generally makes them feel important. You almost never see a politician retire because they are the job. As far as they are concerned, no one else can even do it. I’m reminded of Ruth Ginsberg who was asked when she’d retire. She snapped back, “And who would do my job?” I’d have said, anyone with a pulse. But she obviously thought, as do they all, that no one else was even marginally qualified.
As for the "...in or affecting inter- state or foreign commerce..."
It sure sounds to me like they intend to leverage the Commerce Clause and try to make their unconstitutional acts appear "constitutional".
79 years old? FOAD already, Angus...
In fact all law abiding citizens can be disarmed and the criminals will still have guns and shoot people.
My suggestion. Everyone can open carry a gun and defend themselves without issues. Sure were are going to lose a few, but after that we will have a very polity society.
More info here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4200477/posts
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4200305/posts
😁👍
King was a liberal democrat up until 1993. That’s really about all one needs to know other than he’s a lawyer of little accomplishment.
The last democrat in Texas with a brain was Dolph Briscoe. And, there is no question in my mind that he would have switched parties in todays political environment.
That’s not going to go over well in Maine.
I have a better idea.
Let’s ban *gun free* zones and put people who are known to be mentally unstable in mental hospitals again. And do something about those posting public, online threats instead of letting the fib egg them on.
If the bill won’t curb mass killers, it won’t affect mass killings. More lunacy from the asylum wing that believes that guns commit the crimes.
Next will be knives and then sharp sticks or any sticks that could be sharpened.
My oldest son has quite a number of baseball bats he swung when he played minor league baseball. I guess they’re “assault bats” now.
I bet that one could be fashioned into a gun stock for a fully semi-automatic gun.
‘‘(F) a recoil-operated system that utilizes the recoil force to unlock the breech bolt and then to complete the cycle of extracting, ejecting, and re- loading.”
I like how Democrats redefine works such that they no longer mean what they use to mean, so they become illegal.
A blow-back or recoil operated semi-automatic rifle is not a gas operated semiautomatic rifle.
In the Soviet of Washington the people were conned into voting to redefine an “Assault rifle” as any semi-automatic rifle, even if it is a tubular magazine semi-automatic 22 long rifle rifle. Got to love the whole George Orwell 1984 New Speak approach to mind control.
USSC Justice is like the POTUS, no one is truly qualified until they are in the job.
And many of those who get the job are not really qualified when they leave the job, like the current POTUS.
Notwithstanding the fact that Chicago gangbangers won’t play by anyone else’s rules, would the streets be any safer if they were armed with 1911s, with a round capacity of only 8?
The USCCA has published a book by Michael Martin titled “Countering the Mass Shooter Threat,” in which the question of smaller magazines vs killings is addressed. It’s a very interesting read, and seems to make sense.
"Maine Senator King's proposal aims to ban certain kinds of guns, limit bullet capacity (upon inspection, almost all guns could be banned)"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
To begin with, post-17th Amendment ratification Senator King's proposal would weaken the constitutionally enumerated right of the states, especially the border states, to protect themselves from invasion imo.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay [emphasis added]."
Nor does Senator King seem to understand that the states have never expressly constitutionally given to Congress the specific power to tell manufacturers how to make their products imo.
Regarding Congress telling foreign and domestic manufacturers how to build their products, "crippled" guns in this example, Justice Joseph Story had made a few example lists of commerce-related powers that, although intimately (Story's word) related to commerce, are not part of Congress's Commerce Clause powers.
"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 [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Story used the basic example of manufactures, manufactured products, in his lists.
"The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states [emphases added]." —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
"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.
But more importantly with respect to Congress not having the power to regulate manufactures, please consider the following.
The 65th Congress seems to have respected Story indicating that Congress regulating how manufactures make their products would be an unconstitutional expansion of Commerce Clause powers, and appropriately did the following. Congress included the words manufacture and sale in a necessary amendment to the Constitution to give Congress the new power that it needed to effectively prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages. This is evidenced by the 18th Amendment (18A).
Excerpted from 18A:
"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited [emphases added]."
The "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors guns and ammunition" language above would likewise need to be put into a new constitutional amendment in order for federal Democrats and RINOs to justify their vote-buying attempts to force citizens to buy "crippled" guns and limit ammo purchases, just as 18A effectively limited what people could drink.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
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.