Our Constitutional Rights

[DRK]

If you can't pass that exam, you shouldn't be able to exercise your second amendment rights either.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/OoC_100_Questions_2008_Civics_Test_V1.pdf

 

[DRK]

This part is interesting. If in fact, 18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts, turns out to be unconstitutional, the same law deals with SBSs, SBRs, et al

Each section includes a similar disclaimer of the following, and if you think about it, if it's unconstitutional to prohibit a machinegun, the same law covers destructive devices, short-barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles.

(4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity;

That seems too good to be true, but still I bet Dettlebach is droppin' a steamin' potato in his pants...

All of the Gun Control Act is codified in 922. The NFA is in 5845. Remember, because Uncle Sam has the power to regulate what crosses state lines, that is the basis for the GCA, i.e. firearms are restricted across state lines. The NFA survives as a revenue raising measure. However, the constitutionality of the NFA taxing a right has yet to be addressed by SCOTUS and very well may be the basis for striking down the NFA completely or removing the tax portion and leaving the registration requirements in place.

 

[ebb]

DRK I don't think that many of our leaders believe any of that to be true or law. It interferes with all of their plans for us.

 

[Jayplace]

Yes we were a nation of laws, many of which at the state/local level are unconstitutional. All we need is legislative law which requires the immediate removal of representative status from any elected official who authors/votes for an unconstitutional law. Any taxpayer employee who violates a CITIZENS constitutional right is fired immediately. Billions of taxpayer dollars/resources saved, no more open borders. No more lobbyists, lawyers making generational wealth off taxpayers. No more deficit spending. All judges would HAVE to take the constitution into consideration in any ruling. Congress would function quickly and efficiently.

What we have described is what happens when there is no law. Each of the situation described already has a DUE process for the circumstance. The legal system often works slowly in order for the system to be thorough and fair.

It would be nice if the Congress would function quickly and efficiently. However, that still doesn't mean it would be done correctly. It's all politics.

 

[DRK]

DRK I don't think that many of our leaders believe any of that to be true or law. It interferes with all of their plans for us.

The government selectively enforces the law, this is nothing new. Look at marijuana, the feds choose not to enforce the law. However, the feds choose to enforce 922(o) banning machine guns after the cut off. Makes no sense to me either. Some pigs are more equal than others.

 

[ebb]

I get that they want to ignore some laws, I don't smoke weed but I think it is probably less or about the same at damaging your body as alcohol. I don't see why some people can skip the rules when hurting others and some can not.

 

[Kittitas George]

What we have described is what happens when there is no law. Each of the situation described already has a DUE process for the circumstance. The legal system often works slowly in order for the system to be thorough and fair.

It would be nice if the Congress would function quickly and efficiently. However, that still doesn't mean it would be done correctly. It's all politics.

It is very difficult, may be impossible, for a democracy to legislate efficiently. It is more important to legislate effectively. When legislation is introduced it should go to the appropriate committee to be considered, negotiated, recommendations made for improvement and differences solved. The last few years so much has just been blocked, stopped dead. That is not the way a democracy works. The goal of the Congress should be solving the problems for the Country, not the party. Country over party and over person. As I mentioned above I took an Oath to 'support and defend the Constitution', I have no reluctance to do that 60 some years later. Why can't our Congressmen do that? We, the U.S. can do and have done the impossible, we got rid of a King and put men on the moon. Negative never solved anything and if you hate you have been defeated.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

I get that they want to ignore some laws, I don't smoke weed but I think it is probably less or about the same at damaging your body as alcohol. I don't see why some people can skip the rules when hurting others and some can not.

I have to disagree. My family owned a liquor store which I worked at for about 15 years when I was in high school and college. All through school in health class they would tell us that alcohol was "habit forming". Yet, on Sundays I would open the store for my Grandfather at 6:00am and people would be lined up to get a 1/2 pint and literally couldn't hand me the money because they were shaking so bad. Habit forming? Is that before they get all fat and turn yellow from cirrhosis? Give me a break.

However, more than health, we see more deaths caused by DUI drivers than most other crimes. Yet people continue to drive after they have been drinking.

I drink about once or twice a year, so I'm not a saint, but I don't drive when I do drink. I stay at home.

In regard to weed...Amazon quit testing drivers for cannabis 2 or 3 years ago. Even though the DOT requires testing, what can they do to Amazon? And more so, Amazon still has truck insurance for the drivers. We don't hear about many Amazon trucks causing accidents, at least I don't and I see them in my area daily.

But one HUGE difference here is that driving is not a constitutional right, and the 2A is. Although the 2A doesn't state that you should be able to benchrest or even target shoot, it is implied that you would do that as training to be prepared.

We're at a huge turning point in America over the 2A. Never before have we been in a better position.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

I can’t watch it. The guy just rambles and repeats himself. It’s so unprofessional, I don’t believe a word of it.

Yeah, other people say that also, but for me he does well to explain the CA law. We're not out of the woods just yet, we need to wait for an appeal to go through the motions.

Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner is easier to listen to, but I watch both of them plus a few others. I feel Anthony at least understands the law. There's another couple of attorneys called the "Armed Attorneys" on YT, I can't listen to them because they don't know WTF they're talking about. If I was in a lawsuit involving the 2A, they would be the last folks I would want representing me.

All of the Gun Control Act is codified in 922. The NFA is in 5845. Remember, because Uncle Sam has the power to regulate what crosses state lines, that is the basis for the GCA, i.e. firearms are restricted across state lines. The NFA survives as a revenue raising measure. However, the constitutionality of the NFA taxing a right has yet to be addressed by SCOTUS and very well may be the basis for striking down the NFA completely or removing the tax portion and leaving the registration requirements in place.

In this regard I don't see 922 going anywhere, since the GCA is where firearms are described. It is in fact the GCA what will save our bacon, IMO, because we need those definitions for the ATF to abide to, as well as for "we the people" to understand as well.

With a machinegun ban struck down in a district court tells me the ATF has their tit in the wringer and their nipple is being pinched as we type...couldn't happen to better people, IMO, and there is no more deserving that Dettelbach.

 

[mauser284]

I think people should be allowed to own any weapon the military owns and technology they own if they can afford. I am not against background checks and such but otherwise I am a 2A absolutist!

 

[DRK]

Yeah, other people say that also, but for me he does well to explain the CA law. We're not out of the woods just yet, we need to wait for an appeal to go through the motions.

Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner is easier to listen to, but I watch both of them plus a few others. I feel Anthony at least understands the law. There's another couple of attorneys called the "Armed Attorneys" on YT, I can't listen to them because they don't know WTF they're talking about. If I was in a lawsuit involving the 2A, they would be the last folks I would want representing me.



In this regard I don't see 922 going anywhere, since the GCA is where firearms are described. It is in fact the GCA what will save our bacon, IMO, because we need those definitions for the ATF to abide to, as well as for "we the people" to understand as well.

With a machinegun ban struck down in a district court tells me the ATF has their tit in the wringer and their nipple is being pinched as we type...couldn't happen to better people, IMO, and there is no more deserving that Dettelbach.

Funny you mentioned armed attorneys, they attended a seminar at SHOT this year I was in. She is very dolled up on screen vs real life. Keep in mind all these guys on YT want you to watch there videos. The real good attorneys getting this non-sense overturned are not on YT, they are busy writing briefs and motions, where they should be.

 

[Jayplace]

I think people should be allowed to own any weapon the military owns and technology they own if they can afford. I am not against background checks and such but otherwise I am a 2A absolutist!

Seriously? So, anyone who can afford an A-Bomb should be able to posses one?

 

[JFrank]

I think people should be allowed to own any weapon the military owns and technology they own if they can afford. I am not against background checks and such but otherwise I am a 2A absolutist!

You mean , laws, rockets, hand grenades, surface to air missles , fully automatic weapons , stuff like that ?

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

Seriously? So, anyone who can afford an A-Bomb should be able to posses one?

I'm not @Jayplace but yes, if the military is allowed to use them, that's even more reason that "we the people" should be able to. Doesn't the 2nd amendment give us the ability to form militias? I see it as being even more reason we should have it. Would you want to show up at a gunfight with a knife?

Speaking of which, CA ruled that a switchblade knife is NOT covered by the 2A ????

Pretty certain Mark Smith is not perfect either. I previously asked the Armed Scholar if Bruen would effect switchblade knives in CA, but he didn't answer it for me. Mark nails it here, IMO. We are only allowed to use a switchblade that is 2" or shorter.

 

[Jayplace]

I'm not @Jayplace but yes, if the military is allowed to use them, that's even more reason that "we the people" should be able to. Doesn't the 2nd amendment give us the ability to form militias? I see it as being even more reason we should have it. Would you want to show up at a gunfight with a knife?

Speaking of which, CA ruled that a switchblade knife is NOT covered by the 2A ????

Pretty certain Mark Smith is not perfect either. I previously asked the Armed Scholar if Bruen would effect switchblade knives in CA, but he didn't answer it for me. Mark nails it here, IMO. We are only allowed to use a switchblade that is 2" or shorter.

Sorry, but when a YouTuber is telling the audience that they will make the listener more knowledgable about the law and can debate the judges, who have years of experience, it gives me reason to question the YouTuber and their postings.

Anyone who has serious knowledge of the legal system, knows that decisions are multifaceted. The logic being presented is overly simplistic. Switchblade laws have been on the books for years and challenged unsuccessfully many times.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

Switchblade laws have been on the books for years and challenged unsuccessfully many times.

That's not so in CA, I can remember buying switchblades as a kid, in fact, I bought one as a student on a school trip to Knott's Berry Farm, they had a knife shop. Even my teacher didn't take it away.

Somewhere after that point CA came up with the 2" switchblade law. To back up switchblades, many military personnel use the Microtech OTF. That seems that "we the people" should be able to also...just saying...

 

[Jayplace]

That's not so in CA, I can remember buying switchblades as a kid, in fact, I bought one as a student on a school trip to Knott's Berry Farm, they had a knife shop. Even my teacher didn't take it away.

Somewhere after that point CA came up with the 2" switchblade law. To back up switchblades, many military personnel use the Microtech OTF. That seems that "we the people" should be able to also...just saying...

When I was younger, switchblade knives were legal too and I had one. I think I've long since lost it, but they did become illegal or so I thought.

I'm not a knife person, but an undercover friend of mine showed me what he carried and it opened with a flip of the wrist. He said it was quicker and more effective.

With the open carry laws now, who carries a knife?

 

[joshb]

With the open carry laws now, who carries a knife?

Me! Always! “Automatic” knives are sold everywhere in Texas. C’mon down!

 

[338 Mollett]

I want a switch blade with a silencer !!

 

[DRK]

I think people should be allowed to own any weapon the military owns and technology they own if they can afford. I am not against background checks and such but otherwise I am a 2A absolutist!

Guys having nukes? Yes, no problem there. Automatic weapons fine, but true WMDs? That's pushing it.

When I was younger, switchblade knives were legal too and I had one. I think I've long since lost it, but they did become illegal or so I thought.

I'm not a knife person, but an undercover friend of mine showed me what he carried and it opened with a flip of the wrist. He said it was quicker and more effective.

With the open carry laws now, who carries a knife?

Depends on your state, IN repealed the prohibition on Automatic knives in 2013. I always carry a knife and a Gerber or Leatherman tool, very handy when needed.