"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." P. 319 U. S. 113. Murdock v Pennsylvania
“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 US 516
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262).
BUT: “A regrettably large share of our legal experiences operate not in the shadow of the Constitution and its constraints, but rather in the shadow of explicitly unconstitutional rules, actions, and orders. In the time it takes for improper Executive Orders to be reined in, for illicit administrative decisions to be corrected, and for misinterpretations of constitutional power to be overturned, so much of society’s activity is framed by what we might call the not-Constitution — all those acts of government that are deemed illegal only after they have caused enduring harm. A most troubling aspect of government power is its insistence on pushing past constitutional constraints and operating in a blurry legal wilderness of its own creation while forcing Americans to prove that those power grabs lack legitimacy.” ~ J.B. Shurk
I think I mentioned the "Hughes" amendment. The way they weaseled that one was well we aren't banning M16's. We are just banning any MORE of them. That way only the rich and famous can afford one. And we just know they would never do something bad with one.
What I would like to know is if someone wanted to do a bad deed with a machine gun, from what I can tell from reading articles online, all they would need is a few parts a milling machine and about a half hour of time and they could convert an AR into one. After all, bad guys always follow the "law" don't they? Then there are those that get stolen from the military and wind up in the wrong storage building. I read about a situation like that recently. https://abc13.com/resellers-receive-guns-military-surplus-boxes-m16s-shipped-to-houston-ebay/12269500/ Seriously? Someone was in the middle of some sort of shady dealing and they lost track of the shipment. The founding fathers wanted us on equal footing with any foot soldier in the world. That is ONE of the reason for the 2nd amendment.
If there is any way we will infringe. We want guns out of the hands of children. We want fucking rules. we want gun deaths to stop being the biggest killer of children. THATA A FACT JACK. I interpret the 2nd amendment as having LIMITS by way of its second sentence. If they didnt want to include that they would not have.
As far as I can see, the infringing and the taxing are utterly illegal, almost ALL of it, or in the case of taxes, if it's not illegal, then it's TOO MUCH...
Govt. is TOO BIG. It's decided that we are not their bosses, but the other way around. This is tyranny, in most people's understanding of fairness. And "Shall Not Be Infringed" doesn't seem to make any freakin' difference, particularly of late. So I think we ought to dump the entire thing. No, not "start over," but DUMP a centralized govt. People jump up and whine about how we need a "standing army." Well, I disagree. If we want a "standing army," we can have people at the ready in all the states, run by the STATES, not some federal War Machine. My God, look at what it's come to! Our own DOD is now engaged in warfare ON US. Are we all aware that what's in those jabby vials is actually coming from the DOD? From DARPA... and it's a COUNTER-MEASURE. Fuckin' A.
Also, Lion Man, just a note... Your newer post on Mike Yeadon is a Draft. xo
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." P. 319 U. S. 113. Murdock v Pennsylvania
“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 US 516
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262).
BUT: “A regrettably large share of our legal experiences operate not in the shadow of the Constitution and its constraints, but rather in the shadow of explicitly unconstitutional rules, actions, and orders. In the time it takes for improper Executive Orders to be reined in, for illicit administrative decisions to be corrected, and for misinterpretations of constitutional power to be overturned, so much of society’s activity is framed by what we might call the not-Constitution — all those acts of government that are deemed illegal only after they have caused enduring harm. A most troubling aspect of government power is its insistence on pushing past constitutional constraints and operating in a blurry legal wilderness of its own creation while forcing Americans to prove that those power grabs lack legitimacy.” ~ J.B. Shurk
An "executive order", by definition, ONLY applies to the executive branch, NOT us! Is that correct?
Unless we've somehow turned into a total dictatorship run by Chairman Xiden.
How about 1986?
What if you couldn't buy a Ford F-150 that was made after 1986.
You can't buy an M16 made after then.
I think I mentioned the "Hughes" amendment. The way they weaseled that one was well we aren't banning M16's. We are just banning any MORE of them. That way only the rich and famous can afford one. And we just know they would never do something bad with one.
At least the $200 is still $200.
I have spent $1000 because of this stupid law, but no more.
Edwin
What I would like to know is if someone wanted to do a bad deed with a machine gun, from what I can tell from reading articles online, all they would need is a few parts a milling machine and about a half hour of time and they could convert an AR into one. After all, bad guys always follow the "law" don't they? Then there are those that get stolen from the military and wind up in the wrong storage building. I read about a situation like that recently. https://abc13.com/resellers-receive-guns-military-surplus-boxes-m16s-shipped-to-houston-ebay/12269500/ Seriously? Someone was in the middle of some sort of shady dealing and they lost track of the shipment. The founding fathers wanted us on equal footing with any foot soldier in the world. That is ONE of the reason for the 2nd amendment.
If there is any way we will infringe. We want guns out of the hands of children. We want fucking rules. we want gun deaths to stop being the biggest killer of children. THATA A FACT JACK. I interpret the 2nd amendment as having LIMITS by way of its second sentence. If they didnt want to include that they would not have.
Good post!
As far as I can see, the infringing and the taxing are utterly illegal, almost ALL of it, or in the case of taxes, if it's not illegal, then it's TOO MUCH...
Govt. is TOO BIG. It's decided that we are not their bosses, but the other way around. This is tyranny, in most people's understanding of fairness. And "Shall Not Be Infringed" doesn't seem to make any freakin' difference, particularly of late. So I think we ought to dump the entire thing. No, not "start over," but DUMP a centralized govt. People jump up and whine about how we need a "standing army." Well, I disagree. If we want a "standing army," we can have people at the ready in all the states, run by the STATES, not some federal War Machine. My God, look at what it's come to! Our own DOD is now engaged in warfare ON US. Are we all aware that what's in those jabby vials is actually coming from the DOD? From DARPA... and it's a COUNTER-MEASURE. Fuckin' A.
Also, Lion Man, just a note... Your newer post on Mike Yeadon is a Draft. xo