May 20, 2019

Gun Confiscation and Prison Time

From Guns America:

“If you currently own a reciprocating stock you will soon be in possession of a machine gun. Unlawful possession of a machine gun is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison, according to the DOJ.”

“NRA called for “additional regulations” back in October. Trump wasted no time and kicked the movement to ban these devices into high gear. There was no pause to consider the ramifications of the policy change. Even more frightening, Trump seemed enthusiastic about getting it done.”

“By the way, bump stocks, we’re writing that out. I’m writing that out myself,” said president Trump in February.  “I don’t care if Congress does it or not. I’m writing it out myself, OK.”

“And we accused Obama of ruling by executive fiat.” <<<Read More>>>

 

Share

76 Definitive Lawless Obama Actions

““Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat,” Cruz stated in the report’s introductory remarks.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Day 30 – No Executive Orders

ARTIFICE!

One month, 30 days, and no executive orders appear on the White House web page.

This president lies so much nobody cares or pays attention anymore. Shame!

beararms

The other day a reader sent me a link to an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, written by David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman. The basic premise of the article was based on what I think is a fallacy that our Courts would never allow most of the gun control measures being proposed to stand. The authors write:

While the courts are still sorting out Heller’s implications, politicians should not assume that they have a free hand to restrict private gun ownership. Decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights show that there are hard-and-fast limits on gun control.

The general framework is straightforward and certainly well-known to those who have studied (let alone taught) constitutional law. The government cannot abridge constitutionally protected rights simply to make a symbolic point or because it feels that something must be done. Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important. At the same time, any regulation must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.

And just who are they trying to convince here? Spoken as real lawyers, practicing in real Washington, D.C. and honestly believing what they write, I think. I suppose once there existed a real confidence in this nation that the separation of powers would do the job it was crafted to do. Not so anymore. Our government is run by a tyrant, who has exclaimed many times that he thinks the constitution is all wrong, that the framers got it all wrong and that he, the dictator, should have more power. He has also demonstrated his disdain for law and order, i.e the separation of powers by exerting use of legislative fiat, known as executive orders.

I’m not sure what the actual reasoning behind Rivkin and Grossman to have faith that the Courts wouldn’t stand for Obama and his cronies’ destruction of the Second Amendment. Yes, they cited Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago, to claim the Supreme Court loudly proclaimed the Second Amendment was written to protect the individual’s right to self defense and from a tyrannical government, as in the one we currently have. But that’s only a part of what actually took place.

Justice Scalia, in Heller v. District of Columbia, as majority opinion, stated that the Second Amendment was an individual guarantee but also made no bones about the fact that this decision had absolutely nothing to do with what limits can be placed on this right and by whom.

I also recall that shortly after President Obama laid out his plans for health care reform (Obamacare) many “experts” in law and the constitution swore up and down that there wasn’t a court in the nation that would uphold such an unconstitutional piece of legislation as Obamacare and for certain the Supreme Court would never tolerate this. Then magically on d-day, the SCOTUS upheld Obamacare when Justice Roberts jumped from one boat into the other.

And why would anybody have faith that the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing – the right thing being to follow the constitution and the laws written, when every decision almost always falls along party lines? The courts are non partisan? Want to buy a New York bridge?

There are many points in this Wall Street Journal article that are accurate and well written. However, having that kind of faith in our corrupt court system, is just a bit too boy scoutish to me.

Share