Confirmed: Conservatives 5 Votes Away From Bypassing Paul Ryan, Forcing Pro-Gun Vote

[RamRoddoc]

I fail to see nothing. I see exactly what HR 38 is, I comment honestly about what it is, and you come back at me twice now extolling the virtues of inviting the federal government to more-deeply exert control over our Second Amendment rights when they're the absolute worst violators of it!

I can only say again in total exasperation, "Brilliant!"

Pitch your Commerce Clause government-empowering clap-trap to someone else. It is quite clearly you who doesn't see what's going on here. Tell me if these words, taken directly from HR 38, sounds like anything approaching a Second Amendment-upholding law:

"...a person...may possess or carry a concealed handgun...that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce...

Blues

The worst violators of infringing the people's rights are blue democrap states.


I understand the perspective of not wanting the Fed to override the state, decentralizing the fed's power and mitigating the damage to be done.

So when states violate the individual rights of their citizens, place their rights on a ballot, offered for a vote then infringed or nearly as bad just stripping rights without debate then the fed is powerless? Is that how it's been done? Does the federal government have any bound duty to protect individual rights or better, have they?

If the fed did their job we would have no gun laws and not an incremental monopoly on use of force, typically occurring in blue leftist democrap states.

Attempting to argue that the fed has no place nor duty of enforcing the citizen's 2A rights and prohibiting violations is a "Brilliant" argument, considering and considering that H.R. 38 is not a national carry bill, I foresee this federal encroachment as yet another small measure of restoration of individual rights just as McDonald vs. Chitcago and Heller vs. D.C. were. There were arguments in those cases against federal encroachment as well.




http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right To Keep and
Bear Arms: The Intent of the Framers

By Stephen P. Halbrook[*]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. --U.S. Const. amend. II.


... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. --U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

If African Americans were citizens, observed Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] "it would give to persons of the negro race ... the full liberty of speech ...; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."[2] If this interpretation ignores that Articles I and II of the Bill of Rights designate the respective freedoms guaranteed therein to "the people" and not simply the citizens (much less a select group of orators or militia), contrariwise Dred Scott followed antebellum judicial thought in recognizing keeping and bearing arms as an individual right[3] protected from both federal and state infringement.[4] The exception to this interpretation were cases holding that the Second Amendment only protected citizens[5] from federal, not state,[6] infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, to provide judicial approval of laws disarming black freemen and slaves.


Since the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to overrule Dred Scott by extending individual constitutional rights to black Americans and by providing protection thereof against state infringement,[7] the question arises whether the framers of Amendment XIV and related enforcement legislation recognized keeping and bearing arms as an individual right on which no state could infringe. The congressional intent in respect to the Fourteenth Amendment is revealed in the debates over both Amendments XIII and XIV as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Anti-KKK Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Given the unanimity of opinion concerning state regulation of privately held arms by the legislators who framed the Fourteenth Amendment and its enforcement legislation, it is surprising that judicial opinions and scholarly articles fail to analyze the Reconstruction debates.[8]

[Samuel Adams]

The 14th extends privileges, nothing more.

Therein is the entire problem regarding this thread.

Indeed it is the duty of the federal government to protect the state republic inhabitants from State usurpations and rights violations.

It is no one's duty to protect US citizens from their contractual obligations with any governmental or quasi-governmental agency.

[RamRoddoc]

The 14th extends privileges, nothing more.

Therein is the entire problem regarding this thread.

Indeed it is the duty of the federal government to protect the state republic inhabitants from State usurpations and rights violations.

It is no one's duty to protect US citizens from their contractual obligations with any governmental or quasi-governmental agency.

The states denying fundamental rights, including the right to bear arms, was the very reason the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

[Samuel Adams]

You The 14th is a smoke screen.

It was enacted to give the blacks a red carpet invitation to become privileged servants of the D.C. enclave....a separate jurisdiction on American soil, and having nothing to do with states or state rights.
Within a few short decades, nearly every man, woman and child in America fell for the trap and sold
themselvrs into servitude, voluntarily if not in some degree of ignorance.
But the process can be reversed, and natural rights can be asserted.
The paper trail leading to servitude and strengthening the bonds of the same is long and thorough, so must be the path back to liberty. The people contract themselves into 14th amendment compromise, and your acts of congress that beat around the bush of truth have nothing to do with the individual status and circumstance of a free American. They can only make rules and regulate privileges for the slaves.

Welcome to "Plantation America; No Whites Allowed".

See also the essay written by Anthony J. Hargis, going by that very title.

[BluesStringer]

The worst violators of infringing the people's rights are blue democrap states.

Oh please. The very first Republican president actually suspended the Constitution by executive fiat. Where's the constitutional provision for that move? Reagan signed the Hughes Amendment and Bush was largely responsible for the Patriot Act and instituting domestic spying on The People of this country in response to a foreign terrorist attack. The list of usurpations by both state and federal Republican politicians is just as long as the list of Democrats. Government is the usurping violator, not whichever party happens to be in power at any given time.

I understand the perspective of not wanting the Fed to override the state, decentralizing the fed's power and mitigating the damage to be done.

So when states violate the individual rights of their citizens, place their rights on a ballot, offered for a vote then infringed or nearly as bad just stripping rights without debate then the fed is powerless? Is that how it's been done? Does the federal government have any bound duty to protect individual rights or better, have they?

It is unbelievable to me how deeply you misunderstand what's happening here. HR 38 institutes controls over states' rights via the Commerce Clause. It doesn't even pretend to be protecting individual rights. I already quoted specifically for you, the passage that proves the truth of that statement. While it would be nice if Congress and presidents did concern themselves with protecting natural rights, that ain't their job. Constitutionally-speaking, that is the job of the Supreme Court, which is just as subject to partisan and personal agenda influences as the rest of government, and which that fact is demonstrative of the good reasons for being distrusting of government as a whole, but all your questions above are still addressed to the wrong branch of government. You should be demanding the SCOTUS do their jobs to get natural rights protected against the Congress and Executive that, again, constitutionally-speaking, is set up to always work against them.

If the fed did their job we would have no gun laws and not an incremental monopoly on use of force, typically occurring in blue leftist democrap states.

No, if SCOTUS did their job we would have no federal gun laws, and if that were the case, state gun laws would be much, much easier to overturn because of constitutionally-compliant, correct precedent set by them. Instead, we are stuck with constitutionally non-compliant precedents going back as far as Marbury vs. Madison where the actual author of the Constitution was forced by SCOTUS to accept a previous president's appointment to a government office. That was in 1803, and SCOTUS has never been reliable to stick to the letter of the Constitution ever since. Maybe even before. But still, constitutionally-speaking, that is SCOTUS' job, not Congress'.

Attempting to argue that the fed has no place nor duty of enforcing the citizen's 2A rights and prohibiting violations is a "Brilliant" argument, considering and considering that H.R. 38 is not a national carry bill, I foresee this federal encroachment as yet another small measure of restoration of individual rights just as McDonald vs. Chitcago and Heller vs. D.C. were. There were arguments in those cases against federal encroachment as well.

Good grief, your mixed metaphors are impossible to respond to. You seem to have some amorphous idea about SCOTUS having responsibility in protecting rights, but you also seem to think you can wander aimlessly between SCOTUS, the Halls of Congress and any given President's desk to make some unschooled, unstudied, clueless argument about where the main responsibility lies, again, constitutionally-speaking. You do realize, don't you, that "the fed" doesn't write, sign and interpret bills, right? SCOTUS and Congress are separate entities that cannot be corralled into one pen of responsibility for violating the Constitution. They all do indeed violate it, but they do it in different ways and at different times during the "process" of "governing," and their responsibilities, duties and obligations are completely separate from each other.

The fact is, you don't "foresee" what's going to happen if HR 38 passes at all. If you think CA or CT are going to suddenly turn into the Mecca for gun rights that VT or AZ are now just because a bunch of Republicans issue a diktat to them, you are terminally naive. It will be the other way around in fact. VT and AZ will be forced by SCOTUS to adapt to CA's and CT's version of gun "rights," just like Roscoe Filburn had to adapt to the most restrictive business model for farming under the Commerce Clause as the biggest, most severely-regulated farming conglomerates in the nation, even though Filburn wasn't doing any interstate business.

And to the part I put in bold in the last quote box, please give us "yet another" example of Congress restoring rights. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that you can't cite an example that will hold up to critical scrutiny any better than your clueless assertion that national reciprocity accomplishes same.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html

I refer to guncite.com fairly often. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. In this case, it's utter nonsense what they're saying. They're saying that an amendment that literally was never passed can somehow be protective of rights denied to black folk that the Supreme Court itself upheld as "constitutional" in Dred Scott, and can now be relied upon as precedent to protect the gun rights of all, when SCOTUS has likewise upheld the violations that you yourself listed in an earlier post that started 66 years after the 14th was illegally inserted in the Constitution and upheld by the same SCOTUS many times! Not to mention that we're talking about a piece of congressional legislation that requires its "beneficiaries" to ask permission of their state governments to carry a gun before their "rights" kick in under the auspices of the federal legislation. Your incomplete analysis and/or circular arguments are dizzying to say the least.

The only way one can discuss the whole of the federal government, or "the fed" if you prefer, as one entity, is in the same context as one would discuss "organized crime" or a "crime syndicate." SCOTUS, Congress and every President have violated the Constitution with impunity. Now you want that crime syndicate to meddle further into the rights that it has repealed by judicial, legislative and executive fiat since shortly after the ink was dry on that sheepskin parchment? Like I said, pitch your Commerce Clause government-empowering clap-trap to someone else.

Blues

[Sherree]

BluesStringer, please correct me if I wrong about this, ok? The way that this pro gun legislation will be set up is that the Federal Gov will enforce it on states whether they want it or not for their state. If the Fed. Gov. can enforce this on states, in a pro gun legislative act, then can't that same Congress pass another legislative act that could enforce states to accept anti gun laws by the same precedent? Depending on who controls Congress at a later date, of course.

I know that there is much more involved, but that is a question that has been in the back of my mind. I'm totally ignorant about most of it, so I ask stupid questions.

[HouseWolf]

So, how do you like Obamacare?

[Sherree]

So, how do you like Obamacare?

You're not BluesStringer, but your answer will do. Thanks.

[Spike n Ree]

Is it also wrong to fight to gain ground against abortion?

I will do everything I can to cause righteousness under God to prevail even if it is a little at a time.

We are responsible to stand for things that God stands for.

[BluesStringer]

BluesStringer, please correct me if I wrong about this, ok? The way that this pro gun legislation will be set up is that the Federal Gov will enforce it on states whether they want it or not for their state. If the Fed. Gov. can enforce this on states, in a pro gun legislative act, then can't that same Congress pass another legislative act that could enforce states to accept anti gun laws by the same precedent? Depending on who controls Congress at a later date, of course.

I know that there is much more involved, but that is a question that has been in the back of my mind. I'm totally ignorant about most of it, so I ask stupid questions.

Your premise is exactly right, except that I wouldn't refer to anything Congress does as "precedent." If SCOTUS codifies it, then that codification stands as SCOTUS precedent, but Congress didn't set it, SCOTUS did. But sure, as long as SCOTUS allows unconstitutional and/or usurpative laws to stand, another Congress can institute the exact opposite law than a previous Congress enacted.

So, how do you like Obamacare?

You're not BluesStringer, but your answer will do. Thanks.

BluesStringer or not, the inference I take from HouseWolf's question goes pretty much directly towards what it took me several hundred words to try to say. I have certainly never been accused of being succinct, but there ya go, that rhetorical question will do for me too.

Is it also wrong to fight to gain ground against abortion?

Like RamRoddock, you're mixing metaphors. As one who has stood on the steps of the Supreme Court Bldg. praying with several thousand pro-life activists, I can very easily say of course it's not wrong to fight against the scourge of abortion in this country, but which entity of government is it that you're fighting against? Abortion was made a constitutional right under the rubric of "privacy" that SCOTUS ruled in Roe vs. Wade. It wasn't Congress overstepping its bounds, it was SCOTUS, just like SCOTUS has already codified all the gun control legislation the federal government needs to make the Second Amendment completely useless for the ostensible purpose it was intended, which was for The People to at all times be adequately armed to throw off any government that tried to impose tyranny upon them/us. I personally believe that the Constitution is already dead and buried so that nothing can ever be done to restore any protection against tyranny that it ever had, if any, but if I believed there was still life in it, I sure as heck wouldn't turn to a constitutional regulatory authority of government to protect my rights against who? Government! I'd utilize my rights in the manner for which they were intended when reduced to writing in the Bill of Rights. I'd still do that too if the overwhelming majority of people who think I'm right in what I say, weren't also too comfortable in their servitude to ever get their hands dirty to right this ship of state to the promises of its Charter. I ain't suicidal though, so I won't be going out in a righteous blaze of glory alone. The fact remains however, that rights are taken back from tyrants after the tyrants stole the gifts from God that they are from The People. That's precisely where we are at this juncture.

All you have to do to understand this is look at the language of the bill, which includes a direct quote from the Commerce Clause within it. You are willingly trading away what you mistakenly perceive as a right that government seeks to protect with national reciprocity, for government's own constitutional authority to regulate that right. Exercising a right is a mutually exclusive concept to obeying the authority of government to regulate. Government is supposed to obey us, not the other way around.

I will do everything I can to cause righteousness under God to prevail even if it is a little at a time.

We are responsible to stand for things that God stands for.

I am a Christian, and I believe saying that any of the rights in the Bill of Rights are "natural" is the same as saying that they're God-given, so I agree with you that the right to keep and bear arms is a righteous thing. While praying to keep God's guidance and grace with our side of the fight is appropriate and necessary, God left us to fight it in a righteous manner. You can't at once abdicate your God-given rights to an authority of government to regulate and still claim that you're standing for the righteousness of God-given rights. They are either God-given rights, or they are man-given permissions and privileges that can be taken away by criminal politicians just as easily and fast as they were granted. You can't have it both ways. There are only two choices, and only one choice is righteous. Pick one.

Blues