So, he engaged in lawful commerce?
And hates that he has that freedom:
In an effort to highlight a need for enhancing background check requirements, Rep. Mike Stewart brought a newly purchased semi-automatic rifle to Legislative Plaza on Wednesday.
Stewart, D-Nashville, had the military-style weapon with him during a House Civil Justice Subcommittee meeting where he presented two bills that would bolster requirements for background checks.
While holding an AR-15 style rifle, Stewart said he purchased the weapon on Tuesday after finding a seller on the Internet. Within hours of his purchase, Stewart said he picked up the weapon in the parking lot of a restaurant in Davidson County, without ever undergoing a background check.
Luckily I am not a member of a drug cartel. I am not on a terrorist watch list. I am not a longtime criminal with a big record of felony convictions and violence,” he said, adding if he had gone to Walmart he wouldve had to undergo a background check.
He also displayed some unsafe gun handling practices.
March 24th, 2016 at 6:14 pm
One of the committee members should have offered to buy it from him after the hearing.
“That’s a nice looking AR. I have my checkbook with me; how much to take it off your hands?”
March 24th, 2016 at 6:32 pm
Hates that free commerce exists, displays unsafe gun handling skills, he must be a Democrat 🙂
March 24th, 2016 at 9:11 pm
How does he propose to impose background checks on private sales?
March 24th, 2016 at 9:14 pm
He’s free to wear shackles and chains in his own home if he wants to be a slave. As for me and mine, no thank you.
March 24th, 2016 at 10:18 pm
Ron W, that’s what “executive orders” are all about.
Can’t cram it down our throats legislatively, so they’ll shove it up our back door with EO’s.
Read up on new interpretations and enforcement of existing ATF regs.
March 24th, 2016 at 10:20 pm
This is a problem and needs fixin’!
1. You may now only buy guns from authorized dealers.
2. There are no authorized dealers.
3. Problem solved.
(douche bag wanna be tyrants)
Reminds me of that scene from Heavy Metal:
March 24th, 2016 at 11:28 pm
So this was in D.C.?
Wasn’t it illegal for him to buy it out of state, buy in in D.C., posses high capacity magazines in D.C.?
Why wasn’t he arrested?
March 24th, 2016 at 11:29 pm
Oh, in Tennessee (hard to tell as Google wanted me to do a survey I didn’t want to do.) Ok, could he legally bring it into the Government building? If not, why wasn’t he arrested?
March 25th, 2016 at 8:46 am
JTC, oh I know about that criminality done on the Federal level by Obama. From what I read, this proposed State law would penalize the failure to get a background check. I suppose LEO would have to catch the buyer and seller in the act. “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
March 25th, 2016 at 9:04 am
Ron W, “catching” ain’t so much the thing as it is criminalizing heretofore legal commerce. State wankers who are so inclined adopt fed reg interpretation and all of a sudden we’re racking up criminal acts. It’s just a first step.
March 25th, 2016 at 10:37 am
JTC…you’re right…I totally agree! Re: Federal regs, the U.S. Government has NO delegated power for any gun laws pertaining to the People. And without delegated power the Federal Government may do NOTHING (10th Amendment)!
March 25th, 2016 at 11:59 am
Ron W, exactly why ATF interpretations under EO mean that any private transaction creates a defacto “dealer”, albeit an unlicensed one. Once so classified, there is no infringement on the peoples’ rights, just biz regulation for which they ARE empowered. Scary shit, and while radical enforcements have been rare so far, the groundwork is laid, waiting for the Beast to use in her first step to go Aussie.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:44 pm
He wasn’t arrested for the same reason that the DC police didn’t arrest David Gregory for possessing an outlawed AR-15 magazine.
The gun laws apply to the serfs, not to the lords.
March 25th, 2016 at 9:55 pm
So, I wonder now if the the Davidson County Republican Party will begin to groom and train a candidate to replace him?
March 26th, 2016 at 9:15 am
JTC, like I said, there is no delegated power for such and obviously somebody or some bodies need to go to jail in violation of current law:
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
March 26th, 2016 at 11:48 am
Ron W, you’re missing it, bro.
The operative term in your code there is “person”.
An “unlicensed person” is covered by it; an “unlicensed dealer” is not. Like I said, just re-interpret existing law under EO and presto-changeo, your “person” who is exempt from ATF regulations is a (criminal) entity to be squashed under its thumb.
March 26th, 2016 at 1:09 pm
That “re interpretation” by the executive branch is an “under color of law” violation of the right of the people”. We’re dealing with criminals having hi-jacked our government.
March 26th, 2016 at 4:33 pm
Nope, ATF purview is specific to dealers but nebulous as to the definition, EO is entirely legal in “clarifying” that.
Excerpted from thisnation.com:
“Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies.
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President’s source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.”
Of course Congress can challenge an EO in court, or rewrite or amend the original law. Good luck with that with this RINO congress. Plus, potus can veto that anyway. The problem with the power of Executive Order is that it depends on the honorable intent of the “executive” to honor the spirit and intent of the law. And of course the use of the word “honorable” as applied to anything Obama is a contradiction in terms and mutually exclusive.
March 26th, 2016 at 5:12 pm
JTC, “spirit and intent of the law” is an aspect of criminality to circumvent “the express words of the law”. And the Federal Government has NO enumerated delegated powers ” for governing” the armed citizenry, i.e., “the militia”. It may govern only “such part of them as may be EMPLOYED in the service of the United States”. (Article I, Section 8.16)
Samuel Adams put it well: “How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of WORDS.”
March 26th, 2016 at 11:29 pm
RW, wore me out dude. Pretty good achievement considering that my wife is correct in saying that I’ll argue with a fencepost, and a good fencepost is pretty unyielding.
But if you’re relying on the premise that words have meaning to make your case you would do well to remember that your contention of fedgov having no delegated powers re 2A rights will be up against the spouse of a dude who paralyzed proceedings by successfully arguing the lack of a definitive meaning of the word “is” is. Make no mistake, she wants your guns and she has much bigger brassier balls than either Bubba or Bobo, and when it comes to EO’s altering the definitions, intent, and enforcement of laws relating to them, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
March 27th, 2016 at 9:34 am
JTC, yes, I agree. I’m just saying that’s what criminals and tyrants do whether by legislative tyranny, judicial tyranny or executive tyranny. It’s what we have had and probably will have to a worse extent. The only question is whether or not the LAWFUL remedies will eventually be applied whether first by Congress, secondly by the States or finally, by the People operating by the Declaration principles of the Revolution.
BTW, my wife says the same of me. LOL
March 27th, 2016 at 10:03 am
Yeah, I dunno, it’s the 51% majority of the “people” that put us in this hole…maybe the New People after the New Revolution creates the New Republic, comprising roughly lower right one-third of what’s left of the old one…kinda like what we might have had things gone differently in the WONA.
March 27th, 2016 at 10:05 am
Oh, Happy Easter to you and all here…He is the one reason I do retain some faith and hope.
March 27th, 2016 at 11:40 am
JTC, I forgot to mention the tyranny of democracy that caused our founders to reject it as a form of government where “51% could take away the rights of the other 49%” to quote Jefferson I think. The Bill of Rights were added in 1791 to prevent these “abuses and usurpations” stated in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. But it remains with the States and ultimately, the People, to enforce those rights!
And Amen to your Happy Easter and Jesus the LORD being our Source of faith and hope. He said, “Occupy until I come.”