Shhh, let her have her moment
Kamala Harris is advocating for gun control laws that are already the law. No one tell her.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 8th, 2019 at 12:00 pm
What happens if she actually submits bills which then fail to pass? Is that a repeal?
August 9th, 2019 at 12:49 pm
The one that is not and should never be “law” is the limitation on private sales. The National Public Armory is specifically exempt from federal regulation as it pertains to one individual selling a firearm to another individual resident of his state.
It is not for those who want to actively engage in the business for profit by buying firearms with the specific intent to resell them at a profit, not that there’s anything wrong with that; it is an honorable, legal, and beneficial activity; if you want to be in the business, get an FFL.
But culling your collection or seeking out a private seller for a firearm you want to add to it is outside the purview of the ATF and there are so specific limits on the number of transactions that may be engaged in. Five a year? Ten a year? Entirely fine, just not with the sole intent of reselling, and although there is no requirement for any documentation at all, CYA by getting a mutually signed simple statement of legal and not prohibited status.
If you are a private party buying or selling personal firearms for personal use, patronize the NPA, and protect that historical and Constitutional right from those who try to sell its revocation as “common-sense and closing the (non-existent) gunshow and internet loopholes”. Their true purpose and agenda is far more nefarious and has nothing to do with any of that.
August 9th, 2019 at 12:58 pm
Right JTC. Besides, how would so called “universal background checks” be enforced without violating the 4th and 5th Amendments? Those rights were once considered sacrosanct by liberals–and rightly so. But not now, at least for, no, against, gun owners!
All of the Bill of Rights for All citizens, special rights and privileges for none!
August 9th, 2019 at 3:09 pm
@Ron W, I think that much like the stock accessory thing, they don’t really plan on active enforcement, but rather creating federal scofflaws and felons to fit their preconceived notions of who and what gun owners are, and to set the stage for warrants to access your private property when and if they have information that they think makes that defensible…bearing in mind that if they can show you have committed a felony, everything you have constitutes “felony in possession” status, wiping out essentially all of your rights and protections.
August 11th, 2019 at 10:19 pm
@JTC, sounds like an organized crime plan. Just as with their other gun control legislation whereby they attempt to take from us what they have and keep for themselves and EXEMPT THEMSELVES and their friends who can hire private armed security. It’s the evil that criminals do!
“… Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”
— James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 57.
“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a Government of laws, existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the law, the end justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, this Court should resolutely set its face.”
–Louis D. Brandeis, SCOTUS Justice
Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)