Biden expected to sign executive order on gun control 4/8/21 (ghost gun merged threads)

libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,455
Reaction score
15,683
Location
New York
This is unconstitutional. The president does not have such authority as to take action against the bill of rights like this, robustly.

It's determined to be seen what he actually does, but a ban is outright unconstitutional. Anyone enforcing unconstitutional orders is in direct violation of their oath, the constitution, and the will of the people.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have force behind it. We're at the will of those that enforce these policies, unfortunately. It is an enforced policy we have to abide by, but it is not a legal law in my view.

However, they can never make me consider such laws legitimate; they can only force me to follow due to the force implied. I will always retain my opinion about the legitimacy of such illegal actions.
 
Uninformed and Compliant

Uninformed and Compliant

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
12,894
Reaction score
48,262
Location
CNY
libertysnake said:
This is unconstitutional. The president does not have such authority as to take action against the bill of rights like this, robustly.

It's determined to be seen what he actually does, but a ban is outright unconstitutional. Anyone enforcing unconstitutional orders is in direct violation of their oath, the constitution, and the will of the people.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have force behind it. We're at the will of those that enforce these policies, unfortunately. It is an enforced policy we have to abide by, but it is not a legal law in my view.

However, they can never make me consider such laws legitimate; they can only force me to follow due to the force implied. I will always retain my opinion about the legitimacy of such illegal actions.
Click to expand...

Those who'd enforce a void color of law are likely committing a forcible crime, and subject to an article 35 stop. They would not be protected by anything in regard to title or office, since they'd be operating outside of that scope.
 
drowhawk

drowhawk

.44 mag
Messages
972
Reaction score
1,397
Location
Livingston
I think it will be lackluster. The only thing we will get is likely some directives to the ATF to start reclassifying. It will open up the door to more federal challenges. This could potentially backfire on him as it might force SCOTUS to take up 2A.
 
Criticalt

Criticalt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,361
Reaction score
15,612
Location
WNY
libertysnake said:
This is unconstitutional. The president does not have such authority as to take action against the bill of rights like this, robustly.

It's determined to be seen what he actually does, but a ban is outright unconstitutional. Anyone enforcing unconstitutional orders is in direct violation of their oath, the constitution, and the will of the people.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have force behind it. We're at the will of those that enforce these policies, unfortunately. It is an enforced policy we have to abide by, but it is not a legal law in my view.

However, they can never make me consider such laws legitimate; they can only force me to follow due to the force implied. I will always retain my opinion about the legitimacy of such illegal actions.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you say.
The part I differ from you is that I will not comply.
Nothing mentioned in his new plan will cause me to not comply, but if the situation arises, I will not comply..
For instance.... If they try to ban semi auto firearms.....they will have to come get them.
And I am dead serious.
 
dwa12479

dwa12479

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,789
Reaction score
13,675
Location
Dark Side of the Moon
libertysnake said:
This is unconstitutional. The president does not have such authority as to take action against the bill of rights like this, robustly.

It's determined to be seen what he actually does, but a ban is outright unconstitutional. Anyone enforcing unconstitutional orders is in direct violation of their oath, the constitution, and the will of the people.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have force behind it. We're at the will of those that enforce these policies, unfortunately. It is an enforced policy we have to abide by, but it is not a legal law in my view.

However, they can never make me consider such laws legitimate; they can only force me to follow due to the force implied. I will always retain my opinion about the legitimacy of such illegal actions.
Click to expand...
Government officials derive their power from the consent of the governed. I think we shall soon see the Emperor Has No Clothes.
 
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,455
Reaction score
15,683
Location
New York
dwa12479 said:
Government officials derive their power from the consent of the governed. I think we shall soon see the Emperor Has No Clothes.
Click to expand...

The problem is people need to come together as a group and organize in a way that is effective. When you reach such a large size and level of organization, you presence is felt as a group.

The problem with a lot of these conservative groups, and political groups in general, is they're inherently exploitative and self serving -- the NRA being the worst of them. There needs to be a group dedicated to not just a cause in name, but helping people think independently and realizing how they're being exploited by politicians for political gain. There needs to be a group with the genuine interest and betterment of the minds of people at heart, and not just after the wallets of the people. People who passively consume -- whether opinion or commodity (if there is even a difference) -- are pacified cattle being harvested for votes.

We must all become advocates for free thought. If we help people become active mental participants, we free them by giving them a choice; for it is choice that is inexorably part of being free.
 
dwa12479

dwa12479

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,789
Reaction score
13,675
Location
Dark Side of the Moon
libertysnake said:
The problem is people need to come together as a group and organize in a way that is effective. When you reach such a large size and level of organization, you presence is felt as a group.

The problem with a lot of these conservative groups, and political groups in general, is they're inherently exploitative and self serving -- the NRA being the worst of them. There needs to be a group dedicated to not just a cause in name, but helping people think independently and realizing how they're being exploited by politicians for political gain. There needs to be a group with the genuine interest and betterment of the minds of people at heart, and not just after the wallets of the people. People who passively consume -- whether opinion or commodity (if there is even a difference) -- are pacified cattle being harvested for votes.

We must all become advocates for free thought. If we help people become active mental participants, we free them by giving them a choice; for it is choice that is inexorably part of being free.
Click to expand...
Agreed 110%
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

.950 JDJ
Messages
33,131
Reaction score
37,270
Location
Western NY
Funny the last 4 years the president did nothing about gun violence he brought up Chicago and inner city shootings fairly regularly. The liberals ignored them.
 
dwa12479

dwa12479

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,789
Reaction score
13,675
Location
Dark Side of the Moon
Saltwater60 said:
Honest serious question if 80% aren’t a firearm does the 2a protect them?
Click to expand...
That's what they're seeking to change. As of right now an 80% frame is just a block of materiel because that's what the ATF regulations state. The 2A doesn't apply until it's a functional firearm. So no, an 80% has nothing to do with the 2A technically any more than regular parts like stocks, barrels, handguards etc. But that doesn't mean they won't go after them. Even though they're essentially NEVER used in commission of crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top