This would be funny if it weren’t so sad and ignorant…
This was extra special:
The White House said the order will also hold the gun industry “accountable,” by providing the public and policymakers with “more information regarding federally licensed firearms dealers who are violating the law.”
Amazing.
Anyone remember those old V-8 commercials where someone would do something dumb and someone else would walk up and palm smack them in the forehead?
This is one of those moments in real life.
Too stupid to even know what they just said was already the law unless I’m misunderstanding it.
What makes it even worse is: you know Joe didn’t come up with this on his own. Meaning it was a non-dementia addled “competent” person advising him that’s too stupid to know this is already the law.
“President Joe Biden is expected to announce an executive order on Tuesday that would expand background checks to more firearm sales by expanding the statutory definition of a firearms dealer, the White House said.”
That right there … unconstitutional. A statute cannot be changed by Executive Order.
Yeah, only the supreme court gets to change laws by changing the definitions of the words in the law.
That was Jefferson.
And his protest does not ring true to me, for Jefferson would have been well aware of what Marshall took pains to point out in the preliminary slogging work before he transitioned to the then current issue with the words “This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be inquired, Whether it can issue from this court.”.
Namely that it had already been accepted that when presented with an obligation to honor and uphold the Constitution or a statute that the Court should honor the Constitution: “It must be well recollected that in 1792 an act passed, directing the secretary at war to place on the pension list such disabled officers and soldiers as should be reported to him by the circuit courts, which act, so far as the duty was imposed on the courts, was deemed unconstitutional;”.
So what was Jefferson actually upset with his cousin about?
It could not be the results, for in ruling that statute could not confer original jurisdiction to the Court where it had appellant under the Constitution it so happened that Marbury did not get his Writ of Mandamus compelling Jefferson’s administration to perform its duty.
Which is to say: Jefferson’s bunch won.
It seems unlikely to have been recognizing Marbury had Standing to pursue the petition for what should be considered today an unremarkable injury (loss of wages … unlike the modern Court, Marshall justly recognized that merely being injured was sufficient to have Standing, rather than needing the injury to be specific to the person rather than general to the population – iow if everyone is affected by federal lawlessness more or less equally the modern Court recognizes no right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right).
Rather, it appears as if Jefferson, who was not above fast and loose with the Law and okay with it when he was the guy doing it, may have been upset that Marshall held up the act of Ratification and what those who Ratified can be said to have agreed to, their Original Right to make Law, is what determines the meaning of the Law forever thereafter rather than what government can get away with at the moment.
A well regulated militias shoots 3 shots a minute. A clock is perfectly regulated. It is regular in it’s intervals. It has nothing to do with putting a govt regulator between a citizen and their rights. In fact we should make rocket launchers legal. I’m sure the founders would have done that so the people can take out tanks.
Actually, “regulated” meant provided for, to be equipped.
But even then there is no power given the federal to regulate the arms people should own because that sub clause is a justifying clause.
Rather a law requiring ownership of arms and related gear suitable for militia service is covered by the enumerated power governing the organization and calling out of the militia in A1:S8. Same with laws to ensure the availability and affordability of such arms.
There is no enumerated power given the federal to determine what arms cannot be owned and as such federal gun laws presently are in violation of the 10th Amendment and are all unconstitutional. The whole ATF and everything.
There’s apparently some folks who want to make it not felony murder if the killer is under 25.
Unless the shooter is a cop, right?
Yeah, there are 24 year old cops. They won’t get the benefit … but their killers might.
That definition falls short. First off, a militia man was expected to bring his own arms. He was only equipped with powder, ball, food and sometimes quarters. A “well-regulated” militia meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations. The key components there being “efficient and orderly.” To be well regulated required the Militia to have an established Cadre of Commanders with a clear chain of command, discipline through the ranks, and training.
That is why I indicated should own subsequently rather than be provided with. The justifying clause in the 2nd is not there to enumerate what was already provided for in A1:S8 … it justifies the right to bear arms and the forbiddance to Congress to engage in arms restrictions.
That is correct. The 2nd Amendment does not grant any right. It protects the existing prior right of individuals to keep and bear arms. (The Right shall not be infringed, is crystal clear.) The prefatory clause merely explains the importance of the Right to the security of the State. And that is why the SCOTUS ruled that the Right belongs to the people, regardless of the existence of a Militia. It predates and perseveres beyond a Militia. The transition over the years from a collection of State Militias to a National Army, does not change that fact.
Guns for Ukraine, not for thee
From your link
DOJ contends that the Fifth Circuit erred because it “overlooked the strong historical evidence supporting the general principle that the government may disarm dangerous individuals. The court instead analyzed each historical statute in isolation.”
DOJ seems to be forgetting something, namely a conviction before that right is removed.
Of course they are. To them, the Constitution is an impediment to their power … something to be evaded, not abided.
Been that since before FDR was able to kick the Constitution to the curb and make Arbitrary government stick.
Biden bragging about gun laws:
“You know but this builds on other steps that you’ve taken and we’ve taken like the most significant gun safety law in 30 years to help keep guns out of the hands of domestic political advisors.”
No hunting for James Carville.
Yes, but it was his cousin Teddy who was the father of Progressivism.
