Target Practice With President Obama

"Nailed It"...

Source: Townhall.com

Comments

[22winmag]

It's all fun and games until Trump pulls out of the race and then...

[rphb]

why would he pull out of the race, he is going to get the republican nomination at the very least and I think he has a fair chance against Hillery.

[Salsipuedes]

Ross Perot had more Fed Notes than him (inflation adjusted), then did a vanishing act like Houdini. They are called "RINGERS". It pays very, very well. It´ll be BUSH vs. Clinton and after they fake the Obama assisination, Hillary will assume her inevitable and appropriate role as the Dearest Leader of what is now the most corrupt, willfully ignorant, vilified, violent, Godless country on the planet.

[Moccasin]

the market for 3d printers has just grown some moar.

[SunRise]

Gun Violence is a liars' phrase.

[F em all but 6]

Look at Obamas new executive orders affecting gun control. Cause and affect. We see the affect. We know it defies the second amendment. Yet WE THE PEOPLE find ourselves without constitutional/judicial remedy because no one outside of government understands the cause.

There is a logical explanation for this state of affairs grounded in foundational principles of constitutional law.

The fed is a government of enumerated powers. The federal license and regulatory authority within the context of executive authority at issue here, according the the USSC is an operation of the federal taxing power. Commerce powers applied to assist. Specifically, we are dealing with the power to apply an EXCISE TAX that involves the creation, movement, and sale of property involving commerce. The Federal ACT at issue is the GCA of 1968 and amendments.

The FEDS have the power to tax the manufacture and sale (Dealing) of firearms. (Vendors/Purchasers). Manufacturers and dealers are, as a matter of law and fact, engaged in a licensed and taxable business/occupational privilege affecting the health, safety, and second amendment rights not possessed by the licensee. Not possessed means the activity or PRIVILEGE is NOT directly protected by the second amendment. Not directly protected because those engaged in the licensed/regulated activity lack STANDING to reach into the second amendment rights of the individual citizen as a MEANS to limit the powers of both FED and State (police powers) to regulate the privilege/ activity which is, again, distinct from the rights intended to be reached by the SA.

So the fed has the power to tax firearms. State police powers run concurrent (regulation of the business itself) but can and will be PRE EMPTED under the Supremacy Clause if and when they affect collection of the tax. The fed has the power to create an administrative agency to collect the tax and make needful rules/regulations to insure the tax is collected at every step required by law. It can summarily (administrative) seize property (firearm) for non payment of the tax or violation of any of the rules necessary to collect the tax. WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE POWERS IT MUST CREATE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WITHIN THE STATUTES/ RULES THAT HAS A SPECIFIC LEGAL MEANING FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT.

So what you have here is SUMMARY administrative control over property as it moves in COMMERCE between manufacturer and dealer subject to summary seizure and forfeiture laws all predicated on a PLENARY legislative power that the courts cannot and will not interfere with EVER. See the doctrine of separation of powers.

The problem here is that the LAW (GCA of 1968) requires the citizen the fill out
BATF form before the citizen can buy the firearm. TRANSFER OF A
FIREARM is a condition precedent to MERE POSSESSION. For the purposes of DUE PROCESS and in full consideration and understanding of the context in which these powers are applied within the controlling ACT, mere possession is distinct from constitutionally protected rights of property. The law, as written simply requires the property to be re transferred between DEALER and CITIZEN under the exact same plenary/summary powers as used between manu and dealer.

Do you think the courts of law and equity give two hoots who is subject to
these summary powers applied within this context along the chain of TRANSFER???
They do not. IN THE EYES OF THE COURTS, by your own signature as required by the federal act, the LAW requires you to admit that YOU are engaged in an activity that LIES BEYOND THE PROTECTIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. In law, its operates as a WAIVER. Refuse to sign the form? Leave the store empty handed and expect to be contacted by the local Canine unit.

The GCA of 1968 unconstitutionally EXTENDS the federal jurisdiction into an area of regulation it cannot constitutionally apply to because the SECOND AMENDMENT is NO BAR to its enforcement. This clearly VIOLATES the Due Process clause because it REMOVES the second amendments consideration from the jurisdiction of the courts..

Go ahead and downvote. I have 30 years and over 60,000 hours of study of
constitutional law. LOOK at what Obama is doing. THINK!! Do you think
Obama and his government attorneys are stupid? Do you think they would
go DIRECTLY against the SA? Or would they look to the Federal ACT as a
means to extend the ALREADY EXISTING legal framework further into the
chain of transfer?

The FEDERAL ACT created a LEGAL FRAMEWORK that (unconstitutionally) placed the citizen within the CHAIN OF TRANSFER. By doing so,the fed extended its jurisdiction and thus retains summary administrative control over the PROPERTY. The property can be seized and forfeited outside the protections of the second amendment based on plenary legislative powers that the courts cannot interfere with. State police powers compound the problem in that their application is CONSISTENT with federal regulation of the PRIVILEGE. Hence, State police powers applied out of context take on a completely foreign meaning as distingushed from its application to purely fundamental rights. Obama KNOWS this and the judiciary knows this. NOT EVEN THE CONSTITUTIONS PROHIBITION ON EX POST FACTO LAWS CAN COME TO YOUR AID. If you do not believe me, google the name Charlie Pucket/firearm siezure

Now apply what I just told you to the LANGUAGE of the recent executive orders and ask yourself. HOW can Congress create a LAW and legal regulatory framework involving federal TAXING/COMMERCE power and its associated ACTIVITY to WE THE PEOPLE that as a matter of law and fact, have NO constitutionally recognized relationship to that PRIVILEGED ACTIVITY????

The question has NEVER been placed before ANY court in its proper context by an individual with STANDING to do so. Existing case law, INCLUDING the Heller decision suffers from the same common jurisdictional defects.

And where is the NRA??? Did they not have a hand in passing the GCA of 1968???? Ah, Better to make millions by helping to create and then treat the disease than to apply the cure and cut offf the basis of their REVENUE stream.

Treason from within and from without. Real gun confiscation is but an execute order away

[Salsipuedes]

Superb rendering of the sorry State of affairs. Like I told my younger brother: Stand up, get out or bend over. I chose the second because the first is too hard to do when you´re surrounded by snakes, shills and shit-for-brains.

[gcjohns1971]

No.

But you are over thinking it.

A Law whose means are pursant to the constitution while it's ends are unconstitutional is no law.   No number of intermediate steps change that.

The regulatory convolutions are irrelevant.   

If the legal cartel cannot recognise that then they have no purpose, and Will join the traitors on the tree of justice.

You don't have either the guns or votes to have your way.  

[F em all but 6]

It does not matter what either of us thinks. What matters is where our protections against this abuse exist and the legal roadblocks that have been created by evil peopleto deny access to the protections of those rights.

Yes unconstitutional laws, as a matter of law cannot exist. They are VOID ab initio. But not before a court says so.

Overthinking??? Not even close. There are other areas of law involved in this analysis that were intentionall y left out because it becomes too confusing for the average person.

Our problem here is UNDER thinking. One cannot fight something that they do not understand. The entire concept of gun control is built on a rotton foundation.

[Lumberjack]

Move On is pushing the agenda.

https://mobile.twitter.com/moveon

They can go pound sand.

[surf@jm]

I still say that this marxist Howdy Doody, will want a third term....

Especially if he has the FBI make Hillary disapear.....

[Lumberjack]

Obama says won't campaign for any Democrat who doesn't back gun reforms

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-guns-election-idUSKBN0UM00Z2...

[onmail1]

An Ass and a Hole

make an AssHole

[esum]

in the bronx we had zip guns..... 

[africoman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snzSkny3SZ0

Martin Luter King===> Integration with the White

Vs

Malcom-X======>Separation from the White(American Supermacy)

Which one is still correct solution? mine is Malcom.