National Are pistol braces coming to the chopping block?

[The Resister]

It seems I have attracted critics from the left. So, when Biden and Harris take over, are all of you planning on throwing in the towel? Harris has said that when she becomes president, she will outlaw all "assault weapons" one feature at a time the same way Trump outlawed bump stocks. How many of you are going to register and pay $200 per high capacity magazine? Are you ready to cut the flash suppressor off your rifle? Will you stand in a line and surrender your Liberty teeth?

 

[CamoDeafie]

It seems I have attracted critics from the left. So, when Biden and Harris take over, are all of you planning on throwing in the towel? Harris has said that when she becomes president, she will outlaw all "assault weapons" one feature at a time the same way Trump outlawed bump stocks. How many of you are going to register and pay $200 per high capacity magazine? Are you ready to cut the flash suppressor off your rifle? Will you stand in a line and surrender your Liberty teeth?

To remain law abiding, most people will.

 

[The Resister]

To remain law abiding, most people will.

And I repeat:

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

 

[CamoDeafie]

And I repeat:

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

We are but a tiny minority who thinks this way. Again; the majority of the people in the US will blindly follow any and all laws passed by Congress and State govts, and upheld by the SCOTUS. If you could find say, half a million to a million who agrees with us, and have the guts to actually stand up to the govts in question... good luck. Again; most people are not going to think for themselves and decide that the government is illegitimate.

 

[Camelfilter]

To remain law abiding, most people will.

I don't know that they will in all all honesty.

Was it FOPA 1986, which gave illegal owners of unregistered NFA items the opportunity to register any & all they had?

Compare the numbers today, of folks whom own semi-automatic weapons. Vs folks then whom owned non-registered NFA items. Likely several thousand fold difference, or more.

IMO, it would be comical to think that the system could handle the influx, even if ballooned ten fold. Let alone the number of folks whom simply "wouldn't comply", given numbers.

The simpler (albeit unconstitutional) thing they could do would be to simply ban production of such moving forwards, grandfathering all current. Without any sorts of registry & such. "Less" overall upheaval, generally speaking. Again, IMO.

No need for a registry, if it (whatever) could no longer be produced, sold & transferred.

After a generation gun culture as is known today would be eliminated.

Exactly what the Anti's dream of.

 

[The Resister]

We are but a tiny minority who thinks this way. Again; the majority of the people in the US will blindly follow any and all laws passed by Congress and State govts, and upheld by the SCOTUS. If you could find say, half a million to a million who agrees with us, and have the guts to actually stand up to the govts in question... good luck. Again; most people are not going to think for themselves and decide that the government is illegitimate.

First, I think a lot more people have come to the same conclusion than you believe. They have done so for different reasons, but there is little confidence in the government over all.

Secondly, masses are always ineffective. No matter what side of the aisle you stand on, you have to think about HOW change came about. Jesus had twelve apostles and influenced the world. Fifty six men signed the Declaration of Independence and the greatest nation in the annals of history was created. Hitler had a few guys sitting around a table in a pub and he came close to taking over the freaking world with a country about the size of Texas. It took the mightiest nations on the earth to stop him.

If change takes place and a fight for Liberty is on the horizon, it is of little importance about the size of the force. It's never about the size of the man in the fight; it's always about the size of the fight in the man.

 

[awshoot]

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. So, I'll be blunt. In 1994 they passed the Assault Weapons Ban. If you owned a banned weapon before the date of enactment of the law, you got to keep your weapon with no caveats. You did not have to pay a tax on it; didn't have to register it; did not have to surrender it.

The law had a grandfather clause because Congress didn't want to deal with the 5A (no property to be taken without just compensation). This example does not support the assertion that property bought legally at one point in time, can be possessed for ever by virtue of the ex post facto prohibition in the Constitution.

The law means what the law says. The only constitutional way the government can now ban firearms is to start on the ones that will be produced after a proposed law is signed into effect. All firearms that precede it will be automatically covered and subject to the restrictions. Even then, we need to have l o n g discussion about how the government illegally attacked and then nullified unalienable Rights.

There is no funamental difference between a Glock 19 made yesterday and one made tomorrow. If it is determined by SCOTUS that the government can ban item X, and Congress doesn't put in grandfather clause, then itemX is contraband. The only question left is whetehr you'll get just compensation. Whether or not it should be that way is a different topic -- the exercise of unadulterated power doesn't adhere to niceties like constitutions or whatnot.

 

[wired]

I don't know that they will in all all honesty.

Was it FOPA 1986, which gave illegal owners of unregistered NFA items the opportunity to register any & all they had?

Compare the numbers today, of folks whom own semi-automatic weapons. Vs folks then whom owned non-registered NFA items. Likely several thousand fold difference, or more.

IMO, it would be comical to think that the system could handle the influx, even if ballooned ten fold. Let alone the number of folks whom simply "wouldn't comply", given numbers.

The simpler (albeit unconstitutional) thing they could do would be to simply ban production of such moving forwards, grandfathering all current. Without any sorts of registry & such. "Less" overall upheaval, generally speaking. Again, IMO.

No need for a registry, if it (whatever) could no longer be produced, sold & transferred.

After a generation gun culture as is known today would be eliminated.

Exactly what the Anti's dream of.

It was the 1968 GCA that had an amnesty period. '86 just shut the tap off completely except for police and law enforcement. They did leave a nice loophole for manufacturers and dealers which has yet to be shut for small time kitchen table guys.

 

[CamoDeafie]

It was the 1968 GCA that had an amnesty period. '86 just shut the tap off completely except for police and law enforcement. They did leave a nice loophole for manufacturers and dealers which has yet to be shut for small time kitchen table guys.

But the SOT and FFL type of license in order to remain legal is a bit more expensive than a plain ol NFA trust/NFA tax stamps right?

 

[The Resister]

The law had a grandfather clause because Congress didn't want to deal with the 5A (no property to be taken without just compensation). This example does not support the assertion that property bought legally at one point in time, can be possessed for ever by virtue of the ex post facto prohibition in the Constitution.



There is no funamental difference between a Glock 19 made yesterday and one made tomorrow. If it is determined by SCOTUS that the government can ban item X, and Congress doesn't put in grandfather clause, then itemX is contraband. The only question left is whetehr you'll get just compensation. Whether or not it should be that way is a different topic -- the exercise of unadulterated power doesn't adhere to niceties like constitutions or whatnot.

It appears to me that you like to defend liberalism. While I'd fight to the death for your Right to say what you believe, you have NO right to be wrong in your facts. IF the liberals have the votes and they vote for an unconstitutional law, which they have and do, and if a misguided collection of misfits trained by the ABA, sitting on their arse and not enforcing the Constitution which they can and do, then they have the power do so. I don't know much about you, but rest assured, anyone with an IQ size larger than their shoe size is capable of looking up the term ex post facto law. They cannot constitutionally pass an ex post facto law. Period. If and when they do, and they have, it is up to we, the people to hold government accountable.

Now, you may want to sound important and all, but pardon me but you sound like you are for liberalism. So, I don't care to "prove" anything to you. If the government can pass any law they want at any time they want with no regard for the Constitution - and especially the intent of that document, which you've argued throughout this thread, then you believe as George Bush did... "it's just a G.D. piece of paper." If that is where you choose to make your stand, that is clearly your fight to fight. As for me:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second president of the United States - Founder and Framer of the Constitution

They have the power to make bad laws; we are not obligated to obey them. We would be more effective to say that with one voice than different voices with no correlating power behind them.

 

[Kruel J]

I like that some people in power think that we will all comply like good little sheep.

Silly little politicians. They count on all Americans to be passive.....they counted wrong.

 

[Rkangel]

We are but a tiny minority who thinks this way. Again; the majority of the people in the US will blindly follow any and all laws passed by Congress and State govts, and upheld by the SCOTUS. If you could find say, half a million to a million who agrees with us, and have the guts to actually stand up to the govts in question... good luck. Again; most people are not going to think for themselves and decide that the government is illegitimate.

It is sad that we are having to once again ask the question our founding fathers asked 240 years ago: What is more offensive to liberty and justice? Following unjust laws, breaking unjust laws or passing unjust laws?

 

[wired]

But the SOT and FFL type of license in order to remain legal is a bit more expensive than a plain ol NFA trust/NFA tax stamps right?

It can be as cheap as about $1000 a year depending on how fancy you want to get to run a 02/07 SOT FFL. You can spend more but you don't have to. That buys you the right to build whatever machine gun and silencer, sbs etc at your whim. Call them dealer samples and that's what they are. Transfer a few silencers. Build a few for sale to make it look like you are really engaged in the business. $1000 a year is. LOT less than I spend on stamps. It takes a level of dedication to the hobby/gun biz most folks don't have but in the end it's just a few forms, a little cash and some face time with government people.

 

[awshoot]

It appears to me that you like to defend liberalism. ... I don't know much about you, but rest assured, anyone with an IQ size larger than their shoe size is capable of looking up the term ex post facto law. They cannot constitutionally pass an ex post facto law. Period. ...

I posted a link that expands on ex post facto laws up thread. What I am saying is that an interpretation of ex post facto laws which suggests that property cannot become contraband if it was ever legal to own, is not a correct understanding of the term. That's literally all I'm saying.

If a person willingly makes the choice to keep contraband in conscious defiance of a law, that is one thing. But it is a sad situation where a person relies on a mistaken understanding of the law and that mistake gets him into prison.

Now, you may want to sound important and all, but pardon me but you sound like you are for liberalism. So, I don't care to "prove" anything to you. ...

I have no interest in sounding important. I'm not important. I am not pushing an agenda either liberal or conservative. My agenda is that people make knowing decisions because I feel bad for the people who get jammed up over a misunderstanding -- the dude who made silencers under a Kansas state law for example -- I have a lot of empathy toward him: Kansas man's homemade gun silencers clash with federal law

... They have the power to make bad laws; we are not obligated to obey them. We would be more effective to say that with one voice than different voices with no correlating power behind them.

I agree with this so long as the disobedience is knowingly made and and the consequences clearly understood. But in order to make a choice to disobey, a person must act in knowledge rather than mistaken belief.

 

[The Resister]

I posted a link that expands on ex post facto laws up thread. What I am saying is that an interpretation of ex post facto laws which suggests that property cannot become contraband if it was ever legal to own, is not a correct understanding of the term. That's literally all I'm saying.

If a person willingly makes the choice to keep contraband in conscious defiance of a law, that is one thing. But it is a sad situation where a person relies on a mistaken understanding of the law and that mistake gets him into prison.



I have no interest in sounding important. I'm not important. I am not pushing an agenda either liberal or conservative. My agenda is that people make knowing decisions because I feel bad for the people who get jammed up over a misunderstanding -- the dude who made silencers under a Kansas state law for example -- I have a lot of empathy toward him: Kansas man's homemade gun silencers clash with federal law



I agree with this so long as the disobedience is knowingly made and and the consequences clearly understood. But in order to make a choice to disobey, a person must act in knowledge rather than mistaken belief.

Throughout the course of this thread I have stressed two things:

1) BEFORE anybody gets caught up in defending or protecting their Rights, they have to study to know what they are and what their options are

2) The illegal / unconscionable,/ immoral / indefensible / reprehensible / unconstitutional system operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not the de jure / legal/ constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders and framers.

So, let me try a different route so that you understand my position. Are there unconstitutional laws on the books? The answer is yes. Can you be arrested and tried for violating those laws? The answer is YES. If the government wants you, will they come after you? Again, the answer is yes. People who have even the most rudimentary understanding of history realize that the registration of firearms leads to confiscation. So, the government can pass unconstitutional laws; can enforce them to a point (get to that later).

One school of thought here is that you should go along to get along. So, those people play it "safe." They register their weapons, give them up when required, and play the game. My message is not to them, for them, nor about them. America was founded on certain principles. I'd like to share a couple of them with you from Samuel Adams:

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks."

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

What I can share with the readers here is the information they need to know HOW the Constitution is being violated and that we should be discussing NOW what options are available AND to prepare people for the fight that lays ahead. You and I realize that when Donald Trump criminalized the ownership of bump stocks and never offered the owners thereof just compensation, it was an unconstitutional act. You and I may not own a bump stock or even have a use for one. But, we both know that what the Trump and now the LEOs are doing is wholly and indisputably unconstitutional. And it may come as a surprise to you, but I do have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and quite a number of law books that can chronicle HOW the laws were illegally changed. AND I want you to note something:

When one poster accused me of semantics and I told him there is a legal differentiation between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right, yet it was the courts, NOT ME, that interpreted those words differently in published court cases. Then, when we have both a layman's definition of the term ex post facto law AND the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of that law, their application of the law is 180 degrees opposite of what the original intent was... and we're arguing over what the United States Supreme Court claims it is.

You cow tow to the Establishment. I got it. Okay. That does not make me wrong. It means that I know the difference and I know that when well meaning, but miseducated people try to argue their Rights using the bastardized version of our Constitution, frustration sets in and people believe there are only two roads to take: go along to get along OR challenge the government with violence. I'm not in the business of sending people to jail or Hell. I'm pointing out WHY the courts are wrong and why the politicians are equally wrong. I offer legitimate solutions. But, let's get it straight so we can be honest with the people. I want to repeat something I said earlier:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second president of the United States - Founder and Framer of the Constitution

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." the HOLDING in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

If you're looking closely, the America envisioned by John Adams, a founder and framer of the Constitution, is NOT the utopia of the United States Supreme Court. The high Court's ideology is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what America was meant to be. It just so happens that one of those unalienable Rights is the Right to Life... which encompasses the Right to keep and bear Arms to defend your life with and so you don't mistake it, here is another thought for you:

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." Samuel Adams, Article in the Boston Gazette, October 14, 1771

I will continue to try and properly educate people as to WHY many of the laws in effect today are illegal usurpations of power. I will advocate that we help those who fall victim to bad laws. I will continue to show people how to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before considering extraordinary actions. From a moral and constitutional standpoint, if you employ passive resistance (like refusing to turn in a bump stock, a pistol brace, etc.) I will tell you that you risk a prison sentence. At the same time, once a group of people are properly educated; once they have exercised those avenues of redress, they may find themselves having to choose between fighting back and slavery. I think you've made your choice and I support your Right to do so. In my opinion, the best blueprint to follow is the one left by our founders. We should follow that blueprint, starting with our own version of the Magna Charta / Declaration of Independence and work from there.

 

[awshoot]

So if I am understanding correctly, you are outlining what ought to be, while recognizing that there is difference between your vision and the existing regulatory matrix in which gun owners find themselves. I'm guessing most people here agree with you that the 2A has been given short shrift and would also like to see a reversal of any number, maybe even most, onerous laws which accomplish little.

I encourage you to remember though, that not all people know that taking legal advice from random people on the internet is a risky business, and to embed a few caveats in your legal pronouncements. Phrases like "I think" or "I believe" or "YMMV" would make that caveat clear.

It's easy to feel certain, but as my own example here in this very thread shows, it's easy to be certainly wrong: National - Are pistol braces coming to the chopping block? Three posts later I was corrected. I should listen to my advice about "I think" caveats and it definitely pays to listen to other people.

 

[The Resister]

So if I am understanding correctly, you are outlining what ought to be, while recognizing that there is difference between your vision and the existing regulatory matrix in which gun owners find themselves. I'm guessing most people here agree with you that the 2A has been given short shrift and would also like to see a reversal of any number, maybe even most, onerous laws which accomplish little.

I encourage you to remember though, that not all people know that taking legal advice from random people on the internet is a risky business, and to embed a few caveats in your legal pronouncements. Phrases like "I think" or "I believe" or "YMMV" would make that caveat clear.

It's easy to feel certain, but as my own example here in this very thread shows, it's easy to be certainly wrong: National - Are pistol braces coming to the chopping block? Three posts later I was corrected. I should listen to my advice about "I think" caveats and it definitely pays to listen to other people.

I do not offer legal advice. I educate people as to what IS. If they find value in it and want to network with me, they can contact me via PM here. Most people might "agree" with me, but not have the factual basis necessary upon which to make a credible argument in a court or sway legislators (who tend to be lawyers more often than not). I'm not telling anyone what ought to be. I'm telling you what is.

If the term ex post facto law means a retroactive law, then THAT is the meaning of the word and if the framers used it in that sense, and the Justices on the United States Supreme Court have the power to declare to mean whatever they want, but that don't make it right. As such, there is a process to hold the government accountable for its perversion of the law. If you follow that process and cannot achieve the desired result, you have a blueprint to follow and the admonition from the founders and framers to follow same in order to maintain Liberty.

 

[Mike7b]

I've found this thread to be very interesting. My take is if trump gets re-elected, and the republicans hold the Senate,the can gets kicked down the road, and with four more years to appoint more judges, may become a moot point. On the other hand, if biden gets elected and that line gets drawn in the sand, then each of us will get to decide at what cost our liberty is worth to us individually.

 

[The Resister]

I've found this thread to be very interesting. My take is if trump gets re-elected, and the republicans hold the Senate,the can gets kicked down the road, and with four more years to appoint more judges, may become a moot point. On the other hand, if biden gets elected and that line gets drawn in the sand, then each of us will get to decide at what cost our liberty is worth to us individually.

The real problem is Trump is anti-gun so, at best, you might get SOME gridlock, but Trump wants a universal background check (clear violation of the 4th Amendment) and he buys that garbage about semi autos being "assault weapons." The background check is my line in the sand. The day we're forced to forfeit our 4th Amendment Rights to exercise another Right, then there is no more excuses for tolerating that unconstitutional government. We will have to go before the American people and debate the legitimacy of the government.

 

[turbo_vanner]

We will have to go before the American people and debate the legitimacy of the government.

that would be great, then we could vote for a new government that would act exactly the same way.