National ATF is going after FRT

[Yarome]

If the Roosevelt administration had 70 years of precognition, they would have expanded their definition.

In YOUR opinion... as if you can read the minds of our forefathers and know for fact that their intentions at the time of implementation were in alignment with your own personal beliefs of what the NFA "should" say(?)

Here's a thought.... and requires no "I know what they said, but what they really meant was" interpretations based on an individuals personal belief system. They meant and intended exactly what was written, were fully capable and intelligent enough to craft legislation that would have imposed greater regulation with long term and broader implications, but expressly chose a more limited approach.

Knowing and following the tenants our nation was founded on.... that all gooberment action/regulation is supposed to be only so much as is required and erring on the side of freedom and "the people". A concept that seems to have been forgotten and replaced with, "usurp as much freedom and power from the people as the people will allow without armed revolt."

 

[wired]

In YOUR opinion... as if you can read the minds of our forefathers and know for fact that their intentions at the time of implementation were in alignment with your own personal beliefs of what the NFA "should" say(?)

Here's a thought.... and requires no "I know what they said, but what they really meant was" interpretations based on an individuals personal belief system. They meant and intended exactly what was written, were fully capable and intelligent enough to craft legislation that would have imposed greater regulation with long term and broader implications, but expressly chose a more limited approach.

Knowing and following the tenants our nation was founded on.... that all gooberment action/regulation is supposed to be only so much as is required and erring on the side of freedom and "the people". A concept that seems to have been forgotten and replaced with, "usurp as much freedom and power from the people as the people will allow without armed revolt."

It doesn't matter what they thought. Their intent was to ban everything under the sun. They wanted to ban pistols but couldn't get enough votes for that so they settled with everything they could get . What matters is what they put on paper. The definitions matter 90 years later not the intent. .

 

[Redhotfill]

That's sounds like a continuation of the ammodepot scam site. Maybe ammodepot.com got shut down due to being a known scam and they made a new website and added "id" onto it?

Easiest way to tell if its a scam site is put 1,000 of whatever amazing deal that they have that no other place has. Like when you couldn't find stuff like pistol X and they will let ytou put $500k worth of firearms into your cart, cuz every place on the net you've never heard of has that kind of inventory even at the distributor they buy from. Or they have whatever ammo you can't find ANYWHERE but this place will sell you more than a pallet of it. Final clue if you didn't pay attention is when they offer you a really sweet "discount" to pay by Zelle, Monero, or bit coin and they don't take credit cards.

 

[Yarome]

What matters is what they put on paper. The definitions matter 90 years later not the intent. .

Exactly my point.

 

[Redhotfill]

It doesn't matter what they thought. Their intent was to ban everything under the sun. They wanted to ban pistols but couldn't get enough votes for that so they settled with everything they could get . What matters is what they put on paper. The definitions matter 90 years later not the intent. .

Also back then many states charged POLL TAX to stop the Free Stuff Army AKA The Free S**T Army from voting in people promising to tax outrageously to be able to give those voters their "Gibs." In the 60's SCOTUS ruled charging a Poll Tax was an unconstitutional infringement on the fundamental right to vote. So if you can't charge a tax to exercise a "Fundamental Right" how is the NFA TAX STAMP LEGAL? Plus it's not merely a pure tax because IF it were you could buy the tax stamp at the post office like a duck stamp. It's really an illegal gun registration and background check scheme to delay the exercise of a fundamental and ENUMERATED constitutional right. But no one is going to nominate me to be on SCOTUS to fix that.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Are you stuck in "confrontation mode"? Agreeing with you is a "trigger"??

Nah, just based on past conversations I know we would disagree on if things are worse now.

 

[wired]

Also back then many states charged POLL TAX to stop the Free Stuff Army AKA The Free S**T Army from voting in people promising to tax outrageously to be able to give those voters their "Gibs." In the 60's SCOTUS ruled charging a Poll Tax was an unconstitutional infringement on the fundamental right to vote. So if you can't charge a tax to exercise a "Fundamental Right" how is the NFA TAX STAMP LEGAL? Plus it's not merely a pure tax because IF it were you could buy the tax stamp at the post office like a duck stamp. It's really an illegal gun registration and background check scheme to delay the exercise of a fundamental and ENUMERATED constitutional right. But no one is going to nominate me to be on SCOTUS to fix that.

There is no right to vote in the Constitution.

 

[Redhotfill]

There is no right to vote in the Constitution.

Most states in the United States explicitly assert the right to vote for each of its citizens in their state constitution However, this is not a right that states are required to grant yet the constitution requires that the house of representative be chosen by the people of the several states. Sounds like some kind of process people are supposed to have a say in like voting in an election or caucusing. or some other method The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote Instead, it prohibits federal and state governments from placing restrictions on voting. You are right in the sense that there is not per se a voting right but there are restrictions on limiting them imposed on the states if you want to get into minutia. Until those SCOTUS voting rights cases are reversed voting is still a " fundamental right." Also not mentioned is the right to breath or protect yourself you get a better context if you read the federalist papers.. However with certain folks use of lawfare these days it may need to be explicitly included. also see

Article I
Section 1 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States. Sounds like some kind of voting scheme to me even if only a caucus.

 

[wired]

Most states in the United States explicitly assert the right to vote for each of its citizens in their state constitution However, this is not a right that states are required to grant yet the constitution requires that the house of representative be chosen by the people of the several states. Sounds like some kind of process people are supposed to have a say in like voting in an election or caucusing. or some other method The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote Instead, it prohibits federal and state governments from placing restrictions on voting. You are right in the sense that there is not per se a voting right but there are restrictions on limiting them imposed on the states if you want to get into minutia. Until those SCOTUS voting rights cases are reversed voting is still a " fundamental right." Also not mentioned is the right to breath or protect yourself you get a better context if you read the federalist papers.. However with certain folks use of lawfare these days it may need to be explicitly included. also see

Article I
Section 1 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States. Sounds like some kind of voting scheme to me even if only a caucus.

The irony is when we are talking about the founders intent we bring up the Federalist Papers and applaud an originalist court that references such papers when making decisions but when we talk about modern laws, especially ones we dont like, we require exact wording.

 

[Yarome]

The irony is when we are talking about the founders intent we bring up the Federalist Papers and applaud an originalist court that references such papers when making decisions but when we talk about modern laws, especially ones we dont like, we require exact wording.

That's more of a half truth. We require exact wording and clear definitions for laws if we like them or not. Our ability to change them is guaranteed, but it is the SC's purpose and duty to define any interpretations of those laws and they may refer to historical references for context in their decision making process. As clearly stated recently by the DOJ's general council as a defendant before the SC... once those definitions and doctrines are duly established (IOW, exact wording), they must be adhered to by inferior courts.

The silly part is when people that don't like those laws and are powerless to change them cry "dual standards!!" Basically, "If the SC can use historical context to define a law, why can't "I" make that law mean what I want it to mean by "my" own interpretation of what I want the historical context to mean?? No fair!!!"

 

[Jcon268]

When congress defined a full auto machinegun and how it worked their definition was the only way that machineguns worked. They didn't have a crystal ball to work with or you bet your flapper hat they would have enumerated every possible possible contraption they could have envisioned..

Laws are a double edged sword like that. Their specificity leaves gaps that can be used as opportunities to circumvent them. This is why there are law books that could fill rooms stacked to the ceiling to try to fill every gap. They say that ignorance of a law is not a defense against it (loosely paraphrased)...but realistically, people going about their daily lives are almost always breaking some law or statute. To me it's sad the government works so hard to corner people who have no criminal intent into being in violation of some decree or another.

 

[Flopsweat]

Laws are a double edged sword like that. Their specificity leaves gaps that can be used as opportunities to circumvent them. This is why there are law books that could fill rooms stacked to the ceiling to try to fill every gap. They say that ignorance of a law is not a defense against it (loosely paraphrased)...but realistically, people going about their daily lives are almost always breaking some law or statute. To me it's sad the government works so hard to corner people who have no criminal intent into being in violation of some decree or another.

It was a valid standard when laws were few and simply phrased. That, sadly, was a very short period of time.