National BATFE - Biden Executive Action to Require Background Check on Serial Number-less Guns

[Deerhurst]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

You Can Now 3D Print an Entire Semi-Automatic Rifle at Home

A 3D-printed weapons community is about to release plans for a new assault rifle.

futurism.com

View attachment 832412




BGC to have a 3d Printer?
Buy springs?

Didn't think it was that expensive! I've printed 100% AR lowers with a $160 printer. FCGs are also printable so it's just springs. If you are crafty you can rifle your own barrels with a form of primative EDM.

 

[deadeye]

WHOA THERE YOUNGIN.

IN 1973 I got a school bus ... long time.

Cut for brevity.......

Ya old goat!

 

[Rkangel]

Indeed. I'm just pointing out that in 1986, one had to get permission to exercise carry rights in some States, and most States were unlikely to issue permits by being ""may"" and "no issue" (Most notably... Texas, it was a No-Issue State until the 2000s) but now, it looks like a third or so are unrestricted, and the majority are technically "shall issue"
.

But like I said... other than that, several States went full mental on certain firearm designs and magazine capacity

We're on the same page. One step forward here. Two steps back there. In the end we still lose a step. It is odd the Amendment that specifically says "shall not be infringed" seems to have a lot of infringements.

Imagine having a background check to own property or a license to attend church.
"Sir, do you have your concealed thought permit?"
"Sorry, this is a speech-free zone." AKA Facebook, Youtube, Twitter.

 

[Mark W.]

25 months of work away from retirement call me anything you want lol

 

[The Resister]

I honestly appreciate your anecdotes and we definitely come from different times; however, that is why I find it disingenuous to blame Trump for major progress against the 2nd Amendment.

My early childhood was spent under the AWB of 1994 and I had no clue about it until I was in high school. I was already very into firearms, but as I approached gun buying age, I started realizing how terrible that AWB must have been for gun-owners at the time!

In my adult life I have seen the firearms industry flourish with basically zero federal restrictions. I can go order a .50BMG rifle or twenty 60-round AR magazines if I wanted. Thanks to a Trump appointed judge, even a state like California might be on its way to start shedding its unconstitutional restrictions!

From my personal experience, I just don't think your argument against Trump makes any sense; not when things in many cases have gotten better, especially compared to what happened in the 90s and early 2000s!

Things haven't had a chance yet to get worse under Biden. You are entitled to your opinion, but I need not lie about anything. As bad as the AWB was, Clinton did have some respect for the Constitution - enough to allow people to keep what they already had. Trump didn't do that. Trump violated the ex post facto provision of the Constitution and did not grandfather any existing stocks. So, uh, yeah it IS a bad precedent. It makes a lot of people on the right squirm around trying to blow off the ban on ex post facto laws and the unfairness of having to destroy your private property without any compensation. But, I will support your Right to your own opinion.

I don't know where you live in the United States, but the whole country is covered by the silly background law though a lot of states allow for casual sales between private parties. There is no way to enforce background checks without national gun registration. We've been stuck in a state of regression for ALL of the years I've been in this fight. Remember that when I was kid you could go to the local grocery store, buy a copy of Firepower magazine, and each month they had two articles in each one explaining how to convert semi autos to select fire weapons with full auto capabilities. Again, thanks to a Republican president, that is illegal.

Occasionally, Uncle Scam removes or otherwise invalidates some meaningless (and formerly unconstitutional) law, then pretends to "give" us something we already had. There is a gross misunderstanding about Rights and the Heller ruling paved the way for future courts to outlaw firearms where it was questionable whether or not they could do so.

WHOA THERE YOUNGIN.

IN 1973 I got a school bus with an M1 carbine and a loaded magazine. Put it my locker removing it for my third period English class where I used it as a prop for my speech " How to field strip and clean the M1 carbine" I received an A. I then after class put it back in my locker and at the end of the day took it home on the school bus.

As to how long I been involved with fighting gun control as an 9 year old in 1968 I was right there with my dad at Four corners Rod and gun club while the meeting talked about little other then the coming gun control act.

At 13 I was a junior member of the club and by 14 shooting on the Salem Boys Club rifle team.

in 89 I was at and testified during the hearings that changed Oregon Concealed carry laws if you want proof I can show you the newspaper clippings where I was quoted.

So get off your high and mighty horsey lots of people here been fighting the good fight for a long time.

I'm not denigrating anyone's commitment to the cause. I have, however. professionally lobbied, worked on legal cases that went to court, testified, spoke out, researched, OFFERED ALTERNATIVE LEGISLATION TO GUN CONTROL FOR MORE THAN TWENTY DECADES.. was on radio, tv, and in newspapers. Twice, for speaking out I made major headlines after the LEO community tried to set me up and cause me problems. One LEO got suspended, lost pay, lowered in rank, and a letter of reprimand in his file for what he did to me. I've done more than run my yap at them. I've put my butt on the line.

Some people think that any of us that speak out are making noise and they already don't respect us. I appreciate your service. I really do. It's just that I've been forced to read thousands of pages of laws, legal briefs, arguments, etc. that you could not begin to fathom over the past 47 years. Before that I was exposed to shooting programs like yourself - a couple of times using weapons out of necessity (somewhere around 1966 or 67). We had a .22 rifle and my mother and two siblings were living in a house that had mud for insulation and no indoor plumbing. In the school I went to the 1st through 6th grades were in one room, and the 7th through 12th in another room. You ate lunch at your desk, stayed warm by the same two coal stoves that were used to heat that place and they had outdoor toilets. If not for the occasional squirrel or rabbit, the only meat we would have had was Spam in a can (and I wouldn't feed that to rat now).

The reason I tend to think people don't have the same level of experience that I do is that I can track gun control from the first reported court cases to the present and show people in painstaking detail how the United States Supreme Court reinterpreted the Constitution 180 degrees opposite from what the author intended the law to say. Problem is: nobody is interested. That indifference doesn't bode well for the future of gun owners. But, if I have given you enough information that you know what I'm talking about, then maybe we'd be better off working together to find simplistic ways to explain the last two centuries (give or take a couple of years) of American jurisprudence and gun laws.

 

[The Resister]

25 months of work away from retirement call me anything you want lol

It appears that you and I are so old we probably worked the same job at the Last Supper.

 

[Ura-Ki]

In 1990, while applying for a CCW in the state or OryGun, I had to show "Just Cause" on the application, or the sheriff wouldn't allow it! As I also had a Fed Mil. Carry permit and was active duty, this shouldn't have been an issue, RIGHT, wrong! OryGun and Multico Would not issue with out a valid reason that they approved of! My C.O. told me he would take care of it, and 45 days later, I had an appointment to get my photo and prints taken and they issued the permit right then and there! Funny, the State would not recognize a Fed issued permit for Mil. Personal, and required county/state issued permits before allowing it! Yea, Orygun has finally come out of the stone age in some aspects!

 

[Mark W.]

It appears that you and I are so old we probably worked the same job at the Last Supper.

Well I started picking crops in 1963 at age 5 I have no idea what you were doing at the time I was trying to earn enough to pay for my first grade school clothes. Which went on every summer until I was 12 when I got my first hourly jobs working the surrounding farms. By 14 I was weighing pole beans bucking hay moving irrigation pipe and driving a 46 Ford farm truck to the cannery. That summer worked from sun up to about 9pm. Unless I was helping run bush bean pickers at night. At 15 i was framing houses at 16 i was working the Christmas tree farms.. I don't remember any big supper.

 

[03A3Sporter]

We used to bring rifles to school , hand them to the school secretary who would store them behind her desk and give them back to us so after school so we could go squirrel hunting .

I miss those days

 

[308]

Well I started picking crops in 1963 at age 5 I have no idea what you were doing at the time I was trying to earn enough to pay for my first grade school clothes. Which went on every summer until I was 12 when I got my first hourly jobs working the surrounding farms. By 14 I was weighing pole beans bucking hay moving irrigation pipe and driving a 46 Ford farm truck to the cannery. That summer worked from sun up to about 9pm. Unless I was helping run bush bean pickers at night. At 15 i was framing houses at 16 i was working the Christmas tree farms.. I don't remember any big supper.

You guys are young.

 

[Mikej]

I have, however. professionally lobbied, worked on legal cases that went to court, testified, spoke out, researched, OFFERED ALTERNATIVE LEGISLATION TO GUN CONTROL FOR MORE THAN TWENTY DECADES.. was on radio, tv, and in newspapers.

Holy bubblegum @Mark W. He's got you beat here ^^, no denying that!

 

[Dinglenutz]

How much did Biden get accomplished between 2008-2010 when liberals had full control? Did he use any ex's give action to reclassify guns without congress 2010-2016? Nope

Biden wasn't president then

 

[03A3Sporter]

Biden wasn't president then

You know @Melman is a troll right ? There is no way the posts he made in this thread are anything other than troll posts to get a response.

 

[RobMa]

No ruling party wants an armed populace, it is just that simple..
Makes it harder to control us pesky minions...

 

[The Resister]

I think you are cherry picking the component of this case where they upheld the ability to regulate firearms. That being said, would you like to paint a picture for us of what the 2nd Amendment would look like if they ruled the other way regarding an individual right to bear arms?

You're conflating the issue to get a dishonest result. Did you read the whole opinion or just the parts the NRA told you were good? Under Heller you do not have the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms that existed before. Under Heller, your "right" is merely a revocable privilege. Look dude, I've been voting for the lesser of two evils all my life. I'm kind of sick of doing it. If that's your thing, I support your Right to do it. Heller was the second worst gun ruling of my lifetime. The coup de grace came just a couple of years later.

 

[The Resister]

Care to provide evidence of this interpretation? To my knowledge, the most sweeping federal legislation ever implemented was the AWB of 1994; this occurred well before the Heller decision and was allowed to ride out its entire course! Since the Heller decision, we have seen only a bump stock ban at the federal level.

If the 2nd Amendment was so much stronger before Heller, how do you explain the extreme restrictions that were allowed under the 1994 AWB?

What???

I know you're not really going to read this. It's the ceremonial song and dance we do just before the allegations of arrogance, know it all, etc. are made to cover up the fact that you aren't up to date on your history. This ain't my first rodeo.

In order to understand gun Rights, you have to understand the whole topic of Rights (or more accurately unalienable Rights) versus "rights" that are actually mere privileges to be doled out by the government. When you interact with judges, attorneys, and especially legislators you have to know the differences, the nuances, and be able to argue them.

High school civics teaches that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. They are all co -equals, blah, blah, blah. Clean the blackboard. That's B.S. You have FOUR branches of government: Legislative, Executive, Judicial, and the mainstream media. The mainstream media makes and controls the narrative. They control the other branches of government. The United States Supreme Court unilaterally set themselves up as the final arbiters of what the law is back in 1803 (IIRC) in a case called Marbury v. Madison. To this date, not even Jesus himself has challenged the high Court on this. Sooo... by extension, judicial rulings take precedence over statutes themselves. What the courts say the law is, IS what the law means and IS. All else is secondary to this unequivocal fact.

If you and I walk into a courtroom and you have 50 layman dictionaries to prove your case and I come with a Blacks Law Dictionary and a couple of standing precedents from court cases, you are going to lose. ALL judges know this and, at the end of the day, while your legislators may or may not know the law, they know the Judicial branch of government rules the roost. So, here are the Cliff's notes. Follow the law:

"By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)

So, let us recap:

You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!" Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, let me see:

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms exists

2) The Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence

3) In 1875 the United States Supreme declared both 1 and 2 to be the law

4) The high Court had the opportunity to over-rule the state precedents in the above decision (Cruikshank), but didn't

5) So, by law, the FIRST time the United States Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment, it had been declared to be inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable and above the law.

FACT: The Constitution of the United States does not give the United States Supreme Court the authority to alter their decisions once they have interpreted the law. To do so would be legislating from the bench. The reality is, that is exactly what the United States Supreme Court did. How did the high Court get away with it and what does Heller REALLY say? I will answer that IF you really want to know, but one more civics lesson. In order to circumvent the Constitution and change the law, the high Court usurped powers which is another long explanation. But, you need to know what George Washington said with regards to the process the United States Supreme Court used:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1796

Would you like to continue this conversation?

 

[The Resister]

Well I started picking crops in 1963 at age 5 I have no idea what you were doing at the time I was trying to earn enough to pay for my first grade school clothes. Which went on every summer until I was 12 when I got my first hourly jobs working the surrounding farms. By 14 I was weighing pole beans bucking hay moving irrigation pipe and driving a 46 Ford farm truck to the cannery. That summer worked from sun up to about 9pm. Unless I was helping run bush bean pickers at night. At 15 i was framing houses at 16 i was working the Christmas tree farms.. I don't remember any big supper.

I was a waiter at the last supper. You know where we lived my family couldn't afford a tractor until I was about 13.

 

[solv3nt]

You guys are young.

You guys are old

 

[The Resister]

You guys are old

I'm not old - just experienced.

 

[billdeserthills]

No ruling party wants an armed populace, it is just that simple..
Makes it harder to control us pesky minions...

My guess is they figure they deserve to be offed for their UnConstitutional edicts and figure disarming the people they annoy could save their worthless mangy hides--why else would Biden surround himself with 20,000 troops?