SIG Talk banner

The Pistol Brace Saga - from the horse's mouth

4186 Views 127 Replies 26 Participants Last post by  LEEEAGLE
Strongly recommend folks find the time to watch/listen to this...maybe over morning coffee and lunch break. Very informative and insightful while staying practical and not hyped. Some of what we've discussed here but from someone who has actually been there trying to work this through with the ATF and reps, putting his own time and money on the line not to mention his entire business, involved with organizations in constant contact with ATF and will fight for our rights, not just make 'statements' on it.... i.e. not just some YouTuber looking for clicks.

61 - 80 of 128 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
If you watch the video, the rational explanation from the person most impacted (the inventor) is that the agency initially followed a rational path and approved the product under the GCA, but external political pressure shifted the agency's position to ban the product, and force firearms with the product onto the NFA registry. The cause of this is external political pressure, not a rational analysis of the product. People in control (with the power to act) do not like what is being done with this configuration of pistols. They have chosen to act for political reasons.

In the process, they are opening up a huge can of worms that they may end up wishing they had never stepped into. Owners, at the receiving end of the rulemaking, are reacting in a range of ways from rational to emotional. The industry is reacting in a range of ways from not reacting (NSSF) to forming an industry group to respond and to raise money for defense actions.

Industry rights groups are preparing to file lawsuits on a number of grounds ranging from Constitutional rights violation to process issues. The courts, responding to prior ATF rulemaking actions, have been finding against the agency's overreach (Cargill v. Garland most recently).

It ain't over until it's over... and it ain't over until the Liberty Lady sings...

View attachment 502242
That's exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. I would not venture to guess what their thought process Behind These regulations really is, but I do agree it will most likely backfire. To the extent that they will likely lose all regulatory Authority over the citizens, and vast reduction in authority over manufacturers. The main thing people lose sight of in all of this is our gun control laws were passed through Congress. ATF is just rules and regulations.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,090 Posts
That's exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. I would not venture to guess what their thought process Behind These regulations really is, but I do agree it will most likely backfire. To the extent that they will likely lose all regulatory Authority over the citizens, and vast reduction in authority over manufacturers. The main thing people lose sight of in all of this is our gun control laws were passed through Congress. ATF is just rules and regulations.
Why not venture a guess????
Please name one group of bureaucrats who have lost power to regulate……..…………………………………………………………………
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #65 · (Edited)
More with Bosco...


And what Tim mentions at 27:30 is pretty much exactly what I alluded to earlier....

I agree and hope you're right, that this fallacy will have a spotlight on it. Problem though is that it's guns...something surrounded by ignorance, sensationalism and stigma especially amongst lawmakers, so if there's an area where they may let certain overreaching slide....

Just gotta convince them it's for 'the safety of the people'...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hauki

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,059 Posts
That's kinda' been the point from the beginning, no?
No, it hasn't. Yes, people have been complaining about overreach by the federal government from the beginning (e.g. the Anti-Federalist Papers). And certainly government overreach has been a concern since the Fordney–McCumber Tariff Act (1922) and the SCOTUS' rubber stamp on it in J.W. Hampton and Co. v. United States (1928) (this was arguably the start of Congress unconstitutionally delegating its Article I, Section 1 power to the Executive Branch (and the SCOTUS usurped this authority back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison).

When we merely (and simply) refer to government overreach, that is an opinion and an abstraction only. But when we get specific about how and why it is government overreach, we can present the unconstitutional behavior as fact. However, the arguments surrounding government overreach by the NRA, Gun Owners of America and all others have been pathetically vague in my lifetime, and almost non-existent in the last 30-40 years. The last time I even heard of a good argument was when Reagan's AG mentioned the SCOTUS abusing its power in the 1980's.

Like many of us have said from the very beginning of this months back, ATF is skirting things by 'redefining' existing laws so they technically aren't making new ones....how clever.
No, the ATF has been doing far more than that for decades. This is the problem. Everyone seems to be oblivious the what I am saying. The ATF has been given legislative authority and has been using it for many years. The only requirement is that when they create a law independent of Congress, they merely have to post it for public review for 90 days. Article I, Section 1 (the very first sentence of the Constitution after the preamble) states that only Congress has legislative authority at the federal level, and the Tenth Amendment makes sure that any power not listed in the Constitution belongs to the states or the people (and can't merely be added after the fact by Congress or anyone else in our government). The only way to Constitutionally (legally) grant legislative authority to the ATF (or any other department within the Executive Branch) is by constitutional amendment (and that has never been done).

The question is, will this be exposed loud and clear during the legal challenges to this, and will Congress or Supreme Court, etc. step in, call their bluff and put the kibosh on this?
This is a perfect example of how no one understands the Constitution. We don't want the Supreme Court stepping in to call their bluff. That is not their job, but they unconstitutionally made it so in Marbury v. Madison (1803). I believe I've posted about this on here before, but I will clarify what I mean again if you or anyone else is interested, but what I am saying is a historical fact not shared with the American people by our government, academia, our legal system or the media, but there is absolute proof of this in primary sources and elsewhere.

Who can do that, and what can be done to get them involved? Is it only the president? That would kinda' suck because he's the one who essentially ordered ATF to start this whole fiasco. Would love to see him on the hot seat for that, though.
Like I said, we don't want that. There was literally a conspiracy to usher in Judicial Review. I have letters from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, the language of the Constitution, the pathetic argument by Chief Justice John Marshall, and even a peer review article written by a Georgetown Law Professor that all point to this conspiracy (though the author didn't dare use that term).

The reason we don't want that is that the Supreme Court is not elected or accountable to the people or even Congress (as Thomas Jefferson pointed out). He said the threat of impeachment wasn't even a "scarecrow" to the justices. Judicial Review, sometimes referred to by our founders as "a negative on the legislature", or the states, is a way to bypass 435 congress people, 100 senators and the president (who signs bills into law). That's up to 536 people a mere majority of nine justices can and have overridden for over two centuries. Reagan's AG and others used to refer to it as "legislating from the bench". Roe v. Wade is just one example of this. There are countless others such as legislation authorizing the ATF and other bureaucrats within the Executive Branch of our government to legislate. They disguise these laws as "regulations" (just another name for laws). But like I said, few understand this and no one does a good job of discussing it, and it is absolutely forbidden to be discussed in the mainstream in this day and age. They even shut Reagan's AG up about it.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,059 Posts
Your points are well taken.

The Leftists tyrants pressing gun control politically on the ATF and DOJ simply do not care. They count on the complexity of our system, the expense, delay and risk associated with correcting their actions to reinforce their positions.
The problem is that it is not just the leftist tyrants. Everything I discussed could not possibly be covered up for all this time without the participation of both parties. The idea is not even conceivable that this is just a leftist attack. The Republicans are just acting as if they don't know about what I have discussed, and they are every bit as guilty as the Democrats.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #68 · (Edited)
No, it hasn't. Yes, people have been complaining about overreach by the federal government from the beginning (e.g. the Anti-Federalist Papers). And certainly government overreach has been a concern since the Fordney–McCumber Tariff Act (1922) and the SCOTUS' rubber stamp on it in J.W. Hampton and Co. v. United States (1928) (this was arguably the start of Congress unconstitutionally delegating its Article I, Section 1 power to the Executive Branch (and the SCOTUS usurped this authority back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison).

When we merely (and simply) refer to government overreach, that is an opinion and an abstraction only. But when we get specific about how and why it is government overreach, we can present the unconstitutional behavior as fact. However, the arguments surrounding government overreach by the NRA, Gun Owners of America and all others have been pathetically vague in my lifetime, and almost non-existent in the last 30-40 years. The last time I even heard of a good argument was when Reagan's AG mentioned the SCOTUS abusing its power in the 1980's.



No, the ATF has been doing far more than that for decades. This is the problem. Everyone seems to be oblivious the what I am saying. The ATF has been given legislative authority and has been using it for many years. The only requirement is that when they create a law independent of Congress, they merely have to post it for public review for 90 days. Article I, Section 1 (the very first sentence of the Constitution after the preamble) states that only Congress has legislative authority at the federal level, and the Tenth Amendment makes sure that any power not listed in the Constitution belongs to the states or the people (and can't merely be added after the fact by Congress or anyone else in our government). The only way to Constitutionally (legally) grant legislative authority to the ATF (or any other department within the Executive Branch) is by constitutional amendment (and that has never been done).



This is a perfect example of how no one understands the Constitution. We don't want the Supreme Court stepping in to call their bluff. That is not their job, but they unconstitutionally made it so in Marbury v. Madison (1803). I believe I've posted about this on here before, but I will clarify what I mean again if you or anyone else is interested, but what I am saying is a historical fact not shared with the American people by our government, academia, our legal system or the media, but there is absolute proof of this in primary sources and elsewhere.



Like I said, we don't want that. There was literally a conspiracy to usher in Judicial Review. I have letters from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, the language of the Constitution, the pathetic argument by Chief Justice John Marshall, and even a peer review article written by a Georgetown Law Professor that all point to this conspiracy (though the author didn't dare use that term).

The reason we don't want that is that the Supreme Court is not elected or accountable to the people or even Congress (as Thomas Jefferson pointed out). He said the threat of impeachment wasn't even a "scarecrow" to the justices. Judicial Review, sometimes referred to by our founders as "a negative on the legislature", or the states, is a way to bypass 435 congress people, 100 senators and the president (who signs bills into law). That's up to 536 people a mere majority of nine justices can and have overridden for over two centuries. Reagan's AG and others used to refer to it as "legislating from the bench". Roe v. Wade is just one example of this. There are countless others such as legislation authorizing the ATF and other bureaucrats within the Executive Branch of our government to legislate. They disguise these laws as "regulations" (just another name for laws). But like I said, few understand this and no one does a good job of discussing it, and it is absolutely forbidden to be discussed in the mainstream in this day and age. They even shut Reagan's AG up about it.
So what needs to be done to change it...and is that the only way that this absurdity will be overturned? Are we just spinning our wheels with what's discussed in the second vid posted above?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
This is even more confusing now than it was a month ago. Is it even about braces anymore?
Are folks that never bought into the brace thing and have an 8 inch barreled AR pistol with only a pistol buffer tube that can’t accept a rifle stock good to go? There were AR pistols before there were braces. Are those AR pistols that existed before braces came on the scene now caught up in this debacle? I know I’m preaching to the choir and stating the obvious, but ATF is out of control.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,059 Posts
So what needs to be done to change it...and is that the only way that this absurdity will be overturned? Are we just spinning our wheels with what's discussed in the second vid posted above?
I don't know the complete answer, but I can tell you it at least starts with people researching & discussing what I am talking about.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,059 Posts
So what needs to be done to change it...and is that the only way that this absurdity will be overturned? Are we just spinning our wheels with what's discussed in the second vid posted above?
What I can tell you is that the deeper I looked the more profoundly sadder I became. American History taught in our education system is fiction. To get to the real history of the United States you can't find it in any one book, letter, or other writing. This is partially why the story is difficult to know because no one I am aware of is putting together a complete and accurate description of what led us to the current mess we're in.

To even begin to understand what is afoot it takes reading through a combination of primary source material such as the personal letters and other writings by our founders, Supreme Court opinions (NOT the "briefs", "slip opinions" and other written summaries which are incomplete, but rather, the originals that even lawyers and academics often fail to reference), the Constitution (of course), the Anti-Federalist Papers, which are hardly ever mention (which are also an even larger body of work than the Federalist Papers academics et al. erroneously revere so much [and far more interesting]), 17th & 18th Century newspaper articles, as well as one or two contemporary books and at least one peer reviewed paper.

But if I took the time to list them again (because I've done this in many places over the last decade) would anyone read them? A few have. I've seen a few people mention SOME of what I know, and because of what they said and how they said it, at least some of them have read my writings somewhere along the line. But it never amounts to anything because people have short attention spans and unless the truth has an official label they don't want to see it. They'd rather acquire knowledge that is spoonfed to them by the wrong people such as academics, lawyers, politicians, both the print & electronic media (mainstream and otherwise), Hollywood & Television (e.g. History Channel), and others. Even historic places like Monticello are controlled by people who are bent on obscuring the truth (such as portraying Thomas Jefferson in the worst possible light).

That may sound like a tall tail, especially Monticello, but I assure you it is true to the extent truth can be known. For example, we know for a fact (as well as facts can be had) that Thomas Jefferson did NOT father Sally Hemings' children. Yet, Monticello still claims this is the case. Heck, I had to point out to them that the alleged bed Thomas Jefferson used was in fact too short. They wouldn't let me close enough to measure it, but years later it came out that in fact it was too short (I'm sure I wasn't the first to mention this to them) and that it was likely not even where they say it was. It was remodeled after Admiral Levy took position of it to look as it does today.

Ironically, the truth is not all that hidden today. Between the Library of Congress and the National Archives (both online), anyone can find information that took me years to come across buying relatively obscure and expensive books which contained the letters and other writings of our founders (some cost me hundreds of dollars a piece). The truth is that primary source material is the only thing we should even begin to trust. I find secondary and tertiary sources utterly unreliable, so there is nothing better than going to the source. In other words, it's better to hear history from the mouths of our founders rather than what historians alleged was said.

For example, the scholar in the 1990's who brought forward the allegation that Thomas Jefferson fathered Hemings children was caught doctoring a quote she used as evidence. At the time the source was not available to anyone outside of a relatively few privileged people with access. Once the source was made more widely available, it was discovered she literally changed the wording thinking no one would ever find out (this is explained in a book called "The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: Report of the Scholars Commission). What happened to her? She essentially got promoted and her stock only went up. Shouldn't she have been reprimanded?

The long and the short of the Scholars Commission is that Thomas Jefferson's younger brother Randolph almost assuredly fathered her children. The only reason I don't state this for a fact is that perhaps the best evidence comes from Jefferson's overseer of Monticello for nearly twenty years, Captain Edmund Bacon. An interview with Bacon was conducted when he was much older and made into an obscure book which I read (before I even knew about the scholars commission). In the book Captain Bacon says Jefferson wasn't the father and that he knew who was because he was up at Monticello early almost every morning and he saw this man come from Sally Hemings' bedroom on a regular basis. The publisher of the book, however, redacted the name Captain Bacon stated, but we have plenty of other evidence that points to him as well. All we know for certain, however (as certain as anything can be), is that Thomas Jefferson did not father children with any of his slaves. But everytime I hear this come up in the media they're always pretending as if Jefferson fathered Hemings children.

The reason for this in my opinion is primarily because Thomas Jefferson is very dangerous to the establishment. He was uncovering elements of the greater conspiracy I'm alleging in a number of letters (and those are just the ones that have survived or at least exist outside public collections that will never see the light of day). Others are encrypted with Jefferson's "wheel cipher" which allegedly no longer exists to decipher his most private messages embedded in his correspondances. But he wrote enough he didn't cipher to let us know he was onto something.

But we don't need his lost or coded letters to know about this conspiracy. In fact, because of the benefit of hindsight, in some ways I know more than Jefferson did because he wasn't alive long enough to see what eventually played out. But Jefferson told us a lot.

Another obscure book most people have never heard about (that academics fail to mention) is what has been called "The Anas of Thomas Jefferson" published in 1903. In fact, I have the 73rd copy from the original printing (which cost me a pretty penny). This is Thomas Jefferson's second book first published partially and posthumously in the mid-19th Century (the complete book was only released half a century later 120 years ago in 1903). This book is very damaging to Alexander Hamilton in particular (and to a lesser extent George Washington). You cannot even begin to know American history without reading The Anas of Thomas Jefferson: 1791-1809 which is basically his cabinet notes from his time in Washington's administration along with the notes he took later as president. But like I said, no one ever mentions it. Instead we're told Jefferson only wrote one book ("Notes on the State of Virginia"). This is not true. He only published one book, but he wrote at least a portion of this second book that he didn't get the chance to finish before he died. This book is far more important as it pertains to the behind the scenes ongoings in the government of the United States. For example, he explains how the banks had bribed congress to get their way on any vote they chose. Funny, they never mentioned this in my Congressional Politics class at one of the best political science programs in the world (so much for the money I spent on my education).

Anyway, the reason I am not so optimistic about things changing anymore stems from the fact that there is an extensive cover up going on in mainstream academia (as well as among the political parties and others), and because these materials are obscure (despite now being readily available), no one has looked hard or long enough to see the pattern emerge (well, almost no one). Instead we jump on the bandwagon making fun of conspiracy theorists and believing the nonsense we're told such as "you can't keep a secret between two people"or Benjamin Franklin's alleged quotes: "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead" and "If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself." Believe me, if you have enough money and resources, you can keep a lot of secrets (and they have).

The truth is, however, many conspiracies are bunk, and that is often because various theories were created to discredit notions of conspiracy in general (in other words, people created conspiracies or theories about conspiracies that they would ensure would eventually be proven untrue as to undermine conspiracies generally).

The reason there is a conspiracy at all is that the government has been altered by the wealthiest individuals on the planet (not just our nation) to keep them in power, and part of the way they do this is by making government more powerful (just what we were trying to avoid creating the United States of America). They also use social engineering through various means to make it increasingly hard for our citizens to remain united (or even become united in the first place). It's called "dividé et impera" ("divide and rule"), which is what you do to a society once it has been divided and conquered.

Anyway, I've gone on too long already. If anyone has any questions, just ask. And if anyone is interested in a list of letters and other writings that I think are at the top of the list of things showing things aren't as advertised, let me know. It's necessary to provide context, so it will take awhile for me to write, so I'm only doing so if people are really interested. The reading list is better than anything I got from a six figure education, I can assure you that. Best of all, most of it is free. Otherwise, I'll just leave it at that.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
What I can tell you is that the deeper I looked the more profoundly sadder I became. American History taught in our education system is fiction. To get to the real history of the United States you can't find is in any one book, letter, or other writing. This is partially why the story is difficult to know because no one I am aware of is putting together a complete and accurate description of what led us to the current mess we're in.

To even begin to understand what is afoot it takes reading through a combination of primary source material such as the personal letters and other writings by our founders, Supreme Court opinions (NOT the "briefs", "slip opinions" and other written summaries which are incomplete, but rather, the originals that even lawyers and academics often fail to reference), the Constitution (of course), the Anti-Federalist Papers, which are hardly ever mention (which are also an even larger body of work than the Federalist Papers academics et al. erroneously revere so much [and far more interesting]), 17th & 18th Century newspaper articles, as well as one or two contemporary books and at least one peer reviewed paper.

But if I took the time to list them again (because I've done this in many places over the last decade) would anyone read them? A few have. I've seen a few people mention SOME of what I know, and because of what they said and how they said it, at least some of them have read my writings somewhere along the line. But it never amounts to anything because people have short attention spans and unless the truth has an official label they don't want to see it. They'd rather acquire knowledge that is spoonfed to them by the wrong people such as academics, lawyers, politicians, both the print & electronic media (mainstream and otherwise), Hollywood & Television (e.g. History Channel), and others. Even historic places like Monticello are controlled by people who are bent on obscuring the truth (such as portraying Thomas Jefferson in the worst possible light).

That may sound like a tall tail, especially Monticello, but I assure you it is true to the extent truth can be known. For example, we know for a fact (as well as facts can be had) that Thomas Jefferson did NOT father Sally Hemings' children. Yet, Monticello still claims this is the case. Heck, I had to point out to them that the alleged bed Thomas Jefferson used was in fact too short. They wouldn't let me close enough to measure it, but years later it came out that in fact it was too short (I'm sure I wasn't the first to mention this to them) and that it was likely not even where they say it was. It was remodeled after Admiral Levy took position of it to look as it does today.

Ironically, the truth is not all that hidden today. Between the Library of Congress and the National Archives (both online), anyone can find information that took me years to come across buying relatively obscure and expensive books which contained the letters and other writings of our founders (some cost me hundreds of dollars a piece). The truth is that primary source material is the only thing we even begin to trust. I find secondary and tertiary sources utterly unreliable, so there is nothing better than going to the source. In other words, it's better to hear history from the mouths of our founders rather than what historians alleged was said.

For example, the scholar in the 1990's who brought forward the allegation that Thomas Jefferson fathered Hemings children was caught doctoring a quote she used as evidence. At the time the source was not available to anyone outside of a relatively few privileged people with access. Once the source was made more widely available, it was discovered she literally changed the wording thinking no one would ever find out (this is explained in a book called "The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: Report of the Scholars Commission). What happened to her? She essentially got promoted and her stock only went up. Shouldn't she have been reprimanded?

The long and the short of the Scholars Commission is that Thomas Jefferson's younger brother Randolph almost assuredly fathered her children. The only reason I don't state this for a fact is that perhaps the best evidence comes from Jefferson's overseer of Monticello for nearly twenty years, Captain Edmund Bacon. An interview with Bacon was conducted when he was much older and made into an obscure book which I read (before I even knew about the scholars commission). In the book Captain Bacon says Jefferson wasn't the father and that he knew who was because he was up at Monticello early almost every morning and he saw this man come from Sally Hemings' bedroom on a regular basis. The publisher of the book, however, redacted the name Captain Bacon stated, but we have plenty of other evidence that points to him as well. All we know for certain, however (as certain as anything can be), is that Thomas Jefferson did not father children with any of his slaves. But everytime I hear this come up in the media they're always pretending as if Jefferson fathered Hemings children.

The reason for this in my opinion is primarily because Thomas Jefferson is very dangerous to the establishment. He was uncovering elements of the greater conspiracy I'm alleging in a number of letters (and those are just the ones that have survived or at least exist outside public collections that will never see the light of day). Others are encrypted with Jefferson's "wheel cipher" which allegedly no longer exists to decipher his most private messages embedded in his correspondances. But he wrote enough he didn't cipher to let us know he was onto something.

But we don't need his lost or coded letters to know about this conspiracy. In fact, because of the benefit of hindsight, in some ways I know more than Jefferson did because he wasn't alive long enough to see what eventually played out. But Jefferson told us a lot.

Another obscure book most people have never heard about (that academics fail to mention) is what has been called "The Anas of Thomas Jefferson" published in 1903. In fact, I have the 73rd copy from the original printing (which cost me a pretty penny). This is Thomas Jefferson's second book first published partially and posthumously in the mid-19th Century (the complete book was only released half a century later 120 years ago in 1903). This book is very damaging to Alexander Hamilton in particular (and to a lesser extent George Washington). You cannot even begin to know American history without reading The Anas of Thomas Jefferson: 1791-1809 which is basically his cabinet notes from his time in Washington's administration along with the notes he took later as president. But like I said, no one ever mentions it. Instead we're told Jefferson only wrote one book ("Notes on the State of Virginia"). This is not true. He only published one book, but he wrote at least a portion of this second book that he didn't get the chance to finish before he died. This book is far more important as it pertains to the behind the scenes ongoings in the government of the United States. For example, he explains how the banks had bribed congress to get their way on any vote they chose. Funny, they never mentioned this in my Congressional Politics class at one of the best political science programs in the world (so much for the money I spent on my education).

Anyway, the reason I am not so optimistic about things changing anymore stems from the fact that there is an extensive cover up going on in mainstream academia (as well as among the political parties and others), and because these materials are obscure (despite now being readily available), no one has looked hard or long enough to see the pattern emerge (well, almost no one). Instead we jump on the bandwagon making fun of conspiracy theorists and believing the nonsense we're told such as "you can't keep a secret between two people"or Benjamin Franklin's alleged quotes: "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead" and "If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself." Believe me, if you have enough money and resources, you can keep a lot secret (and they have).

The truth is, however, many conspiracies are bunk, and that is often because various theories were created to discredit notions of conspiracy in general (in other words, people created conspiracies or theories about conspiracies that they would ensure would eventually be proven untrue as to undermine conspiracies generally). The reason there is a conspiracy at all is that the government has been altered by the wealthiest individuals on the planet (not just our nation) to keep them in power, and part of the way they do this is by making government more powerful (just what we were trying to avoid creating the United States of America). They also use social engineering through various means to make it increasingly hard for our citizens to remain united (or even become united in the first place). It's called "dividé et impera" ("divide and rule"), which is what you do to a society once it has been divided and conquered.

Anyway, I've gone on too long already. If anyone has any questions, just ask. And if anyone is interested in a list of letters and other writings that I think are at the top of the list of things showing things aren't as advertised, let me know. It's necessary to provide context, so it will take awhile for me to write, so I'm only doing so if people are really interested. The reading list is better than anything I got from a six figure education, I can assure you that. Best of all, most of it is free. Otherwise, I'll just leave it at that.
Have you ever stopped to think about many people's inability to understand such complex issues? Many of us have long understood that we have been spoon-fed BS our entire lives. Many of the most highly educated people in our society are in fact not educated at all. When I say that more than 90% of all laws written are unconstitutional, it's based on the simple fact of the treachery involved in its very publication, and immediately sought to be reversed by those in the opposition at the time. 👽
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,059 Posts
Have you ever stopped to think about many people's inability to understand such complex issues? Many of us have long understood that we have been spoon-fed BS our entire lives. Many of the most highly educated people in our society are in fact not educated at all. When I say that more than 90% of all laws written are unconstitutional, it's based on the simple fact of the treachery involved in its very publication, and immediately sought to be reversed by those in the opposition at the time. 👽
Yes, but it's not their inability to understand that worries me. It's the cover up and the social programming. Certainly scholars wouldn't need my help understanding this (and many of them surely do but can't or won't go public). Others have their blinders on and don't see the pattern because they assume what other scholars, lawyers and politicians are saying is at least largely true. But if you have a filter that removes that bias (the blinders), as I do, you can stop making assumptions and question everything. When we do that the pattern becomes easily patent and understood by most in my opinion because from then on it's about "Cui bono?" and, in my opinion, it's fairly easy to understand if you stick with it and do your own thinking.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Which circles us back to the subject at hand. The ATF, I believe what their ultimate goal here is social experimentation to test the limits of our understanding of these arbitrary changes. And to see how far they can push, and to whom they can push. It's exactly these kind of issues they have used as a yardstick to measure the depth of their Authority. They push out 3 ft, get pushed back 2 yet they've still gained one.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,090 Posts
Which circles us back to the subject at hand. The ATF, I believe what their ultimate goal here is social experimentation to test the limits of our understanding of these arbitrary changes. And to see how far they can push, and to whom they can push. It's exactly these kind of issues they have used as a yardstick to measure the depth of their Authority. They push out 3 ft, get pushed back 2 yet they've still gained one.
I’m glad you picked up the ball, on this thing. I felt like I was in GroundHog Day. 😵‍💫 The willingness of the masses, to completely capitulate, for a two hundred dollar carrot, is sobering. The left is slobbering all over each other, on the success of this single action. They haven’t even compiled the data, they just love the stampede. Lemmings.

Your last sentence, states my pivot point exactly. 👍 Ol’ TJ was a smart dude.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
More with Bosco...

And what Tim mentions at 27:30 is pretty much exactly what I alluded to earlier....
I hadn't heard the subgun angle before. I feel like someone should go let the CZ community know they might be relying on ATF discretion coming soon. There are a LOT of CZ Scorpions out there, that alone should get the whole thing kilt.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Everyone is missing the most important point.

The ATF is not permitted to legislate (i.e. make rules for citizens to follow) and no amendment was ever approved to give it such power. Thus, it is unconstitutional (and thus illegal) for the ATF to make any rules regarding our right to keep or bear arms (or anything else). It does not matter if you call it a rule, a regulation or a law (these are legislative prerogatives only). The ATF at best is an enforcement agency only (which is what the executive branch is supposed to be). This means the rules we follow either come from Congress (at the federal level) or we pass constitutional amendments. You are familiar with the term "legislating from the bench", well the alphabet soup bureaucratic executive agencies can't legislate from the executive either. They do, but these are de facto rather than de jure acts of government, and they are completely unconstitutional.

Specifically, ATF regulations violate Article I, Section I and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution (read them side-by-side).

This is not an opinion, it is an absolute fact (so long as we're using the rules of the English Language), and it's not hard to understand if someone (like me) tells you where to look.

I am familiar with Congress passing the unconstitutional/illegal legislation delegating authority to the executive branch and the case(s) where the Supreme Court rubber stamped the legislation: Fordney–McCumber Tariff and J.W. Hampton and Co. v. United States (also unconstitutional).

It would literally require a constitutional amendment in all three cases for the ATF rulemaking process to become legal (i.e. for Congress to pass such a law delegating its power, for SCOTUS to give a binding opinion regarding it and for the ATF to ultimately issue such a regulation). There is no constitutional basis for the ATF prescribing rules after merely posting them for 90 days. Even congress can't do this (because of the Second and Tenth Amendments).

Please do not dismiss this out of hand. No matter how futile it might appear to change our system, it should nonetheless be stressed in every conversation regarding the ATF creating rules we need to follow (or any other situation in which we experience government overreach, otherwise we're just showing the powers-that-shouldn't-be that we're illiterate when it comes to the Constitution.

This is also true of executive orders. There is nothing in the constitution allowing laws, rules, regulations etc. to be passed by the president (and, again, the Tenth Amendment prohibits this). EO's are for the president to issue to his employees in the executive branch and nothing else (in other words, it's purely administrative within the executive branch of government (or where it has constitutional jurisdiction over state and local agencies), but they cannot contradict the constitution which always supersedes everything according to the Constitution [i.e. Article VI and the Tenth Amendment]).

If people brought these points up at every turn we might finally reach a boiling point after seeing how many areas of our lives are affected by this. But the greater point is that 99.9% of Americans fail to understand the Constitution, and if we talked about this more, perhaps we can change that one day. Remember, the Constitution was written for the layperson. It is not written in legalese so there's no excuse to be ignorant of it. But if you wait for our "finest" educational institutions to point this out, you'll be waiting forever.

Again, what I am stating is a fact, and I challenge any lawyers on here (or anyone else) to produce a sensible counterargument (because there isn't one). I'm not trying to "win the internet" as someone once suggested of me. I am merely trying to help my fellow Americans understand how, as Jefferson put it, the Constitution became "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please" — Jefferson's letter to Virginia State Supreme Court Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819
 
61 - 80 of 128 Posts
Top