The first paragraphs of two pieces – one from right-leaning Red State, and one from left-leaning USA Today – shed light on an immense problem in DC: unconstitutional virtue-signaling in the form of further attacks on the right to keep and bear arms.
In what conservatives will surely label a ‘sell-out’ by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Senate Minority Leader on Thursday ‘encouraged’ Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) to work with Senate Democrats to ‘find a consensus on some legislation to respond to the shooting in Texas.’
Which ought to hint to us something important. Unless McConnell is concerned that there was some Texas government breach of the Fourteenth Amendment requirement that all states protect their citizens equally, finding a “consensus on some legislation to respond” to anything like a shooting is a flagrant deviation from the U.S. Constitution and a breach of their oath to abide by it.
And Miller gets it, adding:
Translation: Gun-control legislation.
Further translation: “Additional federal statutes that will not discourage criminally-minded people from engaging in violent crime, will breach the Second Amendment, and will not only breach the fundamental right to self-defense, but also will breach the right to free association, private voluntary contract, and the moral underpinning of Natural Rights itself.”
But, hey, perhaps that’s too much for the long-winded political-religion preachers to hear. They seem to prefer hearing themselves bloviate than being reminded of essential ethics.
Then, we have USA Today’s eight authors (hyperlinked here, to save space) who united to offer this as their brilliant, committee-approved, opener:
President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden are paying their respects Sunday to the grief-stricken community in Uvalde, Texas, visiting memorials to children who died Tuesday in massacre at Robb Elementary School, as well as survivors, families and first responders.
Which, as with the McConnell action, inspires anyone with a semblance of a clue about the Constitution and federalism to ask: Unless this area were attacked by a foreign invader, or Biden were to accuse the state of Texas of not abiding by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause – why, constitutionally, is the Chief Executive of the U.S. going there?
Clearly, because he wants more infringement on rights and more breaches of the U.S. Constitution.
Many Senate Democrats – the ones with whom Mr. McConnell appears keen on “working to get something done,” are stridently opaque, but they appear to want what Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) desires, a ban on things he calls “military-style rifles” (already proven to be a term that the feds warp and manipulate) and a closure of the “gun sale background check loophole” – those being the unconstitutional, anti-Second Amendment, anti-Fourth Amendment “background checks” that most criminals never get anyway, because, of course, they don’t care to comply with statutes.
Just for our knowledge base, here’s what Sahil Kapur offers about the “background check planners”, via NBC:
Specifically, they want to clarify who is required to register as a federal firearms licensee, or FFL, and thus conduct FBI checks on a buyer before selling a gun. The senators say an ambiguity in the law has enabled unlicensed sellers to transfer weapons to dangerous people who skirt the background check system.
Curiously, Kapur and the senators do not address the fact that there is not supposed to be any term like “federal firearms licensee,” nor do they address the pernicious stem and root of the problem, the 1968 Gun Control Act, which introduced the licensing mandate, and the FDR-era 1934 National Firearms Act.
Many people debate “how many guns skirt the background check system.”
That is assuming the wrong thing. That is to assume that there should be a “background check system mandated by any form of the polis, which, as the Second Amendment makes abundantly clear, there is not supposed to be. In other words, all guns should skirt the “background check,” because the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, axiomatic, and supposedly protected by the Second Amendment.
Related: Biden 'Ghost Gun' Executive Order Could Be His Biggest Attack On Rights Thus Far | MRCTV
Likewise for “illegal gun” – of whatever kind. There is not supposed to be any such term in the U.S., period.
Joe Biden is infamous for attempting to refute that basic fact about the U.S. Constitution and deeper human ethics by claiming that in the Founding Era, people couldn’t own cannons. Such a statement – which he has made on more than one occasion – is patently false. As I noted in April for MRCTV when Biden repeated this canard as part of his toweringly unconstitutional “Ghost Gun Ban” Executive Order, Revolutionary War hero Paul Revere not only made the Liberty Bell, he and his sons made cannons, for personal purchase.
It's becoming clear that, like Biden, most politicians either don’t know about the Bill of Rights and deeper, God-given promise of rights, regardless of any pieces of paper. Either that, or they are aware of rights, and have contempt for them.
And it’s becoming clear that it will be up to state and local level politicians and non-politicians to push back and show what federalism was meant to be. In Louisiana, the House has passed, and the Senate might be close to passing, a bill that would block state and local-level police from enforcing numerous federal gun-related statutes.
So let’s close with that bright spot, brought to us by Mike Maharrey, of the Tenth Amendment Center. In his excellent piece, mike bullet-points the key facets of this legislation:
The bill defines specific acts enacted after Jan. 1, 2022, that would be considered infringements, including but not limited to:
- taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
- registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
- any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
- any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
A law-abiding citizen is defined as 'a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.'
This is a good start.
You can bet McConnell, Biden, Murphy, and their ilk won’t like it, at all. And they will put pressure on the states through threats of withholding federal funds, which the DC dictators get from the central bank. That, there, is the key. Will state-level politicians stand up to the feds, or fall in line, in order to get the magic-make-believe-money?
That might depend on how much we press the politicians in our states.
Joe Biden continues to claims the Constitution and your Second Amendment rights are "not absolute." pic.twitter.com/8HHBqXZ74j— MRCTV (@mrctv) May 31, 2022