[In movie trailer voice over voice]
From the people who brought you “15 days to slow the spread for more than a year” and the sequel “the troops will be in DC for the inauguration until the Fall or maybe longer until the the threat dissipates” comes “enhanced background checks are just common sense.” Another exiting chapter in bait-and-switch goal post moving against your civil liberties. Coming this Spring.
And it’ll never, ever get rolled back.
Sure it will. Like how Obamacare was repealed, just as the GOP promised.
And promised…
And promised….
[/sarcasm]
Don’t forget the crappy spinoff full of third-rate actors, “Maintain secure elections by mandating the conditions that all but guarantee wide-spread voter fraud.”
The way I see it, that must be a huge priority for them. It’s House Bill #1, after all. First on the list.
This kind of just reminded me…
The Soviet Union had a great Constitution. No irony in this statement.
The thing was, it was not followed, just a nice piece of printed material
looking good on a shelf.
Just like that piece of paper on display in the national archives.
It was a fantastic constitution (’77 version). It included (as has been pointed out by communist/socialist apologists repeatedly) a much broader bill of rights than present in any capitalist society.
This line never gets mentioned however:
“Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state.”
Someone texted me and said “Don’t worry, the lawsuits will start immediately after the bill is signed.”
I actually don’t know if he was serious or not.
Oh well.
3D printer go BRRRRRRRR
(Insert IANAL disclaimer here.)
Assuming he’s serious, I wonder what grounds he believes those lawsuits will be based on.
Seeing as how background checks generally have already been ruled Constitutional and not a hindrance to the people’s ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, how is expanding them going to suddenly be found unconstitutional? Whoever challenges the law is going to have a hard time finding a judge that will rule it prima facie unconstitutional.
The problem is that, throughout history, the Constitution has only been obeyed in very rare cases. Even as early as back in 1803 this was clear to St. George Tucker, who wrote about it at length.
Archer, the answer is obvious from the plain English text of the Constitution, which does not grant Congress the power to establish background checks anywhere in Article 1 Section 8, and since it does not do so, attempts to create such laws are unconstitutional. For good measure, the 9th and 10th Amendments repeat the principle of enumerated powers — but as Madison pointed out, none of the Bill of Rights is actually necessary since nothing it prohibits is anything that the Federal government was allowed to do in the first place. Of course the counter argument was that spelling it out explicitly made that point more obvious. What happened instead is that protecting the right to keep and bear arms four ways (Article 1 Section 8, 2nd Amendment, 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment) STILL hasn’t prevented dishonest usurpers from infringing it left and right, leaving only a tiny sliver of the natural right that they have always been required by sworn duty to protect and preserve.
Based on Mr. Roberts response to Texas v Pennsylvania, I suspect you could a stopped after, “…going to have a hard time finding a judge.”