10 votes

ALERT! Federal Gun Legislation - ATF - A Proposed Rule by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau on 09/09/2013

ALERT! Federal Gun Legislation:

ATF - A Proposed Rule by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau on 09/09/2013

This article has a comment period that ends in 85 days (12/09/2013)

Machine Guns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Corporation, Trust or Other Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/09/09/2013-216...

---------------

After Reading Link - Then Review:

---------------

James Madison,

Virginia Resolution 1798:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

"...That this state having by its CONVENTION (which defined the meaning of the words and general phrases in the Constitution) , which ratified the federal Constitution, "EXPRESSLY DECLARED", that "AMONG OTHER ESSENTIAL RIGHTS" (Which includes the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS) , "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press CANNOT be cancelled, abridged, restrained, "OR MODIFIED" by "ANY" authority of the "United States",

(Federal or State governments)

and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from EVERY possible attack of "SOPHISTRY OR AMBITION",

having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which AMENDMENT was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution;

it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and "CRIMINAL DEGENERACY", if an "indifference were now shewn", to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the "establishment of a precedent" which may be FATAL to the other (ESSENTIAL NATURAL RIGHTS). ..."

---

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution 1798:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for "special purposes" — "delegated" to that government "certain definite" powers, RESERVING, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their OWN self-government;

and that WHENSOEVER the general government "assumes undelegated powers", its "acts" are "UNAUTHORITATIVE", "VOID", and of "NO FORCE":

that to this compact "each State" acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this COMPACT was "NOT" made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself

(APP: i.e. The Federal Supreme Court, Executive or Legislative are not the final judge);

since that would have made "its (the federal government and bureaucracies) discretion", and "not the Constitution", the MEASURE of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an EQUAL right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress..

2. " Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish:

a.) treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and
d.) offenses against the law of nations,

and >>>> NO OTHER CRIMES >>>"WHATSOEVER";

and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"

therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (>>>> and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so "ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,) >>> are "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";

and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its own territory..."

---

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Mr. JOHN MARSHALL "asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken.

The state governments "DID NOT" derive their powers from the general (FEDERAL) government; but each government derived its powers from "the people", and EACH was to "ACT" ACCORDING to the powers given it.

Would any gentleman deny this?

He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away?

For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably,unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

But the power given to the states by the people is "NOT taken away"; for the Constitution "DOES NOT SAY SO".

In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also". The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it.

But there are NO negative words here.It rests, therefore, with the "STATES".

To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption.

Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because "Congress" can interpose!

Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast?

I will show {420} that there could NOT be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power. ..." ---

"... If Congress neglect our militia (citizens), "we can arm them OURSELVES".

CANNOT Virginia "import arms?> >Cannot she put them into the hands of "HER" militia-men?

He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was NOT vested in the states by implication, because, being "possessed of it" > "antecedent to the adoption of the government, and "not being divested of it" by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as "FULLY POSSESSED OF IT" as EVER THEY HAD BEEN.

> And it could NOT be said that the states derived ANY powers from that (the federal government or Constitution) system, "but RETAINED them," >>>>>>>>"though not acknowledged in ANY part of it". ..."

------------

Same Convention - Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Regarding Bureaucratic Departments and Limits on the Federal Government:

-------

Mr. PATRICK HENRY "replied that, if Congress were vested with supreme power of legislation, paramount to the constitution and laws of the states, the dangers he had described might happen; for that Congress would not be confined to the ENUMERATED powers.

This construction was warranted, in his opinion, by the addition of the word "DEPARTMENT", at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of any "DEPARTMENT" or officer of the government.

Mr. EDMUND PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY PART" of the Constitution,

(N)or to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN) MAY affect the interests of the citizens of the UNION AT LARGE. (Think about that)

But it gives them power over the LOCAL POLICE OF THE "PLACE", so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings.

Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair CONSTRUCTION of the (SUPREMACY - SWEEPING) clause".

It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within THAT district (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON< DC - ONLY).

What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to?

Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?

I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall be.

(THE TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC)

What, then, is the power?

It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate THERE, in order to preserve {440} serve the police of "THE PLACE" (THE TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC) and their OWN PERSONAL independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be, this is the "fair CONSTRUCTION" (i.e. Definition).

Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world?

Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters.

(APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would bedirectly in opposition to what he says.

It could have no operation without the limits of THAT DISTRICT

(THE TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC).

Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO effect the moment it would go WITHOUT (OUTSIDE) "THAT PLACE" (THE TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC);

for their exclusive power is CONFINED TO THAT DISTRICT (THE TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC).

Were they to pass such a law,it would be nugatory (NULL AND VOID); and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.

This exclusive power (SUPREMACY - SWEEPING CLAUSE) is limited to "THAT PLACE SOLELY" (THE TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC), for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary.

Will you pardon me when I observe that their construction of the preceding clause does not appear to me to be natural, or warranted by the words.

They say that the state governments have no power at all over the militia. The power of the general government to provide for arming and organizing the militia is to introduce a uniform system of discipline to pervade the United States of America.

But the power of governing the militia, so far as it is in Congress, extendsonly to such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

When not in their service, Congress has NO POWER TO GOVERN THEM.

The states then have the "sole" government of them; and though Congress "may" provide for arming them, and prescribe the "mode" of discipline, yet the STATES have the Authority of training them, according to the uniform discipline prescribed by Congress.

But there is NOTHING to preclude them from arming and disciplining them, should Congress neglect to, do it.

As to calling the militia to execute the laws of the {441} Union, I think the fair construction is directly opposite to what the honorable member says.

The 4th section of the 4th article contains NOTHING to warrant the supposition that the states cannot call them forth to suppress domestic insurrections. [Here he read the section.] All the restraint here contained is, that Congress may, at their pleasure, on "application of the STATE legislature", or "(in vacation)" of the executive, protect each of the states against domestic violence. This is a restraint on the general government "NOT TO INTERPOSE".

The "state" is in "full possession" of the "power" of using its "own militia" to protect itself against domestic violence; and the power in the general government "cannot be exercised, or interposed", without the "application (REQUEST AND CONSENT) of the state itself".

This appears to me to be the "obvious" and "fair CONSTRUCTION".

With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,

I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution.

If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers;

(Changing Enumerated Taxation into a Un-enumerated tax is an arrogation of power and a "NEW" Power expressly prohibited; Altering the Right to Bear Arms is expressly prohibited and in doing so a "NEW" Power and therefor Against the Constitution)

for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"...."

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sam, Thank you for the Comments

The message I was conveying by posting the founders documents and links was that there is no authority; Which the links attest to.

Since the federal government cannot "arrogate" ANY new power by ANY "MEANS" (Virginia Ratifying Convention6-16-1788);

The entire discussion and document posed by the federal government is without authority.

If any of it is enforced, it would be enforced under a "PRETENSE" of authority.

The Founders Documents back that up.

The federal Government:

1. Cannot govern Police outside Washington, DC
2. Cannot make any Regulation That MAY affect the Citizens of the Union at Large.
3. Cannot Define or prosecute or define but 4 crimes:
a. Treason,
b. Counterfeit,
c. Piracy on the high seas (only),
d. Offenses against the law of nations.

The fact is, they have no authority, and they cannot EVER be given that authority (BY "ANY" MEANS) without violating the Constitutional Compact:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

George Nicholas:

"But the"COMMON LAW"is"NOT EXCLUDED". There is"NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion.

As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to "define crimes" and "prescribe punishments";

and that, consequently, we are not free from torture.

a.) Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted.

Congress have power to define and punish:

b.) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
c.) offenses against the laws of nations;

but "THEY"

(APP: the federal government, legislature or supreme court)

CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER", WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION"."

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, any arms in any way, shall not be infringed. Period.

I probably should have started out with this explanation;

Thank you again for your comment.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Once again...

Richard... you go ABOVE AND BEYOND..
AND
serve this forum by EDUCATING US.
You TREAT us with your posts.
Thank you SO much for your HARD WORK!!!
Cheers,
G.

Nice quotes, but it would have been much better if you

had PUT THEM IN CONTEXT of the article you linked to.

Just spewing stuff on a page doesn't really educate anyone about your "alert."

I haven't read the details of the proposed rules (and yes, the Devil is always in the details) but the summary looked pretty innocuous and I'm pretty good at spotting booby traps or code language that indicates 'danger ahead.'

Perhaps you could explain or point to EXACTLY the language in the proposed rules that you find offensive to liberty?

It seems these rules implement some common sense practices:

#1 - require that artificial entities (being created by the State) give photo and fingerprints of a "responsible person" in order to make or transfer an NFA regulated firearm. (that is, the person in the organization responsible for such activity)

#2 - remove the attestation that the filer believes the transferee will not use the firearms in an illegal manner. (just a useless impediment that never should have been on the form)

#3 - no longer require transfer paperwork when you die so the executor can take possession as required by law and then dispense the property. Only the transfer from deceased to heir is considered the actual transfer - in short it cuts red tape and follows the succession law on every other type of piece of movable property.

#4 - allows for transfer of firearms to an heir tax exempt. (thus your son doesn't have to pay death taxes on the guns when you pass on your collection to him)

I'm rarely in favor of any regulation, but occasionally they get it right.

Remember, regs aren't the law. They are how the law is implemented.

This looks like a case of the regs being written to implement the law correctly and in a common sense manner, where currently THEY ARE NOT.

These proposed regs look like they correct some serious problems in the way the ATF interprets the law right now.

Unless you can point to specific language you are fretting about - I'd say you "jumped the gun" on this one.

Thank You. Posted reply above.

Thank you for the comment.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Nice

job, thanks !

"Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free men."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Thank you

Thank you for the recap of historical facts!

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Bump.

Bump.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Bump.

Bump.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.