“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
You do you.
Hypothetical: If the usurper issues an EO banning AR-15s, will you comply?
- Thread starter sbmike
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
You do you.
Darkemp
Ultimate Member
Bump stocks weren’t actually firearms, they had no protection under the law.
Neither are magazines.
Darkemp
Ultimate Member
Or shoulder thingys that go up.
Nickberg500
Ultimate Member
Pistol braces are next because we enabled this faulty logic.
Darkemp
Ultimate Member
They are clearly an endangered species no one thought would exist.
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
But he's right
steves1911
Ultimate Member
Every firearm I own self identifies as a musket...to claim otherwise is racist!
PowPow
Where's the beef?
... and xenophobic!
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
Is that in case they try the old “there werent no ARs then so the 2A dont apply” argument?
CrueChief
Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
A ban is one thing. Confiscation is another. If you let a Govt agent come in your house and steal your property that's a you problem.
Yeah. That ain’t happening. If they want to come in and kill a doctor with 2 kids and a wife who has been a dedicated servant of people in an underserved largely minority community....enjoy the optics. I love my patients and that love is returned in spades (I’m blessed). I hope to take a few tyrants with me.
Hey, call me out when I'm wrong. But I suspect you know I'm not in this case.
EOs only affect how the federal government executes its business WITHIN the law. EOs, by definition, cannot do something like prohibit you from owning something if the law says you can, or doesn't otherwise prohibit ownership. You're not the federal government, and an EO can't direct the federal government to break the law. (Now, if we expand this out to directing an agency to interpret a law to prohibit you from owning something, maybe... but that's not really an EO at that point.)
The counterpoint people like to point out is EO 6102, which authorized gold seizures. But the sad fact is, FDR actually had legislative cover for doing this in a couple different ways - he didn't invent his authority out of thin air and just decide the federal government was seizing all the gold today.
Bullfrog
Ultimate Member
I'm pretty sure his reply was prompted not by the first sentence in your post, which was a statement of fact, but by the second, which was an unnecessary slur. Hence the comment about you reminding everyone else they are 'beneath you'.
Robert2888
Active Member
With something as serious as the very real and credible threat of civilian disarmament actually happening in this country, gods laws means nothing unless actual people are willing to kill and be killed in defense of said laws. I’m sure plenty of Russian patriots thought they were on the side of “gods laws” up until the point that the Bolshevik butchers made it their last thought on earth. Which brings us to the 2nd part of your response, NY state “SAFE ACT”. While plenty have decided to tentatively keep possession of their now prohibited property, it’s just as effectively taken out of circulation as much as if the state seized it. It’s just as useless collecting dust or buried in some field as it would be if it was buried in a landfill. Self banning is just as effective as the real thing, more so actually as it doesn’t cost time, resources or manpower.
I’m not singling you out or anything like that. I’m just trying to convey the gravity of this situation that is likely to come to fruition. Ultimately every man has to decide within himself if something that holds importance is worth killing or dying for. Once that is decided, the hardest part is being the first to actually act on those convictions. These people that are about to take control of state power are focused, organized and determined enemies to the traditional freedoms this country enjoyed. Make no mistake, once this actually starts and it will soon, there will be no hesitation on their part. The controlled media will cover them and their narrative of demonization of firearms and those that own them. They have no reason to expect nothing but success as recent history has shown.
I’d have just two words...take your pick...
“What AR?” Or
“Boating Accident”
“What AR?” Or
“Boating Accident”
There are so many steps between enacting bans on anything and anything coming to fruition it’s not even funny. You miss a metric shit-ton of steps in your argument.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
Yep. "Taken out of circulation" is pretty much irrelevant. If it ever comes down to really taking things "out of circulation", they will have to experience the remnant of the ones they could not take without a fight.
Yep. The problem is, politicians can’t ban shit without somebody else willing to go get it. Most LEO, IMO are not willing to abridge rights to that degree. The ones that are will give pause when they consider how many a55holes like me have hundreds of rounds of blacktips for their Garands. Just look at the recent AWB in CT. No action. Why? Many of the folks who didn’t turn in their banned firearms were good citizens....who happened to be LEO.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (3 Viewers)- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 41