Why the Brady Act Is Unconstitutional ~ Letter to the AmmoLand News Editor

Letter to the AmmoLand Editor
By reader Donald L. Cline. 2021

Why the Brady Act Is Unconstitutional ~ Letter to the AmmoLand News Editor

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Brady Act background checks have never prevented a crime nor criminal access to a firearm in the history of the Act and were never intended to: The Brady Act was and is intended to sucker citizens into waiving their RIGHT to keep and bear arms in exchange for a revocable government permission government has no lawful authority to issue or deny.

The object is to make us as helpless as the citizens of other so-called “western democracies” where governments claim their citizens have “rights,” but in fact their rights are but government-issued privileges, revocable at any time whenever the government deems it prudent or politically advantageous to do so.

By contrast, under our U.S. Constitution, our rights are beyond the reach of government at any level.

Secondly, the federal government is not delegated the Constitutional authority to license firearm dealers. The federal government is not delegated the Constitutional authority to demand we ask its permission before we may exercise a right. Asking permission to exercise a right converts the right into a revocable privilege which may be revoked at any time for any reason or no reason. Thus the Brady Act (and the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the NFA of 1934 and every gun control law ever legislated) is patently, egregiously, unConstitutional and null and void for want of Constitutional subject matter authority.

Thirdly, the federal requirement of completing a Form 4473 upon the purchase of a firearm from a dealer violates our 4th Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures in the absence of a warrant attesting under penalty of perjury probable cause of criminal conduct. Unlike the hapless citizens of other countries, we are not required to explain or justify ourselves to government in the absence of probable cause.

Fourthly, being compelled to ask government permission to exercise our right is a “taking” of the right without due process in violation of our 5th Amendment right to due process – and due process is not established other than by a criminal court trial founded upon probable cause of criminal conduct.

[Aside: This is the legal failure of “Red Flag Laws;” the victim is not a defendant in a criminal action; he is a respondent in an action at equity (i.e., a civil action based on contract), and under our form of government, rights cannot be abridged at equity except according to the terms of a contract, and we are not under contract to government.]

Fifthly, it is a long-standing doctrine of law that a citizen may not be compelled to waive any right in order to be allowed to exercise a right. This right is protected by the Ninth Amendment. We cannot lawfully be required to waive our 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 9th Amendment rights in order to exercise our right to keep and bear arms.

Sixthly, we cannot lawfully be required to waive our 10th Amendment right to be secure from the federal exercise of power not delegated to the federal government, and to be secure from the State exercise of power prohibited by any of the Bill of Rights, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment. The State exercise of prohibited power also occurs when any State-created municipal or corporate entity enforces restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms on any premises open to the public.

Lastly, it has been claimed the argument the communists … er … Democrats … use to justify gun control legislation and enforcement is the Commerce Clause, for firearms and the parts used to manufacture them move in interstate commerce prior to reaching the dealer. This argument is absurd on its face on the grounds that the Bill of Rights supersedes the Commerce Clause: I.e., the Commerce Clause may authorize the regulation, even the restriction, of kumquats moving in Interstate Commerce, but no one has a RIGHT to kumquats. We have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and that includes the ancillary right to purchase, sell, trade, transfer, or otherwise commercially transact in personal arms and ammunition and accessories.

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know, and you can see it here.

I will add the Commerce Clause excuse is absurd also because that theory could be used to eviscerate the entire Constitution, and that is not the purpose of the Commerce Clause.

Defining a town, city, or county as a Constitutional 2nd Amendment area is a very good first step. The next step should be defining the State as a Constitutional 2nd Amendment State, as it is already in most States by virtue of the State Constitution. The next step should be to prohibit federal licensing of firearm dealers within the State, and reject with extreme prejudice all federal attempts to maintain it. This will probably require a judicial decision, but even if the judicial decision goes against us, the fight will energize the people of the State into rejecting federal interference in our rights.

Somewhere in this process we should also mount a movement to establish a legislative resolution declaring the 17th Amendment null and void for want of ratification. Article V U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits any amendment depriving any State of its suffrage in the U.S. Senate without its Consent. The 17th Amendment was illegally declared ratified in 1913 by an openly communist SecState William Jennings Bryan under an openly communist President Woodrow Wilson even though ten States withheld their Consent. The object was to remove State oversight and constraint on the federal government, which was and is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States.

That illegal action is directly traceable to the 2nd Bolshevik Revolution we are currently enduring.

Discussion, Q&A, etc., welcome.

~ Donald L. Cline


A free citizenry does not ask its governments’ permission to exercise a right. It does not register its exercise of a right. It does not waive any other right, such as the right to privacy, or the right to due process, or the right to be secure from being compelled to waive a right in order to exercise a right, in exchange for permission to exercise a right such as the right to keep and bear arms which government does not have the authority to issue or deny in the first place. It does not permit government to claim the exercise of a right is probable cause, or prima facie evidence, or even a suspicion, of a crime having been committed. It does not discuss, or negotiate, what rights it will or will not exercise with government or with any government functionary. In short, a free citizenry, founded in principles of liberty, does not give up its right to determine what kind of government receives its Consent to Govern. A free citizenry respects, honors, and protects the lawful rights of others, by force of arms if necessary, else liberty cannot be preserved for anyone. — Donald L. Cline

Subscribe
Notify of
67 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
13 days ago

Richard Ivan Mack (born 1952) is the former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona and a political activist. He is known for his role in a successful lawsuit brought against the federal government of the United States which alleged that portions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the United States Constitution. He is a former lobbyist for Gun Owners of America (GOA) and a two-time candidate for United States Congress. Mack is also the founder of Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), and established the “County Sheriff Project” movement, both of whom reaffirm what they claim is the constitutional power to refuse to enforce federal laws.[1]

rexx45
rexx45
14 days ago

The 2nd an explicit prohibition on government interfering with my natural right to arm myself, not a grantor of said right.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago

Donald Cline vastly understates who the totalitarians are, and that is a big part of the problem.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
14 days ago

Q: even if the Federal Government has given itself the power to regulate a thing in interstate commerce, whether it is a kumquat sitting in a bowl with mangoes and banannas on my kitchen counter, or a pistol with an absurdly long extended magazine hanging on my belt, how does that government power continue when the thing is no longer “in commerce”? Basically, once the thing is in my grubny little fist, your “interstate commerce clause” choke point becomes a moot point.

JNew
JNew
14 days ago

And yet, it still exists.

HLB
HLB
14 days ago

Very good write up. Some notes here: 1) “The Brady Act background checks have never prevented a crime”. This does not matter. The Constitution does not exist to make life a certain way, it exists to allow the people to make it a certain way through themselves and their approved Government. 2) “The State exercise of prohibited power also occurs when any State-created municipal or corporate entity enforces restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms on any premises open to the public.”. This is why I can wear my Constitutional Rights in Walmart as they are open to the Constitutional public. 3) I regret, and… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
14 days ago
Reply to  HLB

How could the article not be political?

HLB
HLB
14 days ago

Good question. Political addresses the ones supposedly controlling the situation – both responsible for the cause and the cure. Once it is realized that these people, irrespective of their species, both caused the situation and will never cure the situation, the use of political discussion becomes non-productive.

HLB

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
13 days ago
Reply to  HLB

Our obligations as citizens are to maintain this government through oversight of each and every official, whether elected or appointed, oaths taken and seated by WE, The People to assure they do not violate their oaths or commit crimes, ethics violations or acts of moral turpitude while in office.

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
15 days ago

Government slight of hand is when infringements are passed as law even though they’re un-Constitutional. This proves the “Checks and Balances” is a farce if no one can or is willing to stop them.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
13 days ago
Reply to  MICHAEL J

Either way, an unconstitutional “law” is not law and is thereby moot. It just takes balls of those arrested under the unconstitutional law to step up to the plate and make whatever sacrifices necessary to battle it through the courts and counter-sue in order to recover your damages. Yeah, yeah, I know, there are those out there that know it all and those are the ones that are full of shit! I am speaking from a lifetime of experiences in these matters. You may not life like a fat rat, but you will live and you will live longer by… Read more »

swmft
swmft
15 days ago

the problem is with what uneducated people are told, most immigrants come from places where government has absolute power ,and wields it against anyone who is not in their circle; yet they let gangs run rampant. keep people in fear we do not educate citizens about their rights ,government steps in and starts to do things so customary argument can be used in court, problem is customary is not law time to take back our RIGHTS

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
15 days ago

Rights are secured by the willingness of the citizenry to shoot anyone who insists on violating them. The problem lies in the fact that life is so dear and peace not so sweet that we are willing to live as slaves rather then resist the people who claim to have authority over us. Remember… the movie Soylent Green where Charlton Heston screamed SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE. Well…GOVERNMENT IS PEOPLE. Typically psychopathic control freak people.

PMinFl
PMinFl
14 days ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

So says our president the “current office holder”.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
14 days ago
Reply to  PMinFl

Thank you for the line item veto, and showing it in it’s proper perspective providing support to the stolen election. No one should refer to this liar and thief as our XXXXXXXXX just obiden will do.

nrringlee
nrringlee
15 days ago

Agreed, across the board. Folks, you need to download and print this to save it. That being said there is only one peaceful means to reset the nation and get us back to our original roots. That is an Article V Convention of States. Many of you will swallow the propaganda being spewed against the Convention of States project and that will be to your detriment. If the states cannot reset the original confines of federal power we will spin out of control and go full on Khmer Rouge as a nation. Our nation was founded in a quest for… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
15 days ago
Reply to  nrringlee

Gee…what happened at the last convention of states? Oh I know, they snuck in the Constitution in lieu of the Articles of Confederation which was just supposed to be adjusted for issues that had come up. The end result? WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. What do we have today? A PAPER TIGER we call the “Constitution”. THEY have usurped it since and even before Lincoln did.

Last edited 15 days ago by CourageousLion
Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

Actually, that is not true. It turns out research has shown the States knew full well the Articles of Confederation probably had to be scrapped. Epoch Times just had a full-page article in which the theory that the convention was limited to changing the AofC was proven to be untrue.

Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago
Reply to  nrringlee

Problem is, the Con-Con (aptly named) has an equal chance, or perhaps more than equal chance, of entrenching the Marxist cabal instead of excising it. There is a better way: State nullification of unConstitutional law. State legislation prohibiting enforcement of federal gun control laws is one example. Another is some States refusal to turn illegal aliens over to ICE. (I don’t agree with that, but it IS “State nullification.”) Another, as I said in the Letter to the Editor, is any State declaring the 17th Amendment null and void for want of ratification, and legislatively choosing their Senators and sending… Read more »

HLB
HLB
15 days ago
Reply to  Frdmftr

Michael Bolden of the Tenth Amendment Center is very good on nullification.

HLB

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
14 days ago
Reply to  nrringlee

TEXIT. Other states may follow at will.

Stag
Stag
15 days ago

All arms laws are unconstitutional.

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
15 days ago
Reply to  Stag

Along this line of thought, if you haven’t read Marbury v Madison you really ought to. If one does you realize all gun control laws/civilian disarmament is indeed un Constitutional and just how far removed the SCOTUS have drifted from the document they have sworn to uphold, their first and only duty.

The Truth Behind Marbury v. Madison

https://constitutionstudy.com/2019/03/01/the-truth-behind-marbury-v-madison/

The Truth Behind Marbury v. Madison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ays22zlreU

Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago

With all due respect, that is not an argument, and it assumes facts not in evidence. If you have an argument, make it.

Last edited 15 days ago by Frdmftr
Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago
Reply to  Frdmftr

The above comment was not intended as a reply to the comment above it. It was intended for an insulting comment without merit quite a ways further down the comments. I don’t know why it was moved up here.

Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago

I think that situation has changed, and commie puppet Biden is seeing to it. If a Republican is anti-2nd Amendment he is not a Republican — but make sure he is anti-32nd Amendment NOW, not 2-03 years ago.

Henry Bowman
Henry Bowman
15 days ago

THIS IS THE KIND OF WRITING WE SHOULD SEE EVERYDAY IN AMMOLAND!

What a refreshing change of pace to that RINO quisling Harold Hutchinson! I hereby dub Donald L. Cline as “The Anti-Harold”!!

PS to Ammoland mods: I know a couple people have been banned because they called for removing your little buddy Harold from the writing team. Don’t cancel me too!!

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
15 days ago

Love this letter. I am not sure if it is all true because I am not that educated about all of the amendments but if he is correct, it is obvious that we are being taken advantage of. What get’s me is our fore fathers gave us all the tools we needed to stop a take over of our rights in the first place yet it still happened. Too bad we can’t go back in time and change what happened because changing things back once they have been changed are much harder than stopping any change in the first place.… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

Practicaly speaking, we have less than 800 days to find a Republican presidential candidate who is pro 2nd Amendment. This is something we have not had since at least Dewey (and probably not even then). It’s doubtful that will happen since we have so many Republican voters who apologize for Trump’s anti 2nd Amendment stances. That attitude encourages the next candidate to push for more gun control laws. Republican candidates believe that since the majority of pro 2nd Amendment gun owners will vote for someone who pushes for more gun control (like Trump), they might as well push for more… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Will – 4/30/21:
 
“TRUMP 2024!”

Response to Will:

That is the attitude that will get us another anti 2nd Amendment candidate.

Because so many in the firearm community have not criticized Trump for his anti 2nd Amendment stances, he has never taken back all of these comments:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?441884-1/president-trump-calls-comprehensive-gun-bill

Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

And THAT is the attitude that got us a Democratic-Communist president, House, and Senate if you include the freaking RINOs who adopted the Never Trump stance (election fraud aside). President Trump didn’t know any better when he made those comments in 2018, but unlike every other president who ignores his constituency, he is capable of learning, and he learned. When we manage to get rid of the puppet commie in the White House we need Trump or a Trump clone to put us back on the Trump Train. We won’t get one if people keep spouting that nonsense.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  Frdmftr

You are incorrect. Trump thoroughly understood the gun control issues. He had numerous analysts to provide evaluations of the issues. He had representatives, senators, and governors from “pro-gun” states to give him advice. He had Republican party leaders at the state and national level to give him advice. He had GOA people to give him advice. He had two “pro 2nd Amendment” sons to give him advice. He flip-flopped because he is a populist and carefully considered what position would get him more votes in 2020. He know people like you would vote for him no matter how much gun… Read more »

Grim
Grim
14 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Trump is no friend our ours!!! We need a real conservative constitutionalist, not a self centered blowhard who lines his own pockets at our expense.

JNew
JNew
14 days ago
Reply to  Grim

Although I completely agree with you, he was the lesser of two evils. I always tell people I didn’t vote for Trump, I voted against Clinton/Biden.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  JNew

I did the same.

I also worked with the Republican party officials to encourage them to contact Trump and get him to renounce his 2/28/18 positions and to order the BATFE to stop their 2020 efforts regarding braced pistols and 80% pistol frames.

The leadership in the Republican Party (party people – not elected offficials) were too arrogant and too concerned about making waves that might compromise their little positions to do anything. They just waved their Trump flags and demanded people vote for him.

APG member
APG member
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Banning bump stocks and denying firearms owners due process is NOT a pro 2A position. Keep it up and you will be disarmed!

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  APG member

I didn’t say it was, clearly.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Will – 4/30/21:

“Don’t really know what that “we” shit is! Another one of your links?”

Response to Will:

You truly despise facts and evidence that is contary to your feelings.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Will – 4/30/21:

“Facts and evidence is something you have never know shit about!”

Response to Will:

Make your argument, and be specific.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Will – 4/30/21
 
“Specifically …you’re an idiot!”

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Man you make the outcome seem so bleak. I hope that things are not that bad. I have always wished that we could get another party in there but I just don’t see that happening and if we do, the question is, will they or are they going to be just as corrupt as what we have right now and nothing really changes but the party. To dam bad man is so greedy and power hungry.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

I’m willing to be optimistic, but when was the last time you saw a prominent Republican politician make a detailed, well-reasoned rebuttal to the lies underlying gun control bills?

Knute
Knute
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Have you ever considered that just because Democrats are evil and bad, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Republicans are virtuous and good?
Can you admit there exists the possibily that BOTH are evil and bad?

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  Knute

Admit it? I firmly believe that and have made that very point many times.

Why do you ask?

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
15 days ago
Reply to  Knute

I can. It’s like we are always trying to choose the lesser of two evils. It shouldn’t be that way but it is not hard for me to choose when one side wants to kill babies, believes and promotes perverts in women’s restrooms, promotes being gay, promotes anti guns and promotes racisms. It’s not hard to determine which one is the lesser of two evils and that the demonrats are worse and take the prize. I vote by my gun. If you are pro gun you get my vote because my freedom is more important to me than anything else.… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I get that you are not happy with President Trump but who would you vote for? Who do you think is the person that would get us back on track. Do you have a link for that person?

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

I’m happy with a whole lot of things Trump did (and I have listed them several times). However, he was not pro 2nd Amendment and making populist statements about the 2nd Amendment did not change the reality of his views (as evidenced by all his anti-2nd Amendment comments/actions he made/took just over a year after taking office). Everyone I can think of that has a chance of winning the Republican presidentional nomination has indicated at least some support for more gun control. Some of them are more pro 2nd Amendment than Trump. If the Republican party chairpersons for all the… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Well, I don’t see anyone that has him beat and the people that I voted for in the primary lost. So, he might be the best we have got. My biggest worry with him was that in his second term he might turn back into the demonrat he once was and it would be “to bad, so sad, I lied” we all do to get elected, it’s expected. All I know if my choice is between President Trump that says he supports the second while burning some of it down and the Rock which says he hates guns, I will… Read more »

Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

And if the Republic has come up with someone better, you are still taking a bigger chance than you would voting for President Trump. You know what great things he did for our country even though he was ignorant on the RKBA issue to begin with. He was from New York, for crying out loud, he didn’t know any better. But he read his contact page on the White House website and he learned — I know he did, because he made a couple of comments that came right out of the emails I sent him.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

What if the pro 2nd Amendment portion of American firearm owners loudly announced that their vote in 2024 is conditional upon the candidate unequivocally renouncing Trump’s 2/28/18 positions?

Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Don’t look at what President Trump said two or three years ago, look at what he has said since, and what he has learned since. You haven’t heard a single anti-2nd Amendment utterance from him in the last two years (and for that matter, his former support for bump stocks was not a violation of the 2nd Amendment, as unConstitutional as it was otherwise). He learned, which is more than I can say for any other president we have ever had. I’d hire him in a New Yowk Minute for president, and I am more pro-right to keep and bear… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  Frdmftr

I have never heard him renounce the positions he held on 2/28/18. He continues to speak in platitudes “the Democrats are going to take away your 2nd Amendtment.” If USMC veterans would get off their asses and contact the Republican party leadership in their state and let them know that their support of the next Republican presidential candidate is conditional upon that candidate: Just Saying No More Gun Control perhaps things would improve. The USMC veterans who are no longer working should also get off their asses and contact USMC verterans who are currently LEOs and get them to organize… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
14 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I could easily make a pro-Army or pro-Navy joke out of that.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
14 days ago
Reply to  Frdmftr

Most certainly a violation of the 2nd.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

Will – 4/30/21:

“Music,this ole boy has a link for every damn thing!!!”

Response to Will:

Facts – you hate them.

When you were a LEO, would you say you were typical? That is, highly emotional, quick to anger, and having an extreme disregard for facts that are contrary to to a belief you hold?

BTW, not too long ago you callled me a “kid” – now I’m an “ole boy?” The list is getting long: “son of bitch,” “bastard,” “pissant,” “idiot,” etc.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Will – 4/30/21:
 
“Don’t get all bent out of shape. Hell,if it bothers you that much I will just start calling you kid again!”

Get Out
Get Out
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Do you really want anti-gun Trump in there again? Nothing like publicly stating your intentions on how to best strip away our inalienable rights.

Trump says take guns first and worry about ‘due process second’ in White House gun meeting.Trump: Take guns first and worry about due process later (usatoday.com)

Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago
Reply to  Get Out

He didn’t understand the nature and purpose of the 2nd Amendment then; he does now. Keep up that nonsense and we’ll get another actual gun banner in the White House.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  Get Out

Get Out,

Have you read my comments?

I’ve posted the link (many times, once in this very thread) to video showing the entire meeting during which Trump made that comment as well as many more comments bragging about how he was just the guy to finally do something to get more gun control laws passed. Feinstein got excited for the first time in over a quarter of a century.

I’m not sure how I can be more clear: I want a President and legislators who do not advocate for gun control laws.

nrringlee
nrringlee
15 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Pro liberty. The Second Amendment is only one component of the government’s duty to defend liberty and is the insurance policy that they do so. That is why it is under attack but it is not and cannot be the only objective. We must reset ourselves to the founding intent and founding statements of liberty and the duties of government at all levels. The problem is the feds. They are out of control. That must be the focus of our Great Reset via a Convention of States.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
15 days ago
Reply to  nrringlee

WE, THE PEOPLE, need to get off our dead asses and start indicting these corrupt officials thru the People’s Grand Jury process!

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
15 days ago
Reply to  nrringlee

I agree that the 2nd Amendment is only one component. The federal, state, and local governments are far too big, far too intrusive, have far too much authority, are far too involved in the redistribution of wealth (in its many forms), far too incompetent, far too lazy, far too unthinkingly inefficient, far too over-staffed, far too arrogant, far too expensive, and it is far too difficult to hold individual government employees accountable for their actions. All that being said, the 2nd Amendment is extremely important and people making excuses for Trump’s anti-2nd Amendment efforts is only encouraging the next Republican… Read more »

Vern
Vern
14 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

If the next presidential election was next Tuesday and the choice you had was Harris vs. Trump, who would you vote for? or would you even vote?

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  Vern

Vern, I voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, even though I realized he was a life-long opponent of the 2nd Amendment. I understand why many freedom-loving people did not vote for him. Even though Hillary was a horrible candidate, it was a difficult decision to vote for Trump in 2016 because he, like so many Republicans, was likely to put us on a longer road to the same destination as Democrats. I would never vote for Hillary, but I considered a protest vote by voting for a write-in candidate. Even though Joe was a horrible candidate, it was an… Read more »

Last edited 14 days ago by JSNMGC
Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

State nullification is the rightful remedy (said Thoms Jefferson). The States are sovereign. They earned their sovereignty by winning the War for Independence and kicking the British tyrants (and their bankster cartels that funded them) back to their autonomous City of London lair. The States created the federal government as their wholly-owned agent, and gave it specific orders as to what it was to do and what it was not to do (it was not to do anything it was not specifically authorized to do: See the 9th and 10th Amendments). Furthermore, Article VI of the Constitution provides and requires… Read more »

Frdmftr
Frdmftr
15 days ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

Google “U.S. Constitution” and you can read it for yourself online or order a pocket-sized version of it you can carry around and read when otherwise bored.