Missouri Law Canceling All Federal Gun Control Efforts Goes to US Supreme Court VIDEO

Dan Wos, Author of – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host of The Loaded Mic

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The US Supreme Court is tasked with the job of sorting out a case between the DOJ and the state of Missouri regarding House Bill 85.

Bidens DOJ doesn’t like the idea that the State of Missouri has decided to protect its citizens from an overreaching federal government and unconstitutional laws. HB85 also known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act or SAPA has really gotten under the skin of the Biden administration because it prevents gun-grabbers at the federal level from coercing with state officials for gun grabs. The law does not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions that collect data or restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, or use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri.

The Federal government’s complaint alleges that the restrictions within HB85 have hindered cooperation and other activities that aid federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts in creating joint Federal Task Forces against Missourians.

The legislation, which was signed into law in 2021 and sponsored by Representative Jered Taylor, invalidates federal firearms laws. Under SAPA, law enforcement agencies can be fined up to $50,000 if they enforce federal gun regulations. You can imagine how infuriated the gun grabbers would be over something like this.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said, “A state cannot simply declare federal laws invalid,” “This act makes enforcement of federal firearms laws difficult and strains the important law enforcement partnerships that help keep violent criminals off the street.”

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said, “After their disastrous arguments in the Missouri Supreme Court last week, the Biden Department of Justice has now filed yet another partisan lawsuit that seeks to attack Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.”

Schmitt went on to say that the attempts by the Biden Administration to invalidate HB85 are also an attempt to stop the very successful “Safer Streets Initiative” implemented in 2019. According to Schmidt, the Safer Streets Initiative has resulted in the filing of over 650 charges against nearly 390 defendants with a conviction rate of roughly 98%.

“My Office has fought to continue the initiative, but this initiative has been suspended solely because of the Biden Administration’s actions.”

So it would seem that the Biden Administration doesn’t like crime prevention unless they are the ones to determine who the criminals are. While Missouri seems very successful in its statewide focus on stopping criminal behavior, The Biden administration seems to be preoccupied with the confiscation of guns at the federal level.

HB85 clearly states, “The people of Missouri have vested the general assembly with the authority to regulate the manufacture, possession, exchange, and use of firearms within the borders of this state, subject only to the limits imposed by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Missouri.”

Well, there it is. That pesky 2nd Amendment prevents Democrats at the federal level from violating the God-given rights of American citizens. In this case, Missourians have had enough of it.

Schmitt went on to say, “Make no mistake, the law is on our side in this case, and I intend to beat the Biden Administration in court once again,”

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.

Dan Wos
Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host – The Loaded Mic


About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

Dan Wos
Dan Wos
4.7 6 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JohnBored

What about those pesky immigration laws the democrat/socialist don’t like?

Tank

I don’t think the PTB UK ruling hierarchy will
let go it’s double headed Eagle’s talon grip of tyranny. Mission Creep happened long before I was even a thought in my parents minds.

Two key events happened. Christian Zionist Congress in Basel Switzerland where the Catholic Church’s Canton Swiss’s Corporal Power Oligarchy is located & Organic Act of 1871 pretty much started the ball rolling and many subsequent actions, laws, acts & a long train of abuses that were carried out under color & authority of law. In & out of the chains of bondage over & over throughout twistory.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tank
Doug G.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said, “A state cannot simply declare federal laws invalid,”
It seems Mr. PDAAG Boynton needs to look at City and State Sanctuary laws in CA, Chicago, NY, etc.. Because I haven’t heard him say this about those laws and they’ve been in place much longer.
Besides, the SAPA law does NOT invalidate Fed laws. It only controls who spends money enforcing those laws. That’s it. Don’t let the argument lead us astray from the facts.

Last edited 2 months ago by Doug G.
Wild Bill

Unfortunately PDAAG Boy is correct, due to the supremacy clause. Please see Art. VI, section 2, US Constitution.
Those illegal alien sanctuary cities could be dealt with if the Biden handlers wanted to.

OlTrailDog

Get ready to rumble! 😉

Vince

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/03/missouri-law-canceling-all-federal-gun-control-efforts-us-supreme-court/#ixzz7N3DvbnzC
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

“A state cannot simply declare federal laws invalid,” DOJ said. Yet the DOJ can declare the Constitution and Bill of Rights invalid. Hmmm!

JSNMGC

Missouri Sheriffs have been right there with Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety lobbying against firearm rights:  >>> In 2020, the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association worked with anti-gun moderates in the Senate to make sure that then-Senator Libla gutted the bill with a harmful amendment, killing it. >>> In 2016, the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association opposed our Constitutional Carry legislation. They were outraged that they might lose revenue from not processing as many permit applications. To them, it’s always about the money. >>> In 2016, the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association also opposed Stand-Your-Ground legislation. Thankfully, they lost this fight, but had they won, you… Read more »

uncle dudley

Here in Missouri, we believe in the constitution and our people follow it, something the federal government employee’s and elected officials thumb their nose at.

JSNMGC

Your sheriffs don’t.

JSNMGC

Missouri sheriffs fought this legislation:

“the Missouri Sheriff’s Association come out against it, saying it was going to hamper their efforts to fight crime! This isn’t the first time that the Missouri Sheriff’s Association has come out against pro-gun bills.”

https://www.secondamendmentdaily.com/2021/02/missouri-sheriffs-association-comes-out-against-sapa-legislation/

They’re elected, so, it’s ok.

JSNMGC

Scott Munsterman
Jimmy Shinn
Bill Pruet
Brad Cole
Kerrick Alumbaugh
Steve Pelton
Chris Degase

https://mosheriffs.com/about/

USMC0351Grunt

There you have it another state getting its balls back based on freedom and liberty.

DIYinSTL

Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who will defend this law, is (one of several candidates) running for Senate to replace the RINO Roy Blunt. He’s already submitted several Amici Curiae on 2A cases appealed to SCOTUS and might be the most gun friendly candidate we have.

Farmer

We desperately need an article 5 Convention of States. Wrest back the powers stolen from the states by the feral government. Restore states’ sovereignty and limit the feds to the 17 enumerated powers.

J Gibbons

That would be a very risky proposition. A convention of states could rewrite the constitution with all of the progressive leftist fascist marxist ideas that are so foreign to freedom. I’m not sure about rolling those dice and hoping that there are enough true conservatives out there that are appointed.

OlTrailDog

A convention of states is part of the Constitution, i.e. article 5. I’m far from a constitutional scholar, but I will take the opinion of people like Meckler, Levin, Natelson, Jindel, DeSantis, Barton, Horowitz, Abbot, Shapiro, and Paul over Mr. FUD spewing opinion on some bang bang forum, IMHO of course ;-). Currently it seems by far the best way to achieve term limits for the swamp rats, e.g. Biden, Pelosi, McConnell, put the brakes on an insane out of control spending, balanced budget (or how about a budget at all?), reign in Federal Government over reach, and perhaps address… Read more »

Wild Bill

If such a convention were convenient the delegates could do away with the BOR and all the checks and balances. In the last such convention each and every state lost its independence to a national government.

OlTrailDog

I respect your opinion, even when it is FUD. In order for that to happen the COS would need to specify prior to the COS the purpose was to “do away with the BOR and all the checks and balances.” Do you think that is likely to happen? If so, i.e. 3/4 of the states would want that to happen. If that is the case we are screwed anyway, i.e. it would happen. Secondly, perhaps you would like to be more specific? The last COS involved the Balanced Budget proposal and not “every state lost its (sic) independence to a… Read more »

Wild Bill

Ok, I will be more specific: The last time that such a convention was called was the Spring of 1787. We were living under the Articles of Confederation, there was no national government to speak of, and the various independent States were not paying their fair shares to Congress so that it could repay its war debts. Twelve states (not Rhode Island) sent delegates to the Convention of the States for the ONLY AND SOLE PUROPESE of ( as specifically directed by their state legislatures) amending the Articles of Confederation. On the very first day, Edmund Randolph of Va. and… Read more »

OlTrailDog

Sorry, but you are incorrect in your Article 5 convention of states information: https://articlevinfocenter.com/list-conventions-states-colonies-american-history/

Wild Bill

I don’t think so. Joseph Ellis and Ray Raphael are pretty much acknowledged experts in their respective fields, and I got my information from reading their books.
Ellis is so distinguished that museums and the federal archives let him read original documents, personal papers, and letters written by the founding fathers.
Just because someone gives a unfootnoted synopsis on the internet is no reason to doubt authors like Ellis and Raphael.

OlTrailDog

Gee whiz, Bill has his “spurts” and I’ve got my “spurts”, imagine that. 🙂 See more information on the 1787 convention below. But I suppose everyone is wrong but Joe & Ray, eh?

Wild Bill

They have awfully good credibility, after lifetimes of original research.

OlTrailDog

How about if I throw a few more “spurts” in on my side of the discussion. G. Washinton, T. Jefferson, J. Madison, J. Adams, A. Hamilton, G. Mason, and so forth. These were the guys who actually had to weigh the pros and cons of sticking with the Confederacy of States or opting for the Constitution and a promised BOR? Not an easy time or decision I’m sure.

Wild Bill

You are a “Go” at this station!!!

Russn8r

“COS would need to specify prior to the COS…” 

No matter what the COS specifies prior to the COS, nothing in the Constitution prevents the COS from addressing any issue. Anyone who trusts the Blue-Light Federalist Society Supreme Court to reign in abuse is delusional.

Wild Bill

Damn spell check. it should be convened not “convenient”.

OlTrailDog

What you are correct about is the example you cite was prior the existence of the Constitution, and subsequent Bill of Rights. Inherent in this is there was not even an Article 5 of the Constitution or Bill of Rights since neither had been written. Albeit, there were conventions of states that did convene for a variety of issues. The convention you cite actually resulted in a number of things that would not exist if that convention did not meet and agree on some pertinent issues, e.g. adopting the Constitution versus operating under a Confederacy of States, the Bill of… Read more »

Wild Bill

My point was the lack of control over delegates. I would not trust any modern politician to go to an Article V convention, unless I could send a second man with a pistol and immediate execution authority right behind him.

OlTrailDog

Now I think we have found common ground 😉

Wild Bill

That is good because I always enjoy your commentary.

Quatermain

That would be called the tenth amendment….

USMC0351Grunt

People have been wanting a convention of states for well over 25 years. If it hasn’t happened (on a state level) within the first five it’s not going to happen. Move on to a bigger and better dream.

OlTrailDog

“I have a dream…”

Finnky

Remind me again – for I can only judge you by the content of your commentary.

OlTrailDog

Sure enuff 😉 The quote is from MLK “I Have A Dream” speech. The lesson is that sometimes “dreams” can take literally centuries to come to fruition, e.g. slavery to the Civil Rights Act. Likewise, perhaps the Grunt considers the COS to be merely a dream. But I will be a dreamer. PS: Not to be confused with the Obamunist’s dreamers.

Wild Bill

The last time that such a convention was called was the Spring of 1787. We were living under the Articles of Confederation, there was no national government to speak of, and the various independent States were not paying their fair shares to Congress so that it could repay its war debts. Twelve states (not Rhode Island) sent delegates to the Convention of the States for the only and sole purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. On the very first day, Edmund Randolph of Va. and Gouverneur Morris of Pa. moved that the Articles of Confederation (and the independence of… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Wild Bill
OlTrailDog
OlTrailDog

Sorry, but a down vote does not trump facts or truth.

swmft

this is essentially the same as the marijuana laws , federally still illegal, but state will not enforce or help to enforce the law, it is where this idea came from

Last edited 2 months ago by swmft
J Gibbons

And that should be part of the Missouri argument. Invalidate one and the other gets invalidated as well.

DIYinSTL

It’s more like the sanctuary city/state laws prohibiting expenditure of any city/state resources to aid ICE or other federal agency in regards to illegally present aliens no matter the crime. These types of laws have been upheld by 3 or 4 SCOTUS decisions already. Perhaps the only difference is the Missouri law has teeth in that it can fine violators.

Quatermain

In both the 2A and Cannabis situations the Fedgov has exceeded their constitutional authority. The 2A is obvious “shall not be infringed” in the cannabis situation the failure of constitutional amendments under prohibition shows the truth. No authority for Fedgov to ban substances or firearms.

Wild Bill

Congress can ban cannabis pursuant to its exclusive authority to control commerce. Please see Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Quatermain

Really, then why did they go to such extremes on alcohol if it were not deemed necessary in light of the constitution? Art 1 Sec 8 refers to interstate commerce, not something that can be grown and produced in one state. Ask yourself this: Would Jefferson have signed off on a document that could prohibit him from farming hemp, as he did? Sorry that argument won’t work.

Wild Bill

The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquors in the United States … the whole United States.

Using the commerce clause would not have prohibited the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquors in intrastate commerce. In Short. the commerce clause would not have gone far enough to meet Congress’s purpose. That is why Congress used a different technique.

Last edited 2 months ago by Wild Bill
Quatermain

That makes no sense and flies in the face of the historical realities. How does that differ one iota from the fedgov’s ban on substances? Congress did not initiate prohibition it was a grassroots movement and actually was legal by virtue of the amendment process. The states are nullifying current fed laws both in firearms and cannabis. Idaho already has a Missouri style law on the books and signed by the governor..

Wild Bill

Since when does Congress make sense? The Congress in 1919, and the current Congress think differently, are subject to the politics of their respective times, and use different powers for their respective purposes. I do not understand the question, “How does that differ one iota from the fedgov’s ban on substances?” because the Congress does not have the authority to out right “ban” anything. Congress is limited to using one, or more, of the powers given to it by the Constitution. Please see Article I, section 8, clauses 1 through 18 Congress chooses to use the commerce power with regard… Read more »

Quatermain

“because the Congress does not have the authority to out right “ban” anything.”

That sums it, Congress may not ban anything. They could use the power to declare war to ban a substance and that would still not make it right. I don’t care what crooked logic they use they may not ban any part of a firearm or any substance, legally. Here is another question along these lines: At what point are we (individually) complicit in the crimes of an illegitimate government if we are not actively involved in its overthrow?

Tackleberry

There was an interesting case, Bronsozian v US, involving machine guns that ran up against the little-known Constitutional quirk that the Federal government can’t outright ban anything. It has the power in many cases to tax and arguably regulate into obscurity, but not an outright ban. Strangely enough, it goes back to cases in the 1930s where the tax stamp on marijuana required a person to bring the crop in to have a stamp issued yet showing possession was itself the felony, a catch-22. The Bronsozian case was dropped as the defense argument not only jeopardized the 1986 Hughs Amendment… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Tackleberry
Wild Bill

That was a good article. I copied it and added it to my NFA Unconstitutional file. The CATO institute is scholarly and has great credibility. There is another similar case: Per the 5th circuit, the NFA as applied to machine guns is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. US V Rock Island Armory. “In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19,… Read more »

Wild Bill

The CATO institute is the best defender of of the Second Amendment that I had never heard of. More than a decade ago, the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self‐​defense. Since then, lower courts have tried to restrict the right as much as possible.  New York prohibits its citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license. And while New York permits concealed carry of a handgun with a license, it makes it virtually impossible for citizens to obtain a license because it requires every citizen to have a “proper cause” to… Read more »

Tackleberry

The problem is that these cases have already been answered before, anti-2A types are just trying to fling crap to see what sticks. I give you an 1886 SCOTUS decision: Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) – This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States,… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Tackleberry
Wild Bill

Good work!! I am familiar with those cases. Are you reading Alan Korwin’s scholarly work, “Supreme Court Gun Cases: Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed.”?

Yes, we should be concerned. If the repubs could retake the House we could impeach every federal judge that ignores those precedents. If the repubs could retake the Senate we could convict every federal judge that ignores those precedents!

Russn8r

Not if “Republicans” like Abbott, Crenshaw, McCarthy & McConnell are in the majority. Never happen.

Wild Bill

Bronsozian was submitted to the S. Ct for a writ of cert. in March 2020. I don’t know what is going on with the case now, but the 9th (liberal) Cir. and the 5th (conservative) Cir. see the NFA as unconstitutional in the same way! A rare and beautiful thing.

Tackleberry

The writ was not picked up by SCOTUS and as it was working its way up the chain, the government realized the jeopardy it placed them in and dropped charges almost exactly the way they did in Roh v US. The feds realized that the defense’s argument was likely to succeed and wipe out not only much of their firearm regulating authority but their ruling has also caused a tsunami effect to other issues, namely Obamacare. May I also suggest reading up on the Roh AR15 case: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html. I find it oddly strange that CNN covered it at all. It’s… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Tackleberry
Wild Bill

That is a pity. I smell John Roberts. If the repubs could retake the House and Senate, Roberts could be impeached and convicted.

Wild Bill

When I wrote ban, I meant in a round-about way.

Russn8r

No, it has the power to control INTERSTATE commerce.

OlTrailDog

Ahhh….read the Constitution buddy, that is where the idea came from.

AZ Lefty

Thought we settled this in 1865! While states cannot be compelled to enforce Federal law see the immigration law cases – they also cannot nullify federal law. -again see the immigration law cases

Wild Bill

But the S. Ct can nullify federal law, which is why both parties are in court, Lefty.

gregs

well many states are nillifying the prohibition of marijuana by legalizing both medical and recreational usage. the difference is?????
you don’t get to choose which laws you want to follow, unless you are a leftist tyrant.

MN Hunter

They are only refusing to prosecute or aid the feds, not nullify the fed law

Wild Bill

Hey Mn Hunter, where are you in God’s snowball? I grew up in Koochiching County. Known as Kooch!

JayWPB

Settled? The advocates for States Rights clearly LOST that war.

Quatermain

Which is why it is still being fought?

Cam

What I find so hypocritical is that when states tried to enforce immigration the federal agencies sued them and the courts held that the fed was the only entity to enforce federal immigration law, so how is this any difference than that?

AZ Lefty

Well in this case they are trying to actually nullify Federal laws in their borders; not about them enforcing them. Big difference

Arizona

No, they are denying state resources and employees to assist in investigations and arrests.

Finnky

Exactly right. It is just like marijuana laws where state does not enforce prohibitions – but it remains illegal under federal law. Funny how getting a marijuana card in states that issue them is cause for NICS denial and can result in criminal charges if buyer denies being user of illegal drugs on the 4473. Only difference I see is that Missouri gave the law teeth. Unlike pot laws where local leo seize assets using CAF – often partnering with feds when states attempt to deny local CAF powers. Under this law local leo enforcing fed laws or assisting feds… Read more »

USMC0351Grunt

If you want the real answer about who’s in charge and who has what authority read the truckers safety regulations, that green and white book you find at truck stops. It takes you straight through to who’s in charge and who has what authority in this country. For those that don’t like to read a lot just take three or four chapters a day, they are short but very explanatory.

Finnky

Great law, but does nothing to protect Missourians from direct interference by federal agents. Should add a clause that state and local resources will not be used to protect federal agents or persecute anyone who uses self defense against federal agents. Not going to go so far as to suggest law-enforcement actually protect citizens, only that they step out of the way and let people do it themselves.

Finnky

Hum… only two down votes. Not touching off the LEO-lovers as well as @JSNMGC or @ruskilover (or whatever his name is). Guess I’ll have to work at that. Sad LEO supporters fail to see where faults lie with LEO and the system they work within. Without addressing those faults, the job will only continue to become more difficult, more dangerous, less respected, and less rewarding. While majority of the issue is with laws which the police work under, they are also individually responsible for their own actions – and for policing each other. Our local power to fix national problems… Read more »

Wild Bill

Actually that brings up an excellent point, for Texans. Texas Penal Code at 931(c)(1 and 2) empowers Texans to “… resist an arrest or search …” where the officer uses or attempt to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search …” Like if the cop points his gun at you while you are peaceful.
I wonder if that applies to feds applying greater force than is necessary?

Wild Bill

Hmmm.

Last edited 2 months ago by Wild Bill
musicman44mag

awaiting approval?

musicman44mag

This is a very important case. If obiden wins then there will be no safe place in merica to keep an AR or AK when they come for them and believe me, they are planned on it. Then the feds will probably make provisions that it will be against the law to not provide aid and jailing the head of the authority that doesn’t comply. It’s no different than the federal mandatory vax mandate. Either you blindly do what we say which shows you will conform, or you are out. Just like they are asking new military personnel if they… Read more »

Ansel Hazen

The feds don’t have the manpower. They rely on co-opting local talent to get what they want. Which is also their undoing. As long as we all take care of our local AOR they won’t be doing shit. Kind of like Putin in the Ukraine. The locals aren’t cooperating.

Wild Bill

Put your AK in the extra car and park it at the neighbor’s place for a couple of months.

musicman44mag

Great idea that has already been done with a bug out trailer.

Arizona

They will never go door to door for weapons. They will use their database of 4473’s and send a nice threatening letter: surrender your arsenal to local police by next week, or we will deduct $1,000 from your checking account. We will access this fine every week until you comply. When your checking runs dry, we will start on savings, garnish wages, call in your mortgage, seize your 401k, etc. We are the government, and we are not here to help. We will take from you, and give to our generationally dependent democrat voters who like free stuff while living… Read more »

swmft

just like canada and the truckers, why do you think the government wants all transactions to be digital? I am still a gold,silver ,copper and lead kind of guy and yes the led is preformed in little delivery packets,some with copper

USMC0351Grunt

a most excellent banking strategy however, send the extra and use the copper wrapper so you don’t soil your lands and grooves.

Quatermain

There would quickly be a shortage of police stations…

USMC0351Grunt

That’s pretty damn scary but very spot on. I keep telling people to read the lyrics of the 1970 steppenwolf song America / Suicide. John Kay seen this coming way back when he was stuck in East Germany and found a way to Canada and then down into the United States and he tried to send the message to America what was to come. Well the jocks were watching sports on TV the drunks were at the bar and the young kids weren’t taught responsibility and duty to the country so here we are. After winning both world wars, facing… Read more »

Quatermain

And “Pusher” is applicable to the clot shots.

musicman44mag

You know what, you are probably right. That way there is no physical person standing in between you and your freedom. Justin craphole from Canada is a perfect example of what you are talking about. Thanks for pointing that out. Time to buy more MRE’s and thanks for changing my point of view because I can see the probability of what you are saying happening because it has already happened next door and we already know that obiden has proven to be a Justin butt buddy.

You are smart Arizona.

JSNMGC

“They” (small town police, sheriff department deputies, state police) will willingly team-up with federal agents and selectively enforce the law against a few squeaky wheels in a program of intimidation.

Over a dozen Ammoland posters will cheer the enforcers on stating the firearm owner committed a felony so he got what he deserved.

They already to do this with only a slightly different fact pattern.

Totalitarians’ biggest fear is not an armed America – it is that enforcers may not do what they are ordered to do. They understand, correctly, that is a small risk (unfortunately).

Arizona

Where did you hear “they are asking new military personnel if they will fire if ordered to do so on their own people.”?

Word of mouth or do you have a written published source? Don’t doubt it, just want to see more info, so I can share the news with others.

swmft

second that, I know they have not asked submariners, have two new officers in family one on first deployment ,other at 5 year mark

USMC0351Grunt

1995, the United States Marine Corps was given a survey. You mean to tell me you’ve got Google and you can’t look this up yourself? 1995 Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.” Military Open… Read more »

Wild Bill

What did the survey say?

Tackleberry

Summation: “They wouldn’t even get a warning shot.” which I believe is entirely factual. However, as I posted below, I argue that the devil is in the details.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tackleberry
Tackleberry

The Insurrection Act of 1807 has been used numerous times in our nation’s history. The last such use was units of the USMC and CANG to quell the ’91 LA riots. But let me give you some food for thought: The overwhelming preponderance of US military personnel are center-right politically. The last Rand study (2020) put conservatives at 75%-85%, with the next 10% straddling the fence. What’s left isn’t enough to keep the lights on let alone conduct operations. The DoD officer, SNCO, and NCO corps trend a few percentage points further rights than the overall enlisted force. Reserve and… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Tackleberry
musicman44mag

Remember when obummer became president. Shortly after he was put in place like biden was, the military gave orders to the troops that if they were to talk bad about the president they could be court martialed. At the same time new recruits were told that, they were also asked if they would fire on their own people if ordered to do so. I was told that by a new recruit and a few others that confirmed it at the rifle range. I tested all of them the exact same way. I said, “boy, this new hope and change sure… Read more »

musicman44mag

Awaiting approval. I have become a little more agitated with the condition of merica and my writing has become a little more aggressive regarding situations and opinions because of it and now I am on the (to be monitored) list. Yesterday, today a few days before that I have been awaiting approval and still nothing has been held back to this date.

swmft

and it just goes to show if local leos will follow the second and ignore the rest of the bs it is unenforceable , but we see time and again , constitutional carry is bad ,we should control who has a gun ,coming from local leos