Instead of being reactive we have to be proactive and muzzle the ATF and its infringement into the 2nd amendment. They are not legislators who can make up laws at whim. They are not royalty who can decree anything. They are not elected officials and should not be able to use other unelected officials “Judges” to pass their void rules. Let’s sue and block them at every turn and then get congress to do its job.
When any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Would be interested in seeing aome lawyers perspectives on the chances of a class action suite against the ATF and government in general succeeding. They have definitely impacted my ability to acquire constitutionally protected items and unnecessarily increased the cost on the items I can get.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court of the United States and other courts have decided to legislate from the bench. Doesn’t seem to matter what The People think, what the Constitution Says or even what the right thing to do is. Look at the last Justice to be seated, all we heard was how the left approved and the right disapproved, very little was said about her understanding of that old dusty document called The Constitution of The United States. My guess, if a group brought a case against the ATF they would be labeled radical, targeted and hunted down.
I don’t see this as a deterrent. How about we get states to pass protections first by blocking the ATF from carrying out activities related to infringement and simultaneously sue? You cant target and hunt a whole state.
SCOTUS is also out of line so we get our state to back is up first making what they say void if it is not in their power to rule on.
(Attorneys: feel free to add) That can be taken care if by the state with precisely worded legislation. We can start by creating a rough draft and getting it introduced and passed in our home states.
Let’s start with:
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A beginning of legislation could look like this: (Note: I’m not using statute format)
In the State of : (Insert State) the Militia means all citizens within our states borders. It is felony for any Agent(s) of the State of (Insert your State) , United States, Allied country or foreign government or its representatives who infringes or interferes with the 2nd amendment rights of the militia or citizens and their constitutional duties within our borders. Any person whether or not working in an official capacity is in violation of this law is subject to a fine, imprisonment or both.
Authority given by the Constitution of the United States and this States acceptance into the union on (insert year)
Meaning the Federal Government agents and that are in violation of this law would be subject to arrest and fine. Scotus has no constitutional authority over States unless listed in the constitution or it’s amendments.
The clause only applies when the federal government is following the constitution and acts within its authority so nullification applies regardless of Scotus opinion.
I suppose you’ll just have to say that Marbury v Madison is void.
And as you make that claim, certain states will say SCOTUS is wrong, and it is in fact Constitutional to ban and confiscate all firearms. Remember, if one group can just up and ignore the feds and SCOTUS, so can the others
States already ignore SCOTUS and the feds look at California as an example. Even if we don’t agree with California’s laws they are exercising states rights.
That is the way it is intended to be as a Republic, every State has it’s own laws as long as they are not in violation of the constitution itself. Some states would just have more freedom than others and if someone does not like a particular state they can move or vote out politicians. I do see your point on how a state itself could become tyrannical if allowed to go against the constitution but what I am proposing is nullifying laws outside the feds authority set by the constitution.
The second amendment is very clear in its wording so states can nullify federal laws outside federal authority since the constitution does not grant power to the federal government to infringe on that amendment. If the fed does not like it, it can amend the constitution the proper way by amendment at their own peril since people would hold accountable the senators and representatives in their roles on any new amendments. Even then 38 states would have to agree.
Roe V Wade is a big example of how SCOTUS is out of bounds. Its not their lane. Its up to the states. There is no derived authority for them to make that determination with the powers given by the constitution.
Have I said anything incorrectly so far? I’m not an expert or need to be but I may have missed something.
Getting back as to is why States can nullify the ATF rules is because they are not laws and their rules are not protected by the constitution. States would have a right to prosecute and arrest agents that are for all effects and purposes violating the rights of its citizens and federal government agents have no protection to break the law and constitution. This would result in congress doing its job (unlikely since they want to be reelected) and making amendments like they are supposed to or a supreme court case in which the fed has to defend violating citizens rights in a particular state.
Yeah, pretty much everything, I’m afraid, as far as how the US Constitution is written and how it works.
Not sure where to start, really. I guess just to point out that the states have considerable leeway to run themselves, but they have no authority to run the federal government and do have a legal responsibility to operate within the federal framework. There are states attempting to undo that arrangement — the legal proceedings may be bubbling around for quite a while before conclusion, but I hope they never bear fruit. A fair outcome by foul means should not stand.
As far as private action, there is almost always a lawyer who will take your money and argue your position as best they can, but I think the proposed “legal theory” is akin to importing slices of green cheese from the moon. It may never leave the ground and is not likely to bear fruit under our constitutional system.
But do check in from time to time and let us know how it’s going. Maybe after the next Constitutional Convention.
California Constitution:
ARTICLE 1. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.
"The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says ‘state’ means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: The police should force people to obey this law. He who says: the state is God, deifies arms and prisons. The worship of the state is the worship of force.
There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments." Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War
… and they have every right to prevent infringement on our rights, especially where our Constitution states “shall not be infringed.” We do not need a “next Constitutional Convention”, what we need is a Congress with a backbone and a SCOTUS that abides by our Constitution.
Nothing personal but I hate it when pro 2A people get caught up in the anti 2A militia trap. The militia part is just a prefatory clause giving one of the reasons why the amendment is important. It is the right of the PEOPLE to keep and and bear arms. Nowhere does it say the right of only the people in the militia.
You could argue that the founding fathers may have only counted white males as people but other constitutional amendments solved that problem. Interestingly, the anti gunners seem to get very upset when those other amendments are violated by government officials.
At any rate it is the right of the (all) people to keep and bear arms and that right shale not be infringed. We don’t need new laws. We need the people violating the current ones to pay for their crimes.
Aren’t these the same judges who will hear you law suit? I agree we should sue id the “law”/rule is unconstitutional, but we need to elect the constitutionalist legislators, governors, etc to place constitutionalist judges.