Let's sue the ATF

That’s why I singled them out. How will the fed argue a state upholding the Constitution when California does the opposite.

If states define further that the people are the militia then that talking point goes away. In the law words matter so its better to define something.

1 Like

I respectfully disagree as I am talking about a state upholding the Constitution vs the Fed breaking it. No convention is needed for this since it is already written that when the Fed exceeds it’s authority that law is void. The proper way of doing things is by amendment and ratification by at least 38 states. Any other way the supremacy clause does not apply unless the Constitution is being followed.

States have a right and responsibility to defend the citizens of their own States from Federal overreach. We are talking about defending a right defined in the constitution, not a law like marijuana legalization (I am not well versed in the Federal Governments power to legislate this either but that’s another post). Preemption by the Federal Government has no place here since infringement of the second amendment is not within the federal governments supremacy power.

To put teeth on a bill since federal agents can be arrested but not prosecuted due to sneaky laws passed by the federal government that agents violating states laws have to be tried in a federal court. non cooperation bills can be passed where state authorities will refuse to help federal agents making difficult if not impossible for them to uphold unconstitutional law.

2 Likes

Yes words matter a lot. Passing laws that define more people as militia just fortifies the false argument that only militia have the right to keep and bear arms.

4 Likes

I see were you are coming from. @Shamrock

1 Like

So it seems on the surface that this is an ineffective way of getting positive results for 2A.

1 Like

Not a problem. That’s how civil discourse works — maybe a mind changes; maybe it doesn’t. Walk away to talk about it another day. Meanwhile, we each put our shoulder to which ever wheel we think
advances society.
:+1:

Now, I agree with that. It is a real thing, and can have some effect on just how far federal supremacy can get. At the least, it puts an unmistakable marker down for the state’s position. It can be costly to the local jurisdictions if federal funding or material support are contingent on cooperation — but it is an available path.

3 Likes

Lawfare is how the socialists operate. Fighting them on their own turf is better than being powerless

1 Like

As Mr. Cash said, life and easy for a boy who sues.

Back many years ago when Wayne LaPierre became vice president of the NRA (and also around the time comrade Clintonista had almost 86 AMERICAN men, women and children slaughtered at Waco, with the ATF present at the carnage) he made a statement that was true then and even more so now…“The ATF are jack booted thugs”. He was soundly chastised by the president of NRA at the time and told to “apologize”…but he nailed it. I mentioned in another post that the JBT’s (ie:ATF) have been compiling a list of LEGAL GUN OWNERS. Not criminals routinely turned loose by our non-existent “justice system” but American, law abiding citizens. Just what Hitler did to the Jewish citizens before the “camps”…

4 Likes

A law suit has to be ripe, meaning that there has to be a real harm threatened. A class action is not required to assert a Constitutional right. Where the ATF proposes regulations, the first step is to file a comment on the proposed regulation. Then when the regulation is adopted, the agency can be sued if the regulation violates the Second Amendment. That route is very familiar in California where the one-party legislature and executive spend their days passing anti-legal gun owner legislation, in many cases fully aware that the legislation is unconstitutional, but with the intention of causing legal gun owners to have to fund litigation against the state.

2 Likes

Seems pretty clear that they are intentionally violating their oath to uphold the Constitution and intentionally causing financial harm to tens of millions of Americans.

3 Likes

Checks and Balances. The Executive Branch of the Federal government is responsible for implementing the laws YOUR house, the people’s house, the House of representatives initiate, convince the Senate to join and the Chief executive to sign. The House has the responsibility of oversite of the Executive. If your representative isn’t providing the needed oversite of the BATFE or ANY Executive branch department, it is imperative you let that Representative know about that shortcoming, Should that Representative continue not representing your views on oversite, YOU replace that representative with one that does. Is the process perfect? No, if it were we would not be where we are today. Is there a Constitutional method YOU, as an individual may access to provide oversite of an Executive Branch department? Not that I’m aware, but I’m not a lawyer. Your House, the People’s House has the power to shut down the BATFE or any Executive Branch department should they choose. Suggest you tell your Representative just that.

1 Like

Your focus on the checks and balances is spot on. However, the statements above appear to make the House superior to the Senate, and this is not quite accurate. The Congress as a whole is responsible for oversight of the Executive, and either either house, that is the House of Representatives or the Senate, can initiate hearings, initiate legislation, and then work with the other to make law. There is only one type of legislation which under the Constitution must start in the House of Representatives, that of revenue (taxation:

Section 7
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

(One other power reserved for the HR is impeachment, with the Senate holding the trial.)

2 Likes

Agreed. My point being the House could defund BATFE tomorrow, if the votes exist to do so.

Regrettably, no, they could not. The defunding can happen only through a new law, passed by both House and Senate, then signed by the President or passed by both houses again with 2/3 majority to override a veto.
Specific actions by the ATF can possibly be shut down through lawsuits claiming the action is either un-Contitutional or is not authorized by an enabling legislation already in law. Lawsuits regarding the bump stock ban fall into that category.

3 Likes

that is what was meant, with many fewer words, with “if the votes exist to do so.”. Your full explanation will help others, thank you. In the forever political maneuvering of our time, the minority party at the present, should submit such legislation as you describe and then use the subsequent votes, yea or na, as useful election discussion.

1 Like

regarding "Specific actions by the ATF can possibly be shut down through lawsuits ", while plausible, assuming the hurdles of standing are overcome, the duration of such lawsuits can be extensive. Case in point, the recent mask mandates instituted by the current Executive branch at the recommendation of an executive branch department (NIH/CDC). The duration to migrate thru the courts exceeded two years. With mid-terms just months away and the potential to change the majority party, legislation to shut down the BATFE, pass or fail, is a win win for us Constitutionalists.

2 Likes

THank you, yes, that is exactly why I post these clarifications. I am of the generation who had Civics Class as a HS freshman, and a Government Class as a senior in the 1960s. Lawyer friends of mine and I have decried the lack of civics classes for the past several decades, resulting in complaints, protests, and even government actions that fail to comply with law and legal procedures. Two of those lawyers regularly held lunchtime seminar classes at our company for highly educated (MS & PhD level) technical professionals who were clueless on these processes. The seminar always began with I’m Just a Bill, which was new information to most of them.

4 Likes

George,

What exact instance do you want to sue them on ?

Tom Nelson

1 Like