The ATF is Unconstitutional. So was the Progressive President who started the ATF. To start a Court Case against The ATF is the thing to do, if the the Court is not one of Biden’s appointments.
The ATF is not Law. The Rules they write are not Law. Though the ATF does think so and acts accordingly.
The ATF has put a crimp on the things I can do and acquire that the Constitution’s says is a Right. Do I have a Moral Right to fight to maintain my liberty and Guns When they come to take it all away?
The ATF and all Gun Laws are Unconstitutional and WE THE PEOPLE should act accordingly.
3 Likes
So, how is it that you perceive ATF is “unconstitutional”? Certainly, some of its regulatory activity seems to nose under the tent protecting infringement. But the mere existence of an Executive Branch agency developing and enforcing regulations at the direction of the Legislature according to the constitutional game plan? Or what, exactly?
And which “Progressive President” do you blame for the existence of ATF? The one from 1933 to 1945? Or the one from 1945 to 1953? Or the one from 1963 to 1969? Or the one from 1969 to 1974? Or the one from 1993 to 2001? Or the one from 2002 to 2009? It’s not like this nightmare was suddenly sprung upon us one cloudy afternoon. We, and our parents, and our grandparents, and probably some great-grandparents, and the representatives they have all elected to represent us and protect the Constitution, are responsible for the system we have. Not “that guy” — whoever it is you might be pissed at.
Civics, man. You can certainly “sue The ATF” if that’s your pleasure, but I think that would be a detour away from actually fixing problems.
2 Likes
Here they go again infringing.
atf_worksheet_4999.pdf (290.7 KB)
The ATF could be sued the same way and found unconstitutional in the same way as Congress is abdicating its responsibility by allowing a non legislative body to make up laws.
2 Likes
Just need two more items:
- $$ to pay for the suit
- A dedicated constitutional lawyer who has the stamina to see it all the way to SCOTUS
3-5 year duration. I will be 18 months before the first hearing at the Federal level. It will be 2.4 million dollars and the fall of 2026 when the SCOTUS decides if they will take the case on appeal. Note that I said appeal, meaning our side lost in the lower courts or their side lost then they CHOOSE to appeal.
When is the last time you were reading the Constitution? Or even Black;s Law Dictionary to know the correct meaning of words? Try "Shall Not Be Infringed.’
1 Like
Is your solution to give up?
Of course not.
2 Likes
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
SUMMARY:
- Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
***Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
2 Likes
I can see why they all deny it was willful. There is no way to prove whether it is willful or not as it’s subjective to who the government sees fit to apply the law to.
1 Like
What does “color of law” mean?
It means acting in an official capacity as a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or judge in a manner that they appear to be following law or statute in the actions taken.
5 Likes
1 Like
Nathan 57. I know you know TEXAS 
CAN. CUT OUT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THATS IN WRITING 
GOOLGEL THAT DING DING 
IT ON HAW HAW check it out. WAY KOOL
WHEN THE TEXAS STATE FLAG CAN FLY SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE AMERICAN 
THAT IS SAYING THAT TEXAS DOES NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING THAT TEXAS DOES NOT WANT TO I LIVE IN TEXAS AND I LOVE TEXAS AND MY PRESIDENT IS GREG ABBOT AND NO I DO NOT RECOGNIZE , jobite me lien 
SO AS FOR ME I DO NOT NEED TO PROVE THAT I AM AN INDIAN OR AN AMERICAN OR THAT THE FREEDOM THAT I ENJOY WAS STOLEN I AM not on an X I AM just in a little town east of W,F,TEXAS 
and I would be very very hard to miss I AM AMERICAN AND I WISH TO JESUS THE UNITED STATES WOULD ACT LIKE THEY LOVED THEIR COUNTRY, DONT MESS WITH TEXAS and that goes for the