Ammo For Sale

« « Journalism | Home | Gun Porn » »

Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2017

A bill by Rubio to restore the right to arms in the District of Colombia. It will repeal the semi-auto ban, registration scheme, and ammunition and magazine regulations. And more.

6 Responses to “Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2017”

  1. Maxpwr Says:

    Add NY, MA, MD, CA, NJ, and CO to overturning those semi-auto or magazine capacity bans with national pre-emption.

  2. Lyle Says:

    That’d be nice and all, but a bill to enforce the constitution is tacit admission that the constitution isn’t being enforced. As easily as the constititution is being ignored, any such legislation can be ignored.

    Ideally the Justice Department would simply enforce the Supremem Law of the Land whether Congress asks for it, acts against it, or remains stupidly silent on it. In fact such is their duty, and so we’re in a situation where our government is shirking its duty. Not only shirking, but actively attacking the American principles.

    What could Congress realistically expect to do about that? They passed legislation to build the wall years ago, and there’s still no wall, for example. They can pass any damned law they want, and if the constitution isn’t being followed then their stupid legislation certainly won’t have any greater weight. They also promised, when the 16th amendment was passed, that the income tax rate would never exceed five percent, and we were told that our Socialist Security “contributions” would be set aside strictly for our own benefit. Whoopie do.

    We’re more than 100 years past the point where the law, or the constitution, means in practice what it says in print. This is little different in reasoning then, from the passing of laws to make “gun crime” “more illegaler”. It’s what you do instead of something.

  3. Maxpwr Says:

    I’ll admit tacitly or otherwise that the Constitution is not being enforced. Time to do something about it in those states.

    You can pretend what’s happening isn’t happening, but the Socialist Left will advance its agenda whether you want to admit it or not. The only option is to fight back and use their rules if we have to.

  4. Alien Says:

    @Maxpwr – U.S> Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17:

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

    The District of Columbia, despite the claims, protestations and laments of its residents, is a federal district, not a state, nor an independent city, and is, as defined by the Constitution, a wholly-owned ward of Congress.

    “Home Rule” was granted to D.C. in the 1970s; prior to that D.C. was run by three appointed Commissioners who answered to Congress. Just because D.C. residents can now elect a mayor and board of commisioners and grow their own flavor of government incompetence and corruption does not mean D.C. is any less of a federal district beholden to Congress in all respects. Which means Congress – which has total and complete authority over the defined federal district per the U.S. Constitution – can set whatever rules, laws and procedures it desires within the District of Columbia, restricted only by the U.S. Constitution.

    States, on the other hand, have autonomy and the authority to act independently of the federal government in many instances. I do not disagree that the states you listed, and several more, need to establish compliance with the U.S. Constitution, but that’s a different process.

    Firmly establishing the 2nd Amendment (as well as a number of others which have fallen into disrepair) in D.C. is a beneficial action; that the denizens of the District have full Constitutional rights is a step in the right direction and can be used as leverage to resolve the issues you identified.

  5. Stretch Says:

    Won’t make a lick of difference unless you actually haul DC’s mayor, city counsel, police chief and all police officers in the registration office off to jail and leave their asses there for a year or 5.

    Sorry, but that’s what it’s going to take.

  6. Says:

    Stretch: It’ll still make a difference if someone gets arrested for a “not actually banned anymore” gun.

    Especially if a sufficiently aggressive US Attorney (whichever one has D.C. Jurisdiction) decides to charge conspiracy to deprive civil rights.

    (That would never happen without new USDAs… but the current administration is, in comparative terms, staggeringly pro-2A so far.

    I also rarely buy “conspiracy to deprive” arguments as plausible, but directly ignoring a binding statute is as clear as we can get; a mayor or CLEO had no wiggle room there.)