It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Constitutional Death by a thousand cuts Private party Gun sales OUTLAWED H R B 8 Ready to Pass

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 06:19 PM
a reply to: TheJesuit

Expect a lot of bills like this in the next 2 years from the house. They will all die in the senate. Don't you worry about a thing.

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 07:00 PM
a reply to: toms54

The vast majority of them will die by being laid on the table.

A few always get through.

No one thought prohibition would go thru in 1890. But they submitted the same amendment year after year it it happened.

Same with the "Bank of the United States". It took Andrew Jackson to slay that particular dragon. They replaced it with a second version, which collapsed in a bank run in what, 1907.

Then they got a Federal Reserve in 1913.

And now it's permanent.

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 07:03 PM
I truly hope they don't pass when some of these bills get to the senate. there are other alternative ways of approaching this problem other than outlawing it, it's quite a big market within the gun culture you'll have a lot of law abiding citizens that'll be quite upset when this goes thru.... not that DC cares about the 2nd amendment when it says "shall not be infringed upon" banning private party sales is exactly that. INFRINGEMENT .

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 07:10 PM
Ownership has the legal implication of having the right to consume, spend, preserve, sell or destroy the property.

The pretended legislation is an ipso facto assault on private property.

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 07:14 PM
a reply to: tovenar

The present situation has nothing to do with that century old stuff. We've already been told the house will pass a bunch of crazy stuff about everything they support. The democrats don't control the senate and they don't control Trump.

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 07:14 PM

originally posted by: tovenar
No one thought prohibition would go thru in 1890. But they submitted the same amendment year after year it it happened.

THAT was a rough time.. "I can't stop sh-sh-shhhaking and sweating. It feels like I can't stop flexing my muscles OW! They're spasming and charlie horsing. # it, just give me some methanol, gasoline, cleaning supplies I don't want to die from this!"

I would've been making my own wine. LOTS of it. Glorified, filtered and refined jailhouse hooch but Night Train and Wild Irish Rose are wines too, it's called a "citrus wine" it's on the label.

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 07:21 PM
a reply to: F4guy

U.S. Constitution Article Six:

" The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"

U.S. Constitution Article One, Section Eight:

" To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

U.S. Bill of Rights, Amendment 2:

" 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."

Perjury defined:

" the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing"

So by deliberately passing a law which is clearly not Constitutional, they commit perjury by breaking their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution Article Three, Section Three:

" Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

I'd argue that by actively violating the Constitution and individual rights, they would be enemies of these United States, or giving them Aid and Comfort.

I'd gladly be one of the witnesses to testify against them. Do I have a second?

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 07:59 PM

originally posted by: r0xor
I don't think there's anything wrong with the law at all. If I thought there was some sort of low key push towards eventually making firearms illegal going on here, I'd probably be shouting about this but from my perspective all that I'm seeing is: making all arms sales easily trackable by making sales and transfers of weapons only performable through a licensed dealer. A licensed dealer is simply a guy who wants to sell guns (legally to customers who can legally own them with no worries) who is willing to pass a background check to ensure he has no gang, terrorist, criminal affiliations (having committed non violent crimes in the past, including possession of, but not selling, drugs shouldn't automatically disqualify you and each applicant should be reviewed in detail). Each sale gets registered and each owner is liable for that weapon. Making it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands and being able to know who purchased a gun after it was found at a crime scene or on a criminal -- oh no, this is an attack on our rights and the second amendment.

In the 1700s, the Forefathers hadn't the slightest clue what the future would be like, how large the nation would be, how big the cities would be. They had no clue that semi and fully automatic firearms would ever exist, let's be honest. That said, the intent of the second amendment and the reason for it is still true and relevant, plus you can't simply grandfather clause or white out an amendment of the constitution. However, in 21st century real life, we have to be realistic and practical about how we allow it to be utilized. In other words, it can never be striped or taken away, even if it proves to be obsolete or becomes an exploited problem, but we as a nation can regulate it for the better good. That means every citizen who can legally own a firearm and wants one can own one, or five of them, easy! You just have to get it from the official sources but no worries because you're not about to goto war at home or abroad, you know when you're going to go hunting and buy it ahead of time, or if you're a collector, you wait for it and then you put it in a room with all of the others.

Even if you prove that guns are being sold to criminals and future killers, that guns in crimes are bought in crimes, this still shouldn't bother you to the point of protest. No one is going to say you cant own a gun, no one is going to try to seize your guns, you probably don't like having to wait and having to only buy from certain stores but I'm sure patients who are prescribed medications wish they could easily go on the internet and find competing pharmacies with dirt cheap prices on their controlled substances. Things that are dangerous are controlled. I wish I could buy alcohol after midnight. What's the point of a 6 hour window where I can't buy it, 12am-6am? What is that really going to accomplish? Stop the crazy DUI guy from chugging another steel reserve at 3am before killing someone in an accident? Extremely, extremely unlikely. Very statistically improbable. Those of us who responsibly drink alcohol, even excessively would never in a million years be that guy, much less be at 7-11 after midnight for alcohol that would contribute to a DUI. Nonethless.. these safeguards are put into place.

Ummm, NO, just NO!

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 08:14 PM
a reply to: cynicalheathen

I'm afraid that your interpretation of the Commerce Clause is in error. That clause has been consistenly interpreted by the Supreme Court to include jurisdiction over commerce that "affects" interstate commerce. While both the seller and buyer of a weapon might both be in one state, the weapon was made with steel made from Michigan iron ore, west Virginia coal fired the Ohio steel mill and the blueing was made in a Pennsylvania plant, etc. I would suggest you take a look at which is the seminal case discussing intra versus interstate commerce.
And insofar as perjury is concerned, read your definition carefully. It is not merely violating an oath. It is violating that oath by swearing to an untruth at the time the oath is made.
I'm on your side on this issue, But let's use rational arguments instead of running around screaming, "This is treason! Perjury!, Incest! cats and dogs living together!" Let's seize the rational high ground and hold it.

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 08:21 PM
I'm not too familiar with how it is at the moment - but ideally I'd expect that the only legal requirements for a private transaction of firearms to take place - is that the firearm's serial number be registered with the new owner, and names & signatures of all parties involved along with date and location be included on some kind of official form, which can be sent in to the relevant department to be logged in the system. Not unlike the sale of a registered vehicle from one party to another. That'd be reasonable in my opinion.
edit on 9/2/19 by Navieko because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 08:32 PM
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Bold for emphasis)

Guns, unlike automobiles are actually owned by people. You receive a bill of sale in the form of a receipt. Cars are owned and titled by the state of residence. Your proof of lease is the yearly registration.

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 08:41 PM

The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.

Name ONE, I say ONE mass shooting that would have stopped ?

I double,dog, give you a free dollar dare you.

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 10:39 PM
a reply to: F4guy

Reading that case is pointless. It deals with a shady lumber dealer who abused labor laws to gain an advantage over lumber dealers from other states. The lumber dealer was actually engaged in interstate commerce The ruling just states that he had to abide by the FLSA. Private purchases versus employment conditions.

I will agree that the commerce clause applies on the first transaction of a firearm for the reason you cite. All of the materials or components likely did not come from the state in which the transaction occurred.

However, once the firearm is in that state, a 4473 has been filled out, and the subsequent transaction occurs completely within that state between two private citizens, there is no reasonable argument that can be made that interstate commerce was affected. It is a private transaction between private citizens.

Also, you missed this part:

or by omission to do what has been promised under oath

It also applies to infringing upon the 2nd, even if the commerce clause was ruled to apply.

The oath is as follows: (emphasis mine)

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 10:45 PM
I think we should just sit here and complain about it.

2nd line.

posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 08:05 AM

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: TheJesuit


As I expect Trump to sign it in a "deal".

If he does, and Venezuela turns into what many of us expect....

The wall won't mean much to most.

I would support a fast track for citizenship for everyone from Venezuela who wanted to become a US citizen! They get it!!!


Had a coworker back in New England who immigrated from Venezuela about twenty-five years ago when Hugo was in power.
Don't think he can legally vote but he IS a die-hard Republican, hates the "S"-word with a passion.

posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 06:40 PM

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: StoutBroux

The bill as a whole could actually be named Closing the Gun Show Loophole, whereby unlicensed dealers can sell firearms to any ole stranger with the cash.

In many states the gun show loophole has already been closed.

and few "unlicensed dealers" will sell to just anyone because the gun couldn be tracked back to them if used in a crime.

i go to gun shows out of state and ask people walking around trying to sell there guns if they want to sell it to me and never have been able to buy one.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in