Guest Post by Martin Armstrong
There was no other case that so exemplified how the LEFT is so anti-American than Biden’s argument before the Supreme Court for Warrantless Searches for Handguns. As I have written before, it was the writs of assistance where the kings men could just enter your home and search for anything that sparked the Revolution.
The King sought to crack down on smuggling in the American colonies, and to do so the British increasingly began to use Writs of Assistance. A type of search warrant that inspired the 4th Amendment because these writs authorized government officials to look for contraband, such as smuggled goods, in private homes and businesses at random. The writs also placed no limits on the time, place, or manner of a search.
In 1761, sixty-three Boston merchants challenged the legality of the process. James Otis, Jr., an attorney who had formerly represented the royal government, argued the case for the merchants. Though they lost their case, the surrounding publicity fueled anger within the merchant classes of Boston against the British government. John Adams was there listening to the argument of James Otis. He remarked that there and then the revolution was born.
I find it really just unbelievable that anyone with a law degree would dare to even make such an argument. Those in the Solicitor General’s Office who made this argument should be disbarred from ever practicing law. The Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY rejected the Biden Administration’s argument and that says a lot there and then. The ruling was handed down yesterday in Caniglia v. Strom, court file 20-157. Oral arguments took place telephonically on March 24.
No doubt, this will inspire the Democrats to try to stack the Supreme Court with their own stooges to overthrow the Constitution and install complete authoritarian rule. They will ignore that this was a UNANIMOUS decision because anyone claiming to have a legal degree who would vote in favor of the Biden Administration is a traitor to the very foundation of everything this nation stood for against such tyranny. Such a case should NEVER have been brought with a straight face. This would have been more appropriate for Saturday Night Live.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Government is asking for comments on more gun restrictions, please leave one.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/definition-frame-or-receiver
I see where the asshats are looking at things like considering parts to be firearms. They have never needed an excuse to push for more draconian regs but things like the new SIG fire control units have made a hash of what was always considered a “receiver” which is the serial numbered part which is considered the firearm. An FCU is a trigger assembly for the most part. It is designed to provide modularity which the military and some police orgs desire. The FCU has the serial number and can be placed in numerous grip frames with numerous slide and barrel lengths. You can make anything you want depending on mood or need. Want concealed carry? Buy the chopped down grip frame and 3.5″ barrel and slide and small magazine. Want the big competition version? place the FCU in a full size grip frame with a 5″ barrel and slide and 21 round magazine. There are a couple of more iterations in between.
Xiden wants to require FFL transfers for AR uppers and barrels and bolt carrier groups and of course anything else he can get his slimy hands on.
I just saw those and the nerf gun that inspire them. I don’t know how well they work, but they are cool as fuck for toys. I can see how they are charging by the pound of flesh, but it might take some impressive machining if they work well.
I just don’t see how there is a debate on the 2nd. It is an absolute statement. How can we accept any prima facie interpretation? On what grounds is there to argue?
There is none. The best explanation is that they want to do things which they know we would shoot them for. That is why their heavy focus is on militia weapons like the AR which statistically is virtually nonexistent in crime committed with a firearm.
Yeah, well FISA warrants and bench warrants are dished out like candy on Halloween. No knock raids anyone?
What greater outrage could congress pull than to illegally delegate legislation by rebranding it “regulation”? That was what unleashed the bureaucracy as much as foreign controlled fiat.
Just wait until ACB writes her majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and see how many heads explode on the left. The only question is whether Roberts will join with the majority and make it 6-3 or if he will put his vote with the 5-4 minority. I know how he hates 5-4 decisions, but it will be difficult for him to not obey his extortionists.
That woman is another shill for the Deep State, and is an advocate for your jewdiciary system. I bet the q-people are still rooting for her.
I don’t fully trust her to always vote the conservative Constitutional way, but on life ACB is rock solid. I believe that Thomas will pull the 3 Trump appointees to join with him and Alito to send a strong message to the left regarding this thorn in the side of Christian conservatives. The public has turned around on abortion. This is the case that will break the nationwide abortion business. Women will still be able to go to “progressive” states to obtain one, but forget about unlimited abortion in the 30+ conservative states.
People who believe more gun regulation will prevent gun crimes are the same people who believe making drugs illegal will stop people from doing drugs.
Yes, they have different demographics, but the point is:
1. You cannot stop criminals from breaking the law by making something illegal because they are CRIMINALS and thus will ignore the law
2. You cannot regulate morality. Drug use has been and will always be a morality issue no matter how many times someone says it’s a disease. Prohibition didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now.
3. It’s not the governments job to decide beforehand who is or is not a criminal. Gun control laws preemptively assume that everyone is an untapped criminal. We already have laws against murder, theft, assault, etc. By the same line of reasoning, then everyone who owns a knife is also a criminal. Common sense says violent felons should not own firearms. Just like the documented mentally ill, those with dementia or Alzheimer’s should not own a firearm. Or drive for that matter.
4. When you make something illegal to own, possess, or use, then it only makes the black market step in to fill the void. The black market is run by criminals. This in turn creates suffering via violence, murder, mayhem. Look at Prohibition. And the War on Drugs. And prostitution.
5. These laws only increase the prison population, particularly surrounding drugs. Private, for-profit prisons further fuel this. Private prisons should not exist. Prisons very rarely “rehabilitate” anyone and can often fuel more crime. I am not anti-prison.
The take away from this is pretty obvious. The reason they want our guns is not to keep us safe. The government will put us in harms way any time it suits their purpose. Including harm from them. So let’s get real and see it for what it really is. The last thing between us and totalitarianism. End of story.
I agree with most except for the opener. The same people wanting to take away guns are the same people who want to legalize and even provide drugs, needles, idiotic “safe injection rooms” and all the rest. The people bent on destroying decent societies. The people we need to use guns on.
“Common sense says violent felons should not own firearms.”
To me, common sense says infringing on anyone’s rights to bear arms is the thin end of the wedge. As soon as you accept that the government can take away someone’s right, then you accede their ability to take away everyone’s right. Violent felons you say? Oh sure that makes sense. Let’s just define the particular type of felon and call it good. After all nobody is ever going to expand on it right? The mentally ill should also lose this right? Wasn’t terribly long ago that outspoken women and spinsters were considered to be crazy and locked into asylums.
The problem is now you have given away a section of the populations rights and somehow I doubt you got their go ahead. In 1934 and 38 we got acts of congress regulating the sale and transport of firearms. Then came the Gun Control Act of 1968, which is the first time a group of American citizens had their right to keep and bear arms infringed under the color of the law. Before then it was simply understood that your rights were your rights and you didn’t need to argue them because SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear and easy to understand. A just and proper Supreme court would toss out any control act case that came before it as unconstitutional on its face. Full stop. No qualifications, no exceptions, no fucking “common sense”. No one in this country has the right to take away any of your rights. That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights; to make a list stating for future generations these things are yours by birth and no one can take them away.
After 1968 and its ban on most felons came the next revision in 1993 with the Brady bill. It expanded the list of who was banned. Here is the 1993 text:
So here is where we are: 1934 and ’38 transporting and taxing is regulated; 1968 felons lose their rights; 1993 it’s not just felons anymore. That is a pretty big leap from just 25 years prior when everyone’s right to keep and bear arms was understood to be absolute.
While many states, upon completion of sentence, automatically reinstate rights to vote, sit on a jury, or serve in public office, no states restore gun ownership rights upon completion of sentence. Remember, it only takes the stroke of a pen to make you either a felon or a crazy. The moment you allow the government to start writing laws restricting anyone from having a firearm, you have in essence given up your right as well as everyone who comes after you.
The ’68 and ’93 laws were passed in the wake of political assassinations or attempts. How is that for killing two birds; first we will kill the people in positions that we don’t agree with, then we will use the outrage of the people to take away their rights. It’s so perfect in the symmetry and awfulness you almost have to admire it.
The response of every citizen and patriot in 1968 should have been instant, with great vengeance and furious anger for those attempting this crime against our Constitution. The actions of one crazed or evil person have no bearing on my inalienable rights. “Fuck you for trying to use emotional blackmail to disenfranchise citizens of their rights. Everyone who sponsored and supported this bill will be at a minimum impeached and barred from public office as they are enemies of the Constitution (Domestic variety).”
Unfortunately that is not the America we live in now, precisely because nobody stood up against “common sense”.
Well Lautenberg amendment is bull shit. If DV is a misdemeanor then no biggie. You kicking your grown kid’s ass who attacks you in your house is considered DV. And a non-violent felon shouldn’t have to give up their gun rights. But it’s just how they whittle on the edges. And I struggle with how if someone has paid their debt to society, why isn’t it over?
+10,000,000
The government will make regulations to suit them. It is up to us to elect representatives that will make laws to suit us, not them.
Thus the guns. Guns are the ONLY thing standing between us and utter tyranny.
So I go right back to point one:
Making guns illegal assumes everyone is a criminal.
Saying someone is a criminal does not make is so, that’s why we have the justice system.
If you are a CONVICTED VIOLENT FELON, i.e. someone who commits murder (not in self defense or involuntary manslaughter), rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, then you do not deserve to own a gun.
Voluntary manslaughter already tells me you are ill-equipped to deal with a firearm anyway.
So take away a violent felon’s guns and he turns to a knife. Or a bat. Or a brick. Or a golf club. It doesn’t matter. Or he/she just finds a gun on the black market.
My whole point is criminals give not one fuck about laws. So they are, in the end, irrelevant.
The point is to allow everyone else to own a gun and protect themselves from said violent felons if the need arises. Sadly, it’s our own government that is turning into the most violent of all…under the color of “law”.
The point where you and I disagree is a simple one. No one can take away your right to keep and bear arms. If I killed someone and the court didn’t execute me or put me away for life then when I am done with whatever incarceration was deemed appropriate I should rejoin society. You can not like the idea that i have the right to own a firearm because you believe me dangerous. You are welcome to that opinion however in America prior to 1968 my rights were equal to anyone elses and quite properly were not suspendenor circumvented by law written to diminish them. Is there risk to that? Sure, but not nearly the risk of codifying laws to take away my right. One the law is void on it’s face because it infringes on one an inalienable right guaranteed under the Constitution. These rights are not granted by government and thus cannot be taken way by government. I can tell you with absolute sicerity and the sure knowledge that in truth every US citizen who also hppens to be a felon has the right to keep nd ber arms. He might not know it or may no longer believe it but he has it. Because no law written by congress could have ever taken it away. Every felon serving time for felon in posession of a firearm whether they are the most vile thug lowlife that you might ever meet or someone who just defemded themselves with a firerm nd w lter prosecuted for touching that gun while defending themelves. ALL OF THEM are wrongfully imprisoned. They are there because we as citizens have failed to keep the republic we were give. Everyone who was alive and able bodied in 1968 failed to defend the most inportant right we have from a plot to overthrow that right.
That is what freedom looks like. The moment you comprimise the absolute inviobility of any of our rights is moment you doom that right to be chipped away until it is gone.
You want to differentiate between which criminals deserve to keep their right and which do not. The first response to that should always be a resounding NO! It can not be allowed because while you may have what you believe is a fair and just set of crimes that disqualify you from your rights but by even allowing that for the change to be made, by allowing say any law to supercede a Constitutional right then you must accept that someone may later change that law. That is exactly what has happened in the years since 1968. Assault weapon bans, red flag laws, the ATF all these things are happening now because all thos years ago we as a people failed to protect the absolute protection a phrase like Shall Not Be Infringed conveyed. Since then more laws more revisions and eventully we are t the point where someone can file a restraining order with a court stating they are afraid of you and with zero due process or a trial or a conviction your right to bear arm is gone. The police show up at your residence and confiscate your weapons. That is all without robbing rping or killing anyone. It can and has happened to completey law abiding citizens.
These laws have never been about protecting the public but they are about disarming it.
These laws were passed during a time of civil unrest and they had zero to do with the fact that some high profile assassinations had happened. But thats what was used to make them sound more reasonable and common sense to the citizens that should have recognized them for what they were. A back door to disarming a infitiely growble group of armed americn ciitizen.
I don’t need to take the gun away all at once I just need to marginlize one group for now and I can start with a group that most people will dismiss as “unworthy” of having their full rights. (Just as you did above) ltr i can lowly add to tht group. Notice how in the Brady Bill one of the qualifiers is being guilty of any crime that can imprison you for more then 1 year. That generally means a felony. But Doesn’t have to mean that and is changeable merely by changing the sentencing guidelines on any crime . The people wrote these laws are not stupid nor are they kind hearted and goodly. If tomorrow any legislature in America decides that jaywalking in their town carries one year and 1 day of imprisonment Then until that law happens to get repealed anyone found guilty of jaywalking in that jurisdiction just lost the right to keep and bear arms When it comes to our fundamental rights it’s a 0 sum game it’.s all or nothing And unfortunately we as a society have opted for nothing it’s just most people don’t believe it
Ughh wrote that on my phone while in my car.. and it shows.
Thanks. Sometimes I think I am the only one who gets this and I don’t want to be.
“It’s not the governments job to decide beforehand who is or is not a criminal. Gun control laws preemptively assume that everyone is an untapped criminal. We already have laws against murder, theft, assault, etc. By the same line of reasoning, then everyone who owns a knife is also a criminal.”
I’ve seen this type of pre-crime reasoning used.
On another on-line forum, a typical Progressive Libtard guy (who did not own
a firearm) was bitching about a gun-owner’s refusal to even consider
registering or giving up his guns under any circumstances whatsoever,
and argued that this fact meant that he was a serious potential murderer
simply by virtue of the fact that he owned a firearm.
To which the gun-owner replied:
“Well, you’ve got a penis between your legs which means that you, sir, are a
serious potential rapist. So the first thing that’s gotta
happen is for you to go and have your little tallywhacker snipped right off
(And proof will be required) After that then
you can come talk to me about registering my weapons.”
The discussion ended at that point.
Red Flag Laws in a nutshell
take the guns first, due process later.
Sir, you should understand this fact: Leftists are not against guns, they are against those who own the guns. They have no problem if they are the only ones who own the guns, and they are certainly have no qualms about using guns against those they hate.
When the public is armed, you have citizens.
When the public is unarmed, you have subjects.
I really want an M3a1 grease gun. I had one issued as a GI and was just reminiscing on some YouTube video’s.
I’d settle for a nice STEN gun with a slightly longer barrel made from good steel. With PDWs and SBRs being all the rage now there would be good market.
The .45 acp is king in the m3
.45 is wicked in a sub gun. I read a story about a Navy Corpsman in Nam who had a grease gun with 100 loaded mags. They were attacked and he had a great concealed position on top of a bunker. He killed dozens. He said it was easy to tell which ones were hit by the .45 rounds.
A friend of mine had four of them in an M113 track in Vietnam.
Eventually, the Democrats will tell everyone to turn in their guns, and will tell those people they don’t give a damn about the Constitution. I suspect that it in itself is what would start a revolution. We have a ways to go before we get there, but it’s coming along with empty shelves and using $20 bills to wipe your ass. People need to be good and pissed off everyday, and hungry and cold, before they feel the urge to kill.
New Jersey could not even get the public to turn in their standard capacity “hi cap” magazines. They made criminals out of a lot of their citizens with one law.
This attempted infringement on the most fundamental of natural born rights shows how corrupt this administration really is.