It is clear the Biden administration intends to significantly ramp up its attempt to suppress private gun manufacturing and ownership by using the ATF’s regulatory authority to redefine millions of existing parts and weapons as illegal. Their whimsically detailed spreadsheets and twelve-part “what is a gun, anyway” multifactor tests notwithstanding, there is no good faith attempt to inject clarity into exactly what they consider legal, but rather introduce maximum vagueness so they have maximum freedom to arbitrarily punish their political and ethnic enemies. Needless to say, passing legislation to do this is purportedly unnecessary.
Understandably, there has been backlash. Particularly, on the state legislative level, there have been numerous attempts to end-run the ATF and exempt some categories of arms or people from federal regulation. Some of these are more promising than others, but most so far have been token efforts doomed to failure.
Let me explain what won’t work. Legislation that relies on arguments that the federal government oversteps its authority by regulating intrastate arms is dead on arrival. Texas is trying nonetheless, even after Kansas tried an identical approach and was shot down. 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause arguments approximately never work, and when they do it is so rare that they don’t form a corpus of law that can actually be used as precedent. We have established that the feds can’t ban guns in a school zone on Commerce Clause grounds, but that is apparently the only thing they cannot do. They can totally ban you from growing and consuming wheat on your own property, or filling in a pond you dug in your own field, or doing the wrong kind of cryptography in your living room.
There is a far better approach, supported by the historical record and yet historically untried in the courts, that has the advantage of throwing the disingenuous prog reading of the second amendment in their faces.
The prog reading of the second amendment is that it solely applies to federal regulation of state militias. What is a “state militia”? It cannot be a standing force, since the constitution specifically forbids states from “without the Consent of Congress… keep[ing] troops… in time of peace”. Historically, and contemporaneously with the founders, it was some local assemblage of civilians who could be called out by the state or local governments in emergencies, with a mix of their privately acquired and held weapons and some local stockpiles.
The specific historical event that caused the first outbreak of fighting in the American Revolution was the British government attempting to disarm these state-blessed militias by seizing their weapons stockpiles. The specific fear that led to the passage of the Second Amendment (besides its broader historical context in the English Bill of Rights and the historical Anglo-Saxon and Scots traditions of private weapons ownership and self defense), was that the newly established federal government would mirror these abuses and attempt to disarm (or take responsibility for arming and then neglect their duty) the militias, which were explicitly intended to balance and deter the federal armies, as well as being obviously necessary for security in the context of genocidal frontier warfare, domestic insurrections against weak state governments, and long coastlines and borders vulnerable to foreign attack.
The tack for an ambitious state governor is clear: define your state militia, and what weapons you wish them to be equipped with should you need to call them out (a variant of the standard infantry rifle of the US armed forces for the last fifty years would probably be a good start, but of course hearing protection is also important). If need be, open a limited state arms store in the same way some run state liquor stores. The idea that the federal government could substantively obstruct this (eg by ruinously taxing, requiring months-long waiting periods, or forbidding altogether) is unsupportable in historical context, as long as it has the explicit legislative blessing of the state as being necessary for their security.
Most states have been unfortunately staid in their gun control pushback, usually detailing what the state will not do while allowing the federal government to impede their citizens’ ability to arm themselves. To the extent they have filed legal briefs or brought cases, it has been in support of the conception of the second amendment as an individual right they wish to preserve for their citizens, rather than as guarding the ability of the state to secure itself. Given the infiltration of cartel influence on the periphery (better armed at the high end than the federal government allows for their own citizens) as well as the threat of violent insurrection domestically, everything old is new again and the concerns of the founding generation are newly relevant.
15 Comments Add yours
This is a good strategy – and I’m someone who is normally very skeptical about legalistic approaches.
It would shift the crux of the debate to states’ rights in a way that forces gun-grabbers to deny the concept of states rights entirely. If states wish to have any reason to exist anymore beyond acting as administrative subdivisions of the Rainbow Empire’s imperial capital, their officials have to take a stand on what would be an unlimited and blatantly un-constitutional federal overreach. The states willing to do so are where we focus our efforts as dissidents. Those who cave are less fertile ground for growing what comes next for Whitey.
Legalistic approaches have their place in terms of exposing system collaborators and sell-outs – for example Noem and Hutchinson. So long as we use them more for their propaganda value than rely on them as real protection, this is a worthy niche-front for some of our efforts.
> define your state militia, and what weapons you wish them to be equipped with should you need to call them out (a variant of the standard infantry rifle of the US armed forces for the last fifty years would probably be a good start, but of course hearing protection is also important). If need be, open a limited state arms store in the same way some run state liquor stores.
Yes! This is the correct approach. A Governor should require all members of the militia to obtain , meaning every man – plus women these days I guess – a standard Army infantry rifle. IIRC, there is already SC precedent that the Fed cannot restrict private citizens from owning standard Army infantry weapons under this exact concept.
This is the Swiss way, I believe.
Now all we need is a decent governor.
Oh, wait …
The american sun’s editorial line of apparently telling the GOP how to win is both tiring and suspect. The GOP’s job is to lose, full stop.
translation: give up goy, you need to commit violent crimes instead and go to prison for 30 years.
nice try, fbi
Aman Bundy is apparently running for governor in Idaho and other states are already trying to nullify gun laws. The gay old party will never do any of this in a coordinated way but there are already some states looking at doing so.
Who said anything about “the GOP”? The best route for an ambitious governor has always been running against the establishment GOP to the right, just like Trump did (and hopefully more effectually).
LikeLiked by 1 person
While we are at it, the modern militia needs to keep with the times and this means state armories/arms stores need to be selling drone countermeasures and man portable air defense systems. You can’t call yourself a well equipped 21st century militia without either or those.
This is correct. In a red enough state, the GOP could even be attacked from the right via a takeover of the Democratic Party. In fact, such a campaign would win even if it lost, because it would interrupt the Blue Empire’s 50-state infrastructure. 5 states have a Cook Partisan Voter Index score at or near +20 GOP. Those states likely have more people who want a more conservative alternative to the GOPe than they do committed liberals.
I’ve been saying that for a few years now- since Winter 2019.
The 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement of Counties/Sates set the ground work for what would amount to the re-constitution of our Republic. Now there are adjacent movements such as Constitutional Counties & Bill of Rights allegiance lines are being drawn as well. It’s good that the Sheriffs are on board (as they should be). At full stage development, the separate (Sovereign) localities, municipalities, counties, states, etc… would have (ideally) their own militia; and, a coalition among the Constitutional Allegiance should be formed.
Just the amount of land mass occupied would be enough to bring the nation back to the table, having a sane and reasonable conversation about the future of our country. If we fail to do so (as you suggest as well), I doubt we will have the opportunity to do so later (without catastrophic results).
Let’s get it on already.
This is not a good idea. The 2nd amendment gives the right to ALL citizens to keep and bear arms, not just militias. This will simply give the feds the impetus to re-interpret the 2nd amendment as meaning “only those citizens enrolled and actively involved in state militias are allowed to keep and bear arms.” It would very likely end up before our not so Supreme Court and I shudder to think about what the result would be…
Some Learned, please write a sample Ballot Measure for a state Constitutional Amendment for this. We have to go direct to the Voters. My state’s legisiature and governor would never let it through legislatively.
Do any of you folks bother to learn about your already existing state laws regarding state militias? Here’s a couple of pointers to information on existing state militias. Basically have the governor call for more enlistments guys. Then get in shape and do the thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Guard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Guard So you want Newsom and Cuomo to order you around? BTW private militias will get you prosecuted and jailed. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/09/California.pdf?
Thx for the McAfee shout on the last Mot20C!
As for 2a. Put your $$$ were your mouth is or turn them in and grab ankles.
The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom.