Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor joined a coalition of 24 states in a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that seeks to stop a new regulation requiring gun owners to register pistol braces, also known as stabilizing braces.
Pistol braces are commonly used by gun owners in Alaska, but the Biden Administration is now classifying these pistols, when they have a brace attached, as short-barreled rifles.
“This is another example of this administration blatantly attacking the constitutional rights of our citizens” said Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy. “For over 10 years, shooters have used these braces in accordance with the law. They should not now be penalized with an invasion of privacy or criminal action because this President has such disdain for citizens who exercise their right to bear arms.”
Pistol braces were originally designed to assist disabled shooters, many who are veterans, by allowing them to support the firearm with their forearm.
The ATF specifically approved pistol braces as legal in 2013 and reaffirmed the decision multiple times. But with the new rule change, American gun owners will now have to register all guns with a pistol brace attachment and pay a $200 fee each, or be committing a felony in violation of the National Firearms Act.
What qualifies as a pistol brace will be decided by the ATF as it chooses, according to the agency’s own description of the rule.
“ATF’s new definition for stabilizing braces is arbitrary. The bureau is declaring that they will effectively decide on a case-by-case basis whether a firearm is subject to the NFA. Every American gun owner is in danger of potentially facing felony charges at the whim of these bureaucrats and without any new statute in place. The NRA believes this rule will fail for the same reasons the bump stock rule failed — ATF can only apply federal statutes; it can’t rewrite them,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
“In sum, ATF’s factors are little more than window dressing for the agency to reach whatever outcome it wants, regardless of the facts,” according to the lawsuit.
Although the rule went into effect Jan. 31, gun owners have until May 31 to register their firearms with braces.
“Many Alaskans who purchased these firearms with braces, did so with the knowledge that the ATF had approved their use and they were legal accessories,” said Attorney General Taylor in a statement provided by the Department of Law. “Using the ATF rule is a blatant attempt by this administration to bypass Congress and create de-facto laws. Not only will allowing this rule to be enacted hurt many Alaskan gun owners, but it will also create a dangerous precedent in our nation.”
The lawsuit asks the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota Western Division to declare the rule unlawful and set it aside.
Attorney General Taylor joined in the lawsuit led by West Virginia along with Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.
The other plaintiffs are Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition Inc. (an advocacy group), SB Tactical (a brace manufacturer), B&T USA (a firearms importer and manufacturer) and Richard Cicero, a retired police firearms instructor and a wounded warrior who uses stabilizing braces.
In addition to the states that are suing, veterans from Texas and Wisconsin have sued over the new rule that affects up to 40 million pistols in America. The National Rifle Association is also suing. Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a separate lawsuit against ATF on Thursday over the pistol brace rule. That suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Excellent. Well done!!!
Yeah I don’t have much use for these pistol braces. I’m sure bad guys do though.
Do they make criminals more dangerous? Or do they make firearms more scary?
IDK. Looks like something bad guys would find appealing
IDK, and maybe.
So because a small, incredibly small when you look at violent crime involving firearms, number of criminals might misuse a legal product, that product should be heavily regulated for tens of millions of law-abiding Americans? Because you don’t happen to see the utility those tens of millions do?
The fact the ATF exceeded their delegated authority and reversed their longstanding rulings is asinine on its face given the history and reasoning of the regulation of “short barreled” rifles and shotguns in the first place.
Are you sure of that Gregory? Is your certainty based on research? Studies? reading? Statistics? How about you share some of this? Maybe you are correct. Maybe the “bad guys” use these tools daily in their criminal endeavors.
Right now all I see in your comment is, “I don’t like them so no one should have one”.
What you should be sure of is I offer my opinion on here and if different from some, the bullies all show up.
A flippant and shallow opinion pulled from your butt, with no facts or rational arguments to support it, is unworthy of respect, and will be accorded none by most here.
What makes you think I care? Unlike you I don’t post on here to build my self worth. This is an opinion talk forum. It would get pretty boring if the only thing that happened on here is the traditional dunleavy is a worthless governor, and then you and all your Cloonies say yeah yeah. And then there’s the priceless post which happens to be about every other one of yours about how worthless the shot is and you try to reinforce that to build made up intel. Let’s see am I forgetting anything…. Oh yes there’s the Anchorage archipelago and their mayor and about all the council members that are out to get him. And then anything that has to do with the capital. You have negative impact on most topics on here, as in your opinion I have the same. This isn’t a popularity contest I’m sorry to tell you. If you can’t handle the heat without belittling someone, it’s best to stay out of the kitchen. All your actions do is substantiate what we mostly already know. You remind me of the little yipper dog that comes jumping off the front porch yelling at the mailman until he’s backhanded and slapped and told shut up and then he goes cowering under the porch from that point on. So if you don’t want to be civil that’s fine with me. You started all this with your mouthing and like I said it’s mere entertainment down here.
Greg, have you wiped the spittle from your chin yet?
Bad guys are bad, so the law has no effect on them. A murderer is breaking the law by murdering. Who cares how he/she does it.
We should strive to make it as difficult for the bad guys to commit crimes as possible. Yes bad guys are going to be bad guys but by producing laws that increase prison time when they are caught, it can be a deterrent.
The ‘laws’ are already there, Gregory.
It is the ‘enforcement’ of said laws wherein lies the problem.
I’m not so sure that you can back up your claim with any facts.
You don’t have much use for them, that’s fine, you don’t have to use them.
Yep. That’s all I said…offered my opinion. But we aren’t entitled to differ than yours. Gotcha.
“Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”
John F. Kennedy
Something we all might consider when we express our opinions.
I’m not even a Kennedy fan and I think that quote is awesome!
It wasn’t meant to be backed up with facts. It was merely my opinion and you know how they go….
My Disabled Veteran Brothers do have use for them it gives them the ability to shoot their pistol safely.
Glad for them.
The law doesn’t apply to them:
“This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock.”
You might first click on Suzanne’s hyperlinks before rhetorically stepping out on a limb and saying it off behind you.
Physician, heal thyself.
Check the links, read the rule. And, work your way through the process. There is almost zero possibility that any pistol with a stabilizing brace will not be classified as a SBR. Added bonus, it is up to the ATF Agent’s discretion. So, nice try.
I will do nothing of the sort..I’m always getting these fools blood pressure boiling on here
So, Gregory, do you post your opinions as to what they truly are, or post messages not of your true feelings, but simply to cause a reaction?
A sad state of affairs, if so, Gregory, because if so, you have no solid individual stance, and if you have no solid individual stance, you have no individual strength, no individual guidance, and no individual will.
If that truly is so. You are pathetic, and of no use to anyone, inclusive of yourself.
Let me get this straight. Since YOU don’t have a use for a brace, then no one should have one? And anyone that has a use for a brace is a ‘bad guy’. Is that your point?
I don’t own a brace either, but I still have full use of my forearms. If I get to a point where I need to use a brace to continue my constitutional right to own and shoot firearms, I would go buy one. What specifically makes a pistol brace strictly a ‘bad guy’ accessory? What does it do to enhance criminal activity?
Putting words in mouth polly. But what do I care?
‘Polly’!? Lol. Funniest thing I’ve heard inquite some time!
Yeah I thought so
That depends on the law. If the law says nobody can have them then yeah you can’t have it legally. I just said I have no use for him and I said there’s something that would probably appeal to bad guys. I said nothing about law abiding citizens. But if the law is passed and you don’t register yours then you won’t be a law-abiding citizen will you Polly?
How about the weak, disabled and elderly? Narcissist, only thinking of YOU.
Yep. My opinion. I’m entitled
I am elderly, disabled and weak. Next!!!
I’m sure that those with physical disabilities which they were designed for, have a good use for them. Put your head back in the Florida sand, it will all be ok.
No I’m good. Very good
Please explain how the criminals have use for them that the average law abiding citizen does not?
Beside, what difference does your “use” of the product have in any way? I do not have much use for almost any prescription drug right now, but I will not stop anyone else from receiving them. Nor do I have much use for a backhoe but I am sure someone out there does.
Stupid, meaningless point. Adds nothing to the conversation.
And yet it set you off. Fell right into my trap. Lol little on here is more than just knee jerk complaining cued up by a headline. So predictable.
Ok, I’ll play,……every law inhibits the rights of law abiding citizens. It’s just the was it is. You can’t speed legally. You must wear seat belts. They are uncomfortable. I get it. You don’t like being told what to do. Society demands it though. If it makes being a bad guy harder. , then I’m all for that. Did you complain after 911 when all the homeland security items went into law? I’ll bet you did.
Oh, so someone did something wrong in the past, that makes this OK. Got it.
Traffic laws only apply when using public roads. And, that is a choice. Tell me, exactly how will I be using my braced pistol in public?
Society demands it does not make it OK.
And, thinking it makes it harder for a bad guy is a specious argument at best.
Finally, I absolutely complained when the homeland security items went into effect after 9/11. Perhaps you do not realize but warrantless wiretapping without justification became the norm. It went from “the government will only examine your communications if there is a justification.” to “the government will examine all communications looking for a justification.”
Why would you not complain about that?
Congress shall make no law…WHat? Congress shall make no law. If their statutes and bylaws are written they apply to Congress when they are on the job and receiving a stipend. THE “Law” is the foundational, declared, laid down “Bill of (your unalienable) Rights” in “this” 1776 US Constitution.
The difference between all your examples and 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, is that your examples are controlled at the state and local level, justas those entities see fit. 2nd Amendment rights are actually written up in the U.S. Constitution.
Oh, and you still have not answered “Please explain how the criminals have use for them that the average law abiding citizen does not?”
You talk smack about 2nd Amendment issues then swim backwards like a crawfish!
You can safely talk smack because you now live in a state that has steadily driven down the crime rates over the last 20-30 years due in a large part through the issuance of concealed carry permits. It’s ok for you in your world but not someone that lives in a more dangerous place? ‘Please, federal government, come and save me’.
I don’t have any comment on the lawful or unlawful use of them. I only stated that I don’t have a use for them. I also stated that they may be appealing to bad guys.
Greg, I admit to reading through this entire thread before addressing your opinion. I’ll also admit that there are firearms and accessories that I don’t have much use for either, but this ain’t one of them IMHO. And, I’ll never tell anyone that they shouldn’t possess one, as I subscribe to the whole ‘armed society is a polite society’ theorem, and Alaska is a great promotion of that dictum. We must recognize what this accessory represents; accuracy and concealability. That is what the whole focus of an SBR is about, and that this attack on the 2A is coming from an administration that thinks “AR” means “assault rifle,” and the only weapon covered in the 2A is a musket. But it all begins with a victim, whose family then tickles the ear of some do-gooder DA or mayor or legislator. This fight began in the 1920’s and 30’s with the development of automatic weapons; the ability to fire multiple rounds with one trigger pull, and which were preferred by the criminal element against government Revenuers, G-Men during the Prohibition era. As a result of the Halsted Act, the do-gooders of this country saw the innocent victims in the spray of gunfire and used their voices as newly minted voting women, which had just lassoed Congress into prohibiting the sale of alcohol, to guilt their legislators into usurping the Constitution in the name of innocent victims. The next thing you know, we’re re-identifying the purpose of a firearm, giving them menacing names to market their death appeal. Because the criminal element decided to saw off the barrels of shotguns and revolvers to make them more concealable, Congress passes a law to add a tax on making and registering of automatic weapons, but you know the only people to comply were law abiding citizens. A few years later the Supreme Court upholds a federal ban on sawed-off shotguns, justifying that by usurping the Constitution in implying that the Founding Fathers adopted the 2nd amendment to ensure the ‘then-new’ federal government could not disarm state militias. Sound familiar? Then comes the Gun Control Act of 1968, using the assassination of JFK to control purchasing firearms through the mail (Oswald reportedly bought the rifle through a mail order supplier). But in the bill was the “Saturday Night Special” clause as well, and the state of NY one upped the effort to ban all handguns to the greatest extent possible. Remember, the Devil is in the details, so, DC city council follows suit in 1976 by banning the ownership of all handguns. Why handguns? Because of concealability. The Feds also put a minimum length on all shotgun barrels as 18 inches and rifles to 16 inch. The minimum overall length for shotguns is 26″ while rifles are 24″? This is all for concealability. That’s why non-Constitutional carry states only require “concealed carry permits.” It’s in the name. But then they outlawed the carry of long guns in city limits. Open carry of “concealable” firearms is still legal in many states. Now the lefty gun-grabbers get all spooled up because we have an SBR with a short brace (collapsible stock) to improve accuracy with a high-powered cartridge, all to keep it less unwieldy. Unless I were a member of the ‘trenchcoat mafia’ (think Columbine) I can’t conceal it, but I do like its concealability say in a backpack, or behind the seat in my truck. So, even though they fall outside the practical concealability for the intent of a Constitutional Carry, the gun-grabbers only need their imagination and a Hollywood shoot ’em up film to make it all a reality. This too is just my opinion.
Let’s start a lawsuit that says law enforcement can’t have automatic weapons or military vehicles. No concealed guns to be worn by any federal protective agency.
If liberals want to ban guns, we need to just start banning liberals from voting booths. There’s no other way at this point.
Lets make reporters get licensed and face background checks!!
You can’t just start being un-American because you don’t like the way somebody votes. This has gone on ever since we were a country. The only thing that’s changed is congressman don’t carry guns into the chambers anymore.
You are correct. You CAN’T just start being un American because you don’t like the way somebody votes. So why are you saying that firearms/accessories should be restricted when the 2nd Amendment specifically says that they cannot be restricted?
I didn’t. Can’t you read?
You are mistaken Paul as the 2nd amendment can be and is restricted.
What part of ” shall not be infringed” is restricting Bill? Been drinking too much of your bilge water?
Where is it written that Constitutional mandates may be restricted?
Here is Justice Scalia on just that Danali: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Read article 6 paragraph 2 of the constitution.
You might want to go re read the first paragraph of article 6. Oh wait I’ll just type it out for you.
“All debts contracted and Engagements entered into, Before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Conferderation.”
Now for the third paragraph,
” the Senators and Reresentatives before mentioned, and the Member of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I don’t you guys are talking about referencing the second paragaraph.its basically telling you that the Constitution is the law of the land. If the Bill of rights, specifically the second Ammendment is part of the Constitution, it is the law of the land. Do a little research before misquoting the Constitution.
From time to time, the Constitution shall be amended. I don’t have a problem with people owning guns legally. I have a problem with people owning automatic weapons without the required stamp. I don’t have a problem with anything if people are willing to do and own things legally. Just follow the law. It’s not that hard of a thing to do.
Your law correct?
Ah. So now it is a ‘specific’ issue, eh, Gregory?
Someone that owns an ‘automatic weapon’, i.e.., a fully automatic weapon without a required ‘stamp’, or license.
Someone within your realm of existence that owns such a weapon is the Bain of your existence, thus you take it out on every other individual that ‘may’ own such a weapon themself, ownership of said license, or not.
Those that procure said weapons, without said ‘stamps’, or ‘licenses’, are indeed breaking the law, and are indeed most likely ‘bad’ actors, but to compare them to those that legally obtain said weapons, through the proper procedures is ignorant at best.
I think they should!
We are a nation not a country. Greece for instance is a country.
Im in, start the petition.
Here’s a good read. ‘https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/what-americans-must-know-about-socialism
Thank you Attorney General Taylor and Governor Dunleavy.
If braces such as these and firearms are so terrible, why do most Liberal politicians have taxpayer funded, armed security guards? Wouldn’t a mental health counselor by their side suffice? One of the first things Hitler did after assuming power was to disarm the citizenry. We know what happened after that.
No what was that?
Purposefully obtuse there, Gregory.
Take away our guns, put 87,000 IRS agents on patrol WITH guns, limit your speech, make election fraud legitimate with penalties for election denialism. OVER MY DEAD BODY!
Don’t you pay your taxes?
You think you are safe if you do?
Whoa! Are we forgetting something? We have the Firearms Freedom Act of 2013, passed and signed by Gov. Parnell. ALL new firearms regs emanating from the federal gov’t, whether by statute or bureaucratic fiat, are NULL & VOID in Alaska. We will not enforce it, nor cooperate with any Feds that try.
It ought to be strengthened, as per how Mike Chenault originally introduced it: ARREST the Feds when they step on our soil.
Great point, Robert!
And I am with you on that 100%. We need to start a movement of noncompliance with overreaching and unconstitutional federal laws, bans, restrictions and regulations.
“JUST SAY NO!”
Feds have jurisdiction.
You enjoy the feds telling you how to live
One might say that he is even a fed ‘booster’.
Lol. You’re close, very close huh Suzanne?
Don’t you pay your taxes?
Actually, I like following the law. All laws. They were made to control society. To keep all people safe. If everyone followed the law, we’d all be safe no? It’s when some don’t follow the law or think they know better, that consequences happen. Society is built on laws. Without them, we are nothing.
Greg, I’m sorry, but you are merely showing your utter naivete and ignorance here, and a blind obedience to authority that is revolting and completely un-American. The same sort of naivete, ignorance and blind obedience to authority that led to foolishly take the unsafe and experimental clot shots.
There is no moral imperative to obey unjust laws. And I will submit that many if not most of the laws and legislation being passed nowadays are fundamentally unjust. So you can go ahead and be a “good German”, blinding bowing down to tyranny, but I and many others will NEVER do so.
Tell me, how does it feel to be a spineless conformist?
I enjoy following the rule of law.
Over what? Exactly?The rule of law is the pre-eminence of the 1776 U.S. Constitution over later writings and enactments. Any later writings don’t exist if in “conflict” with The US Constitution which is among other things the estate of direct descendants of the nation’s founders’ estates. As such, I waive none of my rights for myself nor the rights of any in my family. Immutable.
So you are ready to enter the cattle cars when they tell you it’s a law? Don’t worry about the forced labor camp your headed to.
Then you will enjoy entering the cattle car when they tell you it’s a law.
Controlling society and keeping all people safe are NOT the same thing, Gregory.
Greg, you are a pathetic coward and morally bankrupt if you can honestly answer “yes” to that statement by Rich (“You enjoy the feds telling you how to live.”) I cannot even view anyone who could admit such a contemptible thing as a member of the human race.
Actually the U.S. Constitution over rides anything the feds put out that is contrary to the Constitution and amendments.
Actually the constitution gives fed law the power over state law. Try reading it
What is the authority that gives them jurisdiction in this matter?
Please provide the Constitution leads to Law, leads to US Code, leads to Regulation string that provides the Federal Government jurisdiction in this matter.
Or did some guy say it on his deathbed?
Idiot. Still on the founder of Lockheed skunk works confessions? Get a life. Fed law always trump’s state law. Word twister.
In other words, you cannot provide the legal framework to back up your statement.
Thanks for playing.
Read my latest post.
It’s in the constitution. Try reading it. Article 6 paragraph 2
Did you see it that way too when cities were claiming themselves as sanctuary at the time that ICE was deporting illeagals from our country?
I’m confused. States can’t pass law that are contrary to fed law.
Nope. Wrong. You are confused, and you continue to demonstrate it with every post you make here on MRAK.
Perhaps you do not understand the 10th Amendment.
States can and do pass laws that conflict with Federal law. That is where the concept of “sanctuary” state comes from. That does not mean there are zero consequences of passing those laws, the Feds could restrict Federal funding for various items for example. But, the States are sovereign within their own boundaries.
The name of the country is the United States of America. It is not Washing DC.
Have you ever read the the constitution? Do you know about the 10th ammendment or the supremacy clause?
They were breaking the law.
Over what? Exactly?
Denali Explain your understanding of such “supremacy clause”and does it make you happy? No privileged classes of man are created by the US Constitution andcto espouse such is an attempt to tamper with the clear and plain language of this 1776 US Constitution. It was great in President Trump’s duly elected inauguration speech when he was surrounded by the branches of the military when he said the governance was being “returned” to the American people. Did you rejoice at those words?
Art. 6 paragraph 2
Hey Greg, go.read all.of article 6. You are cherry picking and ignoring that the article 6 tells you the constitution is the law of the land dummy
Well for example, Illinois fresh gun ban law. How did that work out? Got over turned by a federal judge as unconstitutional. Again “Shall Not Be Infringed” supercedes
The Judicial Branch does not write laws. Ever. They make sure court rules are followed, motion practice, headings comply with federal styles for admissibility, jurisdictions, briefs adequately written to prevail, correct citations applied, timeliness and processes followed. Etc. They never transmute into the legislative branch. Also, they (shouldn’t) are no part of convening a convention to add articles to a constitution. In America only “the people” not the legislature are expressly authorized to do that. Then congress has to certify it. None can tamper with the process that is expressly due. Not even maladjusted, sullen, woke personalities.
And yet the cherries were there. People asked for the cherries and I gave it to them.
No all you did was pass along false narrative. Didn’t think I had a copy of the constitution on my desk did you?
Obviously you don’t understand the supremacy clause. How ignorant. Spelled out plain as day.
We’re saying the same thing. How exhausting.
Only on federal land
Who cares. I have a copy as well.
Feds just wish to.
I also believe that Dunleavy added his promotion of that by Executive Order in the last year or so. Not that it provides any additional protection, but is a matter of record come May 31, 2023, when the feds target Alaska, provided the courts don’t shoot it down.
This is dumb.
President Biden needs pistol stabilization to figure out his own center of balance.
What a crock of lame lawmaking.
There must be a surplus of this pistol braces that need to be offloaded by the government and they want to drive up prices to make their bonuses or cover their deficit by any means necessary.
How many pistol stabilizing braces could be owned in the general public as opposed to government agencies?
Its like the price of eggs.
Pray tell, Gregory, what firearms, if any, do you yourself own?
As a self-identified elderly, disabled and weak individual, what form of self-defense items do you yourself consider as to your own ‘arsenal’ so as to protect yourself that you DO own so as to protect yourself, or simply have, and utilize, as an item to take part within a hobby regarding firearm usage and safety, or does your self-defense methodology include no firearms whatsoever?
9mm Beretta firing honey badger ammo, 380 ACP bersa thunder, Remington 700, Henry 22
Well done, Gregory.
You just identified yourself as a ‘bad’ guy unto all of those that have no use for firearms and feel that ‘bad’ guys probably do.
You violent old gun monger, you!
Honey badger ammo?
Who would’ve thought?
You should be watched, as you are obviously a danger to others, based upon your ownership of these dangerous weapons and ammunition!
See how that works?
I follow the laws, do you?
It’s called preemptive. Fed law overrules state law. Also, try reading Article VI, paragraph 2. Back to law school for you losers.
You should read all three paragraphs of article 6. I posted them clearly for you and totally destroy your argument. You can just quote the parts useful to your argument. Back to class for you
Yes I can. I have you for backup.
Martial law imposed to save the actual US Constitution, liberties, is imposed to save the nation itself. Then all civil courts are suspended and military tribunal rules displace civil ones such as at a time when the nation is being attacked by foreign enemies and war rules apply. The war rules supercede civil court rules. The nation is defended and the nation is returned by loyal military to civility and are under civilian US Constitutional governance per their written oaths again in the saving of the republic. It’s good for the nation to be supportive the US Constitution and peace.
Yes what’s your point? According to many on here, the election was stolen from Trump. I voted for him. In the wee hours, it must have crossed his mind to declare martial law because our nation’s democracy was under attack. Little did he know that the joint Chiefs we’re not going to act on his orders. What kind of Martial law can be declared when no one will stand behind the man? These are the people that typically have Republican support but the ranks of The joint Chiefs have been infiltrated just like the Supreme Court has. Our nation’s democracy is under attack that is for sure and for certain. Has a law abiding citizen, all we can ask of fellow citizens is to support the law and do away with little meaning anarchy that gets spewed daily by some federalist and country hating mongers on here.
I’m so glad all the sovereign citizens on here who don’t like or think they need to follow the laws finally shut up. Go on and hide up in Alaska. You don’t think you need to follow the laws because you claim they are illegal, yet you complain when the judges don’t sentence someone to your satisfaction. You’re kind of swinging both ways but typically that’s what a sovereign citizen does. Use a poor excuse not to follow the laws of society and then hate the very country that provides them their freedom. If I was Jefferson I’d come up with a witty little verbal assault right now but I’m not him and I can’t think of one any more appropriate than to call him and others on here counterfeit.
Awww…. poor little Greggy. His wittle fweelings seem to be hurt.
No not one bit. You’re another one of the trolls I was referring to. You keep circling hoping that someone will display some disagreement and something that you said so that you can pounce. I just woke up this morning thinking that I was tired of watching you guys belittle people thinking you’re I don’t know what you think you are. But it’s obvious to the rest of us what you are. Someone who doesn’t think they need to follow the laws, and someone that goes out of their way to bad mouth any form of government. And if everything’s going right with the world and there’s nothing to b**** about on here, you start looking for something to invent and you get out your thesaurus and start bitching about some engineering disaster or who the hell knows what else. You just a miserable piece of crap. But you already knew that didn’t you?
Who is ‘us’, Gregory?
Are not you an individual within your own opinion?
Why on earth are you waking up thinking of this forum? Have you nothing better within your life to do?
You seem to take the bad mouthing of ‘government’ as a personal affront, and I am sorry to inform you, Gregory, that everything is NOT going right within the world.
Your reference unto a thesaurus is most interesting, suggesting that you do not believe that many here do not possess an extended vocabulary based upon their own lifelong learning process.
What engineering disaster are you referring to?
There is an old adage, Gregory, and it has nothing to do with heat and a kitchen.
It has to do with contentment within one’s life and one’s ideology.
If one does not lead unto the other, regardless of the order, neither is attainable.
Be content, Gregory.
Seems like little Greggy needs to stop and clear the sand out of his britches. Someone woke up on the wrong side of history
Nope. It’s been fun to read your and Jeffy trade strokes. I can only imagine.
Greg, you just keep digging the hole of your own self-condemnation deeper and deeper with your every pathetic post proclaiming your absolute, uncritical and undying submission to arbitrary authority. As if your spineless and gullible acceptance of the clot shots, and specious rationalizations for them by an utterly corrupt and self-serving globalist ruling class, had not already demonstrated that gullibility and spinelessness in spades.
There are those who are willing, and able, to exercise their own independent thinking and judgement. And then there are those, like Greg, who are content to blindly conform to the crowd and to those in authority, simply because they ARE the crowd and because they ARE in authority.
May your chains weigh heavily upon you, Greg.
There you go again, you just can’t stop yourself can you? How sad your life must be. Always trolling for someone to attack. Then when someone dares disagree with your belittled opinion, you unleash both barrels in a worthless moment to try to embellish your thoughts. It doesn’t work mind you but yet you still try. This is what I meant when I called you and others on here sovereign citizens. You don’t know the meaning of civilization and society. Crawl back in your little hole under your big flat Rock Jeffy.
Go get another booster, Greg.
I hear the 34th one is the charm.
I often wonder what it is and a person’s childhood such as yourself, it causes them to try to belittle everyone they come across that has a difference of opinion then you. Was your dad mean to you when you were a kid, or do you have little man syndrome that shows your inadequacies? Just what is it Jeffy that trips your trigger so badly? Adults can have good conversations without having to put the other person down but you constantly seem to gain enjoyment by doing so. What kind of a sick personality must you have? We’ll never know because you cower at the suggestion of using your real name on here. We may be talking about your age being under 10 because that’s the level of maturity you use. It’s not just me. I have come to the defense of many on here when you and others attempt to build yourself up because of your low self-esteem I can only imagine at the expense of others. Why not just have a meaningful civil debate without all the insults? No it doesn’t make me mad at you that you do it, rather it’s kind of entertaining to me and probably most of the rest of your victims on here. There are some of us that got the flu shots because we thought they would help us. I believe they did. And I know that very statement right there is going to open the door again for you to attempt to put down my decision. I saw many people in my community die from the disease that didn’t get a shot. I will continue to do so and I hope that it continues to keep me alive. That’s my decision to make, not yours or anyone else on here that tries to lump their sovereign citizens hypocrisy into everything around them that is government related. And in closing, I hope you have a good life and can find a way to be happy, not at the expense of others like you currently are doing, but meaningful happyness that can only come from your inner self and possibly through God.
Wipe the spittle from your chin, Greg — you’re getting messy again.
Only a coward doesn’t use their real name on here.
How do we know your name is Gregory Forkner?
Got anything to prove you did not just pull that from the white pages?
Only an idiot thinks that the validity of a comment is dependent on them knowing the identity of the person making that comment.
And for the record, “Greg”, ALL of us here (except for Suzanne, and a few known legislators) are effectively anonymous. I have no more proof that your name is really “Gregory Forkner” than I do that it is Mickey Mouse. Nor do I care, nor is it relevant.
Yer passing gass Greg, your use of the sovereign citizen term displays your ignorance.
Clue,,” it’s an oxymoron”
Thank you. I am an old and crippled shooter. I would benefit from such a brace for most pistols. I shall stay away until the dust settles.
Good. I only stayed that I didn’t have a use for one and the local trolls got butt hurt.
You stated that you did not have use for one, but it would be one that ‘bad’ guys would have use for.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Those socialists! Trying to screw us with our own Constitution.
The above is Clause 2 of said Article 6. Carefully read the second paragraph. Notice it calls out the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof. Then it calls out judges to be bound by anything in the Constitution, with exceptions for any state laws ‘to the contrary’ of the Constitution.
‘Federal’ laws DO not automatically override state laws. If a federal law is passed that is counter to Constitutional law (i.e., free speech or gun ownership) it is an ‘illegal’ law. Constitutional law over rides all laws, state OR federal.
What it says is, if you’re a state you can’t pass laws that are against the Constitution and against federal law. It orders judges to make decisions based on the Constitution. So in a nutshell if you’re a state and you pass a law that is way way different than federal law, and if that federal law follows the Constitution then you are in violation of both.
So now you can sit down we all know where you stand. Take a deep breath and pat yourself on the head.
What now cat got your tongue?
Looks like the little Florida Troll, got Trolled. RFLMAO
I’m always getting trolled in here. Pesky sovereign citizen conservative wannabes.
You twist like Bill. You did not like people pointing out that rules limiting gun rights are in fact illegitimate/illegal. Then you carried on how fed laws always trump state laws, even citing Article6/Clause 2. But when I point out Art6/Cl2 specifically limits fed laws to only those that DO NOT contradict the Constitution you suddenly change your argument.
Laws that limit gun ownership/possession are in violation of the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution and are therefore illegitimate as per the Constitution itself. It is not ‘we the people’ in violation of these laws, it is the fed government in violation of the Constitution.
The problem is you can’t comprehend what you read
I changed nothing
Try reading slower,maybe mouth the words. Might help.
The problem is people like Greg and Bill think they understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. When everything they write demonstrates a lack of understanding.
I would not be surprised to see them cite the prefatory clause and claim the limits individual rights.
Get your lips around this…..when states legalized marijuana, it was in direct conflict with federal law. It was an illegal law that the states passed. All I did was attempt to word my meaning in a form that your challenged brain could comprehend. I try.
And we are probably going to see much more of that sort of thing, Greg — states passing laws in direct violation of federal laws (but not in violation of the US Constitution). And I will welcome that trend, and the dissolution of this woebegone nation into less centralized fragments. And make no mistake, that trend of confrontation with the tyrannical and illegitimate federal government is coming, and growing, and unstoppable.
And with that, I will give you the final word. I feel that you really, really need it.
Oh watch out, our public service 🙄 champion is lowering his standards, so the rest of us can comprehend. Well Greg Brady, most of us have a higher comprehension of the constitution and how the fed to state laws work better than you. Marijuana should not be classified as a narcotic. The 10th ammendment allows individual states the right to legalize it and tax it, plain and simple. Maybe you should look for a form that discusses the difficulties of teaching Jr high kids in shop class. Leave the Constitution talk to those of us who have studied it and have an actual comprehension of how it applies to the American citizens.
You use the term ‘citizen’ as a perjorative. Interesting.
Under our Constitution, the government exists to serve the citizens, not the other way around. When a law that is perceived to be illegal/unconstitutional it is the government that bows to the people. This is what made us Americans. ‘WE’ do not serve the government.
That you ‘follow’ the ‘laws’ does not make you any less dangerous within the eyes of those who feel that owning firearms is the sign of a ‘bad’ person, Gregory.
Within their eyes, you have NO right to own said firearms, thus, you are a ‘bad’ individual, and subject unto scrutiny as the ‘bad’ individual you must be, simply by owning or even knowing of said firearms.
You must turn them in to the proper authorities at once, Gregory, so as to avail yourself from the possible criminality of your ownership of said weapons, as said ownership promises your possible advent of violence utilizing such weapons against others.
You ‘follow’ the laws. Snort…says who, you?
You own the weapons; therefore, you are a violent seeking individual!
There can be no other reason.
Obviously, you are a right-wing violent nut that believes that your ownership of your weapons allows you to shoot whomever you wish, at any time you wish, simply because you disagree with another’s ideology.
You, Gregory, are the ‘bad’ guy, as you yourself have admitted by owning firearms!
You, Gregory, cannot be trusted.
You, Gregory, must be watched and alleviated of your arsenal of weapons, by force if necessary, so that you no longer present a clear and present danger unto those innocent individuals around you with whom you disagree!
Surrender your weapons, immediately, Gregory.
Be a part of the ‘free’ world, Gregory, and continue to ‘enjoy’ following laws…
Okay I said I was done and I apologize to all those that thought I was, but Randy’s post is so hysterical off the chart funny, I need to respond to at least part of his post. First of all as a senior citizen, along with most States elder laws, if you assault me and/or if I feel a reasonable amount of threat for my life or bodily injury, I have the legal right to blow you the hell away. Surely you have heard of the stand your ground law? You asked who says I followed the law? Well of course I say that and my arrest record or lack thereof. There are two kinds of people people who follow the laws, and people who don’t. Those who don’t are the murderers, the rapists, the thieves, the tax evaders, the speeders, and anyone else who doesn’t follow written laws in their jurisdiction. Which one of those are you Randy? Okay now I’m really done. Touche
Well done, Gregory!
Not that you do not recognize a sarcastic devil’s advocate argument directly attributable to your initial post, but that you have grown a set within defense of your own second amendment rights, and I, for one, applaud you for it.
You finally take said individual rights regarding firearms and accessories as a personal ‘right’ seriously.
Good for you!
Be safe, and be well, Gregory.
Your honor the prosecution rests.
Wow… I cant believe after reading this entire thread how far we as citizens have lost our way from the founding principles of this nation. If we only had more laws we would be safe? But from what? Myself, I am not that concerned about criminals, and the laws they don’t acknowledge. I am however, much more concerned by the fact our own government no longer fears the people. I’m thinking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s recent comments point to an ever growing divide in fundamental principles within our current culture, and how quickly we forgot where our rights come from. Maybe its about time to reread the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence
FA, I wholeheartedly agree. What we are seeing coming from our government are not “light and transient causes,” rather egregious and blatant undermining of our founding documents, creating unforgivable usurpations upon the citizens. The abuse is top down and meant to suppress and diminish until extinguished. I too listened to MTG’s dissertation on “Divorce for Irreconcilable Differences,” and she makes some good points. But, I digress.
I think that we have become prone to look for the enemy in every conversation or comment proceeded by an avatar. I appreciate a raucous discussion as much as anyone, and opinions are many and will vary. The one-ups-manship though is exhausting when an opportunity for education is really the only thing needed. On that note I’ll refer to the original offense above.
Comments are closed.