Because newly proposed federal gun laws are infringements

[Charlie T Waite]

"GUN SANCTUARY POLICY" ENDORSED

Support from Jewish Civil-Rights Group Announced

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, jpfo.org, a 30-year-old civil-rights group endorses and supports a states' rights "Gun Sanctuary Policy" approach to gun safety as a safe, legal and rational approach to peaceably prevent the spread of federal Second Amendment infringement at the local level.

"Under Sanctuary Policy, gun rights you have now
set a baseline. Proposed reductions are null and void.
The Constitution's Supremacy Clause only applies to constitutional laws."

"What these new Sanctuary bills are saying, in simple terms, is that any reduction of rights people currently enjoy in Sanctuary Zones respecting arms, ammo, accessories, possession, sales, transfers or anything else arms-related is infringement, and infringement is banned. Proposed reductions are null and void. Rights you have now set a baseline. Repealing any existing infringements would be appropriate. Later.

"For teeth, the bills may go further. Anyone who infringes on your civil right to keep and bear arms commits a misdemeanor or felony—depending on the place, the nature of the offense, and frankly, how ticked off the sponsoring legislators are at people proposing or attempting these civil-rights denials. Good legislators don't take lightly to abridging civil rights, which is what infringement is. No one should, whether it's 'We don't serve your kind,' or 'No coloreds at this water fountain,' to 'Carry is prohibited here even with your earned and paid for government permission slip,' Denial of rights under color of law, or by conspiring with others is illegal and harsh punishment attaches (18 USC § 241)."

That description will appear on national newsstands soon, in the popular magazine American Handgunner. Online outlets are covering the news, easily searched.

#####

“Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org is America’s most aggressive civil-rights organization, dedicated to destroying the notion of 'gun control' as any kind of credible public-policy position. So-called 'gun control' does not control guns and doesn’t control criminal behavior. What it does is disarm the innocent, leaving them helpless in the face of criminals, tyrannical governments and genocide. History repeatedly proves this fact. Founded in 1989 by Aaron Zelman as a response to the Holocaust, JPFO speaks with the moral authority and tenacious commitment of survivors of persecution, and knows that surrendering your personal and family safety to government protection courts disaster. You don’t have to be Jewish to fight by our side, you just have to love liberty.”

Support JPFO, speaking truth to power
https://store.jpfo.org/11-donations

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

ALL fed laws on guns are that way , 

 

 What is so hard to understand , about SHALL NOT  , to understand ? 

 

  Chickasaw Bill 

[John Kloehr]

4 minutes ago, Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001 said:

ALL fed laws on guns are that way , 

 

 What is so hard to understand , about SHALL NOT  , to understand ? 

 

  Chickasaw Bill 

Not out to argue, but when I read the 1st it says "Congress shall pass no law."

 

When I read the second, it says "shall not be infringed."

 

The Federal government clearly has some authority to administer the Militia... And I have read the preamble to the 2nd was making clear the Fed could not disband the Militia (some states had this as a worry under the authority granted to the Fed). But why did the 2nd not say "Congress shall pass no law?"

 

What I do not have a clear view on is how, under strict scrutiny, many of these laws serve a purpose such as reducing crime or "ensure domestic tranquility."

 

And I have other concerns of my own. For instance, if background checks do serve a public purpose, why do I have to pay for the check... I feel the same about it as paying to vote.

 

I pay taxes and my taxes pay for holding elections whether I vote or not. Why don't taxes pay for the background checks whether I choose to purchase a gun or not? Assuming background checks do serve the public good. Under strict scrutiny.

 

Anyway, JPFO is making a great statement!

[Dantankerous]

Tax dollars pay for abortions and plenty of people disagree with that. So for anyone who disagrees with the idea of tax dollars paying for firearms back ground checks, oh well.