Comments

1. On April 12, 2022 at 8:19 am, Frank Clarke said:

   Paraphrasing: “It’s legal to build a firearm *for yourself*. What’s illegal is to sell it.”

   This sort of statement relies on an incorrect interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

   First the I/C clause was intended to grant Congress the power to prevent STATES interfering in the free transfer of value, not persons actually transferring value.

   Second, it is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that later law trumps earlier law. if the I/C clause ever gave Congress any power over firearms, the Second Amendment revoked that grant.

   It is also provable by direct deduction that the I/C clause is currently misinterpreted. Article I section 8 of the U S Constitution begins “Congress shall have the power to…” and proceeds to list 17 specific things Congress shall have power to do. One of these things is to regulate commerce. If “to regulate commerce” is accepted in its modern interpretation, viz. to micromanage all activity which involves or might conceivably someday involve commerce that has, does, or might in the future involve more than one state, then that is the only power that needs to be granted in I(8), all the others being subsumed within the power to micromanage the economy of the entire United States. Could that have been what the writers intended? “Congress shall have the power to do these 16 things plus anything else that occurs to them”? To ask the question is to know the answer. That’s patently ridiculous!

   The verb “to regulate” meant, at the time the Constitution was written, “to adjust for proper operation (like a clock or a machine)”. Congress is here given authority to make commerce happen, not to prevent it happening. Its power is the power to keep states from tossing their shoes into the gearbox. We are supposed to be living in The Free Trade Zone of the United States, and the only reason we’re not is that somebody misinterpreted the I/C clause.

2. On April 12, 2022 at 1:32 pm, scott s. said:

   That, in general, is why Congress relied on the taxing power in the NFA to prohibit making a (NFA) firearm without paying the making tax. But between the 30s and 60s the Constitution got turned upside down.

   While I see there would be interest from prohibited persons in making guns, from what I see mostly it’s from RKBA folks who don’t want to do a 4473 on principle.

3. On April 15, 2022 at 2:57 pm, 1776 said:

   Frank,

   You are correct, in that “regulate” means “to ensure uniformity.”

   It does not mean meddle.

   But more importantly, “commerce” is defined as “trade between two or more -incorporated- entities.”

   Men and women cannot, by definition, be engaged in “commerce.” Only incorporated entities

   Additionally, the specialized definition of “Interstate Commerce” as it pertains to “firearms” (which are not “guns,” since smokeless powder is not defined as an explosive) is found at 18 USC 921:

   Translated into plain American English, it says that “interstate commerce is defined as commerce into, out of, or between either The District of Columbia or Puerto Rico.” Nothing else.

   And Scott, the geographical “taxing power of congress” is stipulated in 26 USC 7701, where one can see, plain as day, the “statutory definition” of “United States:” that is, “The District of Columbia.”

   The District of Columbia is run as a plenary oligarchy, which is embodied by the foreign (with respect to America and her 50 nation-states) “U.S. Congress.” Or, put another way:

   Canadian Code applies to Canadian -things- in Canadian -places.-
   French Code applies to French -things- in French -places.-
   District of Columbia Code applies to District of Columbia -things- in District of Columbia -places.-

   Meaning, outside of The District of Columbia, if you are not a Federal employee (also known as a “citizen of the United States”) or an indentured servant presumed to be from Puerto Rico (also known as a “U.S Citizen”), District of Columbia Code has as much applicability as Canadian or French Code.

   Ever wonder why/how the “Federal (Contract) government” was able to get away with what would plainly be infringements of the 2nd amendment? Now you know: the “Code” is all considered “offshore” (outside of The United States of America and her 50 states), and only applies to Federal property/possessions (both types of “U.S. Citizens,” who are considered “stateless”).

   The Constitutions did not go anywhere. The People were kidnapped and presumed to be “governmental units.”

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment