U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Sen. Chris Murphy on Sunday suggested withholding federal funds from law enforcement agencies that refuse to enforce state and national gun laws in the wake of mass shootings in Colorado and Virginia,” the New York Post reports. “Murphy (D-Conn.), an outspoken advocate for gun control laws and an assault weapons ban, said the Senate needs to have a conversation about funding law enforcement outfits that balk at implementing gun laws in ‘Second Amendment sanctuaries.’”
It figures someone who breaks his oath to the Constitution every time he sees an opportunity to expand his personal power would seek ways to punish those who don’t. It also figures someone who has hitched his political star to citizen disarmament would see reducing police presence and effectiveness in “conservative” jurisdictions as a great way to encourage more violence, with resulting blood dance opportunities to promote more “commonsense gun safety laws.”
Murphy knows the Second Amendment mandates “shall not be infringed.” He also knows the only delegated, and thus legitimate Constitutional power the Congress has related to an armed citizenry is “To provide for calling forth the Militia…” and “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”
That and issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal so armed privateers could engage enemies of the Republic with real “weapons of war”…
What Murphy is doing is extorting law enforcement that refuses to waste resources enforcing edicts that clearly violate the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, like the Oregon sheriffs who have gone on record as refusing to go after Measure 114 magazine ban defiers. And not just them, but also on non-Democrat-dominated political jurisdictions, as exemplified by the growing number of “Second Amendment sanctuary” cities and counties (what lying, race-baiting Democrats smear as “Civil War Flashpoints”). Add to that states that not only won’t enforce infringements, but that have enacted their own laws to override them, and are fighting in court to have them upheld, like Texas suing ATF “for unlawfully prohibiting firearm silencers.”
Murphy also knows that just because a law is passed does not make it Constitutional. While some originalists argue the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision in which the Supreme Court assigned itself the power to declare a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional, others counter it is a necessary check and balance for a coequal branch of government. Bottom line, as things stand:
“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
Murphy also knows that just because an agent of the state is given an order, that does not make it lawful. Without getting into another argument about U.S. law and international tribunals, a key principle emphasized in the Nuremberg Trials was that “just following orders” does not give enforcers a pass to abuse human rights.
Long before that, though, and since the Bruen standard is to employ “historical understanding,” U.S. law made it clear:
“The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the ‘I was only following orders’ defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound for any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the authorization order, he wrote that U.S. Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. Maritime Court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders ‘act at their own peril’ when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.”
Military oaths aside, the “prime directive” by which civilian government is supposed to be bound is articulated in Article VI. of the Constitution:
“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…”
Again, Murphy knows this. He’s been raising his hand and lying about it all of his adult life, since leaving academia and planting his snout firmly in the public sector trough back in the late Nineties.
Basically, we’re talking about a career parasite dictating the terms of surrender to freedom-minded Americans by threatening to withhold the redistribution of plunder coerced from them in the first place. If he keeps pushing hard enough, he and others issuing orders may one day realize that it’s not just those who follow them who will come to wish they hadn’t.
Curiously, though, there is one group of defiers of federal law Murphy not only has no problem with but actively supports because it advances the Democrat agenda. “Sanctuary cities” for the Second Amendment are out with him, but here’s what he says about “sanctuary” for illegal aliens:
“I’m going to fight like hell and will do everything in my power to stand up for you and your families,” U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy told a room full of young people in Fair Haven who fear an incoming president may kick them out of the country. “You are American and you are a part of the fabric of this country.”
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
from https://ift.tt/rS48CEj
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment