Brandon WeberLike Page
3 hrs ·
Indeed. Any constitutional scholars out there who have a different point of view?
I am NOT “constitutional scholar”; nor do I play one on TV.
That being said … … …
Unfortunately, the ATF makes the diktats that take guns away. There was a Constitutional Amendment to have alcohol prohibition. BUT NONE was required to have drug prohibition. Why should guns be any different than drugs?
The only defense is for juries to nullify on non-violent drug and gun cases. That’s what ended alcohol prohibition.
# – # – # – # – #
Unfortunately, the ATF makes the diktats that take guns away. There was a Constitutional Amendment to have alcohol prohibition. BUT NONE was required to have drug prohibition. Why should guns be any different than drugs?
Reinke Faces Life 
Nullification is one of the most important powers the masters have afforded to us regular debt slaves.
I’m not a constitutional scholar either but I will say the US did sign the small arms treaty with the UN, back in the 90s. I don’t know that it will happen but, the groundwork was laid long ago to make things like this ‘legally’ possibly for a while now. Look at what the government claims they can do through this year’s NDAA. I don’t think these cats in office give two, small rabbit craps about the constitution. If they say they so, it’s lip service. Publicly available voting records indicate that much.
TLDR: legal constraints are not constraining when the powers that shouldn’t be write the laws. Nullification in some form or another is one of the most effective actions we can take.
LikeLike