Quote of the day—Brantley Starr

The federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself.  It is concerning that the federal government believes it swallowed the states whole.  Assuming the federal government didn’t abolish the states to take their police power, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  The Court will allow the federal government to try again and explain which enumerated power justifies the federal regulation and whether it allows a taking without compensation.  The Court requests that the federal government also address any limits on that federal power and the Court’s proper role in examining the validity of the underlying rule when determining if there was a compensable taking.

Brantley Starr
United States District Judge
March 30, 2020
BRIAN P. LANE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,  v. THE UNITED STATES
[Via Reason: Another Trump-Appointed Judge Benchslaps the Trump Administration for Rewriting Federal Gun Laws
[It’s a good start.

I know it’s too much to ask for, but I’d like to see those responsible for rewriting the definition of a machine gun without going through the proper legislative procedures being recommended for prosecution. If if they did go through the legislative process see the prosecution any legislators who voted for the illegal infringement of our rights as well as the criminals who advocated for such legislation.—Joe]


5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Brantley Starr

  1. The facts are, NO one has ever proved that bump-stocks were used to shoot anyone.
    The courts reasoning is sound. In the matter brought before it. It’s implications are going to hurt a lot bureaucratic feelings. But it doesn’t relieve the burden of proof the government has before taking any action at all.
    And any court, being presented with any part of this matter should be finding for the people. Until the government has answer all honest questions before it.
    The problem is not a legal one. It is a systemic one. Born and bred of cultural rot.

    • “…NO one has ever proved that bump-stocks were used to shoot anyone.”

      And how is that relevant to anything, one way or the other?

      You see how easily we get into arguing irrelevancies?

      Worse yet; we end up making the left’s arguments for them– If we’re making the case that no one ever shot anyone using a bump stock, then it means we’ve adopted the leftist assertion that it would matter which is a “weapon of murder” and which isn’t.

      No! Your fundamental premise (that it could possibly matter, from a rule-making or legislative standpoint, which weapon or weapon accessory was used in a crime) is defective, and must be rejected out of hand.

      And as always, criminals will always have whatever they want. It is only the law-abiding who are hindered by these infringements.

      Any ban or restriction on any weapon serves mainly to encourage the criminal while discouraging the peaceable and honest. I further assert that the promotion of criminality at the expense of the honest is the main purpose of any such “laws” or “rules” (we can’t really call them laws or rules because they are in fact “anti-laws” and “anti-rules”).

      For what is the leftist way if not predation? And what is effective predation if not the targeting of the productive?

      And so it is that the left has a keen eye for the honest and the productive. More keen than our own eyes, I reckon, for their very livelihood depends on targeting the honest and the productive!

      And how does one live off of the efforts of one’s betters if not by keeping them confused and offering them false choices based on false premises?

      • Yes, but since the court case sighted brought it up. I just figured that the proponent of jurisdiction had the burden of proof. And thought the court should be asking questions of the BATF, that no one else seem to bother with. Sorry.
        Relevance doesn’t seem to be a problem for government anywhere, anymore, anyway.
        And, according to you it would be irrelevant to tell them their lying? OK.

  2. “The federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself.”

    Starr is clearly wrong, right there from the get-go. One cannot hate, resent and attack that which is forgotten. That would be like saying the Germans “forgot” the Jews in the 1930s and ’40s. It’s a stupid, even insane, thing to say. It’s shameful.

    Until we can separate and distinguish ourselves from that sort of gross denial we can never be effective.

    And let’s be crystal clear; the Germans never did even want to forget the Jews. Quite to the contrary; they were gearing up and getting ready to build a museum to the race they had vanished from the earth. I suspect it’s just like that with the (Romish) Progressives in both parties; far from forgetting the constitution, they seek to relish in, and boast for as long as possible over, their victory in its destruction!

    They’ll put up monuments to the constitution in the same manner as a rival gang throwing a lavish public funeral and parade for the man they just rubbed out!

    It’s that same mindset that puts up “the Ten Commandments” in a stone monument at a city hall or courthouse, but then miswords it and surrounds it with their esoteric symbols. The enemy loves that sort of thing! Then we idiot “Christians” will fight to “preserve” a corrupted version of the Ten Commandments, which is now, because of our participation, made a trophy for the left, commemorating their victory over the real thing!

    In each case it is something the left will want to remember for as long as possible. Bringing down the “mighty United States principles” is a very memorable occasion indeed!

    • Once again, were not to point out that the proponent of jurisdiction has none?
      All be it to deaf ears and futility?

Comments are closed.