Quote of the day—Larry Pratt

We don’t need any opinion from the ATF to tell us what “shall not be infringed” means. It means, among other things, there should be no ATF.  We don’t have a Bureau of Speech and Thought Control because that would be as unconstitutional as the ATF. Every day that agency exists is another day the federal government violates the Constitution.

Larry Pratt
Executive Director Emeritus Gun Owners of American
December 29, 2017
Gun Owners of America: Stop Funding the ATF and They’ll Leave Our Bump Stocks Alone
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Larry Pratt

  1. He’s right of course, and more than that, his statement applies to almost all Washington agencies. In their more unguarded moments, some politicians even admit this out loud — and then they go right back to violating their oath of office.

    • How else can they keep their phoney-baloney jobs?
      Tax deductions and credits always sunset because that ensures that the people interested in lower taxes in those particular areas will return with more money.

      The bigger the government the more laws can be bought and sold, and the first thing bought are the lawmakers.

  2. Now that is some forthright speech!

    Say it, Larry, say it! Speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may, for without truth there is no hope.

    Of course F-Troop is going to deny the truth. Without lies and subterfuge they have no sustenance and their false authority is gone with the wind. Expose them. Force them to come out and deny openly those “certain unalienable rights” endowed to Mankind by the Creator. They will lash out of course, and even murder, thus making plain their nature.

  3. The “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution, as noted by Rep. Pelosi, has amazing power.

    • Only if you’re a lying politician. The general welfare clause is a subsidiary clause of the power to tax. So Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress has the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare.

      And then there’s the argument Madison makes in Federalist #41, that the opening sentence of section 8 is a general rule which is then made specific by the lines that follow: “But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?” That’s admittedly a rather strange argument and I’m unsure whether he was trying a snow job or actually believed what he wrote there.

      And of course there’s the 2nd Amendment. Since it’s an amendment, it supersedes any earlier text that conflicts with it. So even if you accept Pelosi’s BS argument, it doesn’t apply to the right to bear arms because the 2nd Amendment would override it if that were the case.

  4. If I could add that this applies to the states as well. They signed on to the Union via their adherence to the Constitution and so ALL gun control laws are unConstitutional.

    I want the irresponsible legislators in states like California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and a few others to be hung for their crimes. That would put a modest measure of respect back in place for our politicians.

    • Yes, and for two reasons: one is the well known argument from the 14th Amendment. The other is the plain text of the 2nd Amendment, which — unlike the 1st — is not worded to constrain only the Federal government. This has in fact been recognized by courts (not often enough, but it has, prior to the 14th Amendment).

Comments are closed.