White House Says Nothing In Proposed Anti-Gun Laws Violates Constitution

At a recent White House press conference, Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about all of the local sheriffs that have stated that they will not enforce unconstitutional gun laws enacted by the federal government. The reporter for CNSNews.com asked Carney:

“There have been 381 sheriffs that have signed on saying they would not enforce gun laws they believed were unconstitutional. Would the administration have a problem if local law enforcement did not enforce whatever gun package were to pass?”

After stating that he had not seen the letters referred to, Carney replied:

“I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law.  As an absolute matter of fact in my view, and I think many other constitutional experts, there’s not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights.”

Richard Mack, Founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association responded to Carney’s reply saying:

“Politicians who violate the Constitution never say I am violating the Constitution, come and arrest me.”

In 1994 Mack, then Sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, and six other county sheriffs filed a lawsuit in which they claimed that part of the provisions contained in the Brady Bill were unconstitutional. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court who ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In ruling on this case the US Supreme Court did say that the county sheriff is the supreme law enforcement in their district. Basically that ruling gives the county sheriff authority over federal law enforcement or any other law enforcement that attempts to act within their jurisdictional boundaries.

Mack went on to comment saying:

“When Rosa Parks didn’t give up her seat on the bus, should she have been arrested or should the police have escorted her home?  The law was to arrest her. It was a stupid, unconstitutional law.”

“Every one of the sheriffs is going to follow the Constitution, not follow the president or the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court has already ruled twice for the Second Amendment. The federal government has no right to tell me how many magazines I can have, how many guns I can have and how much ammunition I can have.”

When I read the Second Amendment I don’t see anything that gives the federal or state government any authorization to restrict or infringe upon my right to own and bear firearms of my choosing. Here is what the Second Amendment says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Notice the last four words of the Second Amendment say, ‘shall not be infringed.’ What part of this phrase does President Obama, Senator Feinstein, Jay Carney and the rest of the Democrats not understand? It doesn’t say that we have the right to keep and bear specific arms in specific quantities under specific regulations. Therefore in the straightforward reading of the Second Amendment any and all pieces of gun control legislation ever passed or ever to be considered, is a violation of the Second Amendment.

A list of those county sheriff associations that are part of the CSPOA effort includes those from: California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming. Since County Sheriffs are the ultimate authority in their jurisdiction according to the US Supreme Court, the county sheriffs who have said they will not enforce any federal gun law that violates the Constitution will be obeying White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s admonition when he said that they are to follow the law.

Comments

comments

  • NewCreationDave

    White House says they are the good guys, doing nothing wrong. We say they're the bad guys, abusing their power.
    Are there enough of us to stand against the tyranny?
    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7950634/It%27s%20a%20free%20country.pdf

    • tim meenan

      behind every blade of grass !

    • Patriot

      Dittos, and absolutely.

    • rivahmitch

      Time will tell. Semper Fi!

    • vicki

      There are certainly enough of us. But will we? These people will. http://www.oathkeepers.org

      • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

        They are not NOW! Why do you trust them to in the future?

    • fliteking

      Website content looks good, and on point . . . but why .pdf's ?

      • NewCreationDave

        Thanks. I'm not an IT guy and had someone do that. What's the issue with PDFs? I'd be interested in your advice.

        • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

          Try .htm (You can have the code, link to the page, or jam the page into a frame) http://thatswaytoomuch.info/not_pdf.htm (.pdf's can carry malware)

        • NewCreationDave

          Tnx & I wasn't aware of the PDF/Malware thing

        • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

          You can Google "pdf and malware" to get more, but look at this: http://www.malwaretracker.com/pdfthreat.php

  • John

    How about we ask professors who have expertise in constitutional law? Because these 50 experts also agree that these laws are constitutional:
    http://www.acslaw.org/Second%20Amendment%20Letter%20Final.pdf

    Why is it, do you think, that when pro gunners quote the 2a, they only quote the "shall not infringe" part and not the "well regulated" part? Weird, isn't it? Anyone have any explanation for that? Also curious what you guys think about the letter I linked above.

    • ICOYAR

      "Well regulated" back then meant "Disciplined and Trained" back in 1791.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

      Of course, if you love gun control, then by all means, move to Chicago. Put up a sign saying "This is a gun free home", and wear a shirt saying "Unarmed and Proud of it".

      • John

        Alright, now do we require people who bear arms to be disciplined and trained?

        • ICOYAR

          Just the military for national defense. It does NOT say that the people who bear arms should be disciplined and trained, and although it is not required by the Constitution, it was encouraged by those who wrote and ratified it.

        • John

          Where does it say it is just for the military and national defense?

        • Patriot

          What a jerk! Do your own research and stop annoying the good people posting here. By the way you are not among that group as anyone here can attest. Stop with the childish contrarian viewpoints all the time. It get's very boring after the 1000th time.

        • John

          I wouldn't have to come here if you guys stopped spreading misinformation and lies every day.

        • Randy Renu

          I agree. From your belief/non-belief system, everything written on this site (other then by you) is a lie and misinformation; it has to make you crazy confronting and trying to resolve all of the lies and misinformation circulating on this site.

          What can all of us do to make your life easier? Should we hide and go to another site so you won't be as upset? Should we just agree with all you write, and then you'll go away or stop commenting?

          I am famous for making things happen. You tell me what you need and I'll try to get it for you.

        • Steven

          We are not spreading misinformation. YOU do that well enough.

        • spartacus

          please go play in traffic !

      • Patriot

        EXACTLY!

      • Patriot

        Absolutely correct! also, that a regulated militia would be well tented, well armed, sufficient ammo, clothing, shoes, provisions etc. John is a fricken ignorant troll! Don't waste your breadth. I know Chicago streets and neighborhoods very well. Worked the streets for decades. I'd love for John to go along for a drive with me. I know the exact neighborhood I'd drop his sorry ass off in. If he survived the night, he would become a Christian Conservative by morning! :) Nothing like having bullets whistling by your years to give you religion
        :)

    • kimberwarrior45

      Hi again John. Well I can tell you that having met multiple professors and claimed experts they are only correct in their own views. I am happy that the 2nd Amendment was written they way it was. The following questions should all be answered in the context of the 2nd amendment. Now I ask you what is your definition of Militia? What is your definition of "well regulated"? What is you definition of security? What is your definition of necessary? Finally what is your definition of a "free State"? Once you answer these definitions we can then have a discussion to try to reach understanding.

      • John

        Militia - dictionary definition

        Well regulated - Regulated in a way to promote public health while not restricting individual rights

        Security - dictionary definition

        Necessary - dictionary definition

        Free state - A state that allows for freedom.

        Now, what do you respond to the article that I posted? All those experts agree that the propositions put forward - namely restricting high capacity magazines and certain types of guns - are completely constitutional. Additionally, neither you or I are qualified to rule on constitutionality. It's great that we have our opinions, but they are just that, opinions.

        • kimberwarrior45

          John which dictionary and edition? I believe we should use the definition of words as close to the time the document was written. I chose the 1828 edition of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. By using this edition I present you the following:
          Milita-the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies

          Well Regulated-To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation

          Security- Protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind

          Necessary-That must be; that cannot be otherwise

          Free-Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint

          State- the whole body of people united under one government

          Right-Fit; suitable; proper; becoming, Lawful, True, Correct (of real interest)accordant to the standard of truth and justice or the will of God

          People-The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation

          keep-To have in custody for security or preservation

          bear-To carry, To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction;

          Arms-Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

          infringe-To break, To violate, to destroy or hinder

          John notice that the 'public welfare' is not listed anywhere in the definitions. Just so you know in 1828 welfare was defined as "Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil". Regulations does not mean restrict at the time of the writing. Of great distress for you is the definition of arms because they are defined as for offense and as armor for defense! If you use the definitions the Framers used no one, in good conscious, could believe that infringement is acceptable for the 2nd Amendment.

        • John

          The problem is that when you break it down the way you do, the subject of that sentence is Militia, which by your own definition is "the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline".

          We do not require gun owners to be "enrolled for military instruction and discipline". Therefore that type of reading is fine for 1776 but not applicable for 2013.

        • kimberwarrior45

          John first the whole sentence includes" , but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies" and this is exactly what it means and is still applicable. All citizens can enroll for military instruction but not be called for active service. It has been done as recently as the 1950's in this country. The Dick Act is still in effect also. You cannot dismiss the reading because of a change in times. The Bill of Rights is derived from and reaffirms natural law which comes from God. It does not guarantee anything but affirms rights already present and granted by an authority higher than man. If you feel the reading is no longer valid then you negate and call the whole document void. You cannot not pick and chose because it is an all or nothing document. Sometimes you do not like what it actually means or says but the founders gave a way to change what they wrote and it is called an amendment or by a Constitutional Convention. However they understood man cannot legislate away natural law for it will still be there. That is how and why we got the Deceleration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Also the second half of the 2nd amendment says the people and does not limit it as you are trying to do.

        • John

          I'm not arguing about the second part of the sentence, I accept what it says and what you say about it. I am talking about the first part, which you don't address and go directly to the second part, similar to the second amendment. The subject of that sentence is "a well regulated militia", the subject of that sentence is not "the people". The people refers to those who form the "well regulated militia".

          You absolutely CAN look at the reading differently. It was meant to provide protection of tyranny, right? That we should have access to weapons similar to those our government has access to. That is not applicable in 2013 when our government has access to nukes and other destructive weapons. The evolution of weapons technology has put us in a place where we can not have access to weapons similar to the government.

          I agree, you shouldn't pick and choose, it should be all or nothing. So why, if we are all created equal, do we restrict the rights of certain people? Further, why do we violate the 14th amendment when it states that: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

        • kimberwarrior45

          You are seeing the light in that all citizens should not be restricted to arms that they can "bear" (see definition from above) and SHOULD not be hindered from having the same as the standing army of the nation to help prevent tyranny. In reference to restricting rights of certain people are you referring to affirmative action? Or are you referring to some not having to show a valid birth certificate when all other citizens do and not allowing any challenge to be heard in court due to standing? Are you referring to the practice many courts are using in charging the property of the individual who is also charge with a crime for forfeiture to seize the property? You are correct in questioning why we allow the government to do this. How do you suggest we stop them and enforce the Constitution and Bill of Rights upon them? I say that is why the 2nd Amendment is there and you are starting to see it by asking these questions. You admit that the government is not following the Founding Documents yet you seem to not have any answer except to restrict a right affirmed in the same document you are complaining the government violates.

        • Liberta

          John The people form a well regulated militia; The militia has the absolute right to be armed; it therefore follows that the people have the absolute right to be armed since they are the militia.

        • John

          And no one is changing that.

        • tim meenan

          well john the lib, you might want to check in with the rocky mountain boys about what they think of that last statement above.

        • IndyRon

          WRONG! The Constitution and each of the Amendments were written to be the defining governance for this country until such time as it is Amended by it's own process.

        • John

          Certain amendments are not absolute, like the first and second, for example. Try yelling bomb in an airport, see how it works out.

        • Patriot

          Militia refers to the individual an individual between the age of 17 an 45. Could be off a bit on the age range. I believe it can be found in Federalist Papers 35? (37?) Your premise is right on!Fricken trolls, they never concede the point even when proven wrong. The second amendment is very appropriate for then and now. These trolls need to read some SC rulings and opinions instead coming here and attempting to pee in the soup!

        • Randy Renu

          You are light years ahead of this group. When you break it down, using your belief/non-belief thinking, this is exactly true. I agree you are not qualified to rule on constitutionality and sharing your personal opinion is welcomed. I think we all agree that your assessment of the meaning and intent of the constitution is true and I won't even attempt to offer an alternative argument.

          I think you are so helpful in pointing out to these idiots how they are breaking down sentences and using their own definition (versus yours), to arrive at a conclusion.

          It makes a lot of sense, based on your position, that what was published (reading) in 1776 (much like the Bible) is NOT applicable in 2013.

          Most people are not as progressive as you, and you'll need to be patient in your attempts to convert them to your outlook on life and eternity.

        • tim meenan

          you might also add that we don't need your liberal idea's either !

        • Patriot

          Hey Randy, are you responding to your own post under JOHN? Just asking. You two write like your the same TROLL. Do your homework. He's as uninformed as you are and just as stupid. Notice that he does cut and paste job and has no clue.

        • Randy Renu

          HA, HA, HO, HO, HO, HO. Godfather Politics cut me off because John complained....hurt his little feelings. So I'm trying a different approach. When you think about it, once you accept the fact he is a raving Homo-Athiest, you can't convert him to any other way of thinking so arguing is just pointless..... just agree, point out all the positive (based on his jaded views) and move on. He'll never convert anyone on this site to his view.

          I still think he is mentally challenged, but I'll need to change tactics if I want to continue to "have fun" on this site.

        • Patriot

          Apologies. I thought he was posting under 2 alias. My bad.
          You know he's mentally challenged.

        • Randy Renu

          THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT!! He has some HUGE issues, but my sarcasm can rub some (actually most) people the wrong way, and when you couple this humor with his mental issues, it's like a bomb going off in his head every time he reads this stuff.

          Plan B...we'll still have just as much fun, but through the back door (that's a play on John, if you get it).

        • John

          What? Who cut you off? I didn't complain to anyone. Further, DISQUS software is not affiliated with the sites that host it. It's just software designed for comment sections on website. Did you get reprimanded or something? Actually, I'm offended that anyone would try and censor you.

        • Randy Renu

          I asked John to submit a picture of himself for all of us to enjoy.

        • Patriot

          That's the mental image I've had of him from his first posting. Weird! :)

        • Randy Renu

          Yep. Scary. Great minds think alike.

        • IndyRon

          Please don't do that again. I was drinking a cup of hot coffee which is now all over my keyboard.

        • Randy Renu

          HA HA HO HO HO...and HI.

          I crack myself up.

        • Randy Renu

          Viewed your FB. I went to school in Indiana...Manchester College. Had a tough time with the mid-west....no ocean view, mountains, and some of the scariest thunderstorms I had ever seen.

        • John

          I went to Indiana University :) Go bloomington!

        • Randy Renu

          Idiot. You couldn't pass a "connect the dots" entrance exam. And by the way dumb ass, I really did go to MC. Not that I need to prove anything to you.

        • John

          He was being sarcastic the whole time. LOL Talk about IGNORANT.

        • John

          LOL Randy. They don't understand that you're being sarcastic. See how stupid they are?

        • Randy Renu

          Actually, I'm the stupid one for wasting one more second trying to jump start your FU brain.

          So with that said...DON'T BOTHER ME EVER AGAIN.

        • John

          LOL. You know you don't have to respond to me, right? Right? Randy? You know that, right?

        • John

          Hahahahahaha

        • polmutant

          you are in error. EVERY AMERICAN is qualified to rule on the constitution. and by the way read the 3rd ammendment. if military has f16 you should also have f16, or ground to air missile to repell such weapon aimed at you. you also need to check your dictionary for apropriate meaning. I have several dictionaries that define niggardly as parsiminous which is a very good strong conservative value, the same dictionary describes a Ni@@er as a moral defunct individual. not necesarrily a black skinned individual. so you are in grave error, you do not even know the proper words in the english language. i am afraid to ask what you paid for your education. or if you practice stupidity or does it just come naturally?

        • John

          The third amendment? Which reads this:

          "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

          Can you explain your reasoning? I don't get it. Why do you need an F-16 again?

          Also, did you know that there hasn't been quartering since the American Revolution?

        • kimberwarrior45

          John read below:

          Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on rem. 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd. per curiam 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983), was a court case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is the only significant court decision based on a direct challenge under the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
          This from your favorite source Wiki

        • IndyRon

          If I could fly an F-16 I'd be using it to fend off any potential threat to my Constitutional and God -endowed rights. As for the quartering of troops, looks like one Amendment has been respected.

        • John

          lol

        • Patriot

          I always love using the word Niggardly in front of black people and watching their very weird reaction to it. It just simply means frugal/miserly, etc. I suspect the stupidity comes naturally like water off a duck. :)

        • polmutant

          the actual use is for a morally depraved individual. but due to social programing americans do not even know the english language.

        • John

          They are qualified to have an opinion. They are not qualified to rule on anything.

        • polmutant

          No Sovergein but God, No King but Jesus. This is the only ruling that is worth anything. Only a fool would let 9nincompoops decide what is law. it is just as foolish to think some pope can get prayer answared.

        • rivahmitch

          I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason - Co-author of the 2nd Amendment
          “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
          George Washington
          “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington

          I'd suggest that neither your so-called "experts" nor your dictionary definitions have reasonably construed the document nor have they comprehended it's intended purpose. Oh, and "well-regulated" in the context meant well equipped and trained.

          No more pearls to swine... You're not worth the effort. Semper Fi!

        • John

          No one is disarming the people. Prove me wrong.

        • Liberta

          Vets are people. There is an all out movement on the part of our government to disarm them because they fought for the constitution that is being trashed and they are a well regulated militia. They are making them say that they have PTSS in order to get their VA benefits. Once that's done the guns will follow on the grounds that they are too unstable to be trusted with a weapon.

        • John

          There is no "all out movement" to disarm vets.

        • Liberta
        • John

          I don't see anything out of the ordinary. You just assume ulterior motives for confiscating the guns yet have no proof of it.

          Many veterans have mental health problems when they return and by law we try and limit what weapons people, any people, with mental health problems have access to.

        • Patriot

          John, get a fricken life. Someone apparently once gave you a piece of their mind and you hung onto it not realizing it had an expiration date! Just imagine what it would have been like if there was more oxygen available to you at birth!

        • John

          Hey Patriot, remember that time when you thought Randy was being serious when he was being COMPLETELY sarcastic and then you started insulting him because of your inability to read? Hahahahahha

    • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

      Not at all there are morons in every profession. I would refer to the Federalist Papers as the example of what was meant (No46 in its entirety) since it was written by the same person as the Constitution. And he wanted everyone to have a fire arm and it was to be equal to what the person down the block had if they were military. Truly a government should be afraid of the people and judge their actions thereby.

      • Patriot

        Hey Jong, we're on the same wavelength! See my post regarding same. Trolls are such a fricken joke. Ignorant and uneducated as the day is long. Like the say, you just can't fix stupid and speaking of being out-and-out stupid, the troll john takes the cake!

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          And his clones. I wonder if its all the same person.

    • Randy Renu

      Exactly. You are right again...can't argue this point.

    • tim meenan

      bull !

    • IndyRon

      I wholly suggest that you read Federalist paper 46.
      You want definitions of what the Founders meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment? Get that from the quotes from the founders not from some silly comment area or from some biased professor.
      This is contented to be written by James Madison under the pen name of Publius. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

    • robert seddon

      Well regulated in the jargon of the day in which it was written meant "well trained". I am the militia that defends MY FARM and MY town if things get rough, and many others in the area WILL collect to do the same.

      • John

        And are gun owners required to train? Nope.

    • vicki

      "Weird, isn't it?" Not for native English speakers. We know grammar.
      http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

      • John

        Let's pretend this link of yours is true and has some weight in this debate. It does not matter since the 2nd amendment, just like the first, is not absolute.

        A summary from the Supreme Court's landmark "District of Columbia v. Heller" ruling:

        "The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents."

        • vicki

          No need to pretend. Ask English teachers. You might even ask SCOTUS since they parsed the amendments meaning in EXACTLY the same way.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

        • John

          Exactly, you make my point for me. Did you read your link?

          Here, this is taken from the link you provided:

          2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

          This is what I've been saying all along.

    • Steven

      We don't ask the professors because they are NOT true experts. The Constitution was written to be understood by the average person, and it doesn't require interpretation. It means EXACTLY what it says, and anyone that claims otherwise either doesn't understand it, or is LYING.

      The reason given for protecting the right to keep and bear arms doesn't limit the fact that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE is what the 2nd amendment protects.

      • John

        What about the rights of criminals? Why can't they bear arms? Or mentally unstable people?

        • Steven

          Criminals CAN be denied rights, at least temporarily, as punishment for their crime. ANY punishment necessarily involves denying certain rights for a period of time. That said, in MOST cases, their rights should be restored at some point. In the remaining cases, they should never be released. Anyone mentally unstable enough to be denied rights is in need of inpatient treatment.

        • John

          NOPE. Where does it say that in the constitution? It says DO NOT INFRINGE. Or did you forget?

    • spartacus

      please go play is traffic !!!!!!!

      • John

        Since you asked nicely...

    • Liberta

      John Well regulated as in well trained. Not so weird. And please do quote the constitutional expertise of "professors" who we all know are progressives who teach the complete "Transformation" of America. Who tell our children how awful this country is. The same professors who run seminars on just about any kind of perversion known to the scum of the earth. The professors who preach the Darwinian nature of the constitution. It's not. It is Newtonian all the way. It means what it means.

      • John

        Except there are no training requirements for when you buy a gun. So......

  • NewCreationDave

    "White House says?" Well, shut MY mouth! That settles it then!

  • gonaes

    When the hell did Jay Carney become an authority on constitutional law?

    • EHeassler_USNRet

      Jay Carney is most qualified to continue what he's been doing and that is lying for "The One".

    • jim_wright

      He's as much an expert as Mr. Obama.

  • EHeassler_USNRet

    Short of being permitted to own firearms without infringement, whatever laws are being proposed are unconstitutional. Seems straight forward to me.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LTXY3N2L6Q43HTWA4I5MCRE67Q Al

      Technically, the laws saying a convicted felon can't have a firearm is illegal. If they have already done their time, they paid their debt to society, they shouldn't continually have to suffer.

      • Steven

        I would argue that a permanent ban on owning weapons, as part of punishment for committing a crime, is no more unconstitutional than life in prison. That said, I believe there SHOULD be a means to restore rights to gun ownership for the VAST majority of felonies.

        • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

          If this loss of certain rights was part of the sentencing, then so be it. I have never heard of a judge saying a person lost any "inalienable" rights when his sentence was handed down.

      • SammysDad

        Even repeat offenders?

        • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

          Shall not be Infringed. If you don't like the wording, lobby for your representatives to amend it.

      • Liberta

        That particular law, as well as all the other gun laws, is a joke. Felons who are going stright will not kill anyone and felons who are not going stright will get guns no matter how many laws you put on the books. It's the same result as prohibition. You just create a black market.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ed.bernat.1 Ed Bernat

        Thats is so right and if you respected them when they did the time.How much more would they cherish the right and not repeat. OOooops was that common sense

      • Dan

        I agree!!they are required to pay taxes but are not allowed to vote . Not own a firearm. The rules placed on most convicted felon only place a burden on society. If a man is so dangerous do not let him out of prison.

    • Remington 870

      Carnival Carney spews lies every second and time spent in a White House briefing would be better used sitting on a bed of nails or watching the grass grow. At least there is integrity involved staying away from a Whore White House briefing. We all know this administration is up to no good with America and would love to silence you and I and millions of other patriots. Especially White America. Am a former Infantryman...will be looking for you on the battlefield as a fellow warrior.

    • 7papa7

      We got to remember these idiots are agenda driven NOT law or Constitution driven. This administration trashes the Constitution at every turn. They have violated basically the entire Bill of Rights.

    • Shermer

      Even for the crazy guy next door who's spent half his life in prison or mental institutions, who beats his wife and has a stockpile of weapons and ammo in his basement?

      • EHeassler_USNRet

        Bad behavior such as commission of violent felonies like armed robbery, assault with weapons , physical spousal abuse can all be grounds for the forfeiture of 2nd amendment rights to be determined by individual states, not the federal government otherwise known as "The State".
        There should be a path to restoration of those same rights. If a felon completes his entire sentence, terms of parole, etc. his full rights of citizenship should be restored. Despite what the poser in the White House would have you believe, this is a Christian nation and one of the guiding tenets of Christianity is redemption and forgiveness. That would include accepting returning felons into mainstream society. Mental illness is a different story. My thoughts are that rights shouldn't be taken away for reason of mental illness unless the individual has already demonstrated violent behavior such as killing of animals, physical abuse of animals or humans, etc., etc.. Weird behavior doesn't count. I know a lot of weird people but their weirdness is no reason to lock them up or take away their 2nd amendment right. When people want to make a statement by killing others, they'll do it whether or not they have firearms. Take their guns, they'll build bombs. Deny them bomb making materials, they'll use poison. And on and on and on. There is no such thing as 100% security.

        • Shermer

          I thought the 2nd amendment is untouchable, isn't it? Yet you say that the states can take away a right they didn't even confer on you - that was done by the federal government. Would it be okay for an individual state to take away your free speech under the 1st amendment, or perhaps a state down south could repeal the 14th amendment and reintroduce slavery.

        • EHeassler_USNRet

          Forfeiture o 2nd amendment rights as the result of one's own bad behavior is not the same as being denied them to begin with. Even our privileges not guaranteed by the Constitution get revoked if we abuse them i.e., driver's licenses, law licenses. medical licenses, attendance at public schools, etc. One can always find hair-splitting exceptions to the general application of law, but there also has to be broad application of the law that serves the public good while obeying the Constitution. The current President sees the Constitution as an impediment to the imposition of his will on the American People. He is the most dangerous President in the history of the country and if not thwarted at every opportunity, will destroy us as a democratic republic. His attempts at gun control are nothing more than the first steps to confiscation just as in Russia, Germany, England, and now Australia. obama is trying to make us next.

        • Whackajig

          How can any government take away rights which God granted? Our rights come from our creator not from governments.

        • EHeassler_USNRet

          It makes a great rhetorical question but the reality is that if the power of government is unchecked, It can take anything and everything away from you.

  • IndyRon

    Someone needs to send the WH a copy of merriam-webster's dictionary underlining the definition of infringe.

    1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

    • Patriot

      Obama's being in office is an infringement!

    • Charlie

      Need the two words in front of infringe they are shall not. Shall not be infringed are the last words of the second amendment. Your post was a good one sincerely just had to throw in my two cents.

    • John

      Someone needs to remind you that the 2a is not absolute.

      • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

        Can you expound on that?

        • John

          Yes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment, like the first amendment, is not absolute and certain regulations apply. For example, we can restrict gun sales to non-criminals and non-mentlly unstable people.

        • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

          Slippery slope. The whole reason for creating a government in the first place was to guard our inalienable rights lest tyrants and criminals take them away. (See Anti-federalist papers, The Federal Farmer #3)

    • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

      Congress makes laws and amends the Constitution. Don't forget to send Congress a copy.

      • Whackajig

        Horse hockey............ congress passes laws but amendments to the Constitution only become law when passed by 2/3 of the states.

        • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

          Right and so sending this crap to Obama does what?

  • polmutant

    GCA unconstitutional, NFA unconstitutional, ATF unconstitutional. so how much more diareeha of the mouth can come from the white house? commie pink kenyan unconstitutional. NLRB unconstitutional, social security unconstitutional. going to war with out act of congress unconstitutional. executive oreder unconstitutional. federal tax unconstitutional. too poor to pay attention the sheoples are offf to slaughter crying out "take our wool, eat our children, only leave me grass to eat". but look at the bright side with commie pink kenyan care, you can wake and say I am a baby muerding homosexual promoting sodomite effeminate, liar, thief, antchrist anti american politically correct lackey. and i do not even have the balls to this all i can comply and be complicit by chossing to deny liberty and life and serve the district of communists. God? what god? we have have welfare!! my god is my belly to whom i do bow to anyone that satisfies it.

  • TheTexasCooke

    "Shall not be infringed", Barry. Come for mine and find out what that means!

  • bob

    The big question is why our US House of Representatives have not started proceeding to impeach this president, vice president and eric holder for crimes against our Constitution, lie's beyond belief, war without Congregational approval. I could go on but this is just a comment area!

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.watson.1048 Ed Watson

    Notice the words "free State" - to me that even trumps the word "infringed".

  • keithbreedlove

    We all know by now that nothing that comes out of this White House can be believed. They say whatever they need to in order to justify or to distract from what they're doing. the words mean absolutely nothing.

  • Ray_Downen

    It's apparent that the present administration of the U.S.A. does not know what the Constitution requires or allows. It's more and more obvious that patriotic citizens will have to simply walk away from all we've loved and fought for as a land of the free but now is Obamaland.

  • Smirking Wolf

    So in Carneys view "an that of other Constitituional experts" .... Whoa. When did the press secretary become a Constitutional expert. that WH is full of people overrating themselves.

  • Smirking Wolf

    What law does not infringe on "shall not be infringed"... I'm a simple but fairly well read man. It seems that any law that even mentions the topic is already an infringement. BUT HEY: " What difference does it make?" to these folks.

  • IndyRon

    Let's get past definitions and get to the heart of the matter.

    On June 26, 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the crux of DC v Heller.

    1. [1][2] The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
    http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/desktop/public/document/Dist_of_Columbia_v_Heller_554_US_570_128_S_Ct_2783_171_L_Ed_2d_63

    The orginal Intent.
    The Second Amendment is the only Amendment with a stated purpose.
    "The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the other amendments."

    This was adamantly campaigned on in the Federalist Papers just before the Constitution was signed.
    "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

    While Samuel Adams added his support for each of the amendments:
    "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
    Samuel Adams

    The most ernest quote came from Patrick Henry.

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
    Patrick Henry

    • Patriot

      Right on! The second amendment is there to protect the other amendments.
      Allow them to diminish or destroy the second, everything else will collapse like a house of cards.
      Unfortunately, they know that and it has been their goal for nearly 100 years!

      Folks, this is what tyranny looks like!

      ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

    • John

      I'm glad you you bring up DC vs Heller.

      I wonder if you wanted to comment on this portion of the ruling. This is taken from your link:

      2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not
      unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any
      weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
      whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
      prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or
      state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be
      taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on
      the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
      ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
      sensitive places such as schools and government
      buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
      qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
      Miller's holding that the sorts [***647]of weapons protected
      are those "in common use at the time" finds support in
      the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying
      of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.

  • rivahmitch

    MF's lying again.

  • Smirking Wolf

    BLOOMBERG! Return Napoleon's hat - you're super rich but not man enough to wear it.

  • IndyRon

    Here’s a more recent quote from a card-carrying liberal, the late Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey:
    “Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. ... The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
    Quoted from Walter Williams Op-Ed.

    • Patriot

      He was right on. We currently have an illegal government in place acting unconstitutionally and acting with capricious malice with willful intent intended to cause harm! Shackle anyone?

  • Enrique4

    One of the 1st things Carney says is "They ought to follow the law." How many laws can you name that the Obama adminastration is not following:

    Budget

    defence of Marage

    Imagration

  • Doc

    All federal anti-firearms laws violate the Constitution. Going all the way back to 1933. States are a different problem. They can enact any laws they choose as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

    • Zero X

      Ah! Some one who understands the way the Constitution was intended to work! I tip my hat to you, Doc!

    • Steven

      Actually, the 2nd amendment applies to states as well, and has since it was ratified. The SAME Congress that drafted the 2nd amendment drafted the 1st. In the first amendment, they limited the restriction to CONGRESS (which refers to the federal Congress everywhere it is used in the Constitution) shall make no law... In the 2nd - 8th amendments, they include no such limits. They state certain rights shall not be infringed, violated, etc. The absence of limitations included in the first amendment drafted SIMULTANEOUSLY indicates the such limits do not apply. For those that claim the Constitution only limits the federal government, I submit Article 1, Section 10, which consists entirely of limits on the states.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ed.bernat.1 Ed Bernat

      My legislater told me to tell you guys every law since 1902 is illegal

  • IndyRon

    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    - Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

  • robert seddon

    YES! Obama SAYS there is NOTHING not constitutional about HIS anti gun agenda. It IS however, amazing that HIS telling ME that I CAN NOT LEAVE MY FIREARM COLLECTION TO MY OWN GRANDSON without submitting massive fees and forms and leaving the outcome of MY WILL TO SOME BUREAUCRAT that has NO BUSINESS in MY WILL AT ALL. They will take 40% of the value of MY FARM if I will that to my grandson, and NOW they want to TAKE MY PERSONAL POSSESSIONS AS WELL? Check history people .. Adolph Hitler had provisions for his OWN countrymen that roughly mirror this tyrant ( That is ALL that I can call him) if this POS goes through. I will simply have to GIVE them to my grandson BEFORE THE LAW IS ENACTED, so what if he will only be five years old at that point. Best armed 5 year old in the country I guess. I am leaving our farm to the local ASPCA so Obama will get NOTHING IN TAXES when I croak. I only hope that others can figure out a way around this power grab before it is too late.

  • A.M. F

    Jay Carney isn't be paid enough to stand before us and LIE, twist the Constitution for obama, and look like a total fool!! Perhaps that's why he's still there....getting paid more than we know...or is really a total fool!

  • DOOM161

    Interestingly, nothing in the proposed anti-gun laws will stop mass shootings.

    • Zero X

      Ouch! That's gotta hurt!

    • Shermer

      You mean the mass shootings by crazy people who nobody is allowed to check up on before they sell him a gun? The crazy person who buys five high-capacity semi-auto rifles at the local gun show without any questions? Those mass shootings?

      • Liberta

        Shermer If we have proved anything it is no law on the planet will stop them. We have baskets full of laws but only law abiding citizens follow them. Law abiding citizens don't generally go around shooting people. We all know the definition of insanity.."doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result". Making more gun laws only restricts the rights of the average citizen. That's insane.

        • Shermer

          Exactly. Law abiding gun dealers would be allowed to conduct background checks on the people they sell to. Law abiding gun show merchants would be able to tell the shifty guy who wants a truckload of rifles he has to come back tomorrow if everything checks out.

          Do you, as a law abiding gun owner, think that waiting an extra day or two to have your background checked is too much of an inconvenience, even if it means that psychopath who's next in line doesn't get his hands on a gun?

        • Liberta

          The camel's nose is under the tent. The neck is following with these laws. It wont be long before the entire tent of the second amendment falls down around us. The key words are law abiding. Law abiding citizens not need to be checked because we will only defend ourselves. Non- law abiding citizens will always find a way to buy a gun. It's just like prohibition. The tighter the laws the bigger the profit in a black market. The laws do nothing. Little by little we will find that nobody can qualify to own a gun. Then we are truely lost.

        • Shermer

          If you are a gun dealer, how do you know if I'm one of those law abiding citizens who don't need to be checked?

        • Whackajig

          I recently purchased an "assualt rifle" I filled out a simple form at the firearms dealer and my background check was approved in less than 20 minutes.

        • Shermer

          20 minutes. That hardly sounds like your freedom and liberty is being trampled on...

  • http://www.facebook.com/rocky.vnvmc Rocky Vnvmc

    Since we live in a Constitutional Republic, as opposed to a 'Democracy', it matters Not, what a Majority of the People may wish, if what they wish is Forbidden, under our Constitution, as in "The Rights of the People to Keep & Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed". If the majority truely wishes to take away our Gun Rights, the Only Legal Way would be to Repeal the Second Amendment...
    Which you will Never convince me, is the True Will, of the Majority of Americans.

  • Harold

    This poor exscuse for a man is nothing but a prostitute for Obabler!

  • seb27

    No! It violates Obamacare!

  • daveveselenak

    In another word, according to the Muslim-Marxist jihadist's doubletalk it is definitely unconstitutional; with this devious, duplicit psychopathic liar, he means the opposite of what he say's! His actions prove me right one hundred percent of the time! Really, hasn't everybody caught on by now?

  • Carl Stevenson

    The Obama regime and the "progressives" in congress view the Constitution as nothing more than a deodorant disk in the urinal of life. Boehner and the establishment GOP are, at minimum cowards, and more likely complicit.

    The tyrants are getting ready for the collapse that they’ve deliberately created as an excuse to try to grab total control. It won’t work. The growing push towards resistance is not constrained to the fringes – the first mistake the tyrants in DC make is to assume that.
    Practically every militarily significant weapon made in the last 100 years has sold. 4.6 million weapon sales in 30 days and empty ammo shelves is not a panic – it’s battlespace preparation.
    The second mistake they make is to try to assert that this trend is about racism because Obama is half-black. That’s a cop-out used to demonize – It’s an easy excuse to ignore another person’s points, and justify doing bad things to them; it's an attempt to convince people that those who oppose the regime's policies and actions are evil or deranged.
    Their final mistake is to assume that the military and law enforcement agencies will follow orders to disarm their fellow Americans. The military and police are a sub-section of the total population, and will break along the same ideological lines.
    Some police and military members will follow orders. Many, probably most, will disobey, desert, and rebel against orders to attack, imprison, or murder their families, neighbors, and fellow patriots to prop up a corrupt and tyrannical regime.
    This has been played out time and time again in human history.
    Statist politicians should not assume an insurrection will end easily, nor that those they've demonized will go quietly into the dark night, nor that they personally will not suffer if it blows up.
    Never let your government disarm you and render you defenseless against their excesses.

  • Zero X

    "What part of this phrase does President Obama, Senator Feinstein, Jay Carney and the rest of the Democrats not understand?"

    This, pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

  • http://www.survivingurbancrisis.com/ Silas Longshot

    Really? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Denying me the right to have the legally manufactured weapons of my choice IS AN INFRINGEMENT!!!

  • Leslie A. Cornwall

    Grace. if you think Tammy`s artlclee is great... last
    thursday I bought Alfa Romeo since I been earnin $5045 this past month and-just
    over, 10 grand last-month. with-out a doubt this is the nicest-work I've ever
    done. I began this 10-months ago and practically straight away began to earn
    over $87 per hour. I went to this site,, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • danclamage

    Actually I wish the sheriffs would go to DC and arrest every Congresscritter that voted to violate the Constitution. Maybe a good metaphorical smack to the side of the head is what they need to wake up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eugene.lubben Eugene Lubben

    Screw ODUMBA and Jay Carney they both LIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Jim Moore

    Until the 2nd amendment is repealed, all gun laws are illegal.

    • John
      • Steven

        John: If the Supreme Court says the sky is brown, it doesn't make it so. The PALIN language of the 2nd amendment EXPRESSLY prohibits infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Any law that does in unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme court, or anyone else says.

        • John

          Right. But you can still bear arms without an AR-15. So it doesn't infringe on your right to bear arms. At all.

        • Steven

          The 2nd amendment does NOT say the right of the people to keep and bear arms, approved by the government, shall not be infringed. If says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Limiting the TYPE of arms is an infringement. The fact you either don't comprehend, or refuse to acknowledge, the definitions of the words doesn't make you right. I am willing to bet I could show you 30 rifles and you wouldn't have a clue IF there was an AR-15 in the group.

        • Shermer

          Are you happy for the crazy guy next door - the guy who's been in and out of prison and mental institutions and beat his wife ever since you've known him - to be able to go to a gun show and buy as many AR-15s as he wants without being asked any questions or anyone being allowed to check his background?

        • Liberta

          Shermer Prohibition gives a good lesson here. When you close one door another door opens.

        • Shermer

          So you should do nothing? No wonder your country is in such a mess.

        • Liberta

          My Country? Are you a citizen?

        • Shermer

          Of the US? No, why?

    • Steven

      Until the second amendment is repealed NO guns are illegal. Even then, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, that pre-exists human government, remains. It is just less clear that the government is prohibited from violating that right. An honest reading of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, shows that NO rights are granted ANYWHERE in the document. It protects rights understood to already exist. The Declaration of Independence comes right out and states that it writers believed the source of those rights is the CREATOR, which can
      t mean anything other than God.

  • DAVID PEACOCK

    fuc666k - em ;; we are ready obama; "come and get em"; you communist bast666rd.

    • Patriot

      ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

  • AppraisHer

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 1. A well regulated militia (citizen soldiers or every man in the USA). 2. free state (unencumbered by the state). 3. Keep and bear arms (own or otherwise possess the firearm of your choice). 4. Shall not be infringed (to not encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of others), as Ron Yeary already explained. To the point, succinct words written by our Founders to protect Americans from the government we currently have. While there are many in the government that don't understand the Constitution, the one's we need to be vigilant about are the one's that are familiar and do understand, but choose not to abide by it.

  • Steven

    According to Obama, the Constitution is Unconstitutional.

    • Patriot

      He's been on record (print and video) expressing his opinion that our constitution is woefully inadequate. The very Constitution which has made the US the greatest nation in history!

  • Liberta

    "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." I rest my case.

    • John

      Can you not bear arms without AR-15s and high cap magazines? I rest my case.

  • SammysDad

    But the Constitution is not written in stone. It is a living and breathing document according to the emperor, so he can change anything he want sin it, right?

  • Liberta

    http://cts.vresp.com/c/?BeforeItsNews/0abbc83824/0d833cb8bc/399a81a410 They do not need laws. They are disarming us right now by every means possible. They are starting with the veterans. I guess that is because they fought for our constitution and absolutely know how to use guns. Check it out.

  • 820 REDHORSE

    Well if jay farney and oscumma say it that it does not infringe on my 2nd amendment rights, it must be.................................BULLS&%$!!!!!~! If lies were dollar bills this administration would have a surplus of 16 trillion instead of 17 trillion debt!! When will the call to arms come?????

  • jim_wright

    I guess Mr. Obama and his supporters are not able to read and understand the second amendment. The concept is too advanced for them. I find it funny how all the other rights contained in the bill of rights are recognized by the liberals as individual rights except the one that guarantees the rest . His proposal for universal background checks is nothing but a backdoor approach to full registration and then confiscation, his ultimate goal.

  • larryincamden

    What a bunch of morons, laws that infringe on that that shall not be infringed are unconstitutional.
    Simple

  • Charlie

    Who the heck are these constitutional experts that Carney threw up over and over again??? This is the Second amendment : "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed" So tell me constitutional experts what law against this amendment are not unconstitutional??? Seems to be straight forth, how could anyone misconstrue the words in this amendment to mean anything but exactly what the words mean. These are not ambiguous words these words are straight forth to the point. Therefore all laws even on the books now are unconstitutional. This is still at this point and time the U.S.A. these are our rights not given to us by our servants in our government but these are natural rights (GOD GIVEN RIGHTS)

  • Patriot

    Obama needs to be removed. His press conference was a joke. "Our best chance" is to remove this cretin and his proposals are controversial to any right thinking American! His crap is in fact unconstitutional just as his holding office is also unconstitutional.

    • John

      hahahahahaha

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.bernat.1 Ed Bernat

    Well any gun law coming from the feds is unconstitutional for the following reasons. Shall not be infringed. How hard is that to understand? 9th and 10th amendments say any law the feds make on guns are illegal. Shows what liars they are. There is more but 3 violations would be jail time if it were you and me.
    AMENDMENT IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    AMENDMENT X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  • jim_shipley

    Just what part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand??

  • Guest

    The WH is turning this into another Obamacare - you have to pass it to see what's in it. Beware Americans when they say nothing in the bill in unconstitutional you can bet your bottom dollar it will cost Americans dearly just like Obamacare is. Hold unto your freedoms - they are taking them away one by one.....tell them what they can do with their bill!

  • spyderdalton

    Sociopathic malignant personality disorder... it means that every thought this man has is unconstitutional and anti gun... the man always says opposite of what he means... it's a mental disease...

  • spyderdalton

    He says exactly opposite of what he means... sociopathic personality disorder... a mental disease that causes moral decay of the brain.

  • http://personalliberty.com/ Alondra

    Today I got this link from my friend: Everyone MUST to here this:

    Red Alert: "POLICE Disarming Navy Veteran BY FORCE in Connecticut NOW!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vjxu4I2jxXg#!
    Please, PASS IT ON.

    “Great is TRUTH, and mighty above all things.” (2Ezdra 4:41)

  • http://personalliberty.com/ Alondra

    Civil War and The Litmus Test – obama to Army Officers: “Will You Shoot Americans?”

    http://www.infowars.com/civil-war-and-the-litmus-test-will-you-shoot-americans/

    Video is a MUST SEE.
    Please, PASS IT ON.

    “Great is TRUTH, and mighty above all things.” (2Ezdra 4:41)

  • http://personalliberty.com/ Alondra

    Switzerland has something to teach Americans about THEIR 2nd Amendment

    Instead of a large standing army Switzerland gives its citizens military training and REQUIRES them to keep their weapon in their homes when they return to civilian life. This means that the Swiss can assemble to defend their country ON A MOMENT’S NOTICE. Very few people are stupid enough to attempt burglary in a country like that, and THEIR GOVERNMENT knows NOT TO TRY ABUSING ITS POWER.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me8f-rlAj2Y
    PASS IT ON

  • http://personalliberty.com/ Alondra

    Retired United States Army Captain Terry M. Hestilow’s letter to Senator Cornyn:

    The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas
    United States Senate
    517 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510

    Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies PREPARATION FOR WAR AGAINST CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    Dear Senator Cornyn,
    It is WITH GRAVEST CONCERN that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD AS A BOLD THREAT OF WAR BY THAT AGENCY, AND THE OBAMA administration, AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.

    Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming:

    “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.

    The Obama administration is DELIBERATELY DEFUNDING, OVEREXTENDING, AND HOLLOWING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a WAR MISSION.

    This act of the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STANDS AS A GLARING THREAT OF WAR AGAINST OUR NATION’S CITIZENS! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a TYRANNICAL THREAT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.

    The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD).

    Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to ENFORCE THE TYRANNICAL ACTS OF THIS PRESIDENT AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to DISESTABLISH AND DISSOLVE the DHS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

    One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The PEOPLE OF GERMANY COULD NOT HAVE IMAGINED, UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this POWER GRAB by the Marxist Obama administration!

    Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. WE STAND TODAY AT A CROSS-ROAD. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution AGAINST A “DOMESTIC” ENEMY? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the AUTHORS OF THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR NATION.

    I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.

    We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!

    Resolved,
    Captain Terry M. Hestilow
    United States Army, Retired
    Fort Worth, Texas
    March 23, 2013

    http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/03/letter-to-senator-cornyn-r-texas-from-captain-terry-m-hestilow-united-states-army-retired-2606866.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

    The Constitution stands and the liars are doing the will of the satan in the White House and will pay the price someday.

  • Steven Newman

    And if the propaganda pushers in the "Peoples House" said pigs fly they would argue that they are just stating "facts" and that we are just not as "smart" as they are!

    “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” -- Sigmund Freud

    The 2nd Amendment is NON-NEGOTIABLE!
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

    MOLON LABE!!

  • KittyKittyKit

    Oh the MINDLESS MEN AND WOMEN who accept the job as WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY.

    JAY CARNEY.............what part of the word "INFRINGED" do you NOT understand??

    Oh I understand now, you thought the word is "INF - RINGED" which stands for "infant" "RINGED" which means an "infant" should not be allowed to RING the bells of the constitution's liberty bells, bell, which obviously has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment to the constipation.

    Thank you for clarifying that. We can look forward to hearing that explanation in tomorrows talking points. Good job, Jay-jay.

    You speak well for the ALL-TERD Executive Branch of the Government.

    You're kind of a cute little poop yourself.

  • NVRAT

    I`m fed up with this little Pecker Head Carney.

  • samuelafugglas

    When such garbage comes from the mouth of Carney it's perfectly true when you se the obama burning the Constitution. It's a wonder real Americans can take it?

  • bobwhite1935

    One of barack hussein obamas' comments lately is he hasn't forgotten the children of Sand Hook School murders in Newtown. I don't know if any of the 4 Americans in the Benghazi, Libyan mission terrorist attack had children or not but he sure has forgotten the hero's of those men murdered there, also he stood by & let them be tortured & murdered while doing nothing but going out & lying that his Al Qaeda buddies weren't to blame the cause of the attack was a video on You Tube Here is a link to him lying on the Un-American david letterman late show.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3V7Oqe1q-g

  • Jimmy Rivera

    MAY GOD BLESS THE SHERIFFS THAT FIGHT AGAINED THE FAKE GOV OF obama and his people we the rightfull people of america must stop the fake gov of obama and not listen to anything that he has to say. GOD OUR FATHER IS ON ARE SIDE. AMEN .

  • Americanpride

    Anything the thugs in the WH say , is LIE !

  • Dan

    There is not many things that this administration has done that not unconstitutional ..the White House is full of black lies..

  • Bteri

    One question. When the White House needed to refer to the Constitution to answer this question - which bathroom stall did they unravel their copy from?

  • alan_1969

    Something to think about is that the constitution doesn't say anything about restricting firearms from the felons and mentally ill, but most people agreed to it. However, in doing so they opened the way to restricting everyone else.

  • Kent2012

    The WH does not talk, just the comunists and africans inside........