Dear ATF Form 4473

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:…”

     Those three dots, in this case stands for “Yada,Yada,Yada” because a provision in this part of the ATF website has been decided as unconstitutional, in a very interesting case, that also has a lot of significance going forward about any and all laws that try to keep guns out of the hands of “people”. And the ATF only appeared give the example in brief. So much for them.

     Ever since last year’s Supreme Court decision, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the defining law is the plain text, history and tradition, stemming from 1791, nothing else. No Chevron deference, only text, history and tradition, but also, that in vagueness of laws, there is a concept called the Rule of Lenity, which states, in my best non-legalese mind, that if a law is vague as to have more than one reasonable argument, which could go in either way, for or against a defendant, the rule is to go in favor of the defendant, and not the federal government. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that that has some roots in the concept of “Innocence until proven guilty, and that the burden of proof must always be on the government to prove guilt. Maybe, maybe not.

     This case was over a man who was arrested with a possession of marijuana, along with the possession of a firearm, pistol. At first glance, you might think that this would be an easy one, but it gets a little more complicated because the Supreme Court has defined a few things, like defining words specifically, to the point that those words become most important in protecting you against unjust laws, and several of those laws are still around, yet to be removed. I don’t know if I can do this decision the justice it deserves, but I am still here trying, folks.

     The question revolves around the question of who are “People”, and how that is used in the context of the 2nd Amendment. The answer lies in the use of the word according to the time it was written and accepted as amendment in the Bill of Rights. In the time of that taking place, the word “People” meant all American citizens of this now formed sovereign country. Not to be misused by some gun control nut, or some politician wanting to keep guns out of the hands of blacks, eventually those blacks who were eventually to be freed from slavery, as the National firearms Act of 1934 was meant for. That’s something you might not have known about that infamous Machine Gun Act of 1934, unless you heard me, or the rare handfew who understand the history of gun control, and blast it over the heads of the censors.

You rights can be taken away, to vote, to keep and bear arms, and others, but since I have never been convicted of more than a speeding ticket, I don’t know the other ways. But your rights can also be restored when the law that finally becomes challenged over its constitutionality, gets overturned. That 18 USC 922 g3 law was determined to be unconstitutional, as of the decision I noted, by Judge Wyrick, and I will be gleefully reading all 55 pages of his decision, because it appears that this judge is another of the recent hit parade of judges and Justices, all over our fruited plains, that can interpret the way it is supposed to be interpreted. You rights can be taken away, but only by laws that are just and you are convicted in a court of law. Not some rogue federal agency, making up rules that are said to have the force of law that can land you in a concrete square for ten years and be fined.

     Going into further detail will just start to confuse both you and I, and besides, my favorite Youtube lawyer, for all things concerning the 2nd Amendment says it in a better legal-ese, because, well, he is a lawyer who is a member of the Supreme Court bar. Mark W. Smith does a great job hitting the highlights of this decision, and admits that it goes much farther than overturning one law.

     This case will have more and better implications than just a man possessing marijuana and a gun. Stay tuned! In the meanwhile, the question about your using or possessing drugs in the form 4473, just got extincted, because that part of the law is now unconstitutional. You and I are “People”. Don’t ever forget that, in context to arguments over tyrannical laws.

Does it begin to be clear how important many of Trump’s judicial appointees were? You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind, like Tommy, to not agree. But he did play pinball..

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA