[BOISE] – Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador joined Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in filing a lawsuit on behalf of 21 states opposing an ATF rule that would prevent law-abiding Americans from privately selling firearms.
The rule seeks to require a federal firearms dealer license for every individual who sells a firearm for anything the ATF sees as a profit, including currency, exchange of another firearm, or a service. It could make a felon of a gun hobbyist who sells a firearm to another family member, or a hunter who trades a firearm with a friend.
“This is just the latest attempt in the Biden Administration’s relentless assault on the Second Amendment,” said Attorney General Labrador. “These new ATF regulations circumvent Congress – like so many other Administration efforts – and make felons out of law-abiding gun owners if they sell a firearm or two to family or friends. This is blatantly unconstitutional and we will protect the Second Amendment rights of Idahoans and all Americans.”
“Until now, those who repetitively purchased and sold firearms as a regular course of business had to become a licensee…This rule would put innocent firearm sales between law-abiding friends and family members within reach of federal regulation,” the court filing reads. “Such innocent sales between friends and family would constitute a felony if the seller did not in fact obtain a federal firearms license and perform a background check.”
In the suit filed yesterday in Arkansas, the attorneys general argue that the rule is unconstitutional, because it is vague, violates the Second Amendment, and circumvents Congress.
Nineteen other states joined Kansas and Idaho in the lawsuit. They include Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
One reply on “Idaho Joins Multi-State Coalition in Defense of Second Amendment”
America was sold down the river when the 18th-century founding fathers replaced Biblical responsibilities (based upon the moral law of God) for Enlightenment rights, and nothing demonstrates it better than the Second Amendment.
Think about it: The Amendment WITH the wording “shall not be infringed” is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities, such as the following:
“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword [or today’s equivalent] in their hand … this honor have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)
“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)
Which is more potent: 1) An optional right, or 2) A non-optional responsibility?
Which is more likely to be infringed, licensed, and ultimately abolished altogether?
Which did the pre-Second Amendment Americans look to for their authority to bear arms, with little or nor infringement?
For more, listen to “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight,” delivered at the Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/#FeaturedMessages
At this same location, you will also find a radio interview Larry Pratt (Executive Director of Gun Owners of America) conducted with me on this same subject. I think you’ll find Mr. Pratt’s remarks especially interesting.
See also online Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.html