AG Barr Announces Project Guardian to Prevent Unapproved Gun Purchases
Published: November 21, 2019
Source: tenth amendment center
U.S. Attorney General William Barr was in Memphis last Wednesday to announce the launch of a new federal gun control program, Project Guardian. The AG promises to enforce federal gun regulations “with a vengeance.”
As President Trump is facing mostly manufactured charges of committing impeachable offenses, his attorney general is committing actual offenses against the Constitution, namely infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“I have long believed that the first duty of government is to protect the safety of our citizens,” Barr told the press gathered to cover the kick-off of the gun buying crackdown.
Actually, Mr. Barr, the federal government was NOT given the power by the states to protect the citizens of those states.
The scope of federal authority was very succinctly explained by James Madison in Federalist 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.
Notice that among the “few” powers granted by the states to its agent, the federal government, you will not find the power to disarm civilians.
In fact, the Second Amendment to the Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from trespassing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Consider this: If the federal government is going to prosecute “with a vengeance” its plan to prevent the purchase of firearms by those it considers unsafe, is that not tacit admission that the government fears an armed populace?
When one takes into account that many of those being denied the right to purchase firearms and ammunition are veterans, it makes sense that a tyrannical federal government would want to take the weapons out of the hands of those who have experience wielding them in battle, no?
Attorney General Barr is undaunted, though, in his zealous pursuit of a country where certain civilians must obtain permission of the federal government to own weapons.
Referring to a gun control measure he oversaw in the early 1990s, Barr described Project Guardian as an expansion of that early effort — Project Triggerlock.
Barr rehearsed the successes of the previous program and then promised that this new federal firearm restriction would “revamp this program, resuscitate it, and double down on it nationwide.”
That’s right: The attorney general of the United States is promising to “double down” on the federal government’s infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
Could there be a clearer admission of the administration’s intent to deny the natural, God-given right of self-protection to Americans, based solely on the federal government’s evaluation of their worthiness?
Would any one of the men who voted to ratify the federal Constitution have done so had they known that the government being created by that document would someday usurp the power to decide who could and could not purchase weapons?
The simple and undeniable fact is that there is no constitutional authority given to the federal government to restrict purchase of firearms, ammunition, or component parts. In fact, the Second Amendment explicitly proscribes any attempt by the federal government to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Therefore, any attempt to curtail the right of civilians to own and use weapons — of any sort — is an act of tyranny, no matter how “reasonable” the attorney general tries to make it sound.
Besides, reasonable people understand that the ready availability of guns is no more responsible for any armed massacre than an all-you-can-eat buffet is responsible for obesity.
Barr believes that Project Guardian will be successful based on the “success” of the federal government’s “initiatives focused on drug organizations, gangs, and gun offenders.”
Everybody knows that the federal government’s “War on Drugs” has not ended drug abuse and drug-related crime. And gangs? Just as much of a problem, if not more, than they’ve always been.
Finally, regardless of the federal government’s message to “dangerous” people who try to buy guns — “We’re coming to get you” — there is no way that the imperial forces could accomplish such an ambitious enterprise without help.
The federal agencies tasked with taking away the right of the citizens of the states to purchase firearms and ammunition must have help; the help of the state governments.
In the case of executing the exclusions of Project Guardian, AG Barr says that “It will involve all federal law enforcement agencies working closely with our state and local colleagues.”
In 2014, Judge Andrew Napolitano discussed this pernicious partnership and how to prevent its formation.
“The federal government does not have the person power and resources to enforce all federal laws on its own,” he said. “It needs the assistance of state and local police as well. They don’t have that in Washington and Colorado because marijuana is lawful there, so it might be impractical and be too costly for the feds to enforce there.”
“Our home state of New Jersey could not, for example, use the police to frustrate federal law enforcement. What it could say to state and local police [is] ‘you will not cooperate.’ That will make federal enforcement of tighter federal gun laws nearly impossible,” Napolitano added.
“If the federal government limits guns in a state, will it need the assistance of state police to enforce those limitations?” the judge asked rhetorically. “Yes, they will. And do the states have the right to refuse to enforce federal law that’s against state public policy? Yes, they do. That’s where we are on this.”
And that’s how states can follow James Madison’s direction that states facing “unwarrantable measures” of the federal government should declare their “refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union” to stop the federal government’s “long train of abuses” in its tracks.
Project Guardian is underway. It appears that this latest federal encroachment into the natural liberties of the people is in pursuit of the promise AG Barr made to “disrupt individuals who are mobilizing toward violence.”
One wonders: Will that same standard — “mobilizing toward violence” — for gun banning be applied to the federal government?
Originally published at The New American Magazine
Click for Full Text!
Poster Comment:
Project Guardian is underway. It appears that this latest federal encroachment into the natural liberties of the people is in pursuit of the promise AG Barr made to “disrupt individuals who are mobilizing toward violence.”
One wonders: Will that same standard — “mobilizing toward violence” — for gun banning be applied to the federal government?
yes, enquiring minds want to know!
Monday, 25 March 2013
Congress Seeks Answers on Huge Homeland Security Ammo Contracts
...the federal government has committed to purchasing up to 2 billion rounds of ammunition over several years while rolling out dozens of armored vehicles known as MRAPs on U.S. soil.
... even the establishment press has finally been forced to report on the issue. The Associated Press, for example, reported last month that DHS was seeking 1.6 billion rounds over the next few years. Forbes contributor Ralph Benko seized on the story, saying it was “time for a national conversation” in an opinion piece that has since gone “viral” online.
...Military veterans are speaking out, too, with retired U.S. Army Captain Terry Hestilow publishing an open letter to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) expressing concerns over another increasingly widespread theory — the view that the federal government is actually preparing for a war against Americans on U.S. soil. “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,” reads Hestilow’s March 23 letter, which has also “gone viral” on the Internet.
...Catron emphasized repeatedly that DHS has over 100,000 armed agents and officers — a gargantuan number of armed bureaucrats that has raised alarm bells among critics as well
...Despite numerous attempts, the department did not respond to questions about what circumstances or scenarios might require two billion bullets — many of them hollow-point — to be used inside the “Homeland.” As critics have pointed out, that would be enough ammunition to wage several decades of war: Even at the height of the Iraq war, the military was using less than six million rounds per month.
...In recent years, however, the U.S. government has made its views abundantly clear: The biggest “threat” Obama and his administration see against the “Homeland” includes veterans, pro-life activists, supporters of individual liberty, constitutionalists, and others who disagree with the president’s radical agenda. The Justice Department, Homeland Security, so-called “fusions centers,” and even a U.S. military think-tank have all openly said as much in official reports and documents. The administration is also under the false impression that it may kill or indefinitely detain anyone it suspects of terror — including Americans in the “Homeland.” Meanwhile, as The New American reported last month, the administration has also been fueling suspicion by engaging in deeply controversial military training operations involving unmarked black helicopters firing blanks out of machine guns over major U.S. cities. Using shooting targets featuring children and pregnant women raised eyebrows, too. Before that, Obama also came under fire for inviting Russian terror troops to train with U.S. forces on American soil.
Why the administration believes it may potentially need billions of bullets and other weapons of war for use in the “Homeland” remains unclear. State and local agencies are also receiving a wide array of war weaponry from the federal government. What is clear, though, at least, is that more than a few lawmakers and Americans of all political persuasions are becoming increasingly uneasy about it.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.
Related articles:
Military Drills and Black Helicopters in U.S. Cities Spark Panic
Feds Requested Targets With Children and Pregnant Women
U.S. Military Program Arming Local Police Expands
Ammo Shortages: More Than Simple Supply and Demand?
DHS Solicits Bids for 26.1 Million Rounds of Ammo
Federal Law Enforcement Stockpiling Arms (10,000/ICE Employee)
Justice Department Trained Police to Link Political Activism With Terror
Why is the Federal Government Disarming Veterans?...
West Point Terrorism Study Targets “Far Right” Conservatives
DHS Labels Liberty-Lovers as Potential Terrorists
Profiling and Criminalizing Political Dissent
Homeland Security: Everyone's a Threat
Do You Fit the Terrorist Profile?
New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans
Terror War Expanding, Shifting to the Right
Russian Troops Coming to U.S. for Terror Drills, DoD Confirms
20,000 Troops To Be Deployed in United States
U.S. Army Brigade On Call for Domestic Emergencies
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/14891-congress-seeks-answers-on-huge-homeland-security-ammo-contracts
July 29, 2014
The Department of Homeland Security allocated to Jewish institutions $12 million, or 94 percent, of $13 million in funds for securing nonprofits.
https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/203059/jewish-groups-get-94-of-homeland-security-grants/